Contents (Click on index item to locate)
Subject Page
Introductory Note 1
1. The Fielding break-in 3 A. United States v. John Ehrlichman et al CR 74-116 5 B. United States v. Egil Krogh Jr CR 857-73 29
11.The break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and its subsequent investigations 51 A. United States v. John W Dean III CR 886-73 53 B. United States v. Fred LaRue CR 556-73 61 C. United States v. G. Gordon Liddy et al CR 1827-72 67 D. United States v. G Gordon Liddy CR 74-117 87 E. United States v. Jeb Stuart Magruder CR 715-73 91 F. United States v. John Mitchell et al CR 74-110 101 G. United States v. Herbert Porter CR 74-32 193
III. Illegal campaign practices and contributions 195 A. United States v. James Allen CR 74-227 197 B. United States v. Richard Allison CR 74-270 201 C. United States v. American Airlines CR 869-73 203 D. United States v. American Milk Producers Inc CR 74-445 207 E United States v. Dwayne Andreas and First Interoceanic Corporation 4-73-CR 201 221 F. United States v. Ashland Petroleum Gabon Corporation and Orin Atkins CR 11 119 227 G. United States v. Braniff Airways Inc and Harding Lawrence CR 959-73 231 H. United States v. Carnation Co and H Everett Olson CR 1026-73 235 I. United States v. Francis Carroll CR 74-291 239 J. United States v. Dwight Chapin CR 990-73 243 K. United States v. Diamond International Corporation and Ray Dubrowin CR 74-114 253 L. United States v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Russell deYoung CR 73-540 257 M. United States v. Gulf Oil Corporation and Claude C Wild Jr CR 960-73 263 N. United States v. Herbert Kalmbach CR 74-86 CR74-87 267 O. United States v. Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers CR 74-241 273 P. United States v. John Melcher CR 74-196 277 Q. United States v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and Harry Heltzer 3-73 CR 131 281 R. United States v. Harold Nelson CR 74-443 285 S. United States v. Northrop Corporation and Thomas Jones CR 74-226 297 T. United States v. David Parr CR 74-426 301 U. United States v. Phillips Petroleum Company and William W Keeler CR 998-73 311 V. United States v. Donald Segretti CR 828-73 315 W. United States v. George Steinbrenner III and the American Shipbuilding Company CR 74-174 323
IV. Attempts to improperly influence governmental conduct 347 A. United States v. John Connally et al CR 74-440 349 B. United States v. Jake Jacobsen CR 74-22* 361. C. United States v. Richard Kleindienst CR 74-256 365 D. United States v. Howard Edwin Reinecke CR 74-155 371
* Indictment dismissed May 3 1974 -
37-491 O STATEMENT OF INFORMATION: APPEN DIN II
HEA RINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO H. Res. 803 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE HOUSE, OF REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACH RICHARD M. NIXON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PAPF,RS IN CRIMINAL, CASES INITIATED BY THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECU:TTION FORCE,
June 27,1973-August 2* 1974
MAY-JUNE 1974
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1974 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, IJ.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.70 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PETER W. RODINO, JB., New Jersey, Chairman HAROLD D. DONOHUE, Massachusetts EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Mlehlgan JACK BROOKS, Texas ROBERT McCLORY, Illinois ROBERT W. RASTENMEIER, Wisconsin HENRY P. SMITH III, New York CHARLES W. SANDMAN, JB., New Jersey DON EDWARDS, California WILLIAM L. HUN GATE, Missouri JOHN CONFERS, JR., Michigan JOSHUA EILBERG, Pennsylvania JEROME R. WALDIE, California WALTER FLOWERS, Alabama JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland JOHN F. SEIBERLING, Ohio GE:ORGE E. DANIELSON, California ROBERT F. DRINAN, Massachusetts CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York BARBARA JORDAN, Texas RAY THORNTON, Arkansas ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, New York WAYNE OWENS, Utah EDWARD MEZVINSRY, Iowa TOM RAILSBACR, Illinois CHARLES E. WIGGINS, California DAVID W. DENNIS, Indiana HAMILTON FISH, JB., New York WILEY MAYNE, Iowa LAWRENCE J. HOGAN, Maryland M. CALDWELL BUTLER, Virginia WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine TRENT LOTT, Mississippi HAROLD V. FROEHLICH, Wisconsin CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California JOSEPH J. MARAZITI, New Jersey DELBERT L. LATTA, Ohio JOHN DOAR, Special Counsel ALBERT E. JENNER, Jr., Special Counsel to the Minority JO8EPH A. WOODS, Jr., Senior Assoofate Special Counsel RICHARD CATES, Senior Associate Special Counsel BERNARD W. NUSSBAUM, Senior Associate Special Counsel ROBERT D. SACK, Senior Associate Special Counsel ROBERT A. SHELTON, Associate Special Counsel SAMUEL GARRISON III, Deputy If inority Counsel FRED H. ALTSHULER, Counsel THOMAS BELL, Counsel W. PAUL BISHOP, Counsel ROBERT L. BROWN, Counsel MICHAEL M. CONWAY, Counsel RUFUS CORMIER, Special Assistant E. LEE DALE, Counsel JOHN B. DAVIDSON, Counsel EVAN A. DAVIS, Counsel CONSTANTINE J. GEKAS, Counsel RICHARD H. GILL, Counsel DAG^fAR HAMILTON, Counsel DAVID HANES, Special Assistant JOHN E. KENNAHAN, Counsel TEsRY R. RIBKPATBICK, Counsel JoHN R. LABOVITZ, Counsel LAWRENCE LUCCHINO, Counsel R. L. SMITH McRExTHEN, Counsel
(II)
ALAN MARER, Counsel ROBERT P. MURPHY, Counsel JAMES B. F. OLIPHANT, Counsel RICHARD H. PORTER, Counsel GEORGE RAYBOBN, Counsel JAMES REX M, Counsel HILLARY D. RODHAM, Counsel STEPHEN A. SHARP, Counsel FARED StAl Francis Carroll CR 74291...... Dwight Chapin CR 99073...... Diamond International Corporation and 2' 51 53 61 67 87 91 101 193 195 197 201 203 207 221 227 231 235 239 243 3 5 ) 9 Russell deYounz CR 73540...... A United States v. Gulf Oil Corporation and Claude C. Wild, Jr. CR 96073...... United States v. Herbert Kalmbach CR 74-86, CR 74-87... United States v. Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers CR 74-241...... United States v. John Melcher CR 74196...... United States v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, and Harry Heltzer 3-73 CR 131...... United States v. Harold Nelson CR 74-443...... United States v. Northrop Corporation and Thomas Jones CR 74226...... United States v. David Parr CR 74426...... United States v. Phillips Petroleum Company and William W. Keeler CR 99873...... (III) 263 267 273 277 281 2&5 297 301 311 INTRODUCTORY NOTE This is a compilation of certain court papers in criminal cases brought by the Watergate Special Prosecutor. The cases deal with the following subjects: 1) the break-in at the office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg; 2) the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building and the subsequent investigations of the break-in; 3) illegal campaign practices and contributions during the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections; and 4) attempts to improperly influence government conduct. Each set of court documents is preceded by a brief summary of the major court proceedings in the case. (1) - THE FIELDING BREAK-IN (3) - United States v. John Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, G. Gordon Liddy, Bernard Barker, Felipe DeDiego and EuRenio Martinez (CR 74-116, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings March 7, 1974 March 9, 1974 March 14, 1974 May 2.', 1974 June 3, 1974 June 21, 1974 June 26, 1974 July 12, 1974 Indictment filed charging the defendants with one count of conspiracy to violate the rights of citizens in connection with the break- in at Dr. Lewis Fielding's office. (Count 1) John Ehrlichman also charged with one count of making false statements to agents of the FBI (Count 2) and three counts of making false declaration to a Grand Jury or Court. (Counts 3, 4, 5) John Ehrlichman and Charles Colson enter pleas of not guilty. G. Gordon Liddy, Bernard Barker, Felipe DeDiego and Eugenic Martinez enter pleas of not guilty. Indictment dismissed against Felipe DeDiego Colson enters a plea of guilty to a one count information charging obstruction of justice. Colson sentenced to a prison term of one to three years and a fine of $5,000.00 Case called for trial. Verdict: Ehrlichman found guilty as to Counts 1 through 4, not guilty as to Count 5. Liddy, Barker and Martinez found guilty as to Count 1. (5) July 22, 1974 - July 31, 1974 Judge Gesell sets aside guilty verdict as to Count 2 and a judgement of acquittal is entered in its place. Sentences : Ehrlichman sentenced to serve a prison term of 20 months to five years. Liddy sentenced to serve a prison term of one to three years to run concurrently with his current sentences. Barker and Martinez placed on supervised probation for a period of three years. (6) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. ) v. ) Violation of 18 U.S.C. ) §§241, 1001, 1623 JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, CHARLES W. ) (Conspiracy Against COLSON, G. GORDON LIDDY, ) Rights of Citizens, BERNARD L. BARKER, FELICE DE DIEGO, ) False Statements to a and EUGENIO R. MARTINEZ, ) Government Agency, and ) False Declarations Defendants. ) Before a Grand Jury). INDICTMENT COUNT ONE The Grand Jury charges: 1. At all times material herein up to on or about April 30, 1973, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, was acting in the capacity of an officer and employee of the United States Government, as Assistant for Domestic Affairs to the President of the United States. - 2. At all times material herein up to on or about March 10, 1973, CHARLES W. COLSON, the DEFENDANT, was acting in the capacity of an officer and employee of the United States Government, as Special Counsel to the President of the United States. a.. or about July 20, 1971, up to on or about December 10, 1971, G. GORDON LIDDY, the DEFENDANT, was acting in the capacity of an officer and employee of the United States Government, as Staff Assistant to the President of the United States. 4. From on or about July 1, 1971 up to and including the date of the filing of this indictment, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, CHARLES H. COLSON, G. GORDON LIDDY, BERNARD L. BARKER, FELIPE DE DIEGO, Into - - f _2 and EUGENIO R. MARTINEZ, the DEFENDANTS, and EgiI Krogh, Jr., David R. Young, E. Howard Hunt, Jr., named herein as coconspirators but not as defendants, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with each other to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, a citizen of the United States, in the free exercise and enjoyment of rights and privileges secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241(a). 5. It was part of the conspiracy that the conspirators would, without legal process, probable cause, search warrant, or other lawful authority, covertly and unlawfully enter the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding located at 450 North Bedford Drive, Beverly Hills, California, with intent to search for confidential information concerning Daniel Ellsberg, thereby injuring, oppressing, threatening, and intimidating Dr. Lewis J. Fielding in the free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege secured to him by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to be secure in his person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that they would thereafter conceal such activities, so as to prevent Dr. Lewis J. Fielding from securing redress for the violation of such right and privilege. - 6. Among the means by which the conspirators would - carry out the aforesaid conspiracy were the following: (a) on or about September 1, 1971, the conspirators would travel and cause others to travel to the State of California; (b) on or about September 3, 1971, the conspirators would, without legal process, probable cause, search warrant or other lawful authority, covertly and unlawfully enter and cause to be entered the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding located in Beverly Hills, California; (c) on or about September 3, 1971, the conspirators would unlawfully and . .. .. Unreasonably search and cause to be searched the said offices (8) 3 of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding; and (d) on or about September 3, 1971, the conspirators would conduct such unlawful and unreasonable search in a manner designed to conceal the involvement of officials and employees of the United States Government. 7. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and in order to effectuate the objects thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere: OVERT ACTS 1. On or about July 27, 1971, Egil Krogh, Jr. and David R. Young sent a memorandum to JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN which discussed a request for the preparation of a psychiatric study on Daniel Ellsberg. 2. On or about July 28, 1971, E. Howard Hunt, Jr. sent a memorandum to CHARLES W. COLSON entitled "Neutralization of Ellsberg" which discussed a proposal to "obtain Ellsberg's files from his psychiatric analyst. n 3 On or about July 30, 1971, Egil Krogh, Jr. and David R. Young sent a memorandum to JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN which informed EHRLICHMAN that the Central Intelligence Agency had been "instructed . . . to do a thorough psychological study on Daniel Ellsberg. n 4. On or about August 3, 1971, Egil Krogh, Jr. and David R. Young sent a memorandum to CHARLES W. COLSON which referred to the memorandum described in Overt Act No. 2 and which stated that "we will look into" the suggestions made by E. Howa 5. On or about August 11, 1971, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN approved a covert operation proposed by Egil Krogh, Jr. and David R. Young to examine all the medical files still held by Ellsberg's psychoanalyst if he were given an assurance it is not traceable. n . 6. On or about August 23, 1971, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN and David R. Young had a conversation in which EHRLICHMAN (9) 4 and Young discussed financing for "Special Project #1," a planned entry into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding to obtain confidential information concerning Daniel Ellsberg. 7. In late August 1971, CHARLES W. COLSON had a telephone conversation with Egil Krogh, Jr. in which COLSON and Krogh discussed providing money for E. Howard Bunt, Jr. and G. GORDON LIDDY. 8. During the week of August 22, 1971, CHARLES W. COLSON and David R. Young had a conversation in which COLSON and Young discussed providing money for E. Howard Hunt, Jr. and G. GORDON LIDDY and preparing a plan to disseminate information regarding Daniel Ellsberg. 9. On or about August 26, 1971, David R. Young sent a memorandum to JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN which referred to "Hunt/Liddy Project ~~1" and stated that CHARLES W. COLSON would get "the information out" on Ellsberg. 10. On or about August 27, 1971, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN sent a memorandum to CHARLES W. COLSON entitled "Hunt/ Liddy Special Project No. One" which requested COLSON to prepare a "game plan" for the use of materials to be derived from the "proposed undertaking by Hunt and Liddy." 11. On or about August 30, 1971, G. GORDON LIDDY had a meeting with Egil Krogh, Jr., David R. Young, and E. Howard Hunt, Jr. in which there was a discussion of the means by which there would be a non-traceable entry into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding. about August 30, 1971, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN had a telephone conversation with Egil Krogh, Jr. and David R. Young in which Krogh and Young assured EHRLICHMAN that the planned entry into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding would not be traceable. 13. On or about August 31, 1971, CHARLES W. COLSON had a telephone conversation in which he arranged to obtain (10) - 14. On or about September 1, 1971, CHARLES W. COLSON arranged for the transfer of S5,000 from the Trust for Agricultural Political Education in order to repay the $5,000 cash described in Overt Act No. 13. 15. On or about September 1, 1971, CHARLES W. COLSON caused the delivery of $5,000 in cash to Egil Krogh, Jr. 16. On or about September 1, 1971, Egil Krogh, Jr. delivered $5,000 in cash to G. GORDON LIDDY. 17. On or about September 1, 1971, G. GORDON LIDDY and E. Howard Hunt, Jr. travelled from Washington, D. C. via Chicago, Il inois to Los Angeles, California for the purpose of meeting with BERNARD L. BARKER, FELIPE DE DIEGO and EUGENIO R. MARTINEZ. 18. On or about September 3, 1971, BERNARD L. BARKER, FELIPE DE DIEGO and EUGENIO R. MARTINEZ searched the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding located in Beverly Bills, California for the purpose of obtaining confidential information concerning Daniel Ellsberg. 19. On or about March 27, 1973, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN caused the removal of certain memoranda related to the entry into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding from files maintained at the White House in which such memoranda would be kept in the ordinary course of business. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.) COUNT TWO The Grand Jury further charges: On or about May 1, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, which Department was then conducting an investigation into a matter within its jurisdiction pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California to investigate whether, as (11) - a result of an entry conducted by White House employees _ into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding located in Beverly Hills, California, there had been obtained information which might taint the prosecution in the criminal case of United States of America v. Russo (No. 9373-CD-), the trial of which was then pending before said Court, in that he stated that it had been over a year since he had seen anything on the "Pentagon Papers" Investigation, and that he had not seen any material covering the White House investigation of the "Pentagon Papers" case for more than a year. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.) COUNT THREE - The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about May 14, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully in a proceeding before the June 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did wake false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said Grand Jury was conducting an investigation in conjunction with . . . the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of 18 U.S.C. §§321, 1001, 1503, 1621, 1623, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain, among other things, the identity and (12) 7 motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of an entry into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, located in Beverly Hills, California, and related activities. 4. At the time and place alleged, JOHN D. EHRLICH!AN, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the aforesaid material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Q. Very well, sir. Now there came a time when this operation became concerned with Dr. Ellsberg himself, is that not correct? A. Yes. Q. And then there was an attempt or a decision made to find out as much about Dr. Ellsberg as could be done, is that correct? Q. And even part of that investigation was going to center on his psychological profile, his mental attitudes, his habits, and possible motivations. Is that correct? - A. Well, I learned about that after the fact, but that is my understanding of the decision that was made. Q. When you say you learned about it after the fact, what do you mean by that, sir? A. Well, I learned after the break-in that they were looking for information for what they call a psychological I was not aware of that before the fact. Q. So before the fact you were not aware that there was an attempt by Mr. Krogh, or persons working under his supervision or authority, to -- there was no attempt made by these people to ascertain information that would be helpful in drawing out the psychological profile if I understood what you just said. Is that right? A. I didn't know if they made an attempt no not T Q. Just so that the Grand Jury and we are clear on this, prior to receiving information about the break-in, you had no information, direct or indirect, that a psychological profile of Dr. Ellsberg was being drawn up? A. I can't recall hearing of a psychological profile until after I had heard or the break-ln. 5. The underscored portions of the material declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN D. EHRLIC!I'AN, the DEFENDANT, (13) - were material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) COUNT FOUR The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about May 14, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully in a pro- ceeding before the June 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said Grand Jury was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of 0 Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to deter- mine whether violations of 18 U.S.C. §§371, 1001, 1503, 1621, 1623, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain, among other things, the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of an entry into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, located in Beverly Hills, California, and related activities. 4. At the time and place alleged, JOHN- D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the aforesaid material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: 9 Q. Now were you aware before this break-in, which took place on or about September 3rd, 1971, that an effort was going to be directed to-lards obtaining information from Dr. Ellsberg or Dr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist? A. Ahead of the fact? No. 5. The underscored portions of the material declara tions quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, were material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) COUNT FIVE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about May 14, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICH:.SUg, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully in a proceeding before the June 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said Grand Jury was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of 18 U.S.C. Es371, 1001, 1503, 1621, 1623, 2511, and 22 D^C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain, among other things, the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of an entry into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, located in Beverly Hills, California, and related activities. (15) - So 10 4. At the time and place alleged, JOHN D. EHRL!CHMAN, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the aforesaid material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Q. You indicate here that you did maintain a newspaper clipping file on the Pentagon Papers case. A. Right. Q. But you say there were other papers in addition? A. I think there were some others. There was a small file and it just went out. I didn't have occasion to look at it before it went, but it went. Q. You mentioned a moment ago, in response to Mr. Silbert's question, that there were some files. Did you have a file relating to A. No. I don't believe I kept a file. Q. Who had a file? A. I think Mr. Krogh had a file. Q. Anybody else have a file? A. I don't know. Q. So as far as you know, prior to the break-in, whenever that was, I think it was sometime in September, September 3rd, the only person that had a file that you knew of was Mr.. Krogh? A. I believe that's right. I, of course, had a great many other things going on. He would, from time to time, post me on the whole Pentagon Papers matter. This was not just Ellsberg at that time. There were all kinds of things going on. There were lawsuits involving the New York Times. There was a lot of activity going on. He would inform me from time to time of things that would happen. But I kept no paper as I recall. I would move paper out if any came in on this, and usually sign it over to Krogh. Q. And subsequent to the break-in, did you learn that there were any files anywhere in existence? A. I think there were a number of files both before and after. Q. In whose hands? A. Well, I assume Krogh. I think that he would be the one that I would always look to for paper work en this with the exception of -- I do recall running across this very bulky clipping file that we had in our office, and why we had it I don't know. (16) ll But at sometime or another we accumulated a tremendous amount of newspaper clippings on this case. That was the whole Pentagon Papers case. Q. Any other files in the custody of anybody else Involved in this operation? A. Not that I know of. I would assume that Krogh had them all. Q. Did you ever learn that anybody had any files before or after September 3rd.' A. No, I don't believe so. 5. The underscored portions of the material declara tions quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, were material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) A TRUE BILL, Leon Jaworski ~~ Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force (17) Forelady IN ~~~ UNI:D STATES DISTR}CT CO~~~ FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA . UNITED STATES 0~~~ AMERICA VS. C~~~ W. C C. C. 74~~~116 Washington D~~~ C. June 21 1974 The above-entitled mat came on for sentencing; before THE HONORABLE GERHARD A. C~~~, United States Di strict Judge, at 9 :30 am. 0N BE~~~ OF ME G~~~: WILLIAM R. Merrill, Esq.,, Philip Bakes, Esq., Philip Heyman, Esq. t Charles Breyer, E3q. y Office of th Special ON S3~~~ QF TE DANT: David Shapiro Esq/.., Sidney Dickstein, E:3q. Attorneys at JOAN 5WTIS ]3LAIR C3R FICI COMT REPORTER COPY FOR A~~~ C~~~ C " /_ (18) - P R O C E; E D I S a 3 THE COURT; Befo we come t:> the aspect of the case scheduled far this morning, the Court wishes > indicate the procedure to be t:> ~~~ed on the defendant Eh rll ~~~ ~~~8 ~~~ > 1 for ~~~~~~ of bpoen duces ~~~ to the President. The Special Prosecut:>r shall?a:U, by nine thirty ~~~, MONDAY,.x~~~ 24, file a written response to this motion. TS response shall, among other thi, particulari the acts be offered v support of t}s indictment ^ tr ~~~ shall ~~~ ny of the Presidential conversations f:>r which the defendant ~~~}^ic~~~ seeks n:atz that ~~~ available X the Special Pr:> secut:xr - whether they tr~~~eript w tape r:~~~. The Court will}l arrange at some later time on Monday X hear tha; motion in open court if necessary after hearing the response. ~~~1 right - F. Shapiro - would you and B!Mr come £:~~~arcl? Xr. Colson:: > there anything you wish t:> sa to the Court before sentence is imposed? r ~~~, COLSON: Yes, there is Your Honor. I have a statement which I would like the Court's permission to read. C~~~- Very well. . COLSON; I entered my plea t:> this offense, Y3UP ' Honor, because I believed it right!1t as a matter of law and right as a matter of conscience. United States v. Egil Krogh, Jr. _ (CR 857-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings October 11, 1973 October 18, 1973 November 30, 1973 January 24, 1974 Indictment filed charging defendant with two counts of making false declaration to a Grand Jury or Court in connection with his knowledge of certain activities engaged in by E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy. The defendant enters a plea of not guilty. The defendant waives prosecution by indictment. Information filed charging defendant with one count of conspiracy to violate the rights of citizens in connection with the break-in at Dr. Lewis Fielding's office. Copy of a letter filed dated November 30, 1973 from Leon Jaworski to Stephen Shulman advising that the government would accept a guilty plea to a one count information. The defendant enters a plea of guilty to the information. Defendant sentenced to two-six years; to serve for a period of six months, remainder of sentence suspended. The defendant is to be placed on unsupervised probation for a period of two years. (29) - UNITED STATES DISTBICT COURT FOR TlSE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF x mRICA ) v. EGIL KROGH, JR. Defendant. ) IUDICItoN T COUNT ONE ) Criminal No. ) Violation of 18 U.S.C. §1623 ) (False declarations) The G.a-+ -war Charges: 1. On a- about August 28, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Ears FROGS, JR., the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before and ancillary to a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said Grand Jury was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Colu.~bia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801fb) and other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia had been cozzitted in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had co.=nitted, caused the commission of, or conspired to co.X.mit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain the nature of the activities engaged in by E. Howard Hunt, Jr., a subject of the investigation, while he was employed at the White House during 1971 and 1972, and the identity of the individual or individuals who directed 4. At the time and place alleged, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before and ancillary to the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matter alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Do you have any knowledge of any travel that St_, Hunt made in connection with the declassification of the "Pentagon Papers" or the narcotics program that he was working with you on? A. I'm aware of the trip to Texas that he took, but other travel, no. Q. During any other period while Mr. Hunt was working at the White House, which would have beer through, I believe, the end Or MarcE, I97ZE, are you aware of any travel that he made for the White House? A. No ! I'm not. Q. Are you aware of any travel that ltr. Hunt made, whether he made it for himself personally, or for any other person? 5. The underscored portions of the declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by the DEFENDANT, as he then and there (31) well knew, were false. All in violation of Title AS, United States Code, Section 1623. COUNT TWO The Grand Jury further charges: 1. The Grand Jury realleges all of the allegations of paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count One of this indictment. to the said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain the nature of the activities engaged in by G. Gordon Liddy, a subject of the investigation, while he was employed at the White House during 1971, and the identity of the individual or individuals who directed those activities. 3 At the time and place alleged, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before and ancillary to the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matter alleged n paragraph 2 as follows: Q. Now, what travel did Mr. Liddy do while he was at the White House that you're aware of? A. He made a trip to California for me on some customs matters, customs issues on narcotics, which was more of an in-house watchdog-type of trip to determine the effectiveness of the program out there. Re had been involved in developing Operation Intercept in lY69, which p~etty much was located out of the Los Angeles area, Terminal Island. And this was an out date, so to speak, on how things were going in Los Anseles area. (32) Q. Now, he Was supposed to contact custom officials in the Los Angeles - A. That was my understanding, but he did Q. Was there a report filed by hin with you of the trip? A. No, just an oral report. Q. Oral? A. Right. Q. Now, do you know of any other travel that Mr. Liddy might have performed A. No. Q. -- Dor the FEite Rouse or for~anyone else, or fo. himself? A. No. * * Q. Other than this one trip to California, can you think of any reason why he would have had to travel to California for the Unite House? A. No. - 4. The u.nderscored portions of the decl>-a _ons quoted in paragraph 3 made by the DEFENDANT, as he then and there well knew, were false. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623. ARCHIBALD COX Special Prosecutor A True Bill (33) Foreman UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF coLuMsIA ) U NITED STATES OF AMERICA ) v. EGIL kROGH, JR., ) Criminal No 8s7- 73 ) - Violation of 18 U.S.C. ) anti (Conspiracy ) Against Riqhts of , _, _ _ _ _ Defendant. ) Citizens) ) INFORMATIO N The United States of America, by its Attorney, the Special Prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, charges: 1. From on or about July 1, 1971 to on or about May 25, 1973, EGIL KROGH, JR., the DEFENDANT, was an officer and employee of the United States Government, first as Deputy Assistant for Domestic Affairs to the President of the United States, and later as Under Secretary of Transportation. 2. At all times material herein DEFENDANT and various other co-conspirators unnamed herein, were officials and employees of the United States Government and were acting in that capacity. 3. From on or about July 1, 1971 to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the DEFENDANT, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree with the co-conspirators to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, a citizen ox the United States, in the free exercise and enjoyment of a right and privilege secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States and to conceal such activities. (34) 4. It was a part Or tne conspiracy that the DELE;D^r;T and the co-conspirators would, without legal process, probable cause, search warrant, or other lawful authority, enter the building and offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding located at 450 North Bedford Drive, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, California, with intent to search for, examine, and photograph documents and records cont lning confidential information concernir.g Daniel Ellsberg, and thereby injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate Dr. Lewis J. Fielding in the free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege secured to him by the Fourth .A.mendrent to the Constitution of the United States to be secure in his person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 5. It was further a part of the conspiracy that with DEFENDANT'S knowledge, consent, approval and assistance, to-do of the co-conspirators would and did travel to California on or about August 25, 1971 for the purpose of preparing to carry out and implement the plan and scheme. 6. It was further a part of the conspiracy that with DEFENDANT'S knowledge, consent, approval and assistance, five of the co-conspirators would and did travel to California on or about September 1, 1971 for the purpose of implementing 2nd carrying out the plan and scheme, and did without legal process, probable cause, search warrant or other lawful authority, covertly and unlawfully enter and cause to be entered the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding located in Beverly Hills, California, and did unlawfully search and cause to be searched the premises therein. 7. In furtherance of, and in order to effectuate the objects of the conspiracy, the DEFENDANT and the co-conspira (35) tors did perform and did cause to be performed the following overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia: OVERT ACTS 1. On or about 1971, the DEFENDANT sent a memorandum to an official of the United States Government. 2. On or after August 11, 1971, the DEFENDANT had a conversation with an official of the United States Government. 3. On or after August 27, 1971, the DEFENDANT met with E. Howard Hunt, Jr., and an official of the United States Government. 4. On or about August 30, 1971, the DEFENDANT had a telephone conversation with an official of the United States Government. 5. On or about September 1, 1971, an official of the United States Government caused the delivery of a sum of cash to the DEFENDANT. 6. On or about September 1, 1971, the DEFENDANT caused a sum of cash to be delivered to an official of the United States Government. 7. On or about September 7, 1971, the DEFENDANT had a conversation with an official ofthe United States Government. —3— (36) 8. On or about August 28, 1972, the DEFENDANT testified under oath. (In violation of Title-18, United States Code, Section 241.) LEES JAWORSKI'~~: Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force (37) - WATERG,A ATE. SPE:CIA 1. PR;().St CUTION' FORCE United States:s l)Department o[Justice 1425?.5 Is. November 30, 157' Stephen N. Shulman, Esq. Cadevalader, Wickersham & Taft 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NT,5ff. Washington, D. C. 20036 Dear Mr.. Shulman: On the understandings specified below, the United States will accept 2 guilty plea from Egil Krogh, Jr. to a one-count information charging a conspiracy to violate the rights of a citizen under Title ~~8, United States Code, Section 241. This will dispose of pending or potential charges growing out of Mr.. Krogh's previous testimony, including that testimony of August 28, 1972, and will also dispose of all other potential charges against your client which might otherwise arise out of the September 1971 unlawful entry into the offices of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, or out of the so-called Watergate incident, and the alleged cover-ups relating thereto. This disposition is predicated on the understanding that the United States will move for leave to file a dismissal of the indictment filed October 11, 1973, charging Mr.. Krogh with two counts of violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623. This disposition will not bar prosecution for any other false testimony given hereafter should it ever be discovered that your client has given such testimony in connection with the matters within the jurisdiction or the Special Watergate Prosecutor. This understanding is also predicated upon Mr. Krogh's responsibility for full and truthful disclosure of all relevant information and documents in his possession, Which disclosure is to commence subsequent to sentencing. Ultimately, of course, (38) he may be required to testify as a witness for the United States in any and all cases with respect to which he may have relevant information. The United States will make no recommendation concerning Mr. Krogh's sentencing but will bring to the attention of the probation authorities information in its possession relating to Mr. Krogh. The United States will join with you in urging that D'- Krogh be permitted to remain on recognizance pending sentencing. The United States, if requested, will make an appropriate recommendation concerning Mr.. Krogh Krogh to any investigative, disciplinary or fact-find;>.5 body. Sincerely, em Leon Jaworski Special Prosecutor (39) STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT ON THE OFFENSE AND HIS ROLE ._ . In describing the offense to which I have pleaded guilty, and the nature of my role in it, I am hampered by the fact that my present evaluation is totally antagonistic to the understanding I had at the time. I feel unable to set forth what happened without continuing on to discuss how my present contrary appraisal developed. And the process of reappraisal so extensive and so agonizing that my present evaluation is very firmly fixed, makes recounting my feelings at the time of the offense all the more difficult. I have been aided by a review of the files in the Executive Office Building on December 13 and 14, 1973. This case involves the work of the Special Investigation Unit established within the White Mouse to deal with the problem of unauthorized disclosure of classified information. My role began on July 15 or 16, 1971, in San Clemente. At that time, John Ehrlichman informed me that the President wanted me to perform an urgent assignment in response to the unauthorized disclosure of the Pentagon Papers. The entire resources of the executive branch were to be brought to bear on this task, and I was to make certain that the relevant departments and agencies treated the matter as one of highest priority. Because Dr. Daniel Ellsberg had been identified as responsible for the leak of the Pentagon Papers, he was to be NOSE: THIS STATEMENT MAS PREPARED BY MR. KROGH FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT AND DISTRIBUTED BY HIM AT THE TIME OF HIS SENTENCING ON JANUARY 24, 1974. (40) a vital part of the inquiry. Specifically, his motivations, his possible collaborators, and his potential for further disclosures were to be determined to the greatest extent possible. In that connection, Mr. Ehrlichman instructed me that the President had directed that I read his book, Six Crises, . and particularly the chapter on Alger Hiss, in preparation for this assignment. The message that I drew from this chapter was the President's concern that we proceed with respect to the Pentagon Papers and Dr. Ellsberg with a zeal comparable to that he exercised as a Congressman in investigating Alger Hiss. Mr. Ehrlichman instructed me that David Young of Dr. Kissinger's staff would be working with me on this assignment and that we should form a small unit for the purpose. Mr. Young was to devote full time to the-unit. My participation was to be part time, for I was to continue my ongoing responsibilities, particularly solidification of the Vietnam drug program and creation of a Cabinet Committee to fight international narcotics traffic. As it happened, these latter assignments occupied most of my time in August. Finally, Mr. Ehrlichman instructed me that the activities of the unit were to be impressed with the highest classification and kept secret e-Yen within. the White House staff. To handle our assignment, Mr. Young and I received some of the most sensitive security clearances. Mr. Young and I arranged for space in the Executive Office Building, and elaborate special security systems were (41) installed. Mr. E. Howard Hunt was assigned to the unit on the basis of his extensive prior experience with the Central Intelligence Agency. Or. G. Gordon Liddy, with whom I had worked on matters of narcotics law enforcement and gun control while he was at the Treasury Department, came to the Unit because of his prior experience with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A damage assessment prepared by the CIA prior to establishment of the unit reported grounds to suspect that a full set of the Pentagon Papers had reached the Soviet Embassy. I was early informed that similar intelligence had been furnished by the FBI. Yet The New York Times had received only a partial set. This development reinforced suspicion that Dr. Ellsberg or one of his collaborators, if any, may have had some sort of foreign involvement. On July 24, I was summoned to the President's office with Mr. Ehrlichman. This meeting followed by one day the appear Times of the fallback position of the United States in the SALT talks at Helsinki. The President appeared deeply troubled by this unauthorized disclosure and directed me to expand the work of the unit to cover it. He described the matter of unauthorized disclosures as intolerable, directed We extensive administration of polygraph tests, and made clear that the protection of national security information must out-weigh. any individual reluctance to be polygraphed. He discussed the creation of a new security classification which would condition access to national security information upon advance - 3 (42) agreement to submit to polygraphing. He was deeply concerned that any further disclosure of such information could only undermine the SALT and Vietnam peace negotiations. His intense determination was evident. He instructed that further leaks would not be allowed and made me feel personally responsible for carrying out this instruction. The work of the unit went forward with regard to the SALT leak, the Pentagon Papers, Dr. Ellsberg, and some other unauthorized disclosures. Polygraphing was immediately begun (although on a far more limited scale than originally envisioned). Dr. Ellsberg's extensive knowledge of classified national security information in addition to the Pentagon Papers was ascer tained. The intensity of the national security concern expressed by the President fired up and overshadowed every aspect of the unit's work. It was in this context that the Fielding incident, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist, took place. Doubtless, this explains why John Dean has reported that I told him that instructions for the break-in had come directly from the Oval office. In fact, the July 24 meeting was the only direct contact I had with the President on the work o the unit. I have just listened to a tape of that meeting, and Dr. Ellsberg's name did not appear to be mentioned. I had been led to believe by the White House Statement of May 22, 1973, tha. the President had given me instructions regarding Dr. Ellsberg in the July 24, 1971, meeting It must be that - 4 (43) those instructions were relayed to me by Mr. Ehrlichman. In any event, I received no specific instruction or authority whatsoever regarding the break-in from the President, directly or indirectly. As I stated in the affidavit I filed before-Judge Byrne, Mr. Ehrlichman gave the unit authority to engage in covert activity to obtain information on Dr. Ellsberg. The precise nature of that authorization and the extent to which it specifically covered the break-in are matters that will be the subject of testimony in the prosecution pending in California and that may be involved in a prosecution in the District of -Columbia. So are the origination of the idea of a break-in and the manner of its formulation. I have expressed the desire, to which the Special Prosecutor has acceded, to defer any testimony until after sentencing. I would simply say that I considered that a break-in was within the authority of the unit and that I did not act to foreclose one from occurring despite the opportunity to do so. Indeed, I was under the clear impression that such operations were by no means extraordinary by the CIA abroad and, until 1966, by the FBI in this country -an impression confirmed by former officers of both agencies on 'ha unit's staff. The break-in came about because the unit felt it could leave no stone unturned in the investiga on of Dr. Ellsberg. The aims of the operation were many: a) to ascertain if Dr. Ellsberg acted alone or with collaborators; (44) D) to ascertain if Dr. Ellsberg in fact had any involvement with the Soviets or other foreign power; c) to ascertain if Dr. Ellsberg had any characteristics that would cause him to make further disclosures; d) to ascertain if prosecution of Dr. Ellsberg would induce him to make further disclosures that he otherwise would not. The potential uses of the above information were also multiple. Primary, of course, was preventing further disclosures by Dr. Ellsberg and putting an end to whatever machinery for disclosure might have been developed. It was also thought, particularly by E. Howard Hunt, that the sought information could be useful in causing Dr. Ellsberg himself to declare his true intentions. Finally, there is the point that has been most stressed in the current investigative process -the potential use of the information in discrediting Dr. Ellsberg as an anti-war spokesman. My best recollection is that I focused on the prevention o further leaks by Dr. Ellsberg and the termination of any machinery he may have established for such disclosures. That was the use most central to the assignment of the unit as I understood it. But my precise focus is fundamentally not important to my guilt or innocence, because at the time of the operation I did not consider it necessary to assign relative weightings to the potential uses of the sought information. All of them were dictated by the national security interest as I then understood it. (45) 41-570 O - 74 - 4 By:: To my knowledge, the break-in netted nothing. When I saw the photographs that had been taken of the damage done, ._ . I immediately felt that a mistake had been made. The visibility of physical damage was somehow disturbing beyond the theoretical impression of covert activity. I recommended to Mr. Ehrlichman that no further actions of that _ ndertaken . He concurred and stated that he considered the operation to have been in excess of his authorization. My participation in the work of the unit progressively diminished, and for all intents and purposes ended in November, 1971. I was recalled to the unit for a few days in December, 1971, in connection with the India-Pakistan conflict leak. In that period, I was asked to authorize a wire tap in connection with a highly sensitive aspect of that leak. I declined and was thereupon removed from the unit the same day. I learned in reviewing the unit's files on December 13, 1973, that the tap WAS effected after my removal along with another one in the same investigation. These are the only instances of wire-?ping by the unit of which I am aware, and I first learned of them on December 13. In August, 1972, I was deposed at the Department of Justice in connection with the grand jury investigation of the Watergate break-in. I had been repeatedly instructed by Mr.. Ehrlich..,an that the President considered the work OL the unit a matter of the highest national security and that I was under no circumstances to discuss it. I was specifically advised by John Dean that the Fielding incident was not relevant to and - 1 (46) would not be touched upon in the deposition. The Assistant United States Attorney who conducted the deposition himself _ . advised me that he was not interested in pursuing national security matters. In the course of the deposition, I was asked questions relating to travel by Messrs. Hunt and Liddy. I answered the questions by interpreting them as excluding national security and thus the travel of Liddy and Hunt to California for the Fielding incident. This interpretation was highly strained, , reflecting a desperate effort on my part to avoid any possible disclosure of the work of the unit in accordance with the instructions of the President that had been relayed to me by Mr. Ehrlichman. Subsequently, in April 1973, when Judge Byrne requested persons having knowledge of the Fielding incident to file affidavits with him, I determined that a disclosure of my role was imperative. Because I ing under the instructions of the President that the work of the unit was not to be revealed under any circumstances, I sought the advice of Attorney General-design Elliot Richardson and requested Mr. Ehrlichman to seek the President's permission for me to explain my involvement i.. the incident. Mr. Ehrlichman informed me on May 2 that the President had authorized me to make a statement, and I submitted an affidavit setting forth details of my role in the Fielding incident on May 4. In describing the travel to California by Messrs. Liddy and Hunt, that affidavit was inconsistent, (47) and intentionally so, with the answers I had given in my depo sition (except for the strained interpretation I have described). _ . I was indicted for false declarations on the basis of those answers in October of this year. In moving to dismiss the indictment, my counsel argued, with my approval, that the rule of Barr v. Mattes (providing official immunity from suit) extended to criminal prosecutions, and that the authority and discretion possessed by an official in my position embraced false statements to protect classified national security information-from unauthorized disclosure. The Court rejected that argument as fundamentally incompatible with the very existence of our society That ruling, and the questions asked by the judge in the course of the argument, spurred my reappraisal of my whole conception of the Fielding incident. While I early concluded that the operation had been a mistake, it is only recently that I have come to regard it as unlawful. I see now that the key is the effect that the term "national security" had on my judgment. The very words served to block critical analysis. It seemed at least presumpt'~~ WAS if not unpatriotic to inquire into just what the signi--.oe of national security was. When the issue was the proper response to a demonstrations for example, it was natural for me to question whether the proposed course was not excessive. The relative rankings of the rights of demonstrators and the protection of law and order _ g _ (48) could be debated, and the range of possible accomodations explored, without the subjects of patriotism and loyalty even rising to the level of consciousness. But to suggest that national security was being improperly invoked was to invite a confrontation with patriot_ yal,ty -and so appeared to be beyond the scope and in contravention of the faithful performance of the duties of my office. Yet what is national security? I mentioned that all of the potential uses of the information sought in the Fielding incident were consistent with my then concept of nat_ ity. The discrediting of Dr. Ellsberg, which today strikes me as repulsive and an inconceivable national security goal, at the time would have appeared a means of blocking the possibility that he would become such a popular figure that others possessed of classified information would be encouraged to emulate him. More broadly, it would serve to diminish any influence he might have in mobilizing opposition to the course of ending the Vie-~~n2m war that had been set by the President. And that co -se was the very definition of national security. Freedom of the President to pursue his planned course was the ultimate national-' security objective. The fact that I do not recall this use as my personal motivating force provides scant comfort. I can recollect that } wou d have accepted the rationalization I have just described. The invocation of national security stopped me from asking the question, "Is this the right thing to do." — ,t0 — (49) _ ~~ r My experience in the months since my resignation from Government, during which I have been under intense investigation and multiple indictments, has also affected my view. I have throughout this most difficult period been free, first because I had not yet been indicted and later on recognizances And I perceive this freedom as the very essence of our society and our system. This freedom for me is not a privilege but a right protected by our Constitution. It is one of a host of rights that I as an American citizen am fortunate to share with Dr. Ellsberg end Dr. Fielding. These rights of the individual cannot be sacrificed to the mere assertion of national security. National security is obviously a fundamental goal and t proper concern of any country. It is also a concept that is subject to a wide range of defini actor that makes all the more essential a painstaking approach to the definition of national security in any given instance. But however national security is defined, I now see that none of the potential uses of the sought information could justify the invasion of the rights of the individuals that the break-in necessitated. The understanding I have come to is that these rights are the definition of our nation. To invade them unlawfully in the name of national security is to work a destructive force upon the nation, not to take a protective measure. I have been recalling the U. S. personnel in Vietnam -with whom I served in the military and with whom I visited — 11 — (50) THE BREAK-IN AT THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE HEADQUARTERS AND ITS SUBSEQUENT INVESTIGATIONS (51) i United States v. John W. Dean (CR 886-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings October 19, 1973 August 2, 1974 The defendant waives prosecution by indictment. Information filed charging the defendant with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with the investigation being conducted into the break-in of offices of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. Copy of a letter filed dated October 18, 1973 from Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to Charles N. Shaffer advising that the government would accept a plea of guilty from the defendant to a one count information. The defendant enters a plea of guilty to the information. Defendant sentenced to a prison term of one to four years. (53) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) V I JOHN W. DEAN, III, 3 Defendant. ) ) INFORMATIO N Criminal No. g SG 73 Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice and Defraud the United States or America) The United States of America, by its Attorney, the Special Prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, charges: 1. At all times material herein, JOHN W. DEAN, III, the DEFENDANT, was Counsel to the President of the United States. 2. At all times material herein, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were parts of the Department of Justice, an agency of the United States, and the Central Intelligence Agency was an agency of the United States. 0 3. On or about June 5, 1972, a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was duly empanelled and sworn. Beginning on or about June 23, 1972, and at all times material herein, the said Grand Jury was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511 and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United (54) States and of the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, or conspired to commit such violations. 4. On September 15, 1972, in connection with the said investigation, the said Grand Jury returned an indictment in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 5. From on or about June 17, 1972 up to and including March 29, 1973, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, JOHN W. DEAN, III, the DEFENDANT, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, con spire, confederate and agree with co-conspirators unnamed herein to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503; and to defraud the United States and Agencies and Departments thereof, to wit, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Justice, by interfering with and obstructing their lawful governmental functions by deceit and dishonest means. 6. It was a part of the conspiracy that the coconspirators and defendant would corruptly influence, obstruct and impede, and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede, the due administration of justice in Connection with the investigation referred to in paragraph three (3) above and in connection with the (55) trial of Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the following means, among others: (a) influencing witnesses to give false, deceptive and misleading statements and testimony concerning matters relevant to the investigation and the trial; (b) concealing and destroying evidence relevant to matters which were the subject of the investigation and the trial; and (c) giving false, deceptive and misleading statements and testimony concerning matters relevant to the investigation and the trial. 7. It was further a part of the conspiracy that the co-conspirators and defendant would covertly raise, acquire, transmit, distribute and pay cash funds for the benefit of the individuals named in the indictment in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, both prior to and subsequent to the return of the indictment on September 15, 1972, for the purpose of concealing and causing to be concealed the identities of others who Were responsible for, participated in, or had knowledge of the activities which were the subject of the investigation and trial, and for the purpose of concealing and causing to be concealed the scope of these and related activities. 8. It was further a part of the conspiracy that the co-conspirators and defendant would make and cause to be made offers of leniency, executive clemency, and (56) other benefits to certain of the individuals named in the indictment in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the . . United States District Court for the District of Columbia for the purpose of concealing and causing to be concealed the identities of others who were responsible for, participated in, or had knowledge of the- activities which were the subject of the investigation and trial, and for the purpose of concealing and causing to be concealed the scope of these and related activities. 9 It was further a part of the conspiracy that the co-conspirators and defendant would interfere with and obstruct the lawful governmental functions of the CIA by attempting, by deceit and dishonest means, to use the CIA to obstruct the investigation referred to in paragraph three (3) above and to provide covert financial assistance to persons who were subjects of the investigation. further a part of the conspiracy that the co-conspirators and defendant would interfere with and obstruct the lawful governmental functions of the FBI and the Department of Justice by obtaining and attempting to obtain from the FBI and the Department of Justice, by deceit and dishonest means, information concerning the investigation referred to in paragraph three (3) above for the purpose of hindering, impeding, obstructing and delaying the said investigation. 11. In furtherance of, and in order to effectuate the objects of the conspiracy, the coconspirators and (57) - defendant did perform and did cause to be performed the following overt acts, among others, in the District of Columbia: OVERT ACTS 1. On or about June 19, 1972, JOHN W. DEAN, III directed G. Gordon Liddy to tell E. Howard Hunt to leave the United States. 2. On or about June 27, 1972, JOHN W. DEAN'., III asked General Vernon A. Walters, Deputy Director of the CIA, whether the CIA could use covert funds to em the bail and salaries of those involved in the k-in at the Watergate Office Complex. 1972 +,-~~cv 3. On or about June 29, R555: JOHN.W. DEAN, III uested Herbert W. Ka W ach to raise cash funds with ch to make covert payments to and for the benefit those involved in the break-in at the Watergate -ice Complex. 4. In or about July and October, 1972, JOHN W. EN, III requested L. Patrick Gray, Acting Director the.FBI, to provide him with reports of information tained during the FBI investigation. 5. On or before August 15, 1972, JOHN W. DEAN, III met with Jeb Stuart Magruder for the purpose of assisting Magruder in preparing false, deceptive and misleading testimony in anticipation of Magruder's appearance before the Grand Jury. 6. On or about January 9, 1973, JOHN W. DEAN, (58) - III requested John C. Caulfield to deliver an offer of executive clemency to James McCord, one of the defendants in Criminal Case Mo. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) ARCHIBALD COX Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force (59) - CVA FEKCi,t-l E SPECIAL. PROSECUT TION' FORCE United STATES L)Department of Justice 1425 K Street, N.W.. Washington, D.C. 20)()n, October 18, 1973 Charles Norman Shaffer, Esq. Shaffer, McKeever & Fitzpatrick 342 Hungerford Court Rockville, Maryland 20850 Dear Sir: The Government will accept a guilty plea from John W. Dean, III, to a one count information charging a conspiracy to obstruct justice and to defraud the United States. This will dispose of all other potential charges against your client which might otherwise arise out of the investigation OL the so-called Watergate incident and the alleged coverup relating thereto, including without limitation possible violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Corrupt Practices Act; but this disposition will not bar prosecution for perjury should it ever be discovered that your client has given materially false testimony in connection with matters within the jurisdiction of the Special Watergate Prosecutor. The Government will join with th you in urging that Mr. Dean's sentencing be deferred until after the trial of others implicated by It. Dean's testimony and that Mr. Dean be permitted to remain on bond or on recognizance pending sentence in order to facilitate his cooperation with the Government. This understanding is predicated upon Mr. Dean's complete cooperation with the Government, including the immediate, full and truthful disclosure of all information in his possession. Ultim.,ately, of course, he will be required to testify as a witness for the Government in any and all cases with respect to which he may nave relevant information. The extent of his cooperation will be brought to the Court's attention by the Gover ~~ ent before sentencing. Sincerely, + ~~~~X/ dox Archibald Cox Special Prosecutor (60) United States v. Fred C. LaRue (CR 556-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings June 27, 1973 The defendant waives prosecution by indictment. Information filed charging the defendant with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice in connection with the investigation being conducted into the break-in of the offices of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. Copy of a letter filed dated June 12, 1973 from Archibald Cox to Fred M. Vinson, Jr. advising that the government would accept a plea of guilty to a one count information. The defendant enters a plea of guilty to the information. (61) - w: UNITED STATES DISTRICT C0UR} FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA The United States of America v. Fred C LaRue : Criminal No Ss6 73 : Violation 18 U. S Code 371 : Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice INFORMATIO N The United States of America, by its Attorney, The Special Prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force Charges: 1. At all times material herein, a Grand Jury, duly empanelled and sworn on June 5, 1972, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for said district and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to determine whether there were violations in the District of Columbia involving unlawful conspiracy (18 U. S. C #371),unlawful interception of wire and oral communications (18 U. S C #2510), burglary (22 D C. Code 1801(b))and unlawful possession of intercepting devices (22 D C. Code 543(a)), statutes of the United States and the District of Columbia and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed such violations. 2. At all times material herein, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were parts of the Department of Justice. 3. At all times material herein, the Committee for the Reelection of the President was conducting campaign activities in behalf of the re-election of Richard M Nixon as President of the United States, with offices and headquarters at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue N W Washington, D.C (62) —2— 4. Fred C. LaRue was associated with the Committee for the Re-election of the President from about January, 1972, through March, 1973, IS senior advisor and special assistant. 5. From on or about June 17, 1972, and continuing thereafter up to March 23, 1973, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Fred C. LaRue, the defendant herein, unlawfully, wilfully and knowingly did agree, combine, and conspire with co- conspirators unnamed herein, to commit offenses against the United States, to-wit, violations of Title IS, United States Code, Section 1503, in that they did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice. 6. It was a part of said conspiracy that the defendant LaRue and others unnamed herein would and did devise, implement and carry out a strategy, plan and scheme to impede, impair and obstruct the joint investigation by the Grand Jury and the Department of Justice by concealing evidence relevant to matters which were the subject of the investigation. 7. It was a further part of said Conspiracy that in order to implement the strategy, plan and scheme referred to in paragraph six (6) hereof, the defendant and co-conspirators would and did participate in meetings to develop and prepare false, deceptive and misleading testimony to be given to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, the Grand Jury and ultimately to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 8. It was a further part of said conspiracy that the defendant and his co-conspirators would and did covertly acquire, transmit, distribute and pay cash funds for the benefit of the (63) —3— _ . individuals named in the indictment in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia both prior and subsequent to the return of the indictment on September 15, 1972, for the purpose of concealing the identities of other participants in the violations charged in said indictment and the scope of these-and related activities 9. In furtherance of and in order to effectuate the object of the aforesaid conspiracy the defendants and coconspirators did do and perform and caused to be done and performed the following overt acts in the District of Columbia and at diverse other places. Overt Acts 1. On or about June 19, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Fred C LaRue and others unnamed herein met at the apartment of a conspirator unnamed herein and agreed to destroy or cause to be destroyed certain incriminating records relating to the break-in at the Watergate offices of the Democratic National Committee 2. On or about July 19, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Fred C. LaRue delivered a sum of money in cash to Herbert M Kalmbach in an office of the Old Executive Office Building. t. On or about July 26, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Fred C LaRue delivered a sum of money in cash to Herbert M. Kalmbach 4. Prior to August 16, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Fred C. LaRue and others unnamed herein, attended meetings on the fourth floor of 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W , where Jeb S. Magruder's false, misleading and deceptive statement, previously made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was further discussed (64) - -4- - 5 On or about August 16, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Jeb S. Magruder gave false, deceptive and misleading testimony to the Grand Jury 6 On or about September 19, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Fred C LaRue received approximately twenty- nine thousand nine hundred dollars ($29 900) in cash 7. On or about December 1, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Fred C LaRue received approximately two hundred and eighty thousand dollars ($280,000) in cash. (All in Violation of 18 U.S Code 371) 4~~<-Ec'.< .A./er xZ Special Prosecutor (65) XV,\ l t R(;aX I~f. SPECIAL. I'R()iEC8iJl l()'' FORCE()I'(~~f. United(l States l).;z.titmcilg (,$ Justice: 14.^.z K Street, N.W!. Washington D.C. 2,J(),<)S Sir. Fred M.. Vinsonv Jr., Esq. SOO 17th Street, N.W.. Washing,5sto2, D C Dea-- Sir. Vinson: June 12, 1973 The Government will accept a guilty plea from Mr.. Fred LaRue to a one count indictment or information a conspiracy to obstruct Justice. This will dispose of all other potential charges against your cli which raight-ntherwise arise out of the investigation OL socalled Watergate incident and the alleged cover-up relating thereto, including without limitation possible violations or the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Cor ~~ D__ Lo S; DECO An } The Government 4 TAT; 1 1 i rain with yo ent the DUL | X? L X t Pr; L | W%O Ac G . The Government wi L 1 J U LLL Xv L L1C you in urging that Mr. LaRue's sentencing be deferred until after the trial of those implicated by testimony already g given by Mr. LaRue and that Mr. LaRue be permitted to remain on bond or on recognizance pending sentence in order to facilitate his cooperation with the Government. Finally, this understanding is predicted upon Mr.. LaRue's complete cooperation with the Government, including the Immediate, full and truthful disclosure~of al-L information in his possession. Ultimately; of course, he will be required to testify as a witness for the Government in any and all cases with respect to which he may nave relevant information. The extent of his cooperation will be brought to the Court's attention by the Government before sentencing Sincerely, ARCHIBALD COD Special Prosecutor (66) United States v. G. Gordon Liddy, F. Howard Hunt, James McCord, Bernard Barker, Euzenio Martinez, _ 7 Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez (CR 1827-72, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings September 15, 1972 September 17, 1972 January 8, 1973 January 11, 1973 Indictment filed charging all the defendants with one count of conspiracy (Count 1); one count of burglary (Count 2); and three counts of intercepting oral and wire communications (Counts 3,4,5) in connection with the break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters. In addition, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt charged with a further count of intercepting wire communications (Count 8); James McCord charged with two counts of unlawful possession of intercepting devices (Counts 6,7) and a further count of intercepting wire communications (Count 8); and Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, and Virgilio Gonzalez charged with two counts of unlawful possession of intercepting devices (Counts 6,7). The defendants enter a plea of not guilty. Case called for trial. E. Howard Hunt withdraws plea of not guilty and pleads guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8. (67) January 15, 1973 ._ January 30, 1973 March 1, 1973 March 7, 1973 March 20, 1973 March 23, 1973 March 26, 1973 Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, and Virgilio Gonzalez withdraw pleas of not guilty and plead guilty to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Verdict: G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord found guilty as indicted. Liddy files motion for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial. McCord files motion for judgment of acquittal for for a new trial. McCord presents a letter to Chief Judge Sirica including the claims that political pressure was applied to the defendants to plead guilty and remain silent, and that others involved in the Watergate break-in were not identified during the trial. Liddy and McCord motions for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial are denied. Chief Judge Sirica reads McCord letter in open court. Liddy sentenced to 20 months-five years and fine of $10,000 on Count 1; five years-15 years on Counts 2 and 3; 20 months-five years on Counts 4, 5 and 8. (Docket entry reads: "It is the Court's intention that the defendant will serve a total sentence of six years, eight months-20 years and pay a fine of $40,000.00.") Lidd) files notice of appeal from sentence imposed March 23, 1973 (68) June 8, 1973 September 14, 1973 September 19, 1973 November 7, 1973 November 9, 1973 McCord files motion in the nature of a writ of error coram nobis and/ or for judgment of acquittal or for a new trial. Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, and Virgilio Gonzalez file motions to vacate judgment of conviction and for leave to withdraw pleas of guilty. E. Howard Hunt files motion for leave to withdraw plea of guilty. Orders issued denying defendants' motions for leave to withdraw pleas of guilty or for a new trial. Sentences: E. Howard Hunt 20 months-five years and fine of $10,000 on Count 1; 30 months-eight years on each of Counts 2 and 3; 20 months-five years on each of Counts 4, 5 and 8. Said sentences to run concurrently. Transcript entry reads: ("It being the intention of the Court that the Defendant will serve a total of not less than 30 months and not more than eight years. . . .") James McCord _ _ One-five years on each of Counts 18. Said sentences to run concurrently. Transcript entry reads: ("It being the intention of the Court that the Defendant will serve a total of not less than one year nor more than five years. . . .") (69) Bernard Barker One-five years on each of Counts 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7; 18 months-five years on each of Counts 2 and 3. Said sentences to run concurrently. Transcript entry reads: "It being the intention of the Court that the Defendant will serve a total sentence of not less than 18 months nor more than six years. . . .") Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzalez One-four years on each of Counts 1-7. Said sentences to run concurrently. November 13, 1973 November 19, 1973 Transcript entry reads: (It being the intention of the Court that the Defendant[s] will serve a total of not less than one year nor more than four years. . . .") Notice of appeal from sentence imposed November 9, 1973 filed by James McCord. Notice of appeal from sentences imposed November 9, 1973 filed by Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Frank Sturgis and Virgilio Gonzalez. - S: rt UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Holding a Criminal Term Grand Jury Sworn in on June 5, 1972 The United States of America v. George Gordon Liddy, also known as: Gordon Liddy and George F. Leonard EveretteHoward Hunt, Jr., also known as: Howard Hunt, Edward L. Warren and Edward J. Hamilton James W. McCord, Jr., also known as: Edward J. Warren and Edward J. Martin Bernard L. Barker, also known as: Frank or Fran Carter Eugenio R. Martinez, also known as: Gene or Jene Valdes Frank A. Sturgis, also known as:Frank Angelo Fiorini, Edward J. Hamilton, and Joseph DiAlberto or D'Alberto Virgilio R. Gonzalez, also known as: Raul or Raoul Godoy - or Goboy Criminal No. 1 5 a , 72 : Grand Jury Original : Violation: 18 U.S. Code 371, 2511 22 D.C. Code (Conspiracy; Interception of Oral and Wire Communications; Second Degree Burglary; Unlawful Possession Intercepting Devices) The Grand Jury charges: FIRST COUNT: 1. At all times material hereto the Democratic National Committee, an unincorporated association, was the organization responsible for conducting the affairs of the Democratic Party of the United States. - 0 2. At all times material hereto the Democratic National Committee had its offices and headquarters at 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 3. At all times material hereto George Gordon Liddy, also known as Gordon Liddy and George F. Leonard and hereinafter referred to as defendant Liddy, was employed as counsel for the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President located at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.\f., Washington, D.C. (71) - 4. At all times material hereto, Everette Howard Hunt, Jr., also known as Howard Hunt, Edward L. Warren, and Edward J. Hamilton, and hereinafter referred to as the defendant Hunt, was a friend and associate of defendant Liddy and Bernard I,. Barker. 5. At all times material hereto, James W. McCord, Jr., also known as Edward J. Warren and Edward J. Martin, and hereinafter referred to as defendant McCord, was the President of McCord Associates, Inc. The defendant McCord at all times material hereto also served as security coordinator for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President located at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 6. At all times material hereto, Bernard L. Barker, also known as Frank and Fran Carter, and hereinafter referred to as defendant Barker, was President of Barker Associates, Inc., a real estate corporation with offices at 2301 Northwest Seventh Street, Miami, Florida. 7. At all times material hereto, Eugenio R. Martinez, also known as Gene or Jene Valdes and hereinafter referred to as defendant Martinez, was employed by Barker Associates, Inc. 8. At all times material hereto, Frank A. Sturgis, also known as Frank Angelo Fiorini, Edward J. Hamilton, and Joseph D'Alberto and DiAlberto and hereinafter referred to as defendant Sturgis, was an associate of defendant Barker. 9. At all times material hereto, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, also known as Raul and Raoul Codoy or Goboy and hereinafter referred to as defendant Gonzalez, was an associate of defendant Barker employed as a locksmith in Miami, Florida. (72) —3— 10. From on or about May 1, 1972, and continuing thereafter through June 17, 1972, the exact dates beingunknown, within the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Sturgis, and Gonzalez, hereinafter collectively referred to as the DEFENDANTS, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did agree, combine, and conspire with each other and among themselves to commit offenses against the United States, that is, by various illegal and unlawful methods and means, to obtain and use illegally information from the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and related political entities. The illegal and unlawful methods and means which are known to the Grand Jury that were used or attempted to be used by the defendants to obtain and use information illegally from the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee were as follows: To enter unlawfully the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee: (1) To intercept wire communications of officers and employees of the Democratic National Committee by placing in the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee an electronic device or devices designed for the surreptitious interception and transmission of telephone con-versations to a receiver located in a room at the Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge at 2601 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. The terms "intercept", "wire communication" and "electronic device" are used by the Grand Jury as they are defined in Title 18 U.S. Code § 2510; (73) (2) To intercept oral communications within the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee by placing within these premises an electronic device designed for the surreptitious interception and transmission of conversations of persons within these premises to a receiver located in a room at the Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge at 2601 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. The terms "intercept", "oral communication''ald "electronic device" are used by the Grand Jury as they are defined in Title 18, United States Code § 2510; (3) To obtain documents, papers, and records of the Democratic National Committee by stealing them from the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee; (4) To obtain copies of documents, papers, and records of the Democratic National Committee by removing them from their location within the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, taking photographs of them and then returning them to the location from which they were illegally removed; In furtherance of the aforesaid conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, the DEFENDANTS did commit, among others, the following overt acts in the District of Columbia and else where: 1. The DEFENDANTS did and caused to be done the acts set forth in the succeeding counts of this indictment on the dates, at the places, and in the manner set forth therein, all of which are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth and made a part hereof. (74) 2. On or about May 5, 1972, and continuing through about May 28, 1972, Room 419 at the Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge, located at 2601 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. was rented or leased by the defendant McCord in the name of McCord Associates. 3. On or about May 8, 1972, the defendant Liddy made a telephone call from the District of Columbia to the defendant Barker at Barker Associates, Inc. 4. On or about May lO, 1972, in Rockville, Maryland, the defendant McCord purchased a Receiving System for McCord Associates, Inc., for which he paid $3,500 in cash, a device capable of receiving intercepted wire and oral communication s. 5. On or about May 17, 1972, the defendant Barker made two telephone calls from Barker Associates, Inc. to the defendant Liddy at the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President and two calls to the defendant Hunt within the District of Columbia 6. On or about May l9, 1972, the defendant Hunt made one telephone call from the District of Columbia to the defendant Barker at Barker Associates, Inc. and one telephone call from the District of Columbia to the defendant Barker at his residence. 7. On or about May 22, 1972, the defendant Barker -using the alias of Fran Carter, the defendant Martinez -- using the alias of G. Valdes, the defendant Sturgis -- using the alias of Joseph DiAlberti, and the defendant Gonzalez -using the alias of Raul Goboy, traveled from Miami, Florida, to Washington, D.C. 8. On May 26, 1972, the defendant Liddy -- using the alias of George F. Leonard, the defendant Hunt -- using the alias of Edward L. Warren, the defendant Barker - using the (75) alias of Frank Carter, the defendant Martinez -- using the alias of Gene Valdes, the defendant Sturgis -- using the alias Joseph D'Alberti, and the defendant Gonzalez using the alias Raul Godoy, registered at the Watergate Hotel at 2650 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 9. On or about May 26, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the defendants Liddy, Hunt and McCord met. 10. On or about May 27, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the defendants Liddy, Hunt, and McCord inspected, surveyed, and reconnoitered the headquarters of Senator George McGovern at 410 First Street, S.E. 11. On or about May 29, 1972, and continuing through June 17, 1972, Room 723 at the Howard Johnson's Motor Lodge, located at 2601 Virginia Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. was rented and leased by the defendant McCord in the name of McCord Associates. ~ 12. On or about June 5, 1972, the defendant Hunt made a telephone call from within the District of Columbia to the defendant Barker at Barker Associates, Inc. 13. On or about June 11-15, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the defendants Liddy, Hunt and McCord met and the defendant Liddy gave the defendant McCord about $1,600 in cash. 14. On or about June 12, 1972, in Miami, Florida, the defendants Martinez and Sturgis purchased surgical gloves. 15. On or about June 13, 1972, and June 15, 1972, in Miami, Florida, the defendant Martinez purchased film and other photographic equipment. (76) 16. On or about June 15, 1972, the defendant Hunt M three telephone calls from the District of Columbia to the defendant Barker at Barker Associates, Inc. 17. On or about June 16, 1972, the defendant Hunt made a telephone call from within the District of Columbia to the defendant Barker at his residence. 18. On or about June 16, 1972, the defendant Barker made a telephone call to the defendant Hunt within the District of Columbia and to the defendant Liddy at the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President. 19. On or about June 16, 1972, the defendant Barker - using the alias F. Carter, the defendant Martinez -using the alias G. Valdez, the defendant Sturgis -- using the alias J. DiAlberto, and the defendant Gonzalez -using the alias R. Godoy, traveled from Miami, Florida, to the District of Columbia 20. On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of Columbia the defendant McCord stole documents and papers belonging to the Democratic National Committee. (In violation of 18 U.S.Code § 371) SECOND COUNT: On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the DEFENDANTS Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Sturgis, and Gonzalez entered the rooms, that is, the offices and headquarters,of the Democratic National Committee, with the intent to steal property of another. (In violation of 22 D.C. Code § 1801(b)) (77) —8— THIRD COUNT: On or about June 17, 1972, within the District OF Columbia, the Defendant Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Sturgis, and Gonzalez entered the rooms, that is, the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, with the intent to intercept willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully oral communications made within these rooms and wire communications received and sent from telephones located in these rooms. The terms "oral communication" and "wire communication" are used by the Grand Jury as they are defined in Title 18 U.S. Code § 2510. (In violation of 22 D.C. Code § 1801(b)) FOURTH COUNT: On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the DEFENDANTS Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Sturgis, and Gonzalez willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully did endeavor to intercept oral communications made within the offices headquarters of the Democratic National committee. (In violation of 18 U.S.Code § 2511) FIFTH COUNT: On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the DEFENDANTS Liddy, Hunt, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Sturgis, and Gonzalez willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully did endeavor to intercept wire communications received by and sent from telephones located in the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. - (In violation of 18 V.S. Code 2511) (78) - 9 - SIXTH COUNT: On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the defendants, McCord, Barker, Martinez, Sturgis, and Gonzalez did willfully possess an intercepting device, to wit, a white plastic box, 8-1/4 inches by 2-3/8 inches, by 2-3/4 inches, with two labels on the front which read "ARI Smoke Detector" and "Fire Eqpt.DO NOT MOVE", but which contained inside six batteries wired in series and a miniature radio transmitter with a microphone, the design of which said device rendered it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of an oral communication. (In violation of 23 D.C. Code § 23543(a)) SEVENTH COUNT: On or about June 17, 1972, within the District of Columbia, the defendants McCord, Barker, Martinez, Sturgis, and Gonzalez did willfully possess an intercepting device, to wit, a miniature radio transmitter approximately 1-1/2 inches long, 1 inch wide, and 1/2 inch high, with two wires protruding from one end of the transmitter and which served to connect the transmitter in series with one wire of a telephone line and one wire protruding from the opposite end which served as a radiating antenna, the design of which said device rendered it primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of a wire communication. (In violation of 23 D.C. Code 5 543(a)) (79) 41-570 O - 74 - 6 EIGHTH COUNT: From on or about May 25, 1972, and continuing up to on or about June 16, 1972,within the District of Columbia, the defendants Liddy, Hunt, and McCord willfully, knowingly, and unlawfully did intercept, endeavor to intercept and procure and cause the interception of wire communications received by and sent from telephones located in the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and used primarily during this period by Robert Spencer Oliver and Ida M. Wells. (In violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2511) zf~~'~~v+'~~ X United States Attorney for the District of Columbia A TRUE BILL: ~~~~tCt~4 9 Foreman of the Gran Jury. (80) Cl ~ . rw t *'l ] : 4 ( ^ - ts-! :~ . ¥N v...... ) ,.i. '> .} ~ ._ .(.^ Cy ~ ~, . \ r ^ — t t tte .@ X ¥~t - ~ ~4 roJ i., i 0 I eJ 1 b os~S t i ^ l4nj (,\ < >; ;.t uo . 1 > z o ... ^ .t.,, S ,1 Xe ,.t ..4 ~ w 1:4 {.,) '~ i3 tw n L ~~ O Q X t;~ O tel [., z Cta c9 .'C rs U t) ._.1 ~ CS \. b ' * - { ): ¥ D ,: .,.4 E f-.l f;l n 2'{.l ,! t.RS r~ gS ) H o_ fa.} Nt) ,_~ 1. F; t't Q [4 [S;n ke 2 0;w4 I;r~ - UJ 0, cc'Y ~~ ~: ~~ r u erl 2 z (rlf,) a<, W C; OX r.o I C to; L U tl t [L t*; X r '4;¡ B .. R, D ta O. o' c.) ~^1 m wo rs rit} B s \;I ;? = I i ifH H () t^4 . . ;r o ii .. > 11.' O G | - - activit}es attributed to HI-, Bernard Barker and associates i by one Reinaldo Pico. In the article by jux:tapositiorl my name is mentioned in connection with such activities. I "A:s I have telephonically advised your office after seeing the article I have no knowledge of or connection with any such strong-arm activities referred to in the article. Neither have I ever met Err. Pico to my knowledge "You made no effort to contact my attorneys or me prior to publication ofthe article which T could have stated for publication I just said above -Very truly yours, - James W. McCord, Jr." . The other letter dated March 19 on the letterhead of James W.. McCord, Jr., 7 Winder Court > Rockville, Maryland, addressed to Judge Sirica states: ¥ "Certain questions have been posed to me from your honor through the probation officer, dealing with det ails | of the case, motivations, intent and mitigating circum g stances s - ~ - - - ~ "In endeavoring to respond to these questions , I au whipsawed in 2 variety of legalities. First, I may be called before a Senate Committee investigation this matter, Secondly, I may be involved in a civil suit; and thirdly there may be a new trial at same future date. (82) "Fourthly '} the P-O}DaPiCT1 officer may be called before the Senate:e Comm:n.ittee to present testimony—.ony reg,a-.din.~~, what may otherwise be a pr- vileg-~~d ed...un.c2.1nn between defendant : and Judge as I under,~~_nd it; if I ans.,2red certain question to t;.2 probation officer, it is possible such ans;ers could d become 2 mat';eL OL record in the Senate and therefore available for use in the othe. proceedings just described.| My answers would, it would seem to me, to ~~^iolate my F~~Ith Asendtent r~~|~~,hts, and poss:Blat my Saxth Z.~~2ndrtoNt riaht to cou2sel 2nd sosslbly o.her riohts. "On the other hand, to faiL to ansaze your qu"stlons may appsar to be non-cooperatlon, 2nd T can therexore e^?e . a much more severe sentence. t'The,e are ~ur.lle. conside-aLinns which are not to be liOhtly '~~aken. Several members oZ ny LZN''1Y n2V¡ 2^PreSSeT £ear fot my life if I disclose knc sLedte O£L the facts in I this matter, eithet publiclJr or to any gov2rnment rec-e- | sentative. '~~Mereas I do not shfire Allei~~ concerns to the | same degr2e, nevertheless, I do beti2ve th2t retuSliaterr meaSures lsill be talsen aOainst Irzea 3aY r2mily, 2nd my friends sh.ould T aisctose suc't zacts. ouch letariation cou;d eostroy careers, incom2, and repuLations af p^rson.s who are innocent o' any ouiSt lX'na,exer. '$Be tllat 2S it may, in tllo in~erests o~~- zus~~__c, ar.a in tlle rnt_rcsts o:~~ restux-_r.O f^^i.t'a in t'le _r~~.^net > X:~~txc] (83) . Indistinct document retyped by House Judiciary Committee staff system, which faith has been severely damaged in this case, I will state the following to you at this time which I hope may be of help to you in meting out justice in this case: "1. There was political pressure applied to the defendants to plead guilty and remain silent. "2. Perjury occurred during the trial in matters highly material to the very structure, orientation and impact of the government's case, and to the motivation and intent of the defendants. "3. Others involved in the Watergate operation were not identified during the trial, when they could have been by those testifying. "4. The Watergate operation was not a CIA operation. The Cubans may have been misled by others into believing that it was a CIA operation. I know for a fact that it was not. "5. Some statements were unfortunately made by a witness which left the Court with the impression that he was stating untruths, or withholding facts of his knowledge, when in fact only honest errors of memory were involved. "6. My motivations were different than those of the others involved, but were not limited to, or simply those offered in my defense during the Indistinct document retyped by House Judiciary Committee staff (84) system, which faith. W.AS been sev.~~ 5 t ;7 c- damaged in this case I wil state the following : '3 you :: ~~ t-. s time which I hope may be of help to you .. .~~'' _S- _ C' justice in this case: "1. There was political p-.] .;~~re applied to the defendants LO ple; ~~; guilty and ' remain silent . "2. Perjury occurred a;_--l.l_ '12 t--_a1 ln matters highly mate,ial vo -;le - ---y s~~_ucture, oricntati and impact OL tli wonee-e.t'-. case, and to the motivation and iJI'~~ .16 r ~~'~~.e c rerdants. "3. Others involved i.-t '''_ -:_~~ev~~--e ope-^ation swere . . not identified d-ur-,-s ~~ tR'eLX Yl'..en tney OGUld - - have been by those fies-.-'~~-iLl~~e. @ "4~~ The AJatergate ope!:^~~ o.t -ss-r.o-- e. CI~~. oreCation. zThe Cubans may h<>.a De-.-.L misleg by others into beiievina that i.t . c,.-3~ation. I !~~now for a fact that it svus l'CUP 't5. -Some statements l.cre -._.-::<)-.,un.:~..e'y made by a - witness which left thR 4'---_^/- ._Gln the ~~~~m.pression that he szas stat-n~~l ~~X-F-:-~~ ns) or -\ ;ithholdinO facts of his k~~.oxl_-1<,c; lJ~~.en - ~~l fact orliy ilones errors of}n~~m.ory tfere Jr~~.olve o*~~j. My motivatior:s zuere di.::..t^a-i iite,~~ t'lGSn OL Che others involved, bub l:^:^e not ~~~~r. ~~eX to, or simply those off~~~~reQ in ~~~~i de.__nse cux^ ino tlle (85) - trial. This is no L2U1 L OL my attorneys, b U OL the.-ie circumstances under which we had to pre- lna-,e l.y teFense. t'Rollcx~~_~~~ sentellce, I \}OUJ d a2prec^~~ aL-e the opportunit~~t to talk :~~ith ~~~~o~~~~ privately in ca< ~~mbers. Since I c2nnot .feel con_rdent in tallcing zqith an FBI agellt, in testifyiz be£oXe c Grand Jury sshos-e U.S! Axtorneys work Zor the Dopn~~:L=--Xe og Jrstice, or in talkinv t~~vi.h otller goverr.ment rep_esantatives, such a discussion with you -v70Uld be | of assit-anee to me. | ~~'I h2x~~e .ot discussed tlle above with my attorneys as a ma*~~or oE protection for than. ~~'I give .his staLement freely and voluntarilyj fu11y reali. th22 1 m^y be prosecuted for givino a false stat~~zent to ! a Judicncl ofzicia1, ir the statenenes herein cre kmosvanblz untruc* Tlle statanents are true and correct to t'ne best of my kno~~;eledOe and belier. J>mnes W. I< IcCovd, t.re-.-~~ill take a 20 r.linute recess and I will hear any cm2ments frG.m. any attorneys on this. (Briex recess talten at 10:10 a.m.) (86) seo ; tl United States v. G. Gordon Liddy _ (CR 74-117, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court Droceedings March 7, 1974 March 14, 1974 May 10, 1974 May 24, 1974 Indictment filed charging the defendant with two counts of refusing to testify before the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence of the House Committee on Armed Services, which was investigating the alleged involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in (1) the break-in at the Democratic National Committee; (2) any subsequent cover-up: and (3) the burglary of the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding. The defendant enters a plea of not guilty to the indictment. Defendant found guilty on both counts. Liddy sentenced to serve a prison term of six months on each count, to run concurrently. Suspended. (87) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TORE DISTRICT OF COLUS#I3IA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) i> ) Criminal No. And. 9+ t f v. ) Violation of 2 U.s.C. § l9r GEORGE GORDON LIDDY , ) (COntemPt of Congress) Defendant. ) INDICTtuNT - ~he Grand Jury charges: COUNT ONE X,- l. Pursuant to Section 121 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Public Law 601 t60 Stat. 822), as amended, House Resolution 6, 93rd Congress, dated January 3, 1973, including clause 3 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives adopted therein, and House Resolution 185, 93rd Congress, dated February 21, 1973, the House of Representatives was empowered to and did create the Committee on Armed Services, having duties and powers as set forth in said Rules and Resolutions. 2. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, 93rd Congress, dated February 21, 1973, and Rule 6tc) of the Rules Governing Procedure of the Committee on Armed Services, the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, at a meeting of the Committee held on February 27, 1973, established the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence, and delegated to that Subcommittee the Committee's authority "to make periodic inquiries into all phases of intelligence activities (88) within the Department of Defense and Within the agencies established under the National Security Act, and to make legislative recommendations when appropriate.' 3. The Central Intelligence Agency is an agency established under Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, Public Law 253 (61 Stat. 497). 4. Pursuant to House Resolution 185, 93rd Congress, dated February 21, 1973, and a delegation of authority from the Chairman of the Committee on Armed Services to the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence, by letter dated May 21, 1973, the Subcommittee, through its Chairman, was empowered to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, by subpoena or otherwise, and to administer oaths to witnesses. 5. On or about May ll, 1973, pursuant to Rule 6(d) of the Rules Governing Procedure of tzhe Committee on Armed Services and the directive of the Chairman of the Committee, the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence commenced hearings within its jurisdiction, to wit, hearings into the alleged involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency in (a) break-ins at, and 9 electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, D. C., (b) any subsequent cover-up of the identities of the persons who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of such activities, and (c) the burglary of the office of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, the psychiatrist of Dr. Daniel Ellsber5, in Beverly Stills, California on September 3, 1971. (89) — 3 ~ _ 6. On or about July 20, 1973, GEORGE GORDoq BIDDY, the DEFENDANT, having lawfully been summoned as a witness by the authority of-the House of Representatives, as exercised by the Special Subcommittee on Intelligence of the Committee on Armed Services, to give testimony upon a matter under inquiry by the Subcommittee, appeared be- fore the Subcommittee at an executive session being held within the District of Columbia and was directed by the Chairman of the Subcommittee to be sworn to testify, but did then and there refuse to be sworn to testify, and thereby did lfillfully make default. (Title 2, United States Code, Section 192.) COUNT TtiO 7. The Grand Jury realleges all of the allegations of paragraphs l, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Count One of this Indictment. 8. On or about July 20, 1973, GEORGE -GORDON BIDDY, the DEFENDS4T, appeared as a witness before the special Subcommittee on Intelligence of the Committee on Armed Services at an executive session within the- District of Columbia to be asked certain questions which were pertinent to the question under inquiry by the Subcommittee, but did then and there refuse to answer any question before the Subcommittee. {Title 2, United States Code, Section 192.) ^ TrueWBillo Larch 7, 1974 LEo;4 JA'ORSKI Special Prosecutor zatergate Special Prosecution Force (90) United States v. Jeb Stuart M Cruder * (CE 715-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) August 16, 1973 May 21, 1974 The defendant waives prosecution by indictment. Information filed charging the defendant with one count of conspiracy to unlawfully intercept wire and oral communications and to obstruct justice in connection with the break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee and the subsequent investigations. Copy of a letter filed dated August 16, 1973 from Archibald Cox to James Sharp and James Bierbower advising that the government would accept a guilty plea from Mr. Magruder to a one count indictment or information. The defendant enters a plea of guilty to the information. Defendant sentenced to a prison term of 10 months to four years. (91) s Al '-D UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT w i97.i FOR TEIE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAt'~mS F. DAVE't,CI^rk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal NO, 7iS~ 73 v. JEB STUART MAGRUDER ) Violation of la U.S.C. s 371 ) (conspiracy to unlawfully inter- ) cept azire and oral communications, to obstruct justice, and to defraud the United States of America) INFORMATION The United States of America, by its Attorney, the Special Prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, charges: l. At all times material herein, the Democratic National Committee, an unincorporated association, was the organization responsible for conducting the affairs of the Democratic Party of the United States. Its offices were at the Watergate Office Building, 2600 Virginia Avenue, N. W. in the District of Columbia. 2. At all times material herein, the Committee for the Re-Blection of the President was conducting campaign activities on behalf of the reselection of Richard M. Nixon as President of the United States, with office and headquarters at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. in the District of Columbia. 3. At all times material herein, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were parts of the Department of Justice, an agency of the United States. 4. On June 5, 1972, a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was duly (92) - 2 - ._ . impanelled and sworn, and at all times material herein beginning June 23, 1972, the said Grand Jury seas conducting an investigation in conjunction amity the United States Attorney's Office for said District and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of federal statutes had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, involving unlawful conspiracies (18 U.S.C. E 371), unlawful interception of wire and oral communications (18 U.S.C. § 2511), burglary (22 D.C. Code 1801fblXand unlawful possession of intercepting devices (22 D.C. Code 543ta]],all statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed such violations. 5. Fron May 1971 through November 1972, JEs STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, Bras the Deputy Campaign Director of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. Thereafter, he became Executive Director of the President's Inaugural Committee. A. From May 1971 through November 1972 Serbert Lloyd Porter was the Director of Scheduling for the Committee , for the Re-Election of the President. Thereafter he becane Assistant Executive Director of the President's Inaugural Committee. JEB STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, was his immediate superior in both positions. 7. Beginning in or around November 1971 and continuing thereafter through March 23, 1973, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, JEB STUART 2"2GRUDvR, the DErF:iDXNT, unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly did agree, combines and (93) - conspire with co-conspirators unnamed herein to commit offenses against the United States, to wit: (a) to unlawfully obtain and use, by illegal means and for illegal ends, information from the offices and headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and from related political entities and individuals, in violation of 18 U.s.C. ¤ 2511 and other statutes of the United States and the District of Columbia; (b) to conceal, cover up, hinder, frustrate, impair, impede and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct, and impede the investigation, apprehension, and conviction of certain of the individuals involved in the planning, implementing and carrying out of the above described activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. EN 1503 and 1510; and (c) to defraud the United States of America and its Departments and Agencies, and more particularly the Department of Justice, by hindering, frustrating and impairing the lawful functions of the said Department by craft, deceit, and dishonest means, in violation of 18 U.S.C. E 371. 8. It was a part of the conspiracy that J B STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, and others unnamed herein would and did devise, implement, and carry out a strategy to unlawfully break into the above described headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the offices of related political entities and individuals, and unlawfully intercept various wire and oral communications taking place in said offices. 9. It was a further part of said conspiracy that JEB STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, and other co-conspirators (94) — 4 — _ . unnamed herein would meet at divers places in the District of Columbia, and elsewhere, to devise means of carrying out the unlawful activities described in the preceding paragraph and to approve and secure funds necessary for such operation. SO. It was a further part of the conspiracy that JEs STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, and other co-consp- ~rators unnamed herein would purchase equipment and recruit personnel necessary to carry out the illegal activities described in paragraph eight (8) above. - 11. As a part of the conspiracy, and in carrying out the objects thereof, certain of the co-conspirators unnamed herein did in May and June of 1972 break into and intercept wire and oral communications in the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. On or about June 17, 1972, certain of the participants in this activity were apprehended at the scene of this break-in. 12. It was a further part of said conspiracy that JEB STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, and other co- conspirators unnamed herein, in order to conceal the scope and ~ . magnitude of the conspiracy and other unlawful activities, would and did devise, implement, and carry out a strategy, plan, and scheme to impede, impair and obstruct the joint investigation by the Grand Jury and the Department of Justice into the above described illegal activities by the following means, among others: (a) influencing witnesses to give false, deceptive, and misleading testimony; (b) concealing evidence relevant to matters •> ~hich were the subject of the investigation; and (c) giving false, (95) — 5 — deceptive, and misleading testimony on matters relevant to the investigation. It was a further part of the conspiracy that certain co-conspirators would misrepesent that the Central Intelligence Agency had an interest in limiting the investigation. 13 It was a further part of said conspiracy that in order to implement the strategy, plan and scheme referred to in paragraph twelve (12) hereof, JEB STUART MAGRUDER, the DEFENDANT, and the co-conspirators would and did participate in meetings to compose, develop and prepare the false, deceptive and misleading statements and testimony to be given to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, the Grand Jury and ultimately in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia 14. It was a further part of said conspiracy that certain co-conspirators would and did covertly raise, acquire, transmit, distribute and pay cash funds for the benefit of the individuals named in the indictment in Criminal Case No 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, both prior to and subsequent to the-return of the indictment on September 15, 1972, for the purpose of concealing the identities of other participants in the violations charged in said indictment and the scope of these and related activities 15 In furtherance of, and in order to effectuate the objects of the aforesaid conspiracy, JEB STUART DEGRADER, the DEFENDANT, and the other co-conspirators unnamed herein did perform and did cause to be performed the following overt acts, among others, in Columbia: Overt Acts 1. on or about January 27, 1972, JED STUART MAGRUDER. attended a meeting at an office in the Department of Justice in the District of Columbia. 2. On or about February 4, 1972, JEB STUART MAGRUDER attended a meeting at an office in the Department of Justice in the District of Columbia. 3. On or about April 12, 1972, $65,000 in cash was delivered to James McCord by one of the co-conspirators to be used for the purpose of purchasing equipment to be used in furtherance of the conspiracy. 4. On or about June 17, 1972, James McCord, Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis, Virgilio Gonzales, and Eugenio Martinez unlawfully entered the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Office Building. 5. On or about June 19, 1972, JEB STUART MAGRUDER attended a meeting in an apartment in the District of Columbia. 6. On or about June 19, 1972, JEB STUART MAGRUDER removed from an office in the District of Columbia certain writings containing summaries of unlawfully intercepted telephone conversations. 7. Around or before July 19, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JEB STUART MAGRUDER met with Herbert Lloyd Porter to review Porter's proposed statement to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 8. On or about July 20, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JEB STUART MAGRUDER gave a false, deceptive and misleading statement to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (97) 9. On or about August 10, 1972, Herbert Lloyd Porter testified falsely before a Federal Grand Jury sitting in the District of Columbia 10. Around or before August 16, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JEB STUART MAGRUDER attended meetings on the fourth floor of 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.§J. where the false, misleading and deceptive statement previously made by JEB STUART MAGRUDER to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was further refined and developed in preparation for his appearance before the Grand Jury. 11. On or about August 16, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JET STUART MAGRUDER testified falsely before 12. On or about September 12, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JEB STUART MAGRUDER attended a meeting on the fourth floor of 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. to compose and develop Magruder's proposed testimony in preparation for another appearance before the Grand Jury. 13. On or about September 13, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JEB STUART MAGRUDER testified falsely before the Grand Jury. 14. On or about January 23, 1973, in the District Court for the District of Columbia, JEB STUART MAGRUDER gave false, deceptive and misleading material testimony during the trial of Criminal Case No. 1827-72, entitled United States v, Gordon Liddy, et al. 15. On or about January 23, 1973, in the District Court for the District of Columbia, Herbert Lloyd Porter gave false, deceptive and misleading material testimony (98) during the trial of Criminal Case No. 1927-72, entitled United States v. Gordon Liddy, et al. (In violation of Title 18 United States Code s 371.) ARSBALD COX 4~~ WS f o x Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force (99) - \X.NIII~~(i,Xll-SI't:tI,XI l'll()Sl-([JI-I()X i()f{CL llrliled~~statusZkptlrtincllt()tJubticc 1425 K Street N.W.'\V. NV:Ishirlgtoll, D C 200!)5 August 16, 1973 ~~ 1 1 ~~ ~~ as d L .S~~ do JA>.,1tS F. D3aV--'f, I'd James Sharp, Esq. CA')J1-/M~~- 7/) ~ 73 James Bierbower, Esa. Bierbower & Rockefeller 1625 K Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. Gentlemen: The Government will accept a guilty plea from Mr. Jeb Stuart Magruder to a one count indictment or information charging a conspiracy to unlawfully intercept wire and oral communications, to obstruct justice and to defraud the United States. This will dispose of all other potential charges against your client which might otherwise arise out of the investigation of the so-called Watergate incident and the alleged cover-up relating thereto, including without limitation possible violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Corrupt Practices Act. The Government will join with you in urging that Mr. Magruder's sentencing be deferred until after the trial of those implicated by testimony already given by Mr. Magruder and that Stir. Magruder be permitted to remain on bond or on recognizance pending sentence in order to facilitate his cooperation with the Government. e This understanding is predicated upon Mr.. Magruder complete cooperation with the Government, including the im[unediate r full and truthf ul disclosure of all information in his possession. Ultimately, of course, he will be required to testify as a witness for the Government in any and all cases with respect to which he may have relevant information. The extent of his cooperation will be brought to the Court's attention by the Government before sentencing. Sincerely, F~~~~~~~~Zg g¡ X Archibald Cox Special Prosecutor ( 100) ' s United States v. John Mitchell, Harry R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman. Charles Colson, Robert Mardian. Kenneth Parkinson Gordon Strachan .. . (CR 74-llO, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings March l, 1974 March 6, 1974 March 9, 1974 Indictment filed charging all defendants with one count of conspiracy (Count l). In addition, Mitchell charged with one count of obstruction of justice (Count 2); two counts of making false declaration to Grand Jury or Court (Counts 4, 5); one count of perjury (Count 6); and one count of making false statement to agents of the FBI (Count 3). Haldeman charged with one count of obstruction of justice (Count 2); and three counts of perjury (Counts 7, 8, 9). Ehrlichman charged with one count of obstruction of justice (Count 2); one count of making false statement to agents of the FBI (Count 10); and two counts of making false declaration to a Grand Jury or Court (Counts ll, 12); Strachan charged with one count of obstruction of justice (Count 2); and one count of making false declaration to a Grand Jury or Court (Count 13). Colson and Parkinson were charged with one count of obstruction of justice (Count 2). Order issued setting trial date of September 9, 1974. The defendants enter a plea of not guilty. (101) April 16, 1974 ~~ . April 18, 1974 May 1, 1974 May 20, 1974 May 24, 1974 May 31, 1974 June 21, 1974 July 24, 1974 Motion filed by Watergate Special Prosecutor requesting an order directing the issuance of a subpoena to the President for tape recordings and other documents necessary for the trial. Order issued granting motion for issuance of a subpoena to the President. Motion filed by Counsel for the President to quash subpoena. Order issued denying President's motion to quash and directing subpoenaed materials be turned over to the Special Prosecutor. Notice of appeal to Judge Sirica's order of May 20, 1974 filed by Counsel for the President. Application to the United States Supreme Court for Writ of Certiorari and suggestion of expedited schedule filed by the Special Prosecutor. Application for writ granted. Indictment dismissed as to Charles Colson after his sentencing in CR 74-116. Order issued by Supreme Court affirming lower court decision directing the President to turn over the subpoenaed tape recordings and related documents. (102) . i i FILED IN OPEN CO!)* ~~T MAR 1-1974 JAMES f. DAVEY'{, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. ) UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA ) . w ) Criminal No. /4 1 tO V. , ) Violation of 18 U.S.C. JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY R. ) §§ 371, 1001, 1503, 1521, HALDE'.AN, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, ) and 1623 (conspiracy, CHARLES Xr. COLSON, ROBERT C. ) false statements to a MARDIAN, KENNETH W. PARKINSON,) government agency, ob and GORDON STRACHAN, ) struction of justice, Defendants. INDICTMEN T The Grand Jury charges: Introduction j perjury and false ) declarations.) FIL Ee t lJ,^, ;Fv a or * vrv —~~-,I, C'1\. A; 1. On or about June 17, 197?, Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, Eugenio R. Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr. and Frank L. Sturgis were arrested in the offices of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate office building, Washington, D. C., while attempting to photograph documents and repair a surreptitious electronic listening device which had previously been placed in those offices unlawfully. . material herein, the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and . . . the Federal Bureau of Investigation were parts of the Department of Justice, a department and agency of the United States, and-the Central Intelligence Agency was an agency of the United States. 3. Beginning on or about June 17, 1972, and continuing up to and including the date of the filing of this (103) i ~~~ ~ j f :i I ., # ,: l 4 l i i - 2 — indictment, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia were conducting an investigation, in conjunction with a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which had been duly empanelled and sworn on or about June 5, 1972, to determine whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511 and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such viola tions. 4. On or about September 15, 1972, in connection with the said investigation, the Grand Jury returned an indictment in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia charging Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, E. Howard Hunt, Jr., G. Gordon Liddy, Eugenio R. Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr., and Frank L. Sturgis with conspiracy, burglary and unlawful endeavor to intercept wire communi-cations. 5. From in or about January 1969, to on or about March 1, 1972, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, was Attorney General of the United States. From on or about April 9, 1972, to on or about June 30, 1972, he was Campaign Director of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. 6. At all times material herein up to on or about April 30, 1973, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, was Assistant to the President of (104) 7. At all times material herein up to on or ~~ . about April 30, 1973, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, was Assistant for Domestic Affairs to the President of the United States. 8. At all times material herein up to on or about March 10, 1973, CHARLES W. COLSON, the DEFENDANT, was Special Counsel to the President of the United States. 9. At all times material herein, ROBERT C. MARDIAN, the DEFENDANT, was an official of the Committee to Re- Elect the President. . 10. From on or about June 21, 1972, and at all times material herein, KENNETH W. PARKINSON, the DEFENDANT, was an attorney representing the Committee to Re-Elect the President. 11. At all times material herein up to in or about November 1972, GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANT, was a Staff Assistant to HARRY R. HALDEMAN at the White House. Thereafter he became General Counsel to the United States Information Agency. . COUNT ONE 12. From on or about June 17, 1972, up to and including the date of the filing of this indictment, in . the District of Columbia and elsewhere, JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY. HALDEMAN, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, CHARLES W. COLSON, ROBERT C. MARDIAN, KENNETH W. PARKINSON and GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANTS, and other persons to the Grand Jury known and unknown, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with each other,to (105) commit offenses against the United States, to wit, to obstruct justice in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503, to make false statements to a government agency in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 100l, to make false declarations atio..s in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623, and to defraud the United States and Agencies and Departments thereof, to wit, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Justice, of the Government's right to have the officials of these Departments and Agencies transact their official business honestly and impartially, free from corruption, fraud, improper and undue influence, dishonesty, unlawful impairment and obstruction, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sec tion 371. - 13. It was a part of the conspiracy that the conspirators would corruptly influence, obstruct and impede, and corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede, the due administration of justice in connection with the investigation referred to in paragraph three (3) above and in connection with the trial of Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for the purpose of concealing and causing to be concealed the identities of the persons who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of (a) the activities which were the s s ubject- of the investigation and trial, and (b)) other illegal and improper activities. (106) - s - 14. It was further a part of the conspiracy that the conspirators would knowingly make and cause to be made false statements to the FBI and false material statements and declarations under oath in proceedings ._ ancillary to the Grand Jury and a Court of the United States, for the purposes stated in paragraph thirteen (13) above. 15. It was further a part of the conspiracy that the conspirators would, by deceit, craft, trickery and dishonest means, defraud the United States by interfering with and obstructing the lawful governmental functions of the CIA, in that the conspirators would induce the CIA to provide financial assistance to persons who were subjects of the investigation referred to in paragraph three (3) above, for the purposes stated in paragraph thirteen (13) above. was further a part of the conspiracy that the conspirators would, by deceit, craft, trickery and dishonest means, defraud the United States by interfering with and obstructing the lawful governmental functions of the FBI and the Department of Justice, in that the conspirators would obtain and attempt to obtain from the FBI and the Department of Justice information concerning the investigation referred to in paragraph three (3) above, for the purposes stated in paragraph thirteen (13) above. 17. Among the means by which the conspirators would carry out the aforesaid conspiracy were the follow ing: (107) la) The conspirators would direct G. Gordon Liddy to seek the __ of Richard G. Kleindienst, then Attorney General of the United States, in obtaining the release from the District of Columbia jail of one or more of the persons who had offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office building in Washington, D. C., and G. Gordon Liddy would seek such assistance from Richard G. Kleindienst. (b)) The conspirators would at various stroy, and cause to be removed, concealed, altered and destroyed, documents, papers, records and objects. (c) The conspirators would assist and facilitate the giving of false, deceptive, evasive and misleading statements and testimony. (d) The conspirators would --b e false, misleading, evasive and deceptive statements and testimony. (e) The conspirators would covertly raise, acquire, transmit, distribute and pay cash funds to and for the benefit of the defendants in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District (108) of Columbia, both prior to and subsequent to the return of the indictment on September 15, 1972. (f) The conspirators would make and cause to be made offers of leniency, executive clemency and other benefits to E. Howard Hunt, Jr., G. Gordon Liddy, James W. McCord, Jr., and Jeb S. Magruder. (g) The conspirators would attempt to obtain CIA financial assistance for persons who were subjects of the investigation referred to in paragraph three (3) above. (h) The conspirators would obtain information from the FBI and the Department of Justice concerning the progress of the investigation referred to in paragraph three (3) above. 18. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to effect the objects thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the District ofColumbia and elsewhere: OVERT ACTS 1. On or about June 17, 1972, JOHN N. MITCHELL met with ROBERT C. MARDIAN in or about Beverly Hills, California, and requested MARDIAN to tell G. Gordon Liddy to seek the assistance of Richard G. Kleindienst, then Attorney General of the United States, in obtaining the release of one or more of the persons arrested in connection with the Watergate break-in (109) - 8 - ._ . 2. On or about June 18, 1972, in the District of Columbia, GORDON STRACHAN destroyed documents on the instructions of HARRY R. HALDEMAN . 3. On or about June 19, 1972, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN met with John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time EHRLICHMAN directed Dean to tell G. Gordon Liddy that E. Howard Hunt, Jr., should leave the United States. 4. On or about June 19, 1972, CHARLES W. COLSON and JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN net with John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time EHRLICHMAN directed Dean to take possession of the contents of E. Howard Hunt, Jr.'s safe in the Executive Office Building. . 5. On or about June 19, MARDIAN and JOHN N. MITCHELL met with Jeb S. Magruder at MITCHELL'S apartment in the District of Columbia, at which time MITCHELL suggested that Magruder destroy documents from Magruder's files. 6. On or about June 20, 1972, G. Gordon Liddy met with Fred C. LaRue and ROBERT C. MARDIAN at LaRue' 5 apartment in the District of Columbia, at which time Liddy told LaRue and MARDIAN that certain commitments had been made to and for the benefit of Liddy and other persons involved in the Watergate break-in. 7. On or about June 24, 1972, JOHN N. MITCHELL and ROBERT C. MARDIAN met with John W. Dean, III, at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue in the District of Columbia, at which time MITCHELL and MARDIAN suggested to Dean that the CIA be requested to provide covert funds for the assistance of the persons involved in the Watergate break-in. (110) - 9 - 41-570 0 - 74 - 8 8. On or about June 26, 1972, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN met with John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time EHRLICHMAN; approved a suggestion that Dean ask General Vernon A. Walters, Deputy Director of the CLA, whether the CIA could USE funds to pay the bail and salaries of the persons involved in the Watergate break-in. 9. On or about June 28, 1972, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN had a conversation with John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, during which EHRLICHMAN approved the use of Herbert W. Kalmbach to raise cash funds with which to make covert payments to and for the benefit of the persons involved in the Watergate break-in. --- . 10. On or about July 6, 1972, KENNETH W. PARKINSON had a conversation with William O. Bittman in or about the District of Columbia, during which PARKINSON told Bittman that "Rivers is OK to talk to. n 11. On or about July 7, 1972, Anthony Ulasewicz delivered approximately $25,000 in cash to William O. Bittman 815 Connecticut Avenue, N. W., in the District of Columbia. 12. In or about mid-July, 1972, JOHN N. MITCHELL and KENNETH W. PARKINSON met with John W. Dean, II}, at 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. in the District of Columbia, at which time MITCHELL advised Dean to obtain FBI reports of the investigation into the Watergate break-in for PARKINSON and others. 13. On or about July 17, 1972, Anthony Ulasewicz delivered approximately S40,000 in cash to Dorothy Hunt at Washington National Airport. (111) — 10 — 14. On or about July 17, 1972, Anthony Ulasewicz delivered approximately $8,000 in cash to G. Gordon Liddy at Washington National Airports 15. On or about July 21, 1972, ROBERT C. MARDIAN met with John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time MARDIAN examined FBI reports of the investigation concerning the Watergate break-in. 16. On or about July 26, 1972, JOHN D.EHRLICHMAN met with Herbert W. Kalmbach at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time EHRLICHMAN told Kalmbach that Kalmbach had to raise funds with which to make payments to and for the benefit of the persons involved in the Watergate break-in, and that it was necessary ing and payments secret. 17. In or about late July or early August, 1972, Anthony Ulasewicz made a delivery of approximately S43,000 in cash at Washington National Airport. 18. In or about late July or early August, 1972, Anthony Ulasewicz made a delivery of approximately S18, 000 in cash at Washington National Airport. 19. On or about August 29, 1972, CHARLES W. COLSON had a conversation with John W. Dean, III, during which Dean advised COLSON not to send a memorandum to the authorities investigating the Watergate break-in. 20. On or about September 19, 1972, Anthony Ulasewicz delivered approximately S53,500 in cash to Dorothy Hunt at Washington National Airport. 21. On or about October 13, 1972, in the District of Columbia, Fred C. LaRue arranged for the delivery of approximately S20,000 in cash to William O. Bittman. (112) 22. On or about November 13, 1972, _. trict of Columbia, E. Howard Hunt, Jr., had a telephone conversation with CHARLES W COLSON, during which Hunt discussed with COLSON the need to make additional pay- . ments to and for the benefit of the defendants in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 23. In or about mid-November, 1972, CHARLES W. COLSON met with John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time COLSON gave Dean a tape recording of a telephone conversation between COLSON and E. Howard Hunt, Jr. 24. On or about November 15, 1972, John W. Dean, III, met with JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN and HARRY R. HALDEMAN at Camp David, Maryland, at which time Dean played for . . EHRLICHMAN and HALDEMAN a tape recording of a telephone conversation between CHARLES W. COLSON and E. Howard Hunt, Jr. 25. On or about November 15, 1972, John W. Dean, III, met with JOHN N. MITCHELL in New York City, at which time Dean played for MITCHELL a tape recording of a telephone conversation between CHARLES W. COLSON and E. Howard Hunt, Jr. 26. On or about December 1, 1972, KENNETH W. PARKINSON met with John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time PARKINSON gave Dean a list of anticipated expenses of the defendants during the trial of Criminal Case No. 1827- 72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (113) - 27. In or about early December, 1972, HARRY R. HALDEMAN had a telephone conversation with John W. Dean, III, during which HALDEMAN approved the use of a portion of a cash fund of approximately $350,000, then being held under HALDEMAN's control, to make additional payments to and for the benefit of the defendants in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 28. In or about early December, 1972, GORDON STRACHAN met with Fred C. LaRue at LaRue's apartment in the District of Columbia, at which time STRACHAN delivered approximately $50,000 in cash to LaRue. 0 29. In or about early December, 1972, in the Dis of Columbia, Fred C. LaRue arranged for the delivery of approximately S40,000 in cash to William O. Bittman. 30. On or about January 3, 1973, CHARLES W. COLSON met with JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN and John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time COLSON, EHRLICHMAN and Dean discussed the need to make assurances to E. Howard Hunt, Jr. concerning the length of time E. Howard Hunt, Jr. would have to spend in jail if he were convicted in Criminal Case No. 182772 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 31. In or about early January, 1973, HARRY R. HALDEMAN had a conversation with John W. Dean, III, during which HALDEMAN approved the use of the balance of the cash fund referred to in Overt Act No. 27 to make additional payments to and for the benefit of the defendants in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. (114) - 13 - ._ . 32. In or about early January, 1973, GORDON STRACHAN met with Fred C. LaRue at LaRue's apartment in the District of Columbia, at which time STRACHAN delivered approximately $300,000 in cash to LaRue. 33. In or about early January, 1973, JOHN N. MITCHELL had a telephone conversation with John W. Dean, III, during which MITCHELL asked Dean to have John C. Caulfield give an assurance of executive clemency to James W. McCord, Jr. 34. TD or about mid-January, 1973, in the District of Columbia, Fred C. LaRue arranged for the delivery of approximately $20,000 in cash to a representative of G. Gordon Liddy. 35. On or about February 11, 1973, in Rancho La Costa, California, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN and HARRY R. HALDEMAN met with John W. Dean, III, and discussed the need to raise money with which to make additional payment to and for the benefit of the defendants in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia - - 36. In or about late February, 1973, in the District of Columbia, Fred C. LaRue arranged for the delivery of approximately $25,000 in cash to William O. Bittman. 37. In or about late February, 1973, in the District of Columbia, Fred C. LaRue arranged for the delivery of approximately S35,000 in cash to William O. Bittman. 38. On or about March 16, 1973, E. Howard Hunt, Jr., met with Paul O'Brien at 815 Connecticut Avenue, N. W. in the District of Columbia, at which time Hunt told O'Brien that Hunt wanted approximately S120,000. (115) - - f - 14 39. On or about March 19, 1973, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN had a conversation with John W. Dean, III, at the White House in the District of Columbia, during which EHRLICHMAN told Dean to inform JOHN N. MITCHELL about the fact that E. Howard Hunt, Jr. had asked for approximately $120,000. 40. On or about March 21, 1973, from approximately 11:15 a.m.. to approximately noon, HARRY R. HALDEMAN and John W. Dean, III, attended a meeting at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time there was a discussion about the fact that E. Howard Hunt, Jr. had asked for approximately S120,000. 41. On or about March 21, 1973, at approximately 12:30 p.m., HARRY R. HALDEMAN had a telephone conver- . sation with JOHN N. MITCHELL. 42. On or about the early afternoon of March 21, 1973, JOHN N. MITCHELL had a telephone conversation with Fred C. LaRue during which MITCHELL authorized LaRue to make a payment of approximately S75,000 to and for the benefit of E. Howard Hunt, Jr. - . 43. On or about the evening of March 21, 1973, in the District of Columbia, Fred C. LaRue arranged for the delivery of approximately $75,000 in cash to William O. Bittman. 44. On or about March 22, 1973, JORN D. EHRLICHMAN, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, and John W. Dean, III, met with JOHN N. MITCHELL at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time MITCHELL assured EHRLICHMAN that E. Howard Hunt, Jr. was not a "problem" any longer. (116) - 15 - ._ . 45. On or about March 22, 1973, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN had a conversation with Egil Krogh at the White House in the District of Columbia, at which time EHRLICH!XhN assured Krogh that EHRLICHMAN did not believe that E. Howard Hunt, Jr. would reveal certain matters. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) (117) - 16 - COUNT TWO The Grand Jury further charges: 1. From on or about June 17, 1972, up to and including the date of the filing of this indictment, in the District of Columbia, and elsewhere, JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, JOHN D. ehrlichman, CHARLES W. COLSON, KENNETH W. PARKINSON and GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANTS, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did corruptly influence, obstruct and impede, and did corruptly endeavor to influence, .. , obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in connection with an investigation being conducted by- the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, in conjunction with a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and in connection-with the trial of Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, by making cash payments and offers of other benefits to and for the benefit of the defendants in Criminal Case No. . . , 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and to others, both prior to and subsequent to the return of the indictment on September 15, 1972, for the purpose of concealing and causing to be concealed the identities of the persons who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of the activities which were the subject of the investigation and trial, and by other means. (Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1503 and 2 ) (118) - 17 - .. . OUNT THREE The Grand Jury further charges: . On or about July 5, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents of-the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, which Department was then conducting an investigation into a matter within its jurisdiction, namely, whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in connection with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate office building on June 17, 1972, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations, in that he stated that he had no knowledge of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters other than what he had read in newspaper accounts of that incident. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.} (119) COUNT FOUR .. The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about September 14, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title i8, United States Code, Sections 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of Other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, _. _., ~~ (120) — 19 — 4. At the time and place alleged, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Q. Was there any program, to your knowledge, at the Committee, or any ef f ort made to organize a covert or clandestine operation, basically, you know, illegal in nature, to get information or to gather intelligence about the activities of any of the Democratic candidates for public office or any activities of the Democratic Party? A. Certainly not, because, if there had been I would have shut it off as being entirely non- productive a. that particular time of the campaign. Q. Did you have any knowledge, direct or indirect of Mr. T : A J.. w ~~ me, ,, ^ i_ ______of Mr . Liddy's a activities respect——— to any intelligence gathering effort with respect to the activities of the Democratic candidates or its Party? ~ A. None whatsoever, because I didn't know there was anything going on of that nature, if there was So I wouldn't anticipate having heard anything about his activities in connec. . tion with lt. 5* The underscored portions of the declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, were material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) (121) - 20 - COUNT FIVE < The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about April 20, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed information relating to unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, D. C., and related activities. (122) ~~ By ~~- - 21 ._ 4. At the time and place alleged, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly _ .. respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Q. Did Mr. LaRue tell you that Mr. Liddy had confessed to him? A. No, I don't recall that, no. Q. Did Mr. Mardian tell you that he'd confessed to him? A. No. Q. Do you deny that? A. Pardon me? Q. Do you deny that? A. I have no recollection of that. . . * * * Q. So Mr. Mardian did not report to you that Mr. Liddy had confessed to him? A. Not to my recollection, Mr. Glanzer. Q. That would be something that you would remember, if it happened, wouldn't you? o A. Yes, I would. * * * Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you were you told by either Mr. Mardian or Mr. LaRue or anybody else, at the Committee, prior to June 28th, 1972, that Mr Liddy had told them that he was involved in the Watergate break-in? A. I have no such recollection. 5. The underscored portions of the declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, were material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) (123) - f COUNT SIX The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about July 10 and July 11, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state material matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. Committee was conducting an investigation and study, pursuant to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, of the extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. (124) - s 3. It was material to the said investigation and study that the said Committee ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed information relating to (a) unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance o', the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, D. C., and (b) related activities, through such means as the destruction of documents and other evidence of said facts. 4. At the times and place alleged, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Committee, did willfully and knowingly . . . . state with respect to the material matters alleged in para graph 3 as follows: July 10, 1973: Mr. Dash. Was there a meeting in your apartment on the evening that you arrived in Washington on June 19, attended by Mr.. LaRue, Mr. Mardian Mr. Dean, Mr.. Magruder Mr. Mitchell. Magruder and myself, that is correct. . . . Mr. Dash. Do you recall the purpose of that meeting, the discussion that took place there? Ms. Mitchell. I recall that we had been ~ traveling all day and, of course, we had very little information about what the current status was o f the entry of the Democratic National Committee, and we met at the apart ment to discuss it. They were, of course, - clamoring for a response from the Committee because of Mr.. McCord's involvement, etc , etc., and we had quite a gen.^_aL discussion of the subject matter. Mr. Dash. Do you recall any discussion of the so-called either Gemstone files or wiretapping files that you had in your possession? (125) - 24 - July 11, 1973: Senato- Weicker. Did you suggest that any documents be destroyed, not necessarily Ge..- stone. Mr. Mitchell. To the best of my recollection Senator Weicker At the June 19 meeting at your apartment? Did you suggest that any documents be destroyed, not necessarily Gemstone or no' necessarily documents that relate to electronic surveillance? r Mr. Mitchell. To the best of my recollection when I was there there was no such discussion 5. The underscored portions of the declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by JO-.iN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, were material to the said investigation and study and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621.1 (126) - 25 - ._ . COUNT SEVEN _ _ The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about July 30, 1973, in the District of Columbia, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath State material matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, pur- - suant to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, of the extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. (127) - 26 - 3. It was material to the said investigation and study that the said Committee ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to (a) unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, D. C. and (b) related activities, through such means as the payment and promise of payment of money and other things of value to participants in these activities and to their families. 4. At the time and place alleged, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Committee, did willfully and knowingly state with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: I was told several times, starting in the summer of 1972, by John Dean and possibly also by John Mitchell that there was a need by the committee for funds to help take care of the legal fees and family support of the Watergate defendants. The committee apparently felt obliged to do this. * * * Since all information regarding the defense funds was given to me by John Dean, the counsel to the President, and possibly by John Mitchell, and since the arrangements for Kalmbach's collecting funds and for transferrin- ~~g the $350,000 cash fund were made by John Dean, and since John Dean never stated at the time that the funds would be used for any other than legal legal (sic) and proper purposes, I had no reason to question the propriety or legality of the process or delivering the S350,000 to the committee via LaRue or of having Kalmbach raise funds. (128) - I have no personal knowledge of ~~,what was done with the funds raised by Kalmbach or with the 5350,000 that was delivered by Strachan to LaRue. It would appear that, at the White House at least, John Dean was the only one who knew that the funds were for "hush money", if, in fact, that is what they were for. The rest of us relied on Dean and all thought that what was being done was legal and proper No one, to my knowledge, was aware that these funds i..v5' ved either blackmail or "hush money" until this suggestion was raised in March of 1973 5. The underscored portion of- the statements quoted in paragraph 4, made by HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, was material to the said investigation and study and, as he then and there well knew, was false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621.) (129) - - 28 COUNT EIGHT The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about July 30 and July 31, 1973, in the District of Columbia, SPRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conduct ng official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which-a law of the United States s administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state material matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. . 2. At the times and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, pursuant to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, of the r extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its Judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. (130) - 3. It was material to the said investigation and study that the said Committee ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to (a) unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, D. C., and (b) related activities, through such means as the payment and promise of payment of money and other things of value to participants in these activities and to their families. 4. At the times and place alleged, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Committee,- did willfully and knowingly state with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: July 30, 1973: I was present for the final 40 minutes of the President's meeting with John Dean on the morning of March 21. Whilte (sic] I was not present for the first hour of the meeting, I did listen to the tape of the entire meeting. Following is the substance of that meeting to the best of my recollection. * * * He[Dean] also reported on a current Hunt blackmail threat. He said Hunt was demanding S120,000 or else he would tell about the seamy things he had done for Ehrlichman. The President pursued this in considerable detail, obviously trying to smoke out what was really going on. He led Dean on regarding the process and what he would reco,~~.nend doing. He asked such things as -- Well, this is the thing you would recommend? we ought to do this? is that (131) - 30 - _ . right?" and he asked where the money would come from? how it would be delivered? and so on. He asked how much money would be involved over the years and Dean said "probably a million dollars -- but the problem is that it is hard to raise." The President said "there is no problem in raising a million dollars, we can do that, but it would be -.-Jrong " Senator Baker. . . . What I want to point out to you is that ore state...-nt in your adden seems to me to be o f extraordinary importance and I want to test the accuracy of your recollection and the quality of your note taking from those tapes, and X am referring to the last, next to the last, no, the third from the last sentence on page 2, The President. said there is no problem in raising a million dollars. He can do that but it would be wrong Now, if the period were to follow af ter We can do that", it would be a most damning statement. If, in fact, the tapes clearly show he said "but it would be wrong, n it is an entirely different context. Now, how sure are you, Mr. Haldeman, that those tapes, in fact say that? Xr. Haldeman. I am absolutely positive that the tapes Senator Baker. Did you hear it with your own voice? Mr. Haldeman. With my own ears, yes. Senator Baker. I mean with your own ears. Was there any distortion in the quality of the tape in that respect? Mr. Haldeman. No, I do not believe so. * Senator Ervin. Then the tape said that the President said that there was no problem raising a million dollars. . ~~ Mr. Haldeman. Well, I should put that the way it really came, Mr. Chairman, which was that Dean said when the President said how much money are you talking about here and Dean said over a period of years probably a million dollars, but it would be very hard -- it is very hard to raise that money. And the President said. (132) - 31 - _ . it is not hard to raise it. We can raise a million dollars And then got into the cues- . , . tion or, in the one case before I came into the meeting making a statement that it would be wrong and in other exploration of this getting into the -- trying to find out what Dean was talking about in terms of a million ______... Can you point -- are you familiar with the testimony Dean gave about his conversations on the 13th and the 21st of March with the President? Mr. Haldeman. I am generally familiar with it, yes, sir. Senator Ervin. Well, this tape corroborates virtually everything he said except that he said that the President could be -that the President said there would be no difficulty about raising the money and you say the only difference in the tape is that the President also added that but that would be wrong. Mr. Haldeman. And there was considerable other discussion about what you do, what Dean would recommend, what should be done, how -what this process is and this sort of thing. It was a very -- there was considerable exploration in the area. 5. The underscored portions of the statements quoted in paragraph 4, made by HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, were material to the said investigation and (133) - 32 - _ . COUNT NINE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about August 1, 1973, in the District of Columbia, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Co.committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inqu;-ing into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state material matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the tine and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, pursuant to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, of the extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determini..~~ ~~'.e'~~h-= in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. (134) - 33 - _ . 3. It was material to the said investigation and study that the said Committee ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to (a) unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buildings in Washington, D. C., and (b) related activities through-such means as the commission of perjury and subornation of perjury. 4. At the time and place alleged, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Committee, did willfully and knowingly state with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Senator Gurney. Let's turn to the March 21 meeting. * * * Senator Gurney. Do you recall any discussion by Dean about Magruder's false testimony before the Grand Jury? Mr. Haldeman. There was a reference to his feeling that Magruder had known about the Watergate planning and break-in ahead of it, in other words, that he was aware of what had gone on at Watergate. I don't believe there was any reference to Magruder co' 5. The underscored portion of the statements quoted in paragraph 4, made by HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, was material to the said investigation and study and, as he then and there well knew, was false Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621 ) (135) - COUNT TEN The Grand Jury further charges: On or about July 21, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOEN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, which Department was then conducting an investigation into a matter within its jurisdiction, namely, whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in connection with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate office building on June 17, 1972, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of,and conspired to commit such violations, in that he stated that he had neither received nor was he in possession of any information relative to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters on June 17, 1972, other than what he had read in the way of newspaper accounts of that incident. (Title AS, United States Code, Section 1001.) (136) - 35 - ._ COUNT ELEVEN The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about May 3, and May 9, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken a-. oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material 31 declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the times and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of .. . Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2511, and 22 D_C Code 1801(b)), and of other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, D.C_, and related activities. (137) - 4. At the times and place alleged, s0;21 D EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matter, alleged in paragraph 3 25 follows: May 3, 1973: Q Sir. Ehrlichman,an, going back to that first weak following the Watergate arrest, did you have any conversations besides those on Monday with Mr.. Dean? A. Yes, I did. Q. Will you relate those to the ladies and gentlemen of the Grand Jury? A. Well, I don't recall the content specific of most of them. I know that I saw Mr. Dean because my log shows that he was in my office. I think it was four times that week, once in a large meeting - excuse me, more than four times. He was in alone twice on Monday, and in the large meeting that I have described. He was in twice alone on other occasions, 2nd then he was in a meeting that I had with Pat Gray -- well. that was the following week of seven days. seven days, within the span * * * 9. All right. Now at any of those meetings with Mr. Dean, was the subject matter brought up of a person by the name of Gordon Liddy? A. I can't say specifically one way or the other. - Q. So you can neither confirm nor deny that anything with respect to Mr. Liddy was brought up at any of those meetings, is that A. I don't recall whether Mr. Liddy was being mentioned in the press and would have been the subject of an inquiry by somebody from the outside. If he would have, then it is entirely probable that his name came up. (138) - Q. All right. Let's assume for a moment that Mr.: Liddy's name did not in that first week arise in the press. Can you think of any other context in which his name came up, excluding any possible press problem with respect to the name of Liddy? A. I have no present recollection of that having happened. Q.- So you can neither confirm nor deny whether or not the name of Gordon Liddy came up in the course of any conversation you had with Fir. Dean during that week, or for that matter with anyone else? A. That's right, unless I had some specific event to focus on. Just to take those meetings in the abstract, I can't say that I have any recollection of that having happened in any of those. Q. All right. Let's take the example of did anyone advise you, directly or indirectly, that Mr. Liddy was implicated or involved in the Watergate affair? A. Well, they did at some time, and } don't know whether it was during that week or not. Q. To the best of your recollection, when was that done, sir? A. I'm sorry but I just don't remember. Q. Well, who was it that advised you of that? A. I think it was Mr. Dean, but I don't remember when he did it. Q. Would it have been within a month of the investigation? Within three months of the investigation? A. I'm sorry but I just don't know. Q. You can't even say then whether it was within a week, a month, or three months? Is that correct, sir? A. Well, I think it was fairly early on, but to say it was within a week or two weeks or something, I just don't know. (139) i - 38 - ._ Q. Now Mr. Dean advised you that Mr. Liddy was implicated Did you advise the United States Attorney or the Attorney General, or any other la; enforcement agency immediately or at any time after? A. No I don't think it was private information at the time I heard it. Q. Well, did you inquire to find out whether or not it was private-information? A. To the best of my recollection, when I first heard it it WAS not in the nature of exclusively known to Dean, or anything of that kind. Q. Well, was it in the newspapers that he was involved? A. I'm sorry. I just don't remember. It probably was. but I just don't recall. Q. You mean the first time you found out from Mr. Dean that Liddy was involved, Mr. Ehrlichman, it was in the same newspaper or the newspapers that you yourself could have read? , . . A. No, no. I am telling you that I cannot remember the relationship of time, but my impression is that he was not giving me special information that was not available to other people. . A lot of Mr. Dean's information came out of the Justice Department apparently, and so I think the impression I had was whatever he was giving us by way of information was known to a number of other people. That's what I meant by special information. May 9, 1973: Q. When did you first become aware that Mr. Liddy was involved? Q. Did you ever become aware of it? A. Well, obviously I did, but I don't know when that was (140) - 5. The underscored portions of the declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, we-e material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623_) (141) - 40 - ._ COUNT TWELVE The Grand Jury further charges: l. On or about May 3 and May 9, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOEN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly as hereina fter set forth. _ material declarations 2 At the time and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2511, and 22 D C. Code 1801(b), and other statutes of the United States and of the District of e Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who we-e responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of (142) , - 41 - ._ . the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, D C , and related activities 4. At the times and place alleged, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN..i> 5'Jx the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath at a preceeding before with respect Jury, did knowingly declare matters alleged in paragraph 3 Q. Now with respect to that, what further information did you receive that really related to this f Fundraising for the defendants and the defense co nsel and their families? A. I had 2 call from Mr. Kalmbach within four or five days to verify whether or not I had in fact talked to John Dean. I said that I had. Q. This was a telephone call, sir? A. I think it was. It may have been during a visit. I'm not sure. I used to see Mr. Kalmbach periodically about all kinds of things. ~ It may have been during a visit, but I think it was just a phone call. He said substantially that John Dear had called me and said that I had no objection, and I said, "Herb, if you don't nave any objection to doing it, I don't have any ob- jection to your doing it, obviously. Q. So far as you recall the only conversation that you recall is Mr. Kalmbach saying to you, "John Dean has asked me to do this," and you stated that you had no objection. He said that he was checking with you to determine whether you had any objection or not? A. He was checking on Dean o on Dean? A. Yes. (143) - Q. And you said to him, "If you don't have any objection then I don't have any objection"? A. Right. Q. Was there any discussion between the two of you as to the purpose for which this money was to be raised? A. I don't think so. Q. Did you in any way approve the purpose for which this money was being given? A. No, I don't think so. I don't recall doing so. Q. Based on your testimony for the background of this, there would have been no basis for your approval or for you to affirm that? A. That's right. That's why I say that I don't belie-we that I did. Q. And your best recollection is that you did not? A. That's right. Q. Do you have any recollection of Mr. Kalmbach inquiring of you whether or not this was appropriate, sir? A. Questioning me with respect to that? Q. Yes. A. No, I don't. Q. He did not, to the best of your recollection? A I don't have any recollection of his doing so. May 9, 1973: A. You had never expressed, say back six or seven months ago, to Mr. Kalmbach that the raising of the money should be kept as a secret matter, and it would be either political dynamite, or comparable words, if it ever got out, when Mr. Kalmbach came to see you? A. No, I don't recall ever saving that. quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the (144) - 43 - DEFENDANT, were material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) (145) - 44 - ._ COUNT THIRTEEN Columbia, GORDON STRACHAN, the DF.^~~~~ND<'IT, having duly taker an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before THE June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand JURY of the United States, duly EMPANELLED and sworn in the UNITED States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States D.C.. Code 1801(b),. and a' Code, Sections 37l, ____, ~~~~ 1801 _. _ _ __ other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives of the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office building in Washington, D C , and related ______ (146) - 4. At the time and place alleged, GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANT, appearing-:y ~~ oath at a proceeding before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Q. Did You! yourself, ever receive any money from the Committee for the Reelection of ^'}e President, or from the finance to re-elect the President? A. Yes, sir, I did. Q. Can you tell the ladies and gentlemen of the Grand Jury about that? A. Yes, sir. On April 6, 1972, I received $350,OOO in cash. * * * - g Q. From whom? A. From Hugh Sloan. * * * Q. What was done with the money after you received it from Mr.. Sloan on April 6th? A. I put it in the safe. Q. Was the money ever used? A. Pardon? Q. Was the money ever used? A. No, the money was not used. Q. To your knowledge, was it ever taken out of the safe? A. No. Q. To your knowledge, is it still there? A. No, it IS not. Q. Where is it? A. I returned it to the committee, at r!_. Haldeman's direction, at the end of November. (147) - 46 - ._ . Q. November of '72? A. Yes, '72, or early December. * * * Q. To whom did you return it? A. To Fred LaRue. Q. Where did that transfer take place? A. I gave it to Mr. LaRue in his apartment. * * * Q. That was either late November or early December? A. That's correct. Q. Well, let me ask you this: Why would it have been given to Mr. LaRue at his apartment as opposed to being given to the Committee? A. Well, Mr. LaRue is a member of the Committee and he just asked me to bring it by on my way home from work. Q. After Mr. Haldeman told you to return the money, what did you do? Did you contact someone to arrange for the delivery? A. Yes, I contacted Mr. LaRue. Q. That was at Mr. Haldeman's suggestion or direction? A. No. Q. Why is it that you would have called Mr. LaRue? A. I don't think Stans was in the country at that time. He was not available. Q. What position did Mr. LaRue occupy that would have made you call him? A. He was the senior campaign official_ Q. That's the only reason you called him? A. That's correct. Q. No one suggested you call him? A. No. * * * (148) - 47 - Q. Was anyone present in Or. LaRue's apartment at the hotel when you delivered the money to him? A. No. Q. Did you ever tell anyone to whom you had given the money? Did you report back to either Mr. Haldeman or anyone else that you had delivered the money and to whom you had delivered the money? A. I don't think so. I could have mentioned that I had done it. When I received an order, I did it. Q. Did you get a receipt for the money? A. No, I did not. Q. Did you ask for it? A JUROR: Why? THE WITNESS: I did not give a receipt when I received the money, so I didn't ask for one when I gave it back. A JUROR: Did someone count the money when it came in and when it went out, so they knew there were no deductions made from that S350,000? THE WITNESS: Yes, I counted the money when I received it, and I counted it when I gave it back. A JUROR: You solely counted it; no one else was with you? THE WITNESS: T counted it when I received it alone, and I counted it in front of Mr. LaRue when I gave it back. A JUROR: You had that money in the White House for seven months and did nothing with it? THE WITNESS: That's correct. * * Q. So who told you to give it to Mr. LaRue? A r decided en give it to Mr. LaRue Q. On your own initiative? Q. Who do you report to? A. Mr.. Haldeman. (149) - 48 - ._ Q. Did you report back to Mr.. Haldeman that you gave it to Mr. LaRue? A. No, I did rot. Q. You just kept this all to yourself? A. He was a senior official at the campaign I gave it back to him. He said he would account Q. Who told you to so to Mr.. LaRue and give him the money? A. I decided that myself. Q. Do you have a memo in your file relating to this incident? A. No, I do not. Q. Did you discuss this incident with anybody afterwards? A. Yes, I told Mr. Haldeman afterwards that I had given the money to Fir. LaRue. O. What did he say to you? A. Fine. He was a senior campaign official. Q. What time of day was it that you gave it to Mr. LaRue? A. In the evening, after work. Q. Does the finance committee or the Committee to Re-elect the President conduct its business in Mr. LaRue's apartment? A. No. It was a matter of courtesy. He's a senior official. He asked me to drop it by after work. * * * THE FOREMAN: Do you have any idea why mr. LaRue asked you to return this money to his apartment, where actually you could just walk across 17th Street? THE WITNESS: No, I do not THE FOREMAN: And you could have had the pro- @ tection of c the Secret Service guards with all that money, if you were afraid someone might snatch it from you. (150) - 49 - THE WITNESS: I wouldn't ask for the Secret Service guards protection A JUROR: Why not? THE WITNESS: They protect only the President and his family. THE FOREMAN: Or the White House guards, whoever. I mean, I find it somewhat dangerous for a person to be carrying this amount o. money in Washington, in the evening, and you accompanied by your brother, when it would have been much easier and handier just to walk across 17th Street. TEE WITN',;ESS: I agree, and I was nervous doing it, but I did it. * * * THE FOUR DEN: I'm still puzzled. You get the money from the treasurer or whatever Mr. Sloan's position was in the Committee -- shall we say on an official basis, between the disburser and you as the receiver, and the money sits in the safe for seven months; then Mr. Haldeman decides it has to go back to the Committee. You call Mr. LaRue -- you don't call Mr. Sloan and say "Hugh, seven months ago you gave me this $350,000 and we haven't used any of it; I'd like to give it back to you since I got it from you", but you call Mr. LaRue. THE WITNESS: Mr. Sloan was no longer with, the Committee at that time. THE FOREMAN: Well, whoever took Mr. Sloan's place. THE WITNESS: Ml. Barrett took Mr. Sloan's place. THE FOREMAN: Why didn't you call him? THE WITNESS: I honestly don't know. * * * Q. When you got to Mr. LaRue's apartment was he expecting you? A. Yes. I said I would be by. Q. And no one was present when you were there? A. No, sir. (151) - 50 - Q. Was the money counted' k JUROR: It must have taken a long time to count that money. THZ WITNESS: It did. It took about 45 minutes. It takes a long time to count it * * * you leave it' Q_ Mow did you carry this-money? A. In a briefcase. Q. Did you take the briefcase back, or did A. No, I left the briefcase. Q. Whose briefcase was it? A. Gee, I think it was mine. I'm honestly not sure. Q. Did you ever get the briefcase back? A. I don't think so. Q. Have you spoken to Mr. LaRue since that day?' two weeks ago. Q. Did you have a discussion? A. No, just talked to him. S. The underscored portions of the declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANT; there well knew, were false. investigation and, as he then and A TRUE BILL LEON JAWORSKI Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force (152) (ark --KJ A? fj j,::',~~ 1''/'/1 Subpoena to Produce Document or ()l/ je(t (.r. IAN 21 {5/ S Z.l;) - . _ . United'^l States District Court:;-itL FOR THE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No 74-110 . _ .. . JOHN N. MITCHELL, et al To Richard M. Nixon, The White Hous, Washington, D. C., or any subordinate officer, official, or employee with custody or con trol of the documents or objects hereinafter described on the - attached schedule. You are hereby commanded to appear in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia at Constitution Ave. & John in the city of the District of on the day of Columbia Marshall Place 19 74 at ten oclock A.;I to te.-,tliy in the case of United States v. John N. Mitchell, et al BED bring with you the documents or objects listed on the attached schedule. This subpoena is issued upon application of the' United States. ( April 16__, 19 ? 4 . Attorney,//or the United States 1425 K St. N.W., Washington, D.C. ______. _ _ _, ______Add:> ress ' All:- -t ~ e:r; .;^d States," or "defendant" as the case may be, RETURN Received this subpoena at and on served it on the wihtin named at on JAMES a. DAVEY By ~~ -Lv/ Deputy C[erk;. by deliver.?g a copy to h and tendering to h the fee for one day's attendance an(l the mile- age allow::el! by la,v.! TV.,,+ ..; ,19 .E,-D'','SS- . -,>'1 '-5.'I-}.vel . ,. . 6 ; C . . . . Total . 5 By ., . ! need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena:l issued ill behalf of the United States (153) Schedule of Documents and Objects to he Produced by or on Behalf of Richard M. Nixon ._ 1. 2. 3. a, 5. 6. A11 tapes and other electronic and/or mechanical recordings or reproductions, and any memoranda, papers, transcripts, and other writings, relating to: (a) Meeting on June 20, 1972, between the President and Charles Of. Colson from 2:20 to 3:30 p.m. in the President's Executive Office Building Office ("EOB"); (b) telephone conversation on June 20, 1972, between the President and Mr. Colson from 8:04 to 8:21 p.m. (placed from the EOB); and (c) telephone conversation between the President and Mr. Colson from 11:33 p.m. on June 20, 1972, to 12:05 a.m. On June 21, 1972 (placed from residence portion of the White House). Three meetings on June 23, 1972, between the President and H. R. Haldeman from 10:04 to 10:39 a.m., from 1:04 to 1 13 p.m., and from 2:20 to 2:45 p.m. According to information furnished by the White House, the first meeting occurred in the Oval Office, and the third, in the EOB, with Ronald Ziegler in both cases present for part of the time. According to Mr. Haldeman's logs, the second meeting occurred in the Oval Office Meeting on the morning of November 15, 1972, among or between Messrs. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman, and John W. Dean, III in the President's office at Camp David. Meeting and telephone conversation on January 5, 1973, between the President and Mr. Colson from 12:02 to 1:02 - p.m. in the EOB and from 7:38 to 7:58 p.m. (placed from Camp David) respectively. - Meeting or telephone conversation in or about late January 1973 between the President and Mr. Colson in which E. Howard Hunt, Jr. was discussed. Meetings between the President and Mr. Colson in the Oval Office on February 13, l973, from 9:48 to 10:52 a m. and on February 14, 1973, from 10:13 to l O a) a.m. respectively (154) — 2 — 7.- Meeting on or about February 20, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman in which Jeb Stuart Magruder was discussed. 8. Meeting on February 27, 1973, between the President and Mr. Dean from 3:55 to 4:20 p.m. in the Oval Office. 9. Meeting on March 17, 1973, between the President and Mr. Dean from 1:25 to 2:10 p.m. in the Oval Office. 10. Meetings on March 20, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 10:47 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. (with Mr. Ehrlichman present from 11:40 a.m. on) and from 6:00 to 7:10 p.m. According to Mr. Haldeman's logs, these meetings occurred in the Oval Office. 11. Telephone conversation on March 20, 1973, between the President and Mr. Dean from 7:29 to 7:43 p.m. 12. Meeting on March 21, 1973, between the President and Mr. Ehrlichman from 9:15 to 10:12 a.m. in the Oval Office. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Telephone conversation on March 21, 1973, between the President and Mr. Colson from 7:53 to 8:24 p.m. Meeting on March 22, 1973, between the President and Mr.. Haldeman from 9:11 to 10:35 a.m. According to Mr. Haldeman's logs, this meeting occurred the EOB. Meeting on March 27, 1973^ between the President and Mr.. Ehrlichman from 11:10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., with Mr. Haldeman present from 11:35 a.m. on. Mr. Ziegler and Stephen B. Bull were also present for parts of the time. According to Mr. Haldeman's logs, this meeting occurred in the EOB. Meeting on March 30, 1973, between the President and Mr. Ehrichman from 12:02 to 12:18 p.m. Mr. Ziegler may also have been present. Telephone conversation on April 12, 1973, between the President and Mr. Colson from 7:31 to 7:48 p.m. (placed from residence portion of the White House). Meeting on April 14, 1973, between the President and Mr.. Ehrlichman from 8:55 to 11:31 a.m. in the EOB, with Itr. Haldeman present from 9:00 to 11:30 a.m. (155) 21. 22. 23. 24. 19. - Meeting on April 14, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 1:55 to 2:13 p.m. in the Oval Office. 20. Meetings on April 14, 1973, among or between the President and Messrs. Ehrlichman and Haldeman from 2:24 to 3:55 p.m. and from 5:15 to 6:45 p.m. in the Oval Office and the EOB respectively. Telephone conversation on April 14, l973, between the President and Mr.. Haldeman from 11:02 to 11:16 p.m. (placed from residence portion of the White House) Telephone conversation on April 14, 1973, between the President and Mr. Ehrlichman from 11:22 to 11:53 p.m. (placed from residence portion of the White House). Meeting on April 15, 1973, between the President and Mr. Ehrlichman from 10:35 to 11:15 a a Oval Office. Telephone conversation on April 15, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 3:27 to 3:44 p.m. (placed from the EOB). Telephone conversation on April 16, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 12:08 to 12:23 a.m. (placed from residence portion of the White House). Telephone conversations on April 16, 1973 r between the President and Mr.. Ehrlichman from 8:18 to 8:22 a.m. and from 9:27 to 9:49 p.m. (placed from and received in residence portion of the White House respectively). 27. Meetings on April 16, 1973, among or between the President and Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman from 9:50 to 9:59 a.m. and from 10:50 to 11:04 a.m., both in the Oval Office. 28. Meeting on April 16, 1973, between the President and Mr.. Haldeman from noon to 12:31 p.m. in the Oval Office. (156) — 4 — 29. Meeting on April 16, 1973, between the President and Mr. Ehrlichman from 3:27 to 4:02 p.m.. in the EOB. Mr. Ziegler was present from 3:35 p.m. on. 30. Meeting on April 17, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 9:47 to 9:59 a.m. in the Oval Office. 31. Three meetings on April 17, 1973~~ among or between the President and Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman from 12:35 to 2:20 p.m. in the Oval Office (with Mr. Ziegler present for part of the time), from 3:50 to 4:35 p.m. in the Oval Office, and from 5:50 to 7:14 p.m. in the EOB (with then Secretary William P. Rogers present for part of the time). 32. Telephone conversation on April 18, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 12:05 to 12:20 a.m. (placed from residence portion of the White House). 33. Meeting on April 18, 1973~~ between the President and At. Ehrlichman from 3:Q5 to 3:23 p.m. in the Oval Office. 34. Meeting on April 18, 1973, among or between the President and Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman from 6:30 to 8:05 p.m. in Aspen Lodge, Camp David. Meeting on April 19, 1973, among or between the President and Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman from 9:31 to 10:12 a.m. in the Oval Office. Meetings on April 19, 1973, between the President and Alr. Ehrlichman from 1:03 to 1:30 p.m. and from 5:15 to 5:45 p m in the Oval Office and the EOB respectively. 37. Telephone conversation on April 19, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 9:37 to 9:53 p.m. (placed from the EOB). 38. Telephone conversation on April 19, 1973, between the President and Mr. Ehrlichman from 10:54 to 11:04 p.m. (received in residence portion of the White House). (157) 39. 40. 41. ._ Meetings on April 20, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 8:15 to 8:39 am. and from 11:07 to 11:23 a.m., both in -the Oval Office. Meeting on April 20, 1973, among or between the President and Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman from 12:16 to 12:34 p.m. in the Oval Office. Meeting on April 25, 1973, among or between the President and Messrs. Haldeman and Ehrlichman from 11:06 a.m. to 1:55 p.m. According to Mr. Haldeman's logs, this meeting occurred in the EOB. 42. Meeting on April 25, 1973, between the President and Mar. Haldeman from 4:40 to 5:35 p.m. According to Mr. Haldeman's logs, this meeting occurred in the EOB. 43. Telephone conversations on April 25, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 6:57 to 7:14 p.m. and from 7:46 to 7:53 p.m. 44. Telephone conversations on April 25, 1973, between the President and Mr. Ehrlichman from 7:17 to 7:19 p.m. and from 7:25 to 7:39 p.m. 45. Meetings on April 26, 1973, between the President and Mr. Haldeman from 8:55 to 10:24 a.m. and from 3:59 to 9:03 p.m., the latter with Mr. Ehrlichman present from 5:57 to 7:14 p.m. Messrs. Bull and Ziegler were also present at the second meeting for parts of the time. According to Mr. Haldeman's logs, the first meeting occurred in the Oval Office, and the second, in the EOB. 46. Telephone conversations on June 4, 1973, between the President and Hair. Haldeman from 10:05 to 10:20 p.m. and from 10:21 to 10:22 p.m. (both placed from residence portion of the White House). (158) - NOTE: Where It it feasible, tt syllabus (headnote) will be res teased, as Is being done In connection with this case. at the time the opinion Is Issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of' Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States?1 v. Detroit Lumber ¥- . . 1. .33 e SUPREME COURT OF TGE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES,S v. NIXON:\' ET AL, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED ST.ATES COI,URT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT BEFORE JUD)GAIEN''r No. 73-1766. argued July $, 19#4—Decided July 94 19{4> Following hldletnlelltal?egilln violatlon of federal srattites b! certain staff members of the \\'hite House an(l politic:ll supporters of the Pressl(lelitX the Spe(ial Proseeutor file(l a motion under Fed. llule Crim. Proe. 1/ (e) for a subiloen:t d?X(ts tecum for tlle produetioll before trial of eertai!l tal)es and docunzelits relating to precisely identifie(l eonlers;ltions nsd meetnlgs betxveen the President and others. The Presidelit. elaiminy exeenti\-e pris-ilege! filed a motiou to qn;lsil tile sul?poelia. The l)istrict Conrt. after treatiog tlle sul)l)oenae(l nzaterlft! as presumptively)ti~~~-el! privilege(l concluded that. the Speci:tl Prosecutor had m:¢(le a sufficient showing to rebut the presumption and that the requirements of Rule 1~~~ (c) ha(l been satisfied. The court there:lfter issued an order for an in camera examin?ltion of the subp)oenaell material hav ing rejested the President's contentions (:*) that the dispute between him and the Special Prosecutor was nonjusticiable as an executive" conflict and (b) th:,t the ju(licioir! lacked authority! to review the President's assertion of executive privilege. 'Ihe The st:~~~yed its order pend(lilig appe)ell:lle review. which the President then sought in the Court of App)e:lls. The Special Prosecutor then filed in this Court a petition for a writ of' eertior:tli hefore ju(lgl)n nt (No. {3-1,6(;) ;tnd the Pl('Sldt'nt tiled it cro>.s-petition for suell a lvrit • Cllalleligilig thc gralid-jilly ftCtiOII (:\O. I;s-lSo4) Slle C'ourt grantefl bot!w u rns. ilelil I 'l'lte L)l-triet C'olilt'.> order lvas appe.ll.lble as n final' order - ut3e(r oS t . S ('. ¤1@'91. xva. theretore prol)erl!- in'' tile Court of Al)pe:ll; Xtilell the lzotiliOn for certiorari before judgillelit n-;ls rTOgetilel ulth ~~~0 /o-]K54. .V?ZOtl \. l ~~~~~~iterl Statc.Y, also on coltior:lri litfgire ltidfl;.lit ¥o the s;:me conrt I (I59) n UNITED STATES v NIXON Syllabus filed in this Court, and is now properly before this Court for review. Although such an order is normally not final and subject to appeal, an exception is made in a limited class of eases where denial of immediate review would render impossible any review whatsoever of an individual's claims." United States s-. Ryan. 402 U. S. 530, 533. Such an exception is proper in the unique circumstances of this ease where it would be inappropriate to subject the President to the proce(ltlre of securing review by resisting the order and inapprop)riate to require that the District Court proceed by a traditional contempt citation in order to provide appellate review. Pp. 5-7 2. The dispute betw een the Special Prosecutor and the President presents a justiciable controversy. Pp. {-12. (a) The mere assertion of an "intra-branch dispute,7! without more, does not defeat federal jurisdiction. {,nite(t States v. ICC, 337 ET S 426 P S (b) The Attorney General by regulation has conferred upon the Special Prosecutor unique tenure and authority to represent the United States and has given the Special Prosecutor explicit power to contest the invocation of executive privilege in seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of his specially delegated duties. w hile the regulation remains in effect, the Executive Branch is bound by it. Accardl v. Shaughnessy, 347 IT S. 260. Pp. 9- 11. (c) The action of the Special Prosecutor within the scope of his express authority seeking specified evidence preliminarily determined to be relevant and admissible in the pending criminal case, and the President s assertion of privilege in opposition thereto, present issues "of the type s hich are traditionally justiciable," l.'tliteel States v ICC.- supra. at 4:30, and the fact that both litigants are officers of the Executive Branch is not a bar to justi(l;thilXt!. 1'. 12 .3. From this Court- scrutiny! of the materials submitted by Special Prosecutor in support of his motion for the subpoena, much of s which Is under seal. it is clear that the District Court's denial of the motion to quash compotted with Rule 1~~ (e) and that the Special Prosecutor has made a sufficient showing to justify)' a subpoena for production before trial Pp 1;3-1, 4 Neither the doctrine of separation of powers.< nor the generalized need for confid!entiallT!- of high-level communications without more, can sustain a S ab/solltte. unqualified presidential privilege of (160) UNITED STATES n NIXON III Syllabus IMMUNITY from judicial process under all circumstances. See, e. g., MARBURY v Madison 1 Cranch 137, 177; Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. IS6, 911. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplo matic, or sensitive national security! secrets, the confidentiality of presidential communications is not significantly diminished by producing material for a criminal:ll trial under the protected conditions of in camera inspection)ectlollg and any absolute executive privilege under Art. II of the Constitution would(l plainly! conflict with the function of the courts under the Constitution. Pp. 18-22. 5. Although the courts will afford the utmost deference to presidential acts in the performance of an Art. II function, United States v. Burr. I.; Fed. Cas. IS,, 190, 191-192 (No.. 14,694), when a claim of presedential:ll privilege as to materials subpoenaed for use in a crimi:ll trial is based, as it is here, not on the ground that military or diplomatic secrets are implicated. hut merely on the ground of a generalized interest in confidentiality, the Presidents generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial and(~~ the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. Pp. 22-28 6.. On the basis of this Court s examination of the record, it cannot be concluded that the District Court erred in ordering in camera examination of the subpoenaed material, which shall now forthwith be transmitted to the District Court. Pp. 28-29: 7. Since a President s communications encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of an ordinary individual the public Interest requires that presidential confidentiality be afforded the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice, and the I)istrict Court has a heavy resposib)illty to ensure that material involving presidential conversations irrelevant to or inadmissible m the crimin al prosecution be accorded(l the high degree of respect due a President and that such material be returned under seal to its lawful custodian. Until released to the Speci:ll Prosecutor no in camera material is to be released to any!-on( pp. 29-31 No. ,>1@66! — F. Supp)w —, affirmed; No 3-1834, certiorari dismissed as improvidently! grant(d BURGER, C J., deli:vfred the o;)inioll of the Court. in which(h a Members j(lined. except REHNQUIST. .1., who took no part in the consideration.>idf or decision of the eases.. (161) NOTICE: . This opinion is subject t to formal revision before publication In the prelimi?nary print v . the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decis?onEP Sup[?retne Court 0? the United States Washington. D.C. 20343, of any typographi?hical or other for?~~nal errors In order that correction?3 may be made before the pre- liminary print goes to press SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITE?D STATES Nos.; 73-1766 AN'D 73-1834 United States, Petit ioner, 7>1766 v. Richard M. Nixon President of the United States, et al Richard M. Nixon, President of-the United t?tates, Petitioner? 7.~~1834 t?o United S?tates l J U 1 y , | On Writs of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Distot of Columbia Circuit before judgement. MR. CHIEF JU STIC-E BU RGER delivered the opinion of the Court These cases present for review the denial of a motion, filed on behalf of the President of the United(l States, in the case of United States v. Mitchell et al. (D. C. Crim. No.. 74] 10) to quash a third-party sub}poella duces tecum issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim.. Proc. 17 (c). The subp)oella cted(te(l the President to produce certain tape recordings?g?s and)d docum ents relating?~~:, to his conversations with aides(.!es and a(lvisers. The court rejected the Presidnet's s claims of absolute executive l)rix i]ege of lack of ju risdiction, and of' failure to satisfy the require.?llellts of Rule 17 (c,) The President appealed]e(l to t}le Court of ap)l~~eais. M e granted the United (:l States l)etitioll for certiorari before judg,rl;lel~~t. 'See 28 1'. S. C'. jiS, 1 ';t 11} .111Cl 2]()1 te) nn(l our l~~?tlle 'r0. '~~Ree, ~~t . cF } setrllasOlvl! /I 58?; ¥ t ,; 7 ~~;h. ( ,. 1 S{l!/ {ff?r. :;4; I C S 's:,-, .;# 3~~ ( 169) - 73-1#66 &-#>1936-OPI\ 105 UNITED STATES v. NIXON sive cross-petition for certiorari before judgement because of the public importance of the issues presented and the need for their promp)t resolution. UO S.—-, ( 1974) . On March 1 1974 a grand jury of the United States D.District Court for the District of Columbia returned an indictment charging seven named individuals 3 with various offenses. including conspiracy to defraud the United States and to obstruct justice. Although he was not designated as such in the indictment the grand jury named the Presi(lellts among others unindicted(1icted CO 584 (1952): United States ¥-. United Mine Wor/.ers 329 IT 3 708, 709, ~~10 1946), '~~:30 it.'. 8. 258. 269) 1947 l Carter) z Carter Coal Co. 298 ['. S. 2:~~tl ( 19:861: Rick ert Rice .llills v. Folttelaot, 29t U. 3 110 (19:3dj: Railroa(l Retirement(nt Boar(S ~~. Alton 15:. Co. 295 U. S] 3.80, 344 119:35A; United((l States ~~. Ba)\1rer.s Trust Co., 294 1 . 3. 240, 24:~~ ( 19:3.o i The cross-petition in No W.9)4 raised the issue whether the grand jur! acted wihtin its authorit! in nimilig the }'resident as a eoeonspirator Sniee ne tintl re-ohitioll ot this lssue ulilleeessary to resolution of tl,e (lnestion niletlser the elalm of prl~~-ilege is to prelail thc CrOSS-I)etitlOD i'Or CertlOr:lri iS diSlili^M;eCi as ililprOXidelltl!' gS.lilted and the rein;lin(ler of this opmion is eoneeriled xvith the issu(s raised in No ~~3-1X6fi On Ttllle 19 19#4 the l'resident s eotinsel moved for diselosior/ alw(l tralilsililttal to tins Conrl of all eziclenee presented to the gralid jur! relating to ItS aetioll m n lrr.ing the President as an unilidiet(d coeonspir:~~tor Aetion on this nzotion lvas deferred ending oral ;,rgtimelit of the ease :lnfl is nozv dellied dThe seren d(fen(lints nere Johil N :\litehell H. It Hlidemall Johir D 1.1arilcinilin Chirles AR Colson ltoljert C :\ 1lrdi:ln, Kenneth XV. :t';(rkln*oll, tIIlCI C.ordon Str.lch:~~ll: E ich h;scli oeellq)ied either 1 posltion oi resl)eilsihtilty On the RVhite Honse staff or the Cornmittee for th, Re-l l(etioll of the l're-lcl(nt Cnis)n entere(l .l xnilt! pSe.i on allo11!er c! . f ( 163) '~~tIvotn & 43-ie9',4~~tIN-iQN UNITED STATES t NIXON cbinsl)lrator.4 Otl Alzril 18. 15)74. ul)oll IllOt'iOII of the Sl)e eial l'rosecutor. see ll. S. irifra, a subl)oella duces tecuo was issued l)ulsuallt to Rule 17 ( c) to tlle Presictellt by ti.,e lTnited States l)istrict C~~ourt alld lnarle returnable on iMay 2. 1974. Tllis sub~~)xXella requirec', the l)roc',uctioll il4-i advance of the Scptelllber t) trial clate of certain tal)es. menaora]lcla, pal)ers. trallscripts. or other ¥-ritillgs relatillg to certaill lrrecisely iclelltifiec', llleetilwgs betu-een the Presidellt alld others.5 The i;l)ecial Prosecutor lvas ab]e to fix the time. place all(', pXersol)s lzresellt at these (liscussiolls because the \\ llite House (lail~~~~ logs al~~el apl)oilltlllellt records had been deliveleel to hilll. Oll .Nl)ril 3,~~). the Presidellt publicly release(l e(,itecl trallscrilrts of 43 collversattOllS; pOltiO11S of 90 eollversations subJect tosuhpoel1ail1 tllc l)resellt case X ere lllclu(lcncl 011 AIay 1 1974, ttle Presiclellt s coullsel. fileel a "sl)ecial al)~~,)earance and a IllOtiOI] to quasll thc sul)l)oellas ullcler Rule 17 (c). This citioll svas accolupallii Cl liv a fOlillal elailil of l)rivitege. At a sulJsequellt healillg.'i furtller nlotiolLs to ex~~)ull,(re tlle grall(l iUl'V'S aretioll llalllines the Presi(,etlt as all ullil~~clictecl eocollsl)iratol alld for l)rotective orflers agaillst tlle (lise closure of tllat iluforlllatioll ~~~~ere fi'ied or raisei-l oral,) by c(~~ullsel for the l'lesidellt _ . _ tile neX s mecliat m;(de the reasons forcontinllallceoftlle prote(tiste ordel 110 longer Ine;tllmgftll. ¥)n .lune X, thc Dlstriet Corlrt remo~~-fd tsproteeti~~eor(ler;lll(l,ollJulle10 eollnselforlsotlll):llliesjointh rnoved this Cotut to Ulls(';ll tllose parts of the reeorcl CVIliCil rel;~~teci to tlle aetioll of tllF gr.lnsl plry rt ~~t.irtlltl~~> tlll} I'll sil:lellt. After ree(lz-ing a st;ltenz(ut ill Opl)USitlOII t:'OIII tlje deten(l.lilts,:tllis r>'ourl elellied thtlt moliols Otl ehlll(' 1.;. IfI,~~',. exeellt for the gran(l jury's immedl;ite find,illg relatlrlg tc th, st.tt~~ls of tlle l'resident ;ts all Inlilldicted eocol!spir:ttor ~~--- I' S --- (I~~)~~ I) ; TlleX speeifie meetlt~~ffvi Mtll('i eonveSrF:ltl(lllv are enltrtler;ltecl ili a. iSl llecl)lle att;teile(l to tlle . lubl)X(llai 42;1-4{;;1 of tlle App ' A: tJ[t JOlllt Sllggt'Stl'ltl oi' the Sll~~~~el:('~~ .'ro-eeutor ;tne-l eollllsel for tl;e l'revldlsnt. :tn(l \ itll t'i}!' cipl)rov;S! ot (otlnsel for tlle de~~fend:lllts. fti,rtller !~~roere(zlllgs In thls lUls1llet ('ollrt ¥vere llekl {At CurrtCr(l. (164) 4 I~~~>l/fid & ,.tt.93s0PtSIOX UNITED STATES Vv. NIXON On May 20 1()74 the District Court denied the motion to quash and the motions to expunge and(l for protective orders. F. Supp.)- (19{4). It further ordered "the President or any subordinate officer official or employee with custody or control of the documents or objects subpoenaed)oellaetl id., at— to deliver to the District Court on or before May 31 19)74 the originals of all subpoenaed items. as well as an index and analysis of those items the subp)oellae(l recordings for which transcripts had been release(i to the public by the President on] Ap)ril 30, The District C,ourt rejecte(l jurisdic;>llal challenges based on a conten)tiol) that the disp)ute ¥^ as nonjusticiable because it was between the Special Prosecutor and the Chief }Executive and(l hence intraexecutive ' in character; it also rejected(l the contention that the ju(liciary was without author ity to rev iew an assertion of executive privilege by the Presi(lellt. The court s rejection of the first cl le] lenge M as base(l on s the authority and l(l powers vested in the Special)ecial Prosecutor t)y the regulation promul-(l by the Attorney General; the court conclu(le(l that a justiciable controversy was l)resente(l The second challenge was held(l to be foreclosed by the decision in Nixon •. Sirica, -—t-~ $ --t1)1) D. C' ——. 487 F. 2d /00 (1973). The I)istrict that the(ltllattllejuflicialy not the President, was the fi]~~~al arb,iter of a claim of executive)ri~~~~~~i lege. The court conclu(le(l that. under the circumstances of this case the presumptive)tixe l)ri~~~-ilege was overcome by the Spe)ecial Prosecutor's prima facie ''(lelnollstratioll of eed sufficiently compelli)ellillg to warrant ju(licial examination in chambers s .. .. ---- I'. Supp.)l).. at —-. T The court held](l. finally, that the Spec)eclal Prosecutor had(l satisfied the re(luirelll^ltts of Rule 1, (c). The l)istrict Court stayed its or(ler ;)eli di \(T ( I)})el'a.e review- 011 condition that review was sou,z,!~~~t before 4 1) 111.. May- )4 The (165) ~^St~fifi &- ,:>1>+— oPINTON UNITED STATES v NIXON' court further provided that matters filed under seall remain under seal when transmitted as part of the record. On May 94. 1974 the President filed a timely notice of appeal from the District Court order and the certified 8 record from the District Court was docketed in the United States Court of App)peals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On the same day the President also filed a petition for writ of man(lalllus in the Court of Appeals seeking review of the District Court order. Later on May 24 the SI)ecial Prosecutor also filed, in this Court. a l)etition for a writ of certiorari before judge ment. 011 May 31 the l)etition was granted with an expedited briefing schedule. U.S..,S -- (1074) ° June 6 the President filed. under seal. a cross-pe?etitio for writ of certiorari before judgement. This cross-petition was granted June la. 19,4. t. S. ( 1974), and the case was set for argument on July S! 1974 JURISDICTION' The threshold question presented(l is whether the May 20. 1974 or(ler of the District Court was an ap)l)ealable order and whether this case was l)rop)er]y "in ' 28 U. S. C M 1254. the United(l S:States Court of Appeals when the petition for certiorari was filed in this Court. (?eurt of .-& pl)eals jurisdiction under 28 1 . S. (. E 1991 encompasses only "final decisions of the district courts. Since the app)eal was timely filed and all other procedural requirements were met. th)e l)etition] is prop)erlx before this Court for consi(leratioll if the ])istrict Court order was final. B 1-. :i;. C . ji 1t'.)4 ( 1 ); ~~S tt. ,s. C. N '101 (e). The finality requirement of 98 t~ Ks C. E 1291 emb odies a strong congressional! !)olics a(rainst l)iecell)cal reviews and again)st ob)struelisl~~ or imp)e(l ing an) ongoing!]g ju(licial proceedin)gi~~!il)tell()cuLors ap)l)eals See e y., Cobble (166) - ,~~>1,66 R ~~~~194OPINIONf UNITED STATES NIXON v. United States, 3~~ l- S 323 324-326 (1(.)40) This requirement ordinarily promotes judicial efficiency and hastens the ultimate termination of litigation. III applying this principle to an order denying a motion to quash and requiring the r)rocluctioll of evidence pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. it has been repeate(lly held that the order is not final and hence not ap)pealable, United States ¥-. Ryan , 409 1-. S. 530 532(1971); Cobbledwk v. United States, 309 1- S 322 (1940); Alexander v. United States, '201 1,. S. 117 (1906), This Court has consistently held that the necessity for expedition in the administration] of the criminal law justifies 1)attillg one NV}lO seeks to resist the production of desired information to a choice between compliance with a trial court's or(ler to produce prior to any review of that order. and resistance to that order with the concomitant possib)i]ity of an a(judication of contempt)t if his claims are re,jected 011 app)eal.'' United States v lElJaal,405 U.S 530,ao3 (1971)o The requirement of submitting to contempt, how -ever. is not without excep)tion and ill some instances the r)urposes underlying the finality,> rule require a different result. For exampl)le. in Perl?Zee?, \. United States, )47 L'. S. 7 (1918), a subpoena had(j been directed to a third party requesting certain exhibits; the ap)l)ellalltn who ow ned t}le exhibits. sought to raise a claim of privilege, The Court hel(l an order compelling l)roduction was app)ealable because it ¥ as unlikel! that the third(l l)art~~ ¥ ould risk a C(llltC~~lll)t citation in order to allow immediate re- view of the ap)l)ellallt's claim of l)rir ilege,e. Jd., at 1'2-13, That case fell within the ' limited(l class of cases where denial of imme(liate review would(l render i]llltossil)le any review \\ hatsoever of an ind(lil'iCIUa.l'S claims." United! States \. Ryflrl. supra. at a':3~~ (167) 73-1766 73- 1834OPINION UNITED STATES v. NIXON Here too the traditional contempt avenue to Immediate appeal is peculiarly inappropriate due to the unique setting in which the question arises. To require a President of the United States place himself the)osture of disobeying an order of a court merely to trigger the procedural mechanism for review of the ruling would be unseemly, and present an unnecessary occasion for constitutional confrontation between two branches of the Government. Similarly. a federal judge should not be placed in the posture of issuing a citation to a President simply in order to invoke review. The issue whether a President can be cited for contempt could itself engen(ler protracted litigation. and would further delay both review on the merits of his claim of privilege and the ultimate termination of the underlying, criminal action for which his evidence is sought. These consi(ieratiolls lead us to conclude that the order of the District Court was an appealable order. The appeal from that order was therefore properly "ill" the Court of Appeals, and the case is now properly before this Court 011 the Writ of certiorari before judgement. 28 t. S;. C. g 1254; 28 U.. S. C. ¤ 9101 (e). Cay v. RUJJ, )92 A-. S. 2a. 30 (1934) 7 ~~1 i} I-STICI.RBlLITEt In the District Court. the President's counsel argued that the court la(kecl juris(lictioll to issue the subp)oella because the matter was an intra-branch dispute between a subordinate and superior officer of the Executive Branch and hence not sub,ieet to judicial resolution. The p.~~rties h:l~~-e suggested this Court has jurisdiction on other grounds. In view of our conclusion that there is jurisdiction under 'S 1' 8. C'. ¤1-).;4 (11 because the District Court's order was appealable)Ie, \ 4 need not decide \ wh.~~ther other juri.>dietiollal vehicles(s: are ble':lll.}lulF', (168) - 73-1)6fi & ~~SiS+- OPIXION UNITED STATES v NIXON That argument has been renew ed ill this Court with emphasis 011 the contention that the dispute does not .present.a "case" or 'controversy which can be adjudi cated in the federal courts. The President's counsel argues that the federal courts should not intrude into areas committed to the other branches of Government. He views the present dispute as essentially a "jurisdictional" dispute Within the Executive Branch which he analogizes to a dispute bets een two congressional com. mittees. Since the Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case. Confiscation Cases, 7 Tall. 454 1869), United States ¥. Cox, 342 F. 2d 167, 171 (CA5), cert,. denied, 381 C. S. 935 (' 196a), it is contended that a President's decision is final in determining what evidence is to be used ill a given criminal case. Although his counsel concedes the President has delegated certain specific powers to the S;1)ecial Prosecutor, he has not "\ aived nor delegated to the Special Prosecutor the President's duty to claim privilege as to all materials . . . which fall within the President's inherent authority to refuse to disclose to any executive officer." Brief for the President 47. The Special Prosecutor's demand for the items therefore presents. in the view of the President's counsel, a political question under Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1969), since it involves a "textually demonstrable" grant of l)oner und(ier ,-\rt. II The mere assertion of a claim of al] int,ra-branch dispute without more, has never operated to defeat federal jurisdiction; justifiability does not depend on such a surface inquiry III Un??ited States v. ICC-, 337 t'. S. 426 (1949), the Court observed. "courts must look behind names that symbolize the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controv is Sal is l)resellted.' Id.. at 4.',0. See also: Powell \. ~~I/(.C/ )rt~~;ae1;~~ 395-? 1'. ,8. 486 (1969); ICC' V. Jersey City, 392 1-. S. 503 (1914); United States ( 169) - 73-,66 &- ,~~'lli—oPIf10N' UNITED STATES v. NIXON ex rel Chapman v. FPC, 34a U. S. 153 1953); Secretary of Agriculture v. United States, 347 12-. S. 645 1954); FMB v. IsSrandstetl Co., 356 U. S. 481, 482 n. 2 (1958); United States v. Marine Bank Corp., U. S. (1974), and United states v. Connecticut National Bank, U. S. (1974)o Our starting point is the nature of the proceeding for which the evidence is sought—here a pending crim inal prosecution. It is a judicial proceeding ill a federal court alleging violation of federal laws and is brought in the name of the United States as sovereign. Berger v. United States, 295 ILL. S. 78. 88 (193a). Under the authority of Art. II, N 2. Congress has vested in the Attorney General the power to conduct the criminal litigation of the l'nitecl States Goverllmellt. 28 A'. S. C. ¤ 516. It has also vested in him the power to appoint subordinate officers to assist him ill the discharge of his duties. 98 15. S. C. aN 509). 510, ala, 533. Acting pursuant to those statutes, the Attor] SThe regulation issued by the Attorney General pursuant to his statutory authority, vests in the Special Prosecutor plenary authority to control the course of investigations and litigation related to ' all offenses arising out of the 19,2 Presidential Election for which the Special Prosecutor deems it neeessary and appropriate to assume responsibility allegations involving the President. members of the White House staff. or Presi(lentia] ap)point(;e~~:s! and any other matters which he consents to have l.>s!gne(t to him by the Attorney General." IS Fed, Ileg. 30739, as amended by 38 Fed, Ileg. 32805. In p:lrtlcu lar,_the Special Prosecutor was given full authority!, inter alia, 'to contest the assertion of i'executive Privilege' . ., and handle[e] all aspects of any cases wihtin his jurisdiction," Ibid. The regulations then go 011 to provide "In exercising this authority. the Special Prosecutor will have the greatest degree of indepen)dellee t h:lt is consist en t with t he At Attorney General's statutory tI(~~eount.lllilits- for all matters falling the (170) - I0 ~~3-1,66ck {>1936—OPIN- ION UNITED ST.STATES t}. NIXON'': Special Prosecutor exl)lieit power to contest the invoca of executive priv ilege in the process of seeking evidence deemed relevant to the performance of these specially delegated duties.'" 38 Fed. Reg. 30739. jurisdiction of the Dep)altment of Justice. The Attorney General will not coutermand or interfere with the Special Proseeutor's de or actions. The Sp)eei:tl Prosecutor will determine whether and to what extent he will inform or consult with the Attorney General about the conduct of his duties and responsibilities. In accordanee with assur. nces given by the President to the Attorney General that the President will not exercise his Constitutional powers to effect the discharge of the Sp)ecial Prosecutor or to limit the independence he i.< hereby)!- given. the Sp)eei.~~ Prosecutor will not be removed from his duties except for extraordinary improp)rieties on his part and without the President's first consulting the Majority and Minority! Leaders and Chairnman and ranking Minority Members of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and ascertaining that their consensus is ill aaccord with his prop)se(l action." 9 That this was the und(lerstancling of Acting Attorney C eneral Robert Bork;. the author of the regulations establishing the in(let)enclenee of the Special Pro.>ecutor, is shown by his testimon! before the Senate Judieiar!- Committee "Although it is anticip:lted that Mr. Jaworski will receive cooperation from the White House in getting any evi(lenee he feels he needs to conduct inve.>tigatiolls and prosecutions, it is clear and und(lerstood 011 all sides that he has the power to use judicial processes to pursue evidence if disagreement)t should(i deve]op." Hearings before the Sen:l?e Judiciary;~~ry Committee 011 the Sp)eeial Prosecutor, 9:3d Cona.. 1st Sess., pt. 2, at 4,0 (19,:3), Acting At. torney General Bor}i gave similar assurances to the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice(. Hearings before the House Jud(li(i.lry Subcommittee on Criminal Justice on H. H.J. Ites. IS4 and H. I?', 109:3,, 9:3d Cong,, 1st Sess. 266 1973:s), At his confirmation hearings! Attornev General \\'illialla Saxbe l that he shared(l Acting Attorney General Bork's'- views concerning the Sp)eci:ll Prosecutor's authority to test any claim of executive-( privilege in the courts. Hearings before the Senate Ju(liviolr! Committee on the nomination of William B. Saxbe to be Attorney General, 9:3d Cong., Ist S(ss. 9 (19,3). (171) 7>1/fiG & ..F1FT-OPINION ._ UNITED v NIXON So long as this regulation IS extant it has the force of law. In Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260 ( 1903), regulations of the Attorney General delegated certain of his discretionary powers to the Board of Immigration Appeals and required that Board to exer cise its own discretion 011 appeals in deportation cases. The Court held that so long as the Attorney General's regulations remained operative he. denied himself the authority to exercise the discretion delegated to the Board even though the original authority was his and he could reassert it by amending the regulations. Service v. Dulles, 354 U. S. 363. 388 ( 1907) . and Vitarelli v. Seaton, 3091-. S. 030 (1909), reaffirmed the basic holding of Accardi. Here, as ill Accardi, it is theoretically possible for the Attorney General to amend or revoke the regulation de fining the Special Prosecutor's authority. But, he has not done so.'' So long as this regulation remains in force the Executive Branch}l is bound be it. and in(leed the United States as the sovereign composed of the three branches is bound to respect and to enforce it. Moreover, the delegation of authority to the Special Prosecutor ill this case is slot an ordinary delegation by the Attorney General to) a subordinate officer: ¥ with the authorization of the President. the Acting Attorney General provided ill the regulation that the Special Prosecutor was not to be removed without the "consensus" of eight designated leaders of Congress. Note 8. supra. ,: 14 At his confirmation ion hear rings At t orne!- Gene)er;ll William Sa xbe testified that he agreed with the regul:ttiolls adopted by Acting Attorney General Bork and ¥ uld not remove the S:peeial Prosecutor except for 'gross impropriety" Hearings. Senate Ju(lieilr! Com mittee on the nomination of William:,lll B. S:~~xl)e to he Attorney General, 9:,d Cong.. 1st St--.. of;, sulk (19,3). There is no eon_ tention here that the Speci:tl Prosecutor(lr is guilty of any such i!nproprietvX (172) - 19 73-1766 &- 1834-OPINION UNITED STATES v. NIXON The demands of and the resistance to the subpoena present an obvious controversy in the ordinary sense, but that alone is not sufficient to meet constitutional standards. In the constitutional sense! controversy means more than disagreement and conflict; rather it means the kind of controversy courts traditionally resolve. Here at issue is the production or nonproduction of specified evidence deemed by the Special Prosecutor to be relevant and admissible in a pending criminal ease. It is sought by one official of the Government Within the scope of his express authority; it is resisted by the Chief Executive 011 the ground of his duty to preserve the confidentiality of the conficommunications of the President. Whatever the correct answer on the merits, these issues arc "of a type which are tra(litiollally justiciable United States v. ICC, 3.,/ 1'. S.. at 430. The independent Special Prosecutor with his asserted need for the subpoenaed material in the underlying criminal prosecution is opp)ose(l by the President with his steadfast assertion of privilege against disclosure of the material. This setting assures there is "that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon] wh}liC]I the court so largely dep)encls for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 L'. S., at 204. Moreover. since the matter is one arising ill the regular course of a feder al criminal pr osecution. it is within the traditional scope of Art. TII power. Id., at 198. In light of the uniqueness of the setting ill which the conflict arises. the fact that both parties are officers of the Executive Branch cannot be viewed:i as a barrier to justiciability. It would he inconsistent with the applicable law and regulation. and the unique facts of this case to conclude other than that the Special Prosecutor has sta!l(lint, to l)rii.~~ th'!iS acti(~~ll an(l that a justiciable controversy is presented for decisions (173) 73-1766; & .tt1 UNITED STATES V. NIXON III RULE 17 (c) 12 The subpoena duces tecum is challenged on the ground that the Special Prosecutor failed to satisfy the requirements of Fecl. Rule Crim. Proc. 17 (c), which governs the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum in federal crim proceedings. If we sustained this challenge. there u ould be no occasion to reach the claim of privilege asserted with respect to the subpoenaed material. Thus we turn to the question whether the requirements of Rule 17 (c) have been satisfied. See jrF:~~~rnsn.s-Louisi(ll?a GQS Co. v. Dept of Public E tilities, 304 IT. S. 61, 64 1938); Ash?t~~~a~~~tder v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 346347 (1936). (Brandeis. J., collcurrillg.) Rule 17 (c) provicles: ".N subpoella lolay also comllland the persoll to svholu it is ¥lirecled to produce the books, lval)ers, doculnents or other ol)jects designated tllerei~~~l. The court on lllOtiOIl lloade ltrolJlptly Illay quash or nlodify the sul)oella if colnl)liance xvould be unreasollable or ol~~~pressize. Tlle court may direct that books, lgallers. doculnel~~~ts or objects clesigllated in the sublsoelea he lzroduce(l before the court at a tillle prior to tlle trial or prior to the time when they are to be offered ill evidence and may upon] their l)production l)erlllit the books. pap)ers. documents or objects f)r ~~~)oltions thereof to l)e inspected by the parties and their attorneys." .4 subpoena for documents may l)e quashed if their l)ro duction would(l be unreasonable or oppressive, but not otherwise. The lea(liut case in this Court interpreting, this standard is 801Z'S,?r!/1 Dairy/ Co.. v. {.'/ltted St(rtes, 341 IT. S;. 514 (1950). This case recognized certain funda mental characteristics of' the subp)oena duces tecusn in} (174) :>1/ofie~~-.>1C3s- CbPINI35 I,UNITED STATES t}. NIXON criminal cases: (1) it was not intended to l)rovide ¤ means of discovery) for criminal cases. Id., at 220; (2) its c}lief innovation was to exp)edite the trial by pro xit'iing a time and place place before trial for the inspection of subpoenaed materials." Ibid. As both parties agree! cases deci(led in the ¥ wake of Bowman rtza~~? have generally followed Judge M~eillfekl's formulation in United States v. Iozi(-, 13 F. R. D. 335. 338 i,9DA-Y 1952)), as to the require(l showing. Under this test, in order to require l)rocltletiola I)rior to trial, the moving ~~:iarty must shos: (1) that tlae (locumellts ate evidelltiarR7~~ 12 alld releral~~t; (9) tlwat tlaey are llot jtherr ise lrrocurable reasonably in aclvanee of trial by exercise of (lue dili- 11 The C'onrt quotecl QI statement of a n3ember of tlle a(7.~~ isory eolllmittee that tlle pttrl)ose of the Rule ~~-as to bring doellmellts into eouli ''111 adval3ee of the tlnle t.3lat they are 03'ferecl in exidence, so th.lt the!- may then be inspeeted in aclva]!ee, for the ptlrl)ose . . . of enoblillg the p:lrty to see ¥ hether he eall use [theml or ¥vhether lle aX ant-< to nse rthem] ." :,41 1'. i;., at 220 n. 5. The Alatlual for Complex nnd AInlti-distrlet Litigation ptll)liSlled hy the Xdministra tire Ofiee of the l'n!ted if at(< Courts reeommendE that Rule 1~~ (e) be et)eouraged In esomplex erimin;~~I eases ill order tllat eaeh pilrty IlI:ly be compelled to produee its cio(umentary exidenee ¥ ell 111 ad- +-anee of trial and il3 advanee of tlue timc it i.R to be offered P. 14'9, CC'H Ec'i '2 The Distrlet Court fmlnc'i here thtlt it svas faeed NVjtil tbe nlore tllllwsllal situatloll . . evl:. rc the sul)poen;l, rather tluan being dl- rected to the goverllment by the defen(lants. isslle.> to xvhat, as a proletieoll mattesr. ls tI tlllrd laarr!.'' ('I,ited.State.s \. .llitchell.— F. Supp —(D. C. 19.4) ]'lle Speeial l'rosecutor suggests that the e~~-ldenti,lr!- re~~!lliremellt of Bates/>(ta L)al!y ('o. Ind lozia cloes ~~~~ot Wil)t)ly in its t'uli ligor ¥shtal the vublsoell;l duFes teeU7tl iS IsEUed to thircl pflrtles rather tlaall to govebrlllllellt prr)seelltors. 13rief for tllc l~mtea' Ztates l-2v1''i \R'e need not deelde ¥ betller a losser staindald exists beeallse ne are satisfied th.lt the relevallee and cvldelltiar!- n:ltllrc 01' the Eu!!poellae(i t;lpes ¥ ere suf3rt(ientl! shos-ll tlS a plelimin.lry matt(; o ¥ arrant the Distrlet Coult'- refusal to rluasl] tlll .>ule3)~~l;~~l3:^ ( 175) t :: :; ; ,3-1,fi/, UNITED ST.STATES v. NIXON 13 gence, (3) that the party cannot y)rol)erly l)rel)are for trial without such pro(1tletioll and inspection in advance of trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; (4) that the application is ma(le in good faith and is not intended(l as a general "fishing exp)eclitioll.' Against this background. the Sp)ecial Prosecutor, in order to carry his bur{lel<. must clear three hurdles: (I) relevancy; 1'9') admissibility; (3) specificity. Our own review of the record necessarily affords a less comprehensive view of the total situation than was available to the trial judge and we are unwilling to conclude that the District Court erred(l in the evaluation of the Sp)eeial Prosecutor's show ing under Rule 1, (c). Our conclusion is based on the record i)efore us. much of which is un(lel seal C)f course. the contents of the subpoenaed(l tap)es could not at that stage he describ)ecl fully by the Sp)ecial Prosecutor, but there was a sufficient likelihood that each of the tap)es contains e(conversations relevant to the offenses charged in the in(lirtlllellt. Un)lited States ¥. Gross _4 F. 1{. r). 138 ( >;1):N'\- 1959 ) . With resp)ect to many of the tap,0es. the Spe)eeial Prosecutor offered the sworn testimony) or statements of one or more of the l)articil)allts in the conversations!F as to what was said at the time. .- s for the remainder of the tap)es, the identity of t}lC l)articil)atlts and the time and(l place of the convers sations. taken IU their total con)text,, I)ermit a rational ference that at. Ieast l)art of the conversations relate to the offenses charged ill the in,(lietlllellt; We also conc lude there was a sufficient] l)reliillillary showing that each of' the subp)oella^(l tap)es contains evi- dence a(Illlissilvle with resp)eet to the offenses charged i the indictment. The most cogent ob),iection to the a(I missibility- of the taped conversations here at issue is tha they are a collection of c)tlE-~~I,:--eourt statements by decla. (176) 16 73-1766 & 7>1,'334 OPINION UNITED STATES v. NIXON' ants who ¥ ill not be subject to cross-examination and that the statements are therefore inadmissible hearsay Here, however, most of the tapes ap)l)arently contain conversations to which one or more of the defen(lallts named in the indictment were l)arty. T,he hearsay rule does not automatically bar all out-of-court statements by a defendant ill a criminal ease." Declarations by one defendant may also be admissible)le against other defendants upon a sufficient showing. by independent evi(lence." of a conspiracy among,ia~~ one or more other defendants and the declarant, and if the declarations at issue were in furtherance of that conspiracy. The same is true of declarations of coconspirators who are not defe,^.z(lallts in t)le case 011 trial. Dutton v. Ev!a)~~s, 400 C'. ,9. 74, 81 ( 1970). Recorded conversations may also be a(admissible for the lim- ited purpose of imp)eaehil]g the credibility, of any defendant wh}lO testifies or any other conspirator,irator who testifies. Generally, the need,, for ev idence to impeach witnesses is insufficient to require its pro(luf. tion in a(ls ance of trial. 3 Such statements are dec larations b! :1 party defendant,:lltt that:tt ' would surmount all O})if etll!llt based on the} hearsay! rule . . ." and, at least as to the decl:lr.lnt himself would he admissible for whatever inferences" might he re:lRoll:lbly dr:t\vll. United States \. Mat,',—1'. S.— 1974'?#4v On I,ee \. I-\elteff States. :;4:9 1-. 3. (47, {5. (1953). See also McCormick; ou Evidence,(e. ¤ 2#0, at 651-652 (19, ,51 ). 14 As :1 preliminary:lry m;~~tter, there mus t be subst)St tantial. independent(lellt evidence of the consp)il;t~~*!* at least t enough to t:ll;e the quest(~~stiOn to the jury. l'~~l7tell States \. I'f7gffffit. ),S5 F. 2d :,21). ;)2:i (CA4 1973:s), C United States \ I,ta,!,t(,, ;449 7,95. ¥2ti 'tl. 41-4' (CAli 19'i.;), ;,ff'd Otl otller gf'O!I!I(I', :f>.; r s. ~~te, 4 llf;li): {')~~itef/ st,,t,.~~ \, Ei,,/ ,ft,~~. JiS.; }' 2d 4:;, 45 (('Av lI(i, ). {ett . df li](wi, ~~010 1 . S. 9.;4 (19(iR): C trite(l States v. .ll/*rto~~@, 4s:, 1 _',1 .;,:,. .;,t3 I(>AS 19,:i); [ttitefl.i'tates \. Spate9.s. 4fi2 1 2f] 1012. ]XlI't ic-~~s 1'1.2): ('a/f'7a \. I ttite(l (itates, 314 1E' ''d ,I,R, ,:;, (CA1 1@lfss1 rert. d(':]l('d. Si,,' T-. S. 95:s (lt.Hi4). XVhetller ¥11S~~ St:ll](l;tl{l h:l.~~ 1~~"~~-11 s.ltlFfie(i js a qlleFvJoll #)f a(lmls.-llullitv Sf evidelle.e to i!e ,I,, id..cl l.sv tlle trl.)i jll(l~~~~e (177) - 73-l,fi6 ,& 7>1S.3~PTS'ION lirA;-ITEI:} ST.NTEC t- N-IXONr 1f See. e. S., ['sllted States \-. C'arter, 10 F. R.. D. 367. 371 (D. r). c~. 19.;4). Here~ hol ever. there are other valid y)otential er i(lentiary uses for the sarme material an{l the analxsis antl possible transeriptiol] of the tal~es may take a significallt l)eriorl of tillle. Accordilogly, Xve callnot sar that tlle Distriet Court erred in authorizing the issuallce of the sublsoe!la duces tecussl. El3forcelnellt of a l)retrial sut)l)c)ella duces tetv.trl lnust necessarily be eoinllwitte(l to the soun(l discretioll of the trial eotlrt sinee t,he necessitx for tl;e stlbl)oella tnost oftelj turns upon a. (leternlillatioll of factual issucs. t0'ithout a fleterlnillatioll of arllitrarilless or that tlle trial COUlt find;I)g zzas ~zitllout reeor(l sulrl)ort. an alzpellate cotlrt ¥\-ill IlOt or(linarily (listurb a finelitl~~ tllat tlle ap]zlieallt for a subl?oella colnlllie(l ssith Rule l~ /e). See, e. g., Sue ¥. ~,'t1('tl2O Tr~slsit .- luCS7.oritly, 919 F. 5(1 4]G, 419 (CA7 1'.t160); Sl79tAi~8 v. .\ elSO)1, 146 Y. 9(1 409 ( (..-\1.0 1944). In a case sueh as this. Iloxse~~er. xvllere a subl)oena is tlirectecl to a Plesi(lellt of tlle L'nite~ ]3f}11'!R/(/tl 1),1,,,, ( ,,,, x,;/,,r.,,, / tlitz rl .itot(.s \', //)^it1. Sl~i)raÇ ( 178) - 7>1766 & 72-i~~PTS'fOf ~8 UN'ITED STATB ¥J. NIXON IV THE CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE A Having determined that the requirements of Rule 17 (c) xvere satisfied. eve turn to the claim that the suh3poena should be quashed because it delnands "confi(lelltial conversations betneen a President and his close advisors that it svould be inconsistent With the public interest to produce.!' App. 48a. The first contention is a broad claim that the separation of pozvers doctrine precludes judicial review of a Presidellt's claim of r3ri~~ilege. The second contention is that if he does not prevail on the elaim of absolute privileges the court should hokl as a matter of constitutional lanv that the privilege prevails over the subpoena duces tecu)Re. Ill the 13erfornlance of assigned constitutional duties each branch of the Govern3llellt nlust initially interpret the Constitutions and the interpretation of its ponvers by ally branch is clue great respect from the others. The President's counsel. as 5.ve have noted. reads the ConstitutiOII as providing an absolute privilege of confidentiality for all presidential eonllllullications. WIany decisions o this Coult, however hate unequivocally reaffirmed the holding of Jllarbur7r v. Madison, 1 Crancll 137 ( lS03), that "It is eml)hatieaTiy the r3rovincta and duty of the ju(licial department to sax What the laxv is." Id., at 17@. iSo holding of the Court has ciefiue(l the scope of judicial poster slrecificall,v relating to the enforcement of a subpoena for confidelltial lrresi(3ential colnlnunicatiolls for use in a criltli1lal 13rosecutien, hllt other exercises of ran ers by the Executive Branch anA the Legislative Branch have been found invalid as in conflict With the Constitution Powell v. .lIcC''01trva(e;, sllpra; )'(3u~~gstolesl. sllpra. III X series of cases, tile ('t.!urt iltter;3leterl the ex!)iicit ilnlllq- (179) - 7>1766 & 7>1834 OPINION EXITED STATES v. NIXONt 19 nity conferred by express provisions of the Constitution on Members of the House ally Senate by the Speech or Debate Clause, l'. S. Const, Sort. I, N 6. Doe v. McMillan, 412 U. S. 306 (19,.3); Gravel ¥. habited states, 408 U. S. 606 (1973); l'ri~ited States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501 ( 1972); United States v. Johy1so~^, 383 U. S. 169 (1966). since this Court has consistently exercised the pou er to construe and delineate clailns arising Alder express poxvers, it must folloul that the Court has authority to interpret claillls Keith respect to posers alleged to derive.from enulllelated pot ers. Our system of goverlltIlellt "requires that federal courts 011 occasion interpret the Const,itutSoll ill a manner at variance With the construction given the document by another branch." Powell v. .lIcCIorwtzac/s, supra, 049. And in Baker v. C'arr, 3G9 t. S., at 211! the Court stated ¥ "Ed]ecidilag whether a clatter has in any measure been comlllitte(l by the Constitution to another branch of govellllllellt, or ulletller the action of that branch exceeds ¥ llatever authority has been COtllmitted, is itself fl delicate exercise ill constitutional interpretation and is a resljollsibility of this Court as ultimate i3lterlareter of the CAollstitUtionc Notlvithstandillg the deference each branch lllUSt accord the others, the 'ijuciieiai poll er of the United States@! vested in the federal CO;lltS b) Art. III, g 1 of the ConStitUtiOIl can no Galore be shared \ ith the F,xecutisre Branch than the Chief Executir e, for exalnlzle, can share Wit}l the Judiclalx the ¥eto pouer, or tfie Congress share with the Judiciary the l)o~~er to ovelride a presi(lelltial veto Any othel conclusion \\ ould be contrary to the basic coljeept of sel!aratioll of pollers and the eilecks anti I)alallces that flou fr~)!li the sehell~e of a tripal tite governnJellt false Feclelalist No. A.. 1) 313 ((-M. F. Mitten ecu l',)38). \l'e therefore re.lffir.t2s that it is 'enl!)h.lticallv (180) - 20 ,>1766 * 7>193~PIN-ION' UN-ITED 3T.NTES 2w. ~'IXON tlle l)rovince antl tlle (I.,ts" of this ('ourt "to sa~~ ~shat the lat- is'' \\ ith resl)ect to the clainl of l)ris ilege l)resente(t in this case. .lIariry v. .lladisoll, sul)ra, at 177. B In stll)l)ort of his elainl of al)solute l)rivilege, the I'resident's counsel ureres tlvo groullds one of lvhich is comrnon' to all governments an(l one of \\ hieh is l)eculiar to our system of sel)aratioll of 1)0Xx ers. The first fJroullrl is the valifl Ilee(l for l)l()t(^etioll ttf e<~tlllllullications hetsveen high goverllnlent olElcials an(l tilose \\ ho a(lvise an(l assist thelll in t-Ile l)erfo:lllallce of their lllallifold rluties; the lmI,ortallce of t]liS etjllfit!entialit~. is too l)lail; to re exl)erience teaches tllat tllose ~sllo exl)eet lJublic flisstAlnillation of theil reJllarks ma~~ ~sell temper caltclor %'itll a eonrern for a.p> Xrearances and for tlleir OVVI1 intelests to ttle (letrilnellt of tlle decisionlnal;in(r l)ro({>ss~l) \R'hiltever tlle nature tJf tlle privi lege of confi(lentialitv of l)residential comrnutli(~ations in the exereise of .\rt. Tl rto~sels the prix-ilegt) ca,ll be said to tlerive from tlle sul)rellla(sx ()f (ach 13rallell szithi,, its pl\'ll assiglle(l ar(>a ¥)f el)nstitlltitJllal (luties. Certain o~s-ers all(l lBlivileees Hozv frolls the llatllre of enutllelated l)oxvers; thi the l)roteetioll of tlle collfi(lelltialit~! of 'tEi'll.rt ls ltoil)il~X- ~,,,~-t1 :,1)r,1ll jrt)\lxlilllItlt;ll (ollfillflltl:tlll!. ¥1'1, nletti'lgs of tile' t-(lll'titl;tioll:ll (()tl~(lltiotl ill IxSa \s#\1(t ,olltlli(t((l in eolni)let~~ pri~:l(! I l:lrr:lll.l. [lse P((otxl- {}t' th~ 11'f~<1erit1 (8f111~elltion of l,S,, Xl-XX\' t19111 :\loret)X(+r. :,11 relor(ls ot tllo.^ie me(tiJIgs ~z(re seatl(zl t'()r mort tllotll :;() !'l':(l'S ;(tt('l' tlle C'ons-el~tlOII. S5' :S 1'. ,S, St:tt. At 1.:,,~r,~. liStil ('ots~r. Ist 8('S.-., R(s. S (I ~~iTIIt Sl)eeiall }'lo^;.lllor :~r~rlles tl::lt thel*~ is no ptOR-isi()l] ill the Constitlltiott t'or ;1 I)re-ifi^1lti:l1 p!'i''il('g( ;t? to hi.i eommllllie:~tioll~s correspon(lillg to tht pl-}X-ileg( o.' Alel:lletrs (It' (,'ollgress Illl(itr the . (181) - ¥->1,66 .t ,.3-183~1'IN-ION UN-ITED ST&TkS t. L'ISON- ~i presidential comlllullications has silllilar collstitutional tnderlrillnillgs. The secollel groulld assertecl bl the Presiclellt's coullsel 111 supl)ort of the clainl of absolute lrrivilege rests oll thc doctrine of sel)aratioll of lrolvers. Here it is argued that the ill(lel)endellce of the Executive Brallch xvithin its oxvn tphere, Hulrlphrey s Exccator v. [S s7ited States, 29D 1o'. S. 602. 625)-630; Kilbourtl v. 7'/10tS1pSOtl, 1031'. S. 168. 19> 191 (18SO). illsulates a l)resi(lellt froll} a juclicial sublDoelea in all ollgoing crilnilla1 prosecution,alld thereby protUctg eol~fidelltial l)resi(lelitial colnillullicatic)lls. Hoss-ever, lleither t}le (loctrine of s¢1~aratiotl of po~zeig~ nor the lleed for confi( el~ti21it) of higll level co]llnlunicatiOllS, lVitttlOUt more, ca~; sustaill ail al)solute, unqualifiecl presidelltial privileCe of ilnlllunit) froln judicial process ullder all circulllstalices. Tl~e Precicleist's neecl for COIII~ nlete cal<(lor and ob,iertivit,,~ frolll a(lvisers calls for great deferellce froln the courts. Hc~\.-ever, ~~hell the privilege del~ellcls solely 011 tlle bro3d. u IciifTerelltiated clailll of pub]ic interest in the cotlfidelit.ality of silch collvcrsatiolls, a collfrolltatioll EVitlI otller values arises. -\bsellt 0 a claim of llee(l to !~rotect tnilitar>, rlilaloillatic or sellsitive natiollal security secrete, ¥ve fincl it difficult to accel)t the argulllellt that evell tlle very itnpoltallt illterest ill collfi(lentialit) of l)resi(!r~~tial CO:l!i~lUl'iCntiOI~S iS si,fyl~i~.calltly dilllinished by l)rocluctioll of sucll l)laterial for ist ces/~era insl)cotioll XVitll all tlle lrrotecticll t!lat a clistrict collrt xvill be olDliged to lzrovifle. Speeela or Deb.lte Cl2itlse. Btlt tlle silenee of tlEe ConEtittltinli on this seore is llot clisl)oyi.i~-e Tlle rllle of eonstill!tlonnl interl)retatioll :lnllovllleed ill .lleCulitse1) \. .lle. ;/ .tatte1. 4 \N'lle~~t. ,1G, tllat tllat zvllielx Xvas retsorl.llr!; .Il!prol)riftte rli)d rele;.~nt to tlle exereise of a gr~~nteti ponver SV;lS eollsiclere(l :1F ae?er:?llnnrillg tlle yr.ln,, Il.ls been so IllliverF,lli! $1;~,)11, rl til:lt jt y; ,fr~f~4s mercl~- to bt:tte jt,' sllstrbfeall \. G<~rl/(>>t. 2tI:) L'. S. .;21, .;:J. (191,8. i (182) ~2 7SI,GG & ,~l.<~PINION ITS'ITED STNTU tw. NINON The iml)edilllellt that all absolute, unqualifie(l privilege xvould place ill the ¥vay of the primary collstitutiollal cluty of the Juclicial Brallch to do justice ill crin illal l)rosecutiOIlS xvould plai~~ly collflict ¥ ith tlle functioll of the eourts under Art. III. In designillg the strueture of our Government ancl dividing alld allocating the sovereign oxver aIIIOllg three coequal brallches, the Framers of the Collstitutiol] sought to larovi(le a conz~)rehellsive svsten, but the selearate polvers were not ilutcllded to ol)erate .^ith absolute in(lelJendellce. "\Shile the Constitution cliffuses lsovver the better to secure liberty. it also colltclnplates that lzractice ¥ ill integrate the dispersed posscrs illtO a s-orkal)le govern7llent. It CllejOillS Ul)Oll itS branclles se~)arateness but interdel)ellclence, autonomv but recil)rocity." )toule.ystoun aC12eet a Tvbe Co. v. Samyer, 343 U. S. 579. 63o (19a'9) (Jaeksol<. J.. conctllling). To read the Art. II potvers of the Presi(lellt as l)roviding an absolute privilebe as against a sublroena essential to enforcelllent of erinzillal statutes on 110 nlore thall a genera]izecl claim of the pub]ic illterest ill confidentiality of nonllwilitary alld noll(lilllolllatic dlseussiolls rvoulel upset the constitutiollal balallce of 'a ¥vorkable goverlllnent" and gravely impair the rolc of the courts ullder Art. III. c sillce ~N-e collelude tllat the le^~itizzlate iieeds of the ,ju(licial process lleav outrv-eigh lzresicielltial l)rivilege, it is necessary to resols-e those coml)etillg illt.erests ill a Inallile'r~thlat lJreserxes the e.csential fUllCtiOllS of each l)ral3ch, The right and indeed the duty to reso]ve tllat question does not free the judici.lrv frotIl aecorelil (183) 721766 .t . vIs3S0tt~tros IlA'ITED 3T.&TE3 v N-IXON- 93 The exl)ectatioll of a Presi(lent to the confidelltiality of his conversatiolls allcl correslzon(lellce. like the claim of confidelltiality of juclicial eleliberatiolls. for exanlple. has all the values to svhich ¥ve accorcl deferellce for the lJrivacy of all citizens and adeled to those values the necessity for protectioll of tlle lzublic interest in ealldid. objective, and even blunt or harsh OpilliOllS ill presiclential decisiollmaking. A President anc' those ¥vllo assist hinl nlust be free to exl)lore alterllatixes in the lrrocess of shapillg olicies and maliillg (lecisions alad to do so ill a svay many would be Ull\Villillg to exlDress excel)t l)rivately. Tllese are the collsideratiolls jUStifVillg a presullll)tive lrrivilege for presidelltial colnlllullicatiolls. The lzrivilege is fUIldamelltal to tlle ol)eration of gox erllnlellt all(l inextricably rootecl in the separation of poxvers ullder the Collstitution.'T In .\'iXOPI V. Sirit n, — 1v'. S. Alzlr. D. ~r. , 487 F. 2d 700 (1973), the C'ourt of .tlrpea]s held that such presiclential cotlllllullicatiolls are ''I)resumlztir ely privileged,!' id., at 71i. ancl this lsositioll is accel)tecl l~v both parties ill tlle lrrese1l t litiC,ation. ll'e agree xvitl-} Mr. Chief Justice LIarshal]'s observatioll. therefore. that "ill 110 case of this kind xvould a court be required to proceecl against the Presi(lellt as against all ordillary illdividua]." l,-R1ited St(ltes v. Burr, 9.; Fe,l. Cas. 1S7, 191 (Xo. 14.694) ( ccn \'a. 190, ), But this lrresullltatise l)rivile,,e IllUSt F)e consiclered ill light of our historic colllmitnlellt to tlae rule of lalv. Thi8 ' 'Free(lom ol' eonlnlltllie;ltion \ ital to flllfilhnent of ts 11ole-ollle relationsllil),s is el)t;line(l onl5- I,t r(^moxlll~ tlle p(cter of eoml)elled diselostne . . . ['C;]o~(rnn~(nt . . need- open I.tlt protecte(l eholllllelfor tlle l;in(l of p1;}s1} s.~ll; th:,~ l- evsenti;ll to the qtl:llit! of its functionillg~@ C',z,l ZP;SS ettftt,~.y \. 1'. i. B. Carl Z(SSUE Jfdlea. 40 F. 1t. D. :,1.8. Si25 11). C'. 19ii¢;). <(e .N'ires/a \. .silina,—1'. S. App, TA. C. -—, —- 4S, F. 2d ,(K). ,1:w (19,:,!. hai.scr .llu11sinum .e Che1~ Colt). \. ('lRttezi staten, 15, F. :i;,,pp. 9:5!) (C't, C'l. I9i,5) (ZJer R('(ils .i ) . 'I'lle l ederil!lvt ,N'(l ii4 (S; F. .Allltel {ri 19;;91. (184) - 7>1766 & ~-SI8.34 OPINION- 24 UNUSED STARTS v. NIXON is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that "the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer." Beryer v. United States, 995 1'. S. 78. 88 (193a). We have elected to employ all adversary svstem of criminal justice its which the parties contest all issues before a court of lanv. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary sys- teln is both fundamental and comprehensive. The elks of criminal justice ¥soukl be defeated if judgments lvere to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confi(lence ill the svstenl clel)elld on full disclosure of all the facls~ Within the frallle~s,+rk of the rules of evil dence. To ensure that justice is dolle. it is imperative to the function of courts that colnl)ulsory process be avail- able for the production of evidence needed either by the rosecution or be the defense. Only recently the Court restated the ancient propo- SitiOll of lass-. albeit ill the context of a grand jury inquiry rather than a trial. " 't}lat the public . . . has a right to every nlall's evidence except for those persons protected by a constitutionals eolnnloll law, or statutory privilege, United States v. BrxJat1, 335) 1'. S.. at 331 (1949); Bla.cko1f r v. knifed Stifles, 28;4 U. S. 421, 438; Bratlzbur:7 v. ['sited states, 408 If. S. GG5, 6SS (1973)." The privileges referred to by the C'ourt are designed to protect n-eigl~t,y and legitimate eoonll~eting interests. Thus, the Fifth .Rmell(llllent to the Constitution larovi(les that no mall ' shall be eonll)ellecl ill any crilninal case to be a witness against llilnself.'' .\,,f1, genel.llly. an attorney or a priest mav not be require(l to dis- close nllat has been resealed ill professional confi(lellce, These and other interests are reco¢~,nize(l ill lalv by l)rivi- (185) 7>t,66 &- .3-ls3~PINtIONt - ITS-ITED ST\Tk'S t,, S7ISON' 2s leges against forced disclosure established ill the Collstitutioll, by statute. or at eomlllon laxv. \R'hatever their origins, these exceptions to the demand for every man's evidence are not lightly created nor expansively COIIstrued, for they are in derogation of the search for truths In this case the President challenges a subpoena served on him as a third partv requiring the production of materials for use in a criminal prosecution 011 the claim that he has a privilege against disclosure of confi(lential communications. He does IlOt plaee 'iliS claim of privilege on the ground they are military -or diplomatic secrets. As to these areas of .Art. II duties the courts have traditiollally shorvn the UtlllOSt deference to Residential responsibilities. Ill C. ct S. Air Li11es ¥. TT'aterma.t Steamship Corp., 3.331'. S. 103, 111 (1918), dealing \ itl aresidential authoritv involr illt, foreign Frolics considers tions, t.he Court said: "The Presidellt. both as Colnmalleler-ill-Cllief and as the Natioll's organ for foreign affairs! has available illtelligeluce services chose reports are not and ought not to be l)ublislled to the svorltrl, It Would be intolerable tllat. courts \ ithout the relevant illforlnatioll, slloulel res ies~ and l)erhalzs nullify actions of the Executive talcen on information properly helel secret." Id., at 111, In l.trlited States v. Retyszolds, 340 t~. S. 1 (1902), deal- lS Bec.ulse of the key role of the tcstimol)! of Witnesses in the udlei.ll proses>, courts have lwistoric:lllx been cautious about privileges. .lustiee Fr.llllofurter! diF.- elltil)g ill Ell;i7ts v. C'71ited (N'tates, o64 IS. 3 '06, ':s4 (l9liO)* said of this: 'Limitations Ire properly ¥ placed Ul)Oll the op(~l;ltlon ot this geller.ll prinell)le only to the xer! limited extent tll:tt perllllttillg tI roill-;ll to testify or excluding relevant evidence has ;l plll)!ie good tr;1llstendilltr the normally l)reciomin:tnt l)rinell~le ot' lltiiiZillg ;,11 rati{)tl.ll means for aseert:lillill<, truth.!' (186) - ~^>1766 & .>1g3~PIN'lONt 26 UN-ITED ST.&TF'3 1'. 5'IXON- ing lvith a clainlant's clelllan(l for evideuce ill a danzage case agailest the Goverllnlellt the C'ourt sald "It may be l)ossible to satisfy the court. fronl all the circunlstances of the case. that there is a reasonable dallger that eolzzl)ulsion of tlle eviclellce ¥vill exl)ose military Inatters svhich. in the interest of natiollal securitv. slloulel not be clivulged. ll'hell this is the case, the occasion for tlle l)rivilege is approlzliate, ancl the court shoul(l IlOt jeol)arclize the security svhicll the l)rivilege is nleallt to larotect by illsisting UpOII an exalninatiol] of the evidellce. eve by the judge alol~e. ill challlbers.'7 No case of the Court. hoxvever. has extelldecl this higll degree of deference to a President's generali%ed illterest ill confi(lelxt,iality. Noxvllere ill the Constitutioll, as sve have lloted earlier. is thele al~y explicit referenec to a. erivilege of confidelltiality. >~et to the extent this il~terest relates to the effective disc}large of a Presidellt's l)oxvers, it is const.itutioleal]) basecl. The rigllt to the l)roductioll of all eviclellce at a crinlinal trial sinzilarly has collstitutio~~al clilnellsiolls. The Sixth Alllelldlnellt explicitlv collfers Ul)Oll every clefenclallt ill a crimillal trial the ri,bht ';to l)e collfro~!tecl xvith the evitllesses a,~ailest lailn" alld "to have COIII])U}SOl'y process for obtainillg rvitllesses ill his favor.'' ;NIoreover, the Fifth Anlellellllellt a]so guaralltees that 110 I)ersoll shall he de rived of libert~t XVi[llOUt due l)rocess of laxv. It is the mallifest duty of the eoults to vil~clieate those guaralltees alld to accolllplish that it is esselltial that all relevallt a~sd adlllissit)le evi(,leli(e l)e l)rodueed. 111 this case zve lI)USt sveigll the inll)ortance of the gelleral lzrivi]ege of confi(lelltiality of l)residelltial COII1mullicatiolls ill l)erfornlallce of his resl)ollsil~ilities agaillst the inroads of suell a l)rivilege 011 the fair aclnzillistratio 1 (187) - ,>1,66 & ,:WI~WOPIN'IONT I~N-ITED ST.&TES f'J, N-LSON' of crinlillal justice."' The illterect ill preservillg collfi dentiality is svei,bhty ill(leerl allfcl elltitled to great resl)ect. Hou-ever u-e callllot collelu(le that advisers ¥vill btd movecl to temper the calldor of-their remarks by the infrequellt occasiolss of disclosure because of the possiF bility that such collsrersation3 uill be called for ill tlle context of a crilnillal prosecutioll."" 011 the other hall(l. the allossallce of the prixilege to witllhokl es iclellee that is delnollstrably relevalst ill a crimillal trial uou]cl cut deel)ly illtO the guaralltee of due process of laxv allel gra~-e]y iml)air the basic functioll of the courts. A Presiflellt's acknolvle(lgecl lleed for COIl- . 19 llte are not llere eoncern(cl evitll tllc l)nl:illce bf ts een the l'resident's genernlize(l nlterest ill eonfidelltialit! ;111(1 tlle need for relev:lnt evidenee il) eivil litigation, nor RVitlI tlsat betsveell tlle eon- fi~lel~ti:lllt! interest oInd eongressiollal delllotll(ls fol inforlll;ltioll, nor tvith tlle Presi(lellt's interest 111 preserving st:tte seerets. XVe nddress only tlle confli(t betxvtels rhe Pr(~it-,etlt's nssertioll of a gener;llized privilege of confid(nti;X.it! zIg:tinst tlle eonstitntiotl:ll need for rele- vant. evidellce to erilnin;ll trials. ':¡ AIr. Justice Car(lazo m;lde tllis pOlllt ill :111 analogOtl- eontext. Spealiillg for a Illl:lnilllotl.> Conrt in Clarl: v. fr-llit(w(l states, 2S.') 1|. S. 1 (19:s:;), lle eml)h:lslze(l the inll)ort;lllce of m:tlllt;lillillg the secrecy of the delil~er:ltiolls of :t petit jllr! in il erimillal e:lse. Freedoln of deb:lte Inight be stHi(d ;~ndl indep(n(lence of thollgllt checlsed if jurors uele llz:ld(s tfWt feel thott their wIrgllmellts nud l~;lllots ~zere to lxe f:eel! ptll,li'!li d in !1l(- xv ';A juror ot' nlte~l it! :tlld rensonwi1)1! firlnness svill IlOt IlWar to speal~- his milld if tlle eol~fi(llllees of d(h;tte b:tr b:trrl(l tl) tlle enrs of nlere impertinln(l or nulliee. He xvill nOt (xpect t(i he.>llieltle agail)st tlle diselosure ot' lliS ef)ll(lll(t in tlle (n't'llt tll:lt rlsere is evid(nce reflectin~} tlpOII llls llonor. Tht el~;ln(e th;tt llt)EV ;tlld tllen there m:l! he fonlld -oltn timid solll svllo lvill t:ttSe eolulsel of Ifls fears nnd give XV:I!' t(l ths sr rs psaessiv( poxvel Is ttfO remote :tlul Çlla~;loxvlx lo sh:lllth 11s,- (~otlr~ts of justire~~ 1(1.. :tl lfi. ( 188) 7>1,66 &- 7>19~0PEJON 28 UNITED 3T.\TB t). STWONT fidentiality ill the communications of his office is general in natures Whereas the constitutional need for production of relevant evidence ill a critnillal proceeding is specific and central to the fair adjudication of a particular crinlinal case in the adnlinistratioll of justice. Without access to specific facts a criminal prosecution may be totally frustrated. The Presiclent's broad interest ill col~fidentiality of cotnl2ltlllicatiolls .vill not be vitiated br clisclosurc of a limited number of conversations l)relilnillarily shown to have sonle bearing on the pelldi1lg criminal eases. WSe conclude that svllell the ground for asserting llrivilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use ill a criminal trial is based only 011 the generalized intelest ill collfidentiality. it cannot prevail over the funclalllellta denlall(ls of clue l)rocess of laxv ill the fair adlllillistratioll of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demollstlatecl. specific need for evidenee in a pen(lillg crillliltal trial. D XVe have earlier determined that, the District Court did not err ill authorizing the issuance of the subpoena. If a presides t con cl tl(les th at conl pliance ¥vi th a subpoena lvould he injurious to the l)ublic interest he may properly, as ¥sas done here, invoke a clai2n of privilege 011 the return of the sublroesla. I~l)on receiving n claim of privilege front the Chief executive, it became the further dut) of the District Count to treat the subpoenaed material-as l)resulnptivelx l)rivilegerl and to require the Special Prosecutol to c1elnollstl ate that the lDresidellt tial material alas "esselltial to the justice of the [pelldw illS crilninal] ease." ('~siteal States ¥. Burr, .supra, at 19:7. Here the District Court treated the material as l)resunll)tivelv privileged larocee(ie(l to filld that the Sl)ecial Prosecutor had Inade a suffiniellt sho~~lllt, t(J rebut. the I (189) - f 7>1,6G & 73-l9~PINION' UNITED STATES t,. N-ISON' ~g presunlptioll an(l ordere(l an ill camera exan inatioll of the subpoenaed material. 011 the basis of our examinatiOlt of the record eve are unable to conclude that the District Court erred ill orderings the ilislrectioll. Accordingly Me affirm the order of the District Court that subpoeleaed materials be transmitted to that court. Ete 1)0W turn to the ilnportallt question of the District Court's responsibilities in conducting the in earners exanlinatio of presidential materials or communications delivered under the COlllpUISiOIl of the subl)oelwa duces tecus/z. E Ellforcelnent of the subpoena,duce~w tecusn ¥vas stayed pending this Court's resolution of the issues raised by the l~etitio1ls for certiorari. Those issues noM having been disclosed of, the mattes of implemclltatioll \ ill rest with the District Court. ''[Tlhc guard furnished to [I'resi- delltl to larotcet hilll front being harassed by vexatious anti unnecessary subl)oellas. is to be looked for in the conduct of the [district] court after the subpoenas lease issued; IlOt ill ally circumstances ¥ hieh is to precede their being issued." [;rlited States v. Burr, supre, at 34. State- ments that Ineet the test of admissibility and relevance must be isolated; all other material must be exercised. o-&t this stare thr District Court is not limited to representa- tions of the Special Prosecutor as to the evidence sought by the sublroetla; the material \\-ill be available to the ])istrict Court. It is e]elllelltarv that in cascara illslzec- tion of evidence is alxXass a l)rocWeflule calling for scruple ulous l)rotectioll aga'illst alla release or l)ublicatioll of Inaterial lzot found bx the court, at that stage. Irrol)at)ly acllllis-ible ill evidence an(l relevant to the issues of the trial for which it is Sought. That heists true of all or~Si- nal~~ situations it is obvious that the District Court has at very heaver responsibility to see to it that ~~resi(lelstill,! i (loo) , S1, 66 (e , SlS3S0PIN-IONt UNITED 3TATE3 bb. NINONr conversations, svllich are either IlOt relevallt or IlOt aelnlis- sible, are accor(le(l that higll (legree of resl)ect due the Presi(lent of the l~llited S;tates. .zNIr. Chief Justice .Mar- shall sittillg as a trial ju(lge ill the Burr case, su,vra, svas extraordillarily careful to ])Oillt out that: "[I]n 110 case of this ki,ld lvoult] a Court be required to procee(l agaillst tlle Presi(lent as agaillst all orclia eary ils(livi(lual.'' l'llited Stntes v. Burr, 20 Fe(l, Cases 187, 1'.31 ( N-o. 14,6"4). Marshall's statelnellt callllot be read to Ineall ill ally sellse that a Presiflellt is above the la~s, but relates to the.sillgularly ullique role ullt-ler .trt. II of a Presi(lellt!s collllllullicatiolls allcl actis ities, relate(l to the l)erforln- allce of (luties ull(ler that .\rticle. !!(loreover, a Presiclellt's conllllullicatiolls all(l acti~-ities ellcolllleass a vastly ~~i(ler range of sellsitix e lllaterial tllall xvoul(l be true of ally "ortlillary in(livi(lual.'' It is therefore llecessarn 'l ill the public illtcrest to affor(l l)resiclelltial confi(lelltialitv the greatest larotectioll collsistellt lvith the fair a(llnillistra- tion of justice. Tlle laeeel for collfi(lelltiality even as to idle conversatiolls 0xith associates il) ~~hicll casual refer- ence might be nla(le colleerllillg l)olitical lea(lers \\-itllill the coulltrv or foreigll statesllleo is too obvious to call for furtllel treatnlellt. \0'e llave llo (lollbt that the District Juflg(> Elil] a+ all tillles ac^ot(l to ~)resi(lellfial reeol(ls tllat higl. det,ree of defe)el)ce sugCreste(l ill t ~lited Stetts v. Burr, supra, an(l \\-i]l discllarge his resl)ollsilJilitv to see to it that ulltil release(l to the Sl)ecial Prosecutol no is7 ca~~tcra material is revea]ecl to anyolle. This bur(lelt 21 Whel) tlle Slll)l)(.)( n:wecl n~;lterl.ll is clflixered to the l)istrie1 Juclge i)l caw1ler(l qtlestion- m.l! zIrlse :1< to tlle exeiving of p;lrts and it lies ssithin the d~-lretioll of th.,t eonrt to setl; tlle.ai(l of tllc Special l'roseclltor tt,,d the l'resident's eonllsel for iRl cotller(l cou- si(ler,ttioll Or tIlcj \:}litlity ot p;lrtlelll:lr exelsions, ~~helller the l:)asis of excision is relelall(!- or vid;l)is-il!ilit! or nncler sllell e;lses as lbe,yslol(l.s~ e~ltl>,tn. or 11 /l!( llnrt/t .Stetltll.5lriZJs .stel)rn. l (191) - B~1, GG & , S193~0PIN'ION- UN-ITED 3T.&TH tZ. A-INON 31 applies With even greater force to excised material; once the decision is made to excise, the tnaterial is restored to its privileged status and should be returned under seal to its lawful custodian. since this matter came before the Court during the pendellcy of a criminal prosecution, and on represelltations that time is of the essence, the mandate shall issue forthwith Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE REH5QtlST took 110 hart ill the collsideratiDIl or decision of these cases. (192) United states v Herbert Porter . - (CR 74-32, United states District Court for the District of Columbia) Max or court proceedings January 21, 1974 January 28, 1974 April 11, 1974 The defendant waives prosecution by indictment . Information filed charging the defendant with one count of making false statement to the FBI. The defendant enters a plea of guilty to the information. The defendant is sentenced to a prison term of five to fifteen months, to serve 30 days, balance of sentence suspended; defendant is placed on unsupervised probation for one year. (193) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OE AtgIERICA ) Criminal No. 7 y— 3 Z v. ) Violation of 18 U.S.C. S 1001 ) (False statements to (Tovern~~f- ' HERBERT L. PORTER, ) Defendant. / ) - INFORMAT ION Agency) The United states of America, by its Attorney, the Special Prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, charges: On or about July 19, 1972, in the D Columbia, HERBERT L. PORTER, the DEFENDANT, did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, which Department was then investigating a matter within its jurisdiction. (In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Se ction 10 01 ) LEON JAWO RS K I SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ( 194) - f l I LLEGAL CAMPAI GN PRACT ICES AND CONTRIBUTIONS (195) . United States v. James Allen . (CR 74-227, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings May 1, 1974 Information filed charging Allen with consenting to an illegal campaign contribution being made. The defendant enters a plea of guilty. Allen sentenced to pay a fine of $1,OOO.OO. l (197) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLU:3IA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v I JAMES ALLEN, Defendant Criminal No. (18 U.S.C. Section 610) The Special Prosecutor charges: 1. At all times material to this Information, the Northrop Corporation was a corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of California 2. At all times material to this Information , the defendant, JR MES ALIEN, was a member of the Board of Directors and an officer, to wit, Vice President and Assistant to the President, of the Northrop Corporation. 3. On or about November 7, 19?2, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and Laws of the UNITED States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for. 4. On or about March 15, 1973, the defendant, JAMES ALLEN, consented to the making by Northrop Corporation o' an expenditure and indirect payment of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) in connection with the aforesaid general election, in that, the defendant, JAMES ALLEN, gave twelve thousand dollars ($12,000), each, in Northrop Corporation funds, to Frank Lloyd and James Willson, Senior Vice Presidents of the Northrop Corporation, in partial reimbursement of previous contributions each had made in connection with the (198) - aforesaid general election, which funds were obtained by the defendant, JAMES ALLEN, from a European consultant of Northrop from funds previously advanced to said consultant by the Northrop Corporation. All in violation of Section 610, Title 18, United States Code. LEON JAWORSKI Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force (199) United States v. Richard Allison _ (CR 74-270, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings Information filed charging Allison with consenting to an illegal campaign contribution being made. The defendant enters a plea of guilty. Allison sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00. Suspended. (201) - IN ';'>i!. I,ItT'i.'l:'D S STATES"; I) I:'i/l"sI(_'t' CO(J"';' 3 014 THE THE. 1):1 ';~~ i' ICT ()L' ( OL,Tj'i., | BI V RICHARD L ALLISON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff ) ) Crim. uo.7Y-27¡ ) (18 U S C. g610) ) Defe n dant ) INFORMATIO N The Special Prosecutor Charges: - COUNT ONE . . . . From 02 AL about April 19, 1972, to on or about . . . . April 27, 1972, in the District of Columbia and else . — . where, the defendant RICHARD L ALLISON, in his . . capacity as an officer to wit, president - of Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, corporation organized . . under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, consented to the making by that corporation of a contribution in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000j to . . He--Finance-Committee to Re-elect the President, said . : . . contribution being in connection with the general election held on November 7, 1972,-at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for, and in connection with primary elections, political :- ~ conventions, and caucuses held to select candidates for the office of President, all in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. X _ IEO.4 JAWORSKI Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosection ion Force 142', K Street, TQ t-. Washington(Jtoll, I) C 2000~~, (202) United States v. American Airlines - (CR 869-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings October 17, 1973 Information filed charging defendant with one count of illegally contributing to a political campaign. The defendant enters a plea of guilty. American sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00. (203 ) - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT'£ COU}C FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA XBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) v. 3 ) AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. ) ) No. 2 t By ~ 73 -(18 U.S.C. Sec 610) he Special Prosecutor charges: 1. In the month of March, 1972, and at all times material to this Information, American Airlines, Inc. was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. - . 2. On November 7, 1972, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, a general election was held at which Presidential and VicePresidential electors were voted for. . 3. In the month of Ma--ch, 1972, and at all 1972, the Finance Committee f for She Re-Election of the President was organized to support and did actively support the Presidential ca.-~~d_cy of Richard M_ Nixon in the aforesaid general election. 4. In the month of March, 1972, American Airlines, Inc., in the District of Colum-.bia, and elsewhere, made a contribution in the amount of fifty- five thousand dollars ($55,000) in cash in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election (204) — 2 — ._ by delivering said amount to an officer and agent of the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. ARCHIBALD COX Special Prosecutor 1425 R Street, N W. Washington, D C -20005 (205) - United States v. Associated Milk Producers Inc (CR 74-445, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings August 1, 1974 Information filed charging AMPI with one count of conspiring to make an illegal campai B contribution and five counts of making illegal campaign contributions. Defendant enters a plea of guilty. AMPT sentenced to pay a fine totalling $35,000.00. (207 ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OP AMERICA v. ASSOCIATED MILK PRODUCERS, INC., ) Violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 (conspiracy) and Defendant. ) 610 (illegal corporate contributions) INFORMATION COUNT I 1. At all times material to this Information, up to October 1, 1969, "DEFENDANT" refers to Milk Producers, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas, and subsequent to October 1, 1969, refers to Associated Milk Producers, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kansas, into which MPI was merged. 2. On or about November 5, 1968, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for and was preceded by primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said elections (hereafter collectively referred to as the "1968 elections"). 3. On or about November 3, 1970, a general election WAS held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Senators and Representatives to Congress were voted for and was preceded by primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said elections (hereafter collectively referred to as the "1970 elections"). (208) 2 4. On or about November 7, 1972, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors and Senators and Representatives to Congress were voted for and was preceded by primary _ , political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said elections, (hereafter collectively referred to as the "1972 elections"). 5. At all times material herein, Harold S. Nelson was the General Manager of DEFENDANT and authorized to act on its behalf. 6. Up to October 1, 1969, David L. Parr was Arkansas Division Manager of DEFENDANT and at all subsequent times material herein was Special Counsel to DEFENDANT and authorized to act on its behalf. 7. At all times material herein, Bob A. Lilly was the Assistant to the General Manager of DEFENDANT and authorized to act on its behalf. 8. At all times material herein, Robert O. Isham was the Comptroller of DEFENDANT and authorized to act on its behalf. 9. From on or about January 1, 1968, to on or about January 12, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere DEFENDANT, Harold S. Nelson, David L. Parr, Bob A. Lilly, Robert O. Isham named herein as co-conspirators but not as defendants and others conspired, combined, confederated and agreed together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States, to wit, willfully to make corporate contributions and expenditures in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610. (209) 3 10. It was part of the conspiracy for DEFENDANT and the coconspirators to cause corporate contributions and expenditures in the form of corporate funds of DEFENDANT to be made in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections. 11. It was further a part of said conspiracy for DEFENDANT and the co-conspirators to attempt to conceal the corporate origins of the contributions referred to in paragraph 10 of this count. Among the means by which'these corporate contributions would be made and concealed were the following: (a) Certain employees of DEFENDANT would work fulltime on behalf of candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections and make disbursements on behalf of such candidates, these disbursements and the salaries of the employees for the period they were working fulltime on behalf of candidates to be paid by DEFENDANT. (b) Certain employees of DEFENDANT would make contributions to candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections and be reimbursed by attorneys for DEFENDANT, who in turn would be reimbursed by billing DEFENDANT, under the guise of legal fees, amounts equivalent to those paid to employees pursuant to this scheme plus, in some cases, additional amounts to compensate for their increased income tax liability. DEFENDANT would pay these bills. (c) Certain employees of DEFENDANT would make contributions to candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections and would be reimbursed by public relations firms (210) 4 retained by DEFENDANT, who, in turn, would be reimbursed by billing DEFENDANT, under the guise of having rendered services, amounts equivalent to those paid to employees pursuant to this scheme. DEFENDANT would pay these bills. (d) DEFENDANT would pay for part of services rendered to candidat connection with the 1970 and 1972 elections such as for the compilation of computerized lists of names and addresses of rural residents, without intending (e) Certain employees of DEFENDANT would make contributions to candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1968 election and would be reimbursed by DEFENDANT, pursuant to arrangements made by co- conspiratorsRobert O. Isham and Harold S. Nelson. OVERT ACTS In the furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, the following overt acts were committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere: (a) On or about October 28, 1968, DEFENDANT and certain co-conspirators caused $63,500 in checks drawn by directors, employees, persons affiliated with DEFENDANT and others to be delivered to the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C., in part for tickets to the Salute to the Vice President Dinner, a fund raising dinner held in connection with the 1968 elections. The co-conspirators caused some of the payors of the checks to be reimbursed with corporate funds of the DEFENDANT for the amount of said checks. (211) 5 ._ (b) From on or about December 17, 1969, to on or about November 16, 1970, co-conspirators Nelson, Lilly, Isham and others caused $100,000 in corporate funds of DEFENDANT to be used to pay the Trust for Agricultural Political Education (hereafter "TAPE"), a separate segregated fund organized to receive voluntary contributions from members and employees of DEFENDANT for political purposes, in the following manner: i. co-conspirator Bob A. Lilly borrowed $100,000 with which he reimbursed TAPE for $100,000 it had paid Herbert W. Kalmbach in August of 1969 in order to obviate the need for TAPE to report said payment publicly. ii. certain attorneys and public relations firms for DEFENDANT paid $100,000 to Bob A. Lilly to reimburse him for his $100,000 payment to TAPE. iii. such attorneys and public relations firms in some or all cases billed DEFENDANT for purported services not in fact rendered, in order to obtain reimbursement for the monies paid to Bob A. Lilly plus additional amounts to compensate for their increased income tax liability. iv. DEFENDANT paid such attorneys and public relations firms for the amounts as billed. (c) In 1970 co- conspirators Harold S. Nelson, David L. Parr and others caused DEFENDANT to contribute $10,000 of corporate funds to representatives of and to (212) —6 Page Belcher (Oklahoma), a candidate for the House of Representatives in connection with the 1970 elections. (d) From on or about April 22, 1970 to about May 29, 1970, co-conspirator Bob A. Lilly, went to California and worked full-time in support of the candidacy of Patrick Hillings (California), a candidate for the House of Representatives in connection with the 1970 elections while receiving his salary from DEFENDANT. (e) In or about June, 1970, DEFENDANT paid $12,000 to Lennen & Newell, an advertising firm providing services to the senatorial campaign of Hubert H. Humphrey (Minnesota) in connection with the 1970 elections in part payment for such services. (f) On or about July 24, 1970 and November 24, 1970, DEFENDANT caused contributions totalling $8,400 to be made to representatives of committees organized to receive funds in behalf of the senatorial candidacy of Edmund S. Muskie (Maine) in connection with the 1970 elections. Such contributions were reimbursed with corporate-funds of DEFENDANT. In connection with said contributions, on or about July 24, 1970, one of the coconspirators mailed two checks to a public relations firm in Washington, D.C. (g) From in or about April, 1971, to in or about January, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, DEFENDANT caused a contribution of $5,000 to be made to a representative of the Draft Mills for President Committee in Washington, D.C., which was (213) 7 _ . reimbursed from corporate funds, and caused two employees of DEFENDANT to work for the Draft Mills for President committee in Washington, D.C., while having their salaries and expenses paid by DEFENDANT, in support of the candidacy of Wilbur Mills for nomination to the Presidency of the United States, in connection with the 1972 elections. (h) From on or about July 16, 1971, to on or about December 21, 1971, DEFENDANT paid $82,000.00 in corporate funds to Valentine, Sherman and Associates, a computer mail service firm, $7,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine, Sherman and Associates for the senatorial candidacy of James Abourezk (South Dakota) in connection with the 1972 elections, $25,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine, Sherman and Associates for the candidacy of Hubert H. Humphrey for the Presidential nomination .in connection with the 1972 elections, and $50,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine, Sherman and Associates and intended to benefit various Democratic Party candidates for Federal elective office in the State of Iowa in connection with the 1972 elections. (In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 371) COUNT TWO 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3, a-4 of Count One above are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. (214) 2. At all t ime, material to this Information-., TAPE ?_ was s a separate segregated(l . fund org nized to rece .-volunoa=y contr blat ons from members and employees of D - DEFENDANT to make contributions and e::?endrl,res in connection with elections to political of ice 2nd with pri.;.ary elections, political conventions and caucuses there or. 3. From on or about December 17, 1969, to on or about November 15, 1970, DEFENDANT made payments of co!rporate funds to pay TADE for such contributions *=..d expenditures totalling $100,000.00 in the following manner: (a) On December 17, 1969, BO'D A. Lilly obtained a $100,000.00 personal loan from the Citizens National Bank, Austin, Texas. (b) On December 17, 1969, the proceeds of the aforementioned loan were deposited in the account of TAPE for the purpose of reimbursing TAPE for $100,000.00 of TADS fends which had been delivered to Herbert W. Kalmbach. (c) From December 17, 1969, to November 16, 1970, Bob A. Lilly was reimbursed for the afore mentioned $100,000.00 by certain attorneys and public relations firms retained by DEFENDEANT, some or all of which was reimbursed to them out of the corporate funds of DEFENDANT. 4. After December 17, 1969, TA2E made co-.tributio-s and expenditures in connection with, inter alia, the 19,0 and 1972 elections from funds which included t e $100,CO0 CS reimbursed as set forth above. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610 ) (215) 9 COUNT THREE 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Count One above are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 2. On or about July 24, 1970, and November 24, 1970, DEFENDANT, in connection with the 1970 elections, caused $8,400.00 to representatives of committees organized to receive funds on behalf of Edmund S. Muskie, a candidate for re-election to the United States Senate from the State of Maine. 3. Said contributions were reimbursed from corporate funds of DEFENDANT. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610) COUNT FOUR 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Count One above are realleged and incorporated by . . reference herein. 2. From on or about May 12, 1970 to on or about September 17, 1970, DEFENDANT, in connection with the 1970 elections, caused to be contributed $10,000.00 to representatives of and to Page Belcher, a candidate for re-election to the United States House of Representatives from the First District of Oklahoma. 3. Said contributions were reimbursed from corporate funds of DEFENDANT. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610) COUNT FIVE The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Count One above are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. (216) 10 2. From on or about July 16, 1971, to on or about ._ December 21, 1971, DEFENDANT made contributions of corporate funds totalling $82,000.00 in connection with the 01972 elections by paying $82,000*00 to Valentine, Sherman and Associates, a computer mail service firm, S7,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine, Sherman and Associates for the senatorial candidacy of James Abourezk (South Dakota), in connection with the 1972 elections, 525,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine, Sherman and Associates for the candidacy of Hubert H. Humphrey for the Presidential nomination in connection with the 1972 elections, and $50,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine, Sherman and Associates and intended to benefit various Democratic Party candidates for Federal elective office in the state of Iowa in connection with the 1972 elections. - (In violation of Title 18, United states Code, Section 610) COUNT SIX 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Count One are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 2. From in or about April 1971, to in or about January 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, DEFENDANT, in connection with the 1972 elections caused $5,000.00 to be contributed to a representative of the Draft Mills for President committee in Wash ngton, D.C., and caused two employees of DEFENDANT to work for the Draft mills for President committee in Washington, D.C., in support of the candidacy of Wilbur Mills for nomination to the Presidency of the United states. (217) - 3. Said contribution was reimbursed from corporate funds of DEFENDANT and the salaries and expenses of the two employees were paid by DEFENDANT. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610) HENRY S.RUTH, JR. Deputy Special Prosecutor (218) o: -: July 11, 1974 _ . - Erwin C. Heininger, Esquire;^ui~~~~e Mayes, Brown & t:l2-, 231 South LaSalle e Street C}7icago, Illinois w s 60604 Dear Mr. Heininger: ~~~~, On t!he understanding speci fied below;~~~~, the United St-ates will accept?t a guilty plea from. associated ,^'i7l-Prc)duce=s, Inc. l."'~~~~-I3 to a six count-.W. c;^a—ne al al ing one v,c8.-. ion. of 18 U.S.C. f; 371 and five violations of 18 U.S.C. g 610. This will dispose of potential,er~~~~$ charges.:cz—~~~~. based on corporate,Jo~a4;e contribution by AMPI and 5 its predecessor".~~~~oco~~~~powa~~~~-iGnt MilkProducers, Inc. made in conn:e^. on. with the 1968, 970 and 1972 federal-~ai elections.~ons. + ¢ express ss ~~~~.7 understood that AMPI is not receiving"~~~~rns * .~~~~.*mt~~~~n.-.5~~~~ from prosecu tion for poss ble violations of 18. U.S.C Ss 905 and o?' n connection-. with the March'=rcll ~~~~5, 1971 milk price support decision t no from-. any Title 26 proceeding . The unders tand - ngs. are: (1) that- ='-~~~~T \?iRl enter i.@_s plea in the l:>is~~~~-_C;.- Court for the J ' strict. of Columbia on " lack OL (27 that AMPI will 7 waive-~~~~ waive in-~~~~i_ ictment on all charges W , ( J ) p-en~~~~ce t c' venue in connection withÇ h the f 61C c:.=~~~~~e<; (z) that full discolsure x.-='1 be made information c:l and documents?~~~~enXs in AMPI'S'.T2_''-' possession, A2,-l (5) ~~~~:.z. in addition to the restrictions and o~_nca.ioros placed on the United States in ~~~~-;e _. first paragraph-<_:~~~~ c; this letter.. e~~~~, the > sole e obligation on the ETA United States .~. to b-~~~~r, to the 2 attention on of presentation wr.-~~~~res.ic,e.-c -_.f (219 ) ûJ:rs,vi l 12. Heininger.~~~~~er, Esquire July 11~~~~~ 1974 or CGU~. the extent of AMPI's coo?2;n_q0n with the United States . It is understood that the United ~~~~~ ted States will make no recommendation; w on concerning sentence . Yours t truly , } BL'}RM S . RUTH JR. Deputy Special i al Prosecutor (220 ) United States v. Dwayne Andreas and First Interoceanic Corporation (4-73 CR 201, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota) Major court proceedings October 19, 1973 Eight count information filed charging Andreas with four counts of consenting to an illegal campaign contribution (Counts 5-8) and charging First Interoceanic Corporation with four counts of making an illegal campaign contribution (Counts 1-4). The defendants enter a plea of not guilty. (221 ) - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA;!ESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA{~ ~~ , Plaintif r, v. DWAYNE O. ANDREAS and : FIRST INTEROCEANIC CORPORATION, : a/k/a INDEPENDENT BANCORPORATION, : Defendants No. 18 U.S.C. 610 The Special Prosecutor Charges: - COUNT ONE 1. At all times material to this information First Interoceanic Corporation (now Independent Bancorporation) was a corporation organized under the laws Of the State Or Iowa. 2. On or about November 5, 1968, pursuant to the laws and Constitution-of the United States, a general election was held at which President-al and Vice Presidential electors were voted for. 3. From on or about October 14, 1968, to on or about October 21, 1968, in the District Or Minnesota and elsewhere, the First Interoceanic Corporation made a contribution in the amount of t-.:enty-li-re thousand dollars ($25,000) to Illinois Citizens for- Humphrey and Muskie, said contribution being in connection-.r.ec ion with the aforesaid general election; in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, . United States Code. (222) — 2 — COUNT TWO!O 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Count One are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 2. From on or about October 14, 1968, to on or about October 21, 1968) in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere, the First Interoceanic Corporation made a contribution in the amount Or twenty-five thousand dollars $25,000) to Illinois for Humphrey for President Club, said contribution being in connection with the aforesaid general election, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code-. . - COUNT THREE 1. The-allegations contained paragraphs 1 and 2 Or Count One are realleged and incorporated by reference herein 2. From on or about October 14, 1968, to on or about October 21, 1968, in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere, the First Interoceanic Corporation made a contribution in the amount of t-.re-_y-~~~ive thousand dollars ($25,000) to Illinois Salute to Humphrey, said contribution being in connection with the aforesaid. general election, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18 X United States Code. COUNT FOUR 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 Or Count One are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 2. From on or about October 14,. 1968, to on or about October 21, 1908, in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere, the First Interoceanic Corporation made 2 (223) contribution in the amount of twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000) to Illinois Friends of Humphrey, said contribution being in connection with the aforesaid general election., in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Coda COUNT FIVE 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 Of Count One are realleged incorporate by reference herein. : 2 From on or about October-14, 1968, to on or about October 21, 1968, in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere, Dwayne O. Andreas, being an officer--to wit, Chairman Or the Board--of First Interoceanic Corporation, consented to a contribution in the amount Of twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000) by the First InteroceanicCorporation to Illinois Citizens for Humphrey and Muskie, said contribution being in connection with the aforementioned general election, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. COUNT SIX 1. The allegations co- Panel 5 paragraphs 1 and 2 Or Count One are realleged a._ incorporated by reference herein. 2.- From on or about October 14, 1968,_to on or about October 21, 1968, in the District Or Minnesota and elsewhere, Dwayne O. Andreas, being an officer--to wit, Chairman Of the Board--of First T-.teroceanic Corporation, consented to a contribution in the amount < twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000) by the First Interoceanic Corporation to Illinois for Humphrey for President Club, (224) * said contribution being in connection with the aforementioned general election, in violation of Section 610 Or Title 18, United States Code. COUNT SEVEN 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-and 2 of Count One are realleged 2nd-incorporate by reference. 2. From on or about October 14, 1968, to on or about October 21, 1968, in the District Of Minnesota and elsewhere, Dwayne O. Andreas being an officer to wits Chairman Or the Board--of First Interoceanic Corporation, consented to a contribution in the amount Or twenty-five 0 thousand dollars ($25,A00) by the First Interoceanic Corporation to Illinois Salute to Humphrey, said contribution being in connection with the aforementioned general election, , , . in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. COUNT EIGHT I. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 Or Count One are realleged 2nd incorporated by reference herein. 2. From on or about October 14, 1968, to on or about October 21, 1968, in the District Or Minnesota and elsewhere, Dwayne O. Andreas, being an of ficer--to=wit-. Chairman Or the Board--of First Interoceanic Corporation consented to a contribution in the amount Or twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) by the First Interoceanic Corporation to Illinois Friends Or Humphrey, said contribu (225) w tion being in connection with the aforementioned general election, in violation of Section 610 Or Title 18, United States Code. ARCHIBALD COX Special Prosecutor 1425 K St. N.W. Washington, D. C. 20005 DATED: (226) United States v. Ashland Petroleum Gabon Corporation and Orin Atkins (CR 11, 119, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky) Major court proceedings November 13, 1973 Information filed charging Ashland with making an illegal campaign contribution (Count 1) and charging Atkins with consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. Ashland sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00; Atkins sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00. (227 ) - M IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT? FOR ^,.¢ EASTERN..~~~', DISTRICT?.ICo OF E.::9JC:>Z UNITED STATES O? A.^oRICh, Plaintiff V. ASHLAND-.D PETROLEUM!5 GABO'~~~ ' CORPORATION:-S and ORII; ATKINS"S, ' Defendants ~~~5. n ) Crim... No.. ) (la U.S.C.- cc. 610) The Special Prosecutor charges: COUNT ONE 1. On or about April 3, 1972 and at all times material to this Information, Ash' and Oil, Incorporated was a corporation organized under the law- of the common- of Kentucky. 2. On or about April 3, 1972, and at a}l times material to this Information-prior., Ashland Petroleum Gabon Corporation was a corporatlon organized under the law of the State of Delaware and was a ;:nollg-owned corporate subsidiary of Ashland Oil Incorporated. 3. On November 7, 1972, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, 8 general election was held at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for. 4. On or about April 3, 1972, andÇ n W all times material to this Information prior to April 7, 1972, the Finance Committee for the« Re-Election of the President was organized to support and did actively support t the-Presidential candidacy of Richard 15. I!lxon in the« aforesaid general election. (228 ) 5. On or about April 3, 1972, Ashland Petroleum Gabon Corporation, in the Eastern District Or Kentucky and elsewhere, made a contribution Of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in cash in connection with the aforementioned 1972 general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election by delivering said contribution to an officer and agent Of the Finance Co.-=ittee for the Re-election of the President, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. COUNT TWO 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 4 of Count. One Or this information are incorporated by reference. 2. On or about April 3, 1972, and at all times material to this Information, in the Eastern District or Kentucky and elsewhere, Orin E. Atkins, being Chair:~~~u: Or the Board Or Directors Or Ashland Oil, Incorporated caused the contribution by Ashland Petroleum Gabon Corporation Or one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in cash in connection with the aforementioned 1972 general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election, in violation of Sections 61O and 2 of Title IS, United States Code. Eugene E. Siler, J-. United States Attorney (229) i United States v. Braniff Airways, Inc. and Harding L. Lawrence (CR 959-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings November 12, 1973 Information filed charging Braniff with making an illegal campaign contribution (Count 1) and charging Lawrence with consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. Braniff sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00; Lawrence sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00. (231 ) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) V. - . ) BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC. ) and HARDING L. LAWRENCE ) ~~~0 (18 USC section 610) The Special Prosecutor charges: COUNT ONE 1. On or about April 6, 1972, and at all times material to this Information, Braniff Airways, Incorporated was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada. 2. On November 7, 1972, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, a general election was held at which Presidential and Vice- Presidential electors were voted for 3. On or about April 5, 1972, and at all times material to this Information prior to April 7, 1972, the Finance Committee for the REElection of the President was organized to support and did actively support the Presidential candidacy of Richard M. Nixon in the aforesaid general election. 4. On or about April 6, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Braniff Airways, Incorporated made a contribution in the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in cash in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election by (232 ) — 2 — delivering said amount to an officer and agent of the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. COUNT ZJO _ 1. The allegations in paragraph 1 through 3 of Count One of this Information are incorporated by reference herein. . 2. On or about April 6, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Harding L. Lawrence, being Chairman of the Board of Directors of Braniff Airways, Incorporated, consented to the contribution by Braniff Airways, Incorporated of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in cash in connection with the aforementioned 1972 general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. - Leon Jaworski Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force 1425 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 2000 (233 ) United States v. Carnation Company and H. Everett Olson (CR 1026-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings December 19, 1973 Information filed charging Carnation with making an illegal campaign contribution (Count 1) and charging Olson with consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. Carnation sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00; Olson sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00. (235) ff:1 :d Id;; In THE United ST..T£5 DISTRICT Court FOR THE DISTRICT or COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, . V. CARNATION CO SONY and H. EVERETT OLSON, Defendants. Crim. Wo. (18 U.S.C. §610) The Special Prosecutor charges: COUNT One 1. -From on or about February 28, 1972, to on or about September 15, 1972, and at ail times material to this Information, Carnation Company was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. 2. On November 7, 1972, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, a general election was held at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors and Senators and Representatives in and to the Congress of the United States were voted for. 3. From on or about February 28, 1972, to on or about September 15, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Carnation Company made contributions totaling eight thousand and nine hundred dollars ($8,900) in connection with the aforesaid general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election by delivering five thousand dollars ($5,0003 to a representative of the Southern California Presidential Dinner Committee, by delivering two thousand and nine (236) hundred dollars ($2,900) to a representative of the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and by delivering one thousand dollars ($1,000) to a representative of the Senate House Majority Dinner, all in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. COUNT TWO l. The allegations contained in paragraphs one and two of Count One of this Information are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. or about September 13, 1972, to on or about-September 15, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, H. Everett Olson, being an officer, to wit, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Carnation Company, consented to a contribution by Carnation Company in the amount of five thousand dollars ($,S,000) to the Southern California Presidential Dinner Co.-imittee, said contribution being in connection with the aforesaid general election and in connection with primary elections, political conven and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election, in violation of Section 6lO of Title 18, United States Code. LEON JAWORSKI - Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force 1425 K Street, N.X. Washington, D. C. 20005 (237) i United States v. Francis Carroll (CR 74-291, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) M:Z;nr court proceedings May 28, 1974 Information filed charging Carroll with consenting to an illegal campaign contribution being made. Defendant enters a plea of guilty. Carroll sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00. Suspended. (239) IN I'HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OY AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) V. FRANCIS X. CARROLL, ) Defendant. ) j Crim. No. 7 f- a? INFORMATI O N The Special Prosecutor Charges: COUNT ONE 1. From on or about April 19, 1972, to on or about April 27, 1972, Richard L. Allison, in his capacity as an officer - to wit, president - of Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, consented to the MAKING by that corporation of a contribution in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, said contribution being in connection with the general election held on November 7, 1972, at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for, and in connection with primary elections, political conventions, and caucuses held to select candidates for the office of President. 2. From on or about April 19, 1972, to on or about April 27, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant FRANCIS X. CARROLL did aid, abet, counsel, command, induce and procure the commission by the aforesaid Richard L. Allison of the offense described in paragraph 1. (240 )) — 2 — ._ A11 in violation of Sections G10 and 2 of Title 18, United States Code. 4' (241) i United States V. DWIGHT L. CHAPIN (CR 990-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings November 29, 1973 April 1, 1974 April 3, 1974 April 5, 1974 May 15, 1974 May 17, 1974 Indictment filed charging the defendant with four counts of making false declaration to a Grand Jury. Case called for trial. Motion of defendant to dismiss Count 4 of the indictment granted. Verdict : Guilty on Counts 1 and 3; not guilty on Count 2. (Docket entry reads: "As to Count 1, the defendant is found guilty of having knowledge of the distribution of statements and/or distribution of campaign literature by Mr. Segretti and not guilty of having discussed said distribution with him.") Defendant sentenced to a prison term of 10 to 30 months. Notice of appeal filed by Chapin. (243 )) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ._ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ~~~ . v. } DWIGHT L. chapin, ) ; Defendant. ) ) ) INDICTMEN T COUNT ONE 990-73 Criminal No Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623 (False Declarations} The Grand Jury charges: 1 On or about April 11, 1973, in the District of Columbia, DWIGHT L. C W IN, the defendant, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. . , . 2. At the time and place alleged,-the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Col"6hia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, sections 371, 612, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b) and other statutes of the United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed hotel (244) in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the-individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of , or conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain the nature of the activities engaged in by Donald Segretti, a subject of the investigation, and the identity of the individual or individuals who directed or had knowledge of those activities. 4. At the time and place alleged, DWIGHT L. CHAPIN, the defendant, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Q. Did you ever discuss in any way with Mr. Segretti the distribution of any campaign literature or statements of any kind? A. No. Q. To your knowledge did Mr. Segretti ever distribute any statements of any kind, or any campaign literature of any kind? A. Not that I am familiar with. 5. The underscored portions of the declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by the defendant, were material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1623.) (245) -3- ._ . COUNT CWO The Grand Jury further charges: 1. The Grand Jury realleges all of the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Count One of this indictment. 2 At the time and place alleged, DWIGHT L. chapin, the defendants appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 of Count One as follows: Q. Now following June 17 and the Watergate, what contact, if any, did you have with Mr. Segretti? A. It's been very, very limited. Q. Well, have you ever seen him for example, since June 17th? A. Until today, I don't believe so. Q. have you ever talked to him on the telephone? A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us when? A. I talked to him when he called me to tell me that the FBI had called him. That was the first time that I talked to him. That would have probably the end of July or June, or the beginning of July. Q. What did you say to him once he advised you that the FBI had contacted hro? (246) - 3. The underscored portion of the declarations quoted in paragraph 2, made by the defendant, was material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, was false. (In violation of Title 18, United States Coda, section 1623.) (247) - COUNT THREE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. The Grand Jury realleges all of the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Count One of this indictment. 2. At the time and place alleged, DWIGHT L. CHAPIN, the defendant, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 of Count One as follows: Q. What candidates do you recall receiving information about? Senator Muskie - was he one? A. Yes. I think virtually Muskie and Humphrey, Wallace. Q. Senator McGovern? A. Jackson, McGovern. I think virtually all of them. I forget now who all the candidates were. I think that covers it. Q. At one time or another during this period of time, in the early months of 1972, you received information from Mr. Segretti relating to all these candidates? A. As I recall, two of them may be mentioned in one little note or something. But they were not documents or reports - what you and I would consider reports. (248) ) - Q. Did you ever express any interest to him, or give him any directions or instructions with respect to any single or particular candidate? A. Not that I recall. 3. The underscored portion of the declarations quoted in paragraph 2, made by the defendant, was material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, was false. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1623.) (249) —7— ._ COUNT FOUR The Grand Jury further charges: 1. The Grand Jury realleges all of the allegations of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Count One of this indictment. 2. At the time and place alleged, DWIGHT L. CHAPIN, the defendant, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the said Grand Jury, did knowingly declare with respect to the material matters alleged in paragraph 3 of Count One as follows: Q. What arrangements were made with respect to him insofar as the financing of this operation? A. I believe I gave him instructions to call --to get in touch with Herb Kalmbach. Q. Well, did you discuss with him ._ with Mr. Segretti anything - with respect to amounts of money? A. Never. I never knew what he was Paid. Q. Did you ever, prior to his contacting Mr. Kalmbach did you ever discuss the range of money that you were discussing or talking about? A. No, I didn't. * * * Q. What did he tell you as to the arrangement he had worked out? A. Nothing. He just said that he had met with Don and that everything was taken care of. I didn't ask what that meant. (250) -8- Q. Did you ever find out the salary arrangement or the expense arrangement that had been worked out with Mr. Segretti? A. Only through the Washington Post. Q. Outside of that you had no knowledge? A. No. * * * Q. (A Juror) Mr. Chapin, not unless this question and answer has gotten past me, but how did Mr. Segretti operate, and with whose funds, and where did the funds come from? A. The funds that Mr. Segretti operated with, I have no knowledge as to where they were originated from. I only know - actually I don't know for a fact that Mr. Kalmbach paid Mr. Segretti. I only know that I told Mr. Kalmbach to get together with Mr. Segretti and to work out payment. I don't know the amount of money or the form in which it was exchanged, or where the money would have originally come from. (251) 3. The underscored portions of the declarations quoted in paragraph 2, made by the defendant, were material to the said investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1623. A TRUE BILL ~~X-S?~ - Foreman / ~ ~ ~ , L_R_-4-s-_ LEON J ~ XI Special Prosecutor (252 - United States v. Diamond International Corporation and Ray Dubrowin (CR 74-114, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings March 7, 1974 41-570 0 - 74 - 17 Information filed charging Diamond with making an illegal campaign contribution (Count l) and charging Dubrowin with consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. Diamond sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00; Dubrowin sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00. (253) IW THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ._ . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) v. DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and RAY DUBROWIN, Defendants. ) ) Cr. No. (18 U.S.C. 5610) ~ INFORMATIO N The Special Prosecutor charges: COUNT ONE 1. At all times material to this Information the Diamond International Corporation was a corporation established under the laws of the State of Delaware. 2. On or about November 7, 1972, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for. 3. From on or about December 13, 1971, to on or about March 23, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Diamond International Corporation made contributions totaling six thousand dollars ($6,000) in connection with the aforesaid general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election by delivering five thousand dollars ($5,000) to a representative of the Finance Committee for the Re- Election of the President to wit the Committee for Effective Government; and by delivering one thousand dollars ($1,000) to a representative of the Muskie (254) ) Campaign Committee, all in violation of §610 of Title 18, United States Code. COUNT TWO 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs one and two of Count One of this Information and incorporated by reference herein. 2. From on or about December 13, 1971, to on or about March 23, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Ray Dubrowin, being an officer -- to wit, a vice-president - of the Diamond International Corporation consented to the making of said corporation of a contribution in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to the Committee for Effective Government and 2 contribution of one thousand dollars to the Muskie Campaign Committee, said contributions being in connection with the aforesaid general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions, and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election, in violation of S610 of Title 18, United States Code. gin LEON JAWORSKI A I Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force 1425 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (255) i United States v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company and Russell DeYoung (CR 73-540, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio) Major court proceedings October 17, 1973 Information filed charging Goodyear with making an illegal campaign contribution (Count 1) and charging DeYoung with consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. Goodyear sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00; DeYoung sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00. (257) Indistinct document retyped by House Judiciary Committee staff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) V. ) ) G OODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY) a nd RUSSELL DE YOUNG No. (18 U.S.C. Sec. 610) The Special Prosecutor charges: 1. In the month of March, 1972, and at all times material to this Information, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. 2. On November 7, 1972, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, a general election was held at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors were voted for. 3. In the month of March, 1972, and at all times material to this Information prior to April 7, 1972, the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President was organized to support and did actively support the Presidential candidacy of Richard M. Nixon in the aforesaid general election. 4. In the month of March, 1972, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, in the Northern District of Ohio, and elsewhere, made a contribution in the amount of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in cash in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election by delivering said amount to an officer and agent of the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President, in Violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. Indistinct document retyped by House Judiciary Committee staff (258) Indistinct document retyped by House Judiciary Committee staff ._ f COUNT TWO 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 3 of Count One of this Information are incorporated by reference herein. 2. In the month of March, 1972, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere, Russell deYoung, being Chairman of the Board of Directors of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, consented to the contribution by Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company of forty thousand dollars ($40,000) in cash in connection with the aforementioned 1972 general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. ARCHIBALD COX Special Prosecutor 1425 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Indistinct document retyped by House Judiciary Committee staff (259) Fs O t) M o tD o o CJ .64 t h X c_4 (,) . tll ^ to tt) >1 ~~—~~~~~~— ,tl ," g Fq tr ' £,1 d O tl ^ ::1 [,} C,18 sg M ~~n g b ' N tj rl S t.7 F I <7 0 ; ¢ t;\ '4 tt >4 1 Sl tL'l t > ~~. j Zt tX t ¢ ^ § . q n S v < .- o g a o 4 ^ O a - tq ¢ tJ ¢ H ~~4 tRl ^ H < cn r K J X s tt xJ tt X1 /s Q n S f; g h a " 0 f < " M n 4 X r;1 n, FS sn PJ4 n t. Kn.. X t1 n 1~~ r 4 O ¥fl. fn 11 0 ¢t ~~~~ X " 1" o h Fl ;s tt1 D t.'1 r v st 8 4} tt 6 - Q {~~ ,., ;S ~~'7 r " ; > d H Z f F F1 > 1Ql ~~4 rt ~ ~~~~ F ,~~ t.4 n n F o td l~~g t!s 0 ~~S 4~~ r 1 2 o, tÇ = l;l G a 2 , e f 1 h d j f 3 c) r.q • t.1 ca p tt X4 0 e ~~. t...... ¢¢1 > tS Q * u q r o H 2 g g 6 ^ 4° 8 ( " t | •g hE 43 t 4 ss 2 t1 Q r. r tl P' aru ' Z )^ 2-p 4A ,.D Us; g . ,. U ~~; S X S O t4 nF sz AX x, ArR $ n ot & g S ": | 42 R " ti 2 { t Ju w e ~~-. ~~~~ 21 O " 4~~ 4 q • z ) } rZ lJ Q g Q ; ¢ r ~~~~ S a ji e r g w k G 'li ~ '': ') d Ntt + Pd 1D o [ ~~} ¢~~; r~~~~ 5~~ 0 r f fI t5 ~~d 1H t4 4X s 0 .V o h n o * Ps ~~~~ O 0 4~~ ~~1 V ZI f . r 4 ti r1 t| t1 ,C44 $'4 t ^ < < rJ " ~~~~d < > t A l > tl U 4 @ @ su a n P. b _s o c: ca o - s 2 O t) lt F}l vp ^ t;} v ft * $ FW O ~~) CP P tJ F4e R $ g O 0 v ¤ t ~~~~ r} /l o X rr p> tt i FX 1 hl P {* Ui PS 1{ I H Fa C'~~ w u re 8 U g o W n ,~~p. b * t) k o (D w j 11 js a M N 11 o o N ¥~~ F c I u X t so >s i X r.o B. t~~ t 8 1 rt o fv Fs .f t ffi 9 ~~ t ni 9 > [J' F&l Pe (% F ti A > p IJ if w (@ 1*4 15 * O P m ¥D <;t, tj 1: (> TD {> O () n o hJ cE {1~~ l: t4 H t o <1~~ 0 0 b fa Ir P rv ~~~~ " 1t tJ P H 11 tJ 10 er {~~ " fJ g} n n rj o ~~1 " ~~; z z O FJ g > E g " n p v ,> g S t.a, b to zD fr E N zr o > ; (; ~~J tl H~~ Fw ~~t >~~ 64 ft o s1 s: n v o > t>. p. X P' h F~~ o <> ~~~~) p p' FtF t S \£ i ffi ^ {~~ tt F4 ;,1' 0 f r ;1 ,, ttt j . .J 54 fF8~~ o FS •1# iS CJj ; F1 tJ @ > t~~ 1]' o 4 Fs tw rF tj * {~~t t5 rD i; W n FZ { P f r' Ft v [~~ ( t 9 ~~) O L, O o p k X (} tj H ) O er tt lA; , b lkl i? tJ' tX s r rt tt ~~S1 h' O 1,1 s . O 1 X H 1~~ 1 sb (} D O s? tj tt Q X J 61 ¢ ~~t t F9 tV tW 3 {l U t'5 *s b t1 w o J : vr ; lJ IJ t~~ :> 1" ~~4 rr O tY '1 W {) 1Q l'# Fb 4 ' @ H gb a tO ts w O ;1 z O~~ zt r {> tJ t4 {P 1X z 1't iq 1s ¢ "5 ,: _ X (t o ,) s\> o ,kt r: P} t} X sr 1; 4 lJ tM i; rj tJ ts,e . jX 1,. J. 11 (S [-br it ' \h O t t o J tg F!l @ l~~/ 1~~ J pt g u rJ t t X 11 r;~~ tt~~} ,s' q~~ ~~ O @ tD 1: O L)' |z FW %1 G; ¥s O 14 ' '~~ t} u ,) a 4> .w fi 1'> '-s ' \' bJ ~~. 1 sx 84 ,~~ ;t; z~~~~ o e n' t~~ [~~ 9 {# s1- to ~~} J^, re at X o tv a t 1:s 1:t tA {i () &8 1} ft t324 1 CV J ., United States v. Gulf Oil Corporation and Claude C. Wild. Jr. (CR 960-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings November 13, 1973 Information filed charging Gulf Oil with making an illegal campaign contribution (Count l) and charging Wild with consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. Gulf Oil sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000,00; Wild sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000.00. (263) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.? FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLU;'DIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, V. Plaintiff ) GULF OIL CORPORATION and ) INFORMATION CLAUDE C. sfILD, JR. ) ) Defendants ) The Special Prosecutor charges: COUNT ONE 1. At all times material to this Information the Gulf Oil Corporation was a corporation established under the laws of the State'of Pennsylvania. 2. On or about November 7, 1972, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for. 3. From on or about March 1, 1971, to on or about April 6, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the Gulf Oil Corporation made contributions totaling one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) in connection with the aforesaid general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election by delivering one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to representatives of the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President and its predecessor co ~~ ttees; by delivering fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) to a representative of the Mills for President Committee; and by delivering ten thousand dollars 610,000) to a (264) — 2 — representative of the Citizens for Jackson Campaign. Committee, all in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. COUNT TOGO 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs one and two of Count One of this information are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 2. From on or about March 1, 1971, to on or about April 6, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Claude C. Wild, Jr., being an officer - to wit, vice- president - of the Gulf Oil Corporation, consented to the making by said corporation of contributions in the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to the Finance Committee for the ReElection of the President and its predecessor committees, said contributions being in connection with the aforesaid general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions, and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. Leon Ja,,;:,<, _ . Special Prosecutor . Watergate Special Prosecution Force 1425 K Street, N.W.. Washington, D. C. 20005 (265) i United States v. Herbert W. Kalmbach (CR 74-86 and CR 74-87, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings February 25, 1974 June 17, 1974 The defendant waives prosecution by indictment. Informations filed charging the defendant with violations of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act and with offering a government position in exchange for a campaign contribution during the 1970 elections. Copy of letter filed dated February 13, 1974, from Leon Jaworski to James H. O'Connor advising that the government would accept a guilty plea from the defendant to two one count informations. The defendant enters a plea of guilty. Defendant sentenced to a prison term of six to eighteen months and fined $10,000.00. (267) . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF Id AMERICA ) ) v. , } Crim. Lo. (18 U S.C. 52; 2 U.S.C §242(a) and §252(b)) I N F O R M A T I O X HERBERT W.. Kalmbach, ) Defendant. ) The Special Prosecutor charges: 1. On or about November 3, 1970, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States and the laws or the several states, a general election was held at which candidates for the United States Senate and House of Representatives were voted for. . 2. From on or about March 1, 1970, to on or about December 31, 1970, there existed in the District of Columbia, a political committee as defined by 5241(c) of Title 2, United States Code, which committee willfully accepted contributions and willfully made expenditures for the purpose of influencing the election of candidates of the Republican Party for the United States Senate and House of Representatives in the aforesaid general election in, among others, the following states: Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, North Kakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, . • Vermont and Wyoming, at a tine when a chairman and treasurer of said committee had not yet been chosen as required by Section 242(a) of Title 2, United States Code (268) _ 3 From on or about March 1, 1970, to on or about December , 1970, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant HERBERT W. KALMBACH did knowingly: ~and willfully aid, bet,-counsel, induce and procure the commission by the aforesaid committee of the offense set forth in paragraph 2 of this inforamtion and did cause the aforesaid committee to accept contributions and make expenditures at a time when a chairman and treasurer of that committee had not yet been chosen. All in violation of Section 252(b) of Title 2 and Section 2 of Title 18, United States Code - LEON JRWO?~~SKI ~ ~ Special Prosecutor (269 ) 41-570 O 74 - In - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CGLU:^3XA UNITED STAT—- S O P AM r e CA ) v. F:ERagR~~~r W.. KALMBACH, defendant'. The Special--l Prosecutor charges: ) Crim. Lo. ~ ) (18 U.S.C 50_~s3 \ INFORMATION'';TIOi. C: or about the 16th day of September, 1970, the defe—=nt F HERBERT W. KALMBACH promised em.?loy.-nt, Positions work cc pensation and other benefit- provided for and made possible by an Act of Congress, to wit, an appointment as United States Ar.k to a European country, to one C. Fife Symington, Jr as consideration, favor, and reward 'or . . , political activity ; . tical party in an election, to wit, for the making o. > political contribution of $100,000 by J. Fife Symington, Jr_ and others for the support of Republican Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidates in 1970 federal and state elections z and the Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in the 1972 federal election, all in violation of 5600, Title 18, United States Code LEON JAWORSKI:;T Special Prosecutor (270) WA ./s I i I (; \ X i Sl'i ( I ~~~,!. i'i.O';. ( 1:1 1 )' 1 ().:~~~ :1: \:';, ,ll ji;. t(} 1 1 ) (. },, ); I2<2'~~~:[ua.:', :' James—ies T-I O' Con-or, Esq O'Co, nor, Cav.~~~,-n~~~.g'<, Anderson, Westover, ',xil 1 .ing,~~~so—. r & Beshears. s Suite 18 O 0 First . Federal S avi s ngs Building 3009 North Cen.tral Avenue P;Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Dear Mr. O' Con-~~~no~~~: On the understanding specified ~~~:)210.7t- the United S,a,es will accept guilty pleas from Her}bert W. . Kalmbach LO 2 one-count i n formation..ation charging violation of 2 U. S . C. 525;' (b))) and 2 one-count inf ormation charging a violation of 18 U. S C ¤500 This will dispose of pending or potential cha,> - ges based on m.~~~t.ers presently known:m to this office:Eice and spec:i.lc2l 1 y includi ng charges relating to the so-called Watergate cover-up, contribution from;?. t}~~~e milk producers, o-.nAr cont-.-ibueions from persons see}tsing ambassador-~~~ 25 apo!)i;1~~~2.2n1~~~~~~ and 2.15)r charges arising out o grand jury testim:;>.on)~ heretofore given by Mr. Kalmbach The understanding are that.-c Mr, Kal' mbach will enter his pleas in the District Court-. for the I:7is-ric- of Columbia,~ that, he will waive indictment on the 2 U. S.C ¤252 (b)) - - felony] charge, that he will waive objection to venue on the 18 U.S.C. F600 charge, and that- full 2nd hful.'Ullur . -- disclosu.~~~r2 will be w.,2de or all relevant in ormation .ion and dozz¢.en.s in Mr. Kalmbach s possession, which dislosure! is to commence ~~~.~~~.-.edia.e~~~Xr after the entering ing of the pleas o gu il: y. ultimately,ely, of course, Mr.. Kalmbach-^n may be required to tes ti tify as a witness for the United S States in) cases with respect i:o which he may n-~~~e re) e-~~~tant inform..nw ion It is further un:õersLooS ¥,hz- in other grand jury indictments or o other- charges brought by the United States:e~~~.es E!nd the S~~~?oCi~~~> Prosecutor, Mr.. Kalmbach may be named es an unindic-ed co— (271 ) X. is fur ~~ l - u . . |2__ C r J _ k !2~~ _. _ United._ ._-_ _ ~~?;i23 ~~ _ _ _ _ United t~~2 States. Such coo:ze~~-~~.io>. 1,' the attention::ltion of a C;D'~~—it or pr essional disci?l}Jrla ary body, if '~~-5'.,t1- quested. — This disposition will 1 not bar— p.~OSCC.Ds5C)R for any false Se ',~~~~ W=;;3; Sr given :.)er~~?.f~~^5-, .nor to ~~)_o~~ec cution e for any serio'" ious off ~~:lS~~a CO.—.—lip.'-rl !:2iz Mr.. QJ office is presen,,1 y unaware Enclosed are copies-_s of two draft informa. tion, as discussed-~~ )- n our meeting);oO 1 last week.'; Sincerely, v OE'; JAV.,-2>5,~~ S D ¡ ~~ 5 A e P ~~ O S o v u ,0 ~ (272) - United States v. Lehigh Valley Cooperative Farmers .. .. _ (CR 74-241, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings May 6, 1974 Information filed charging Lehigh Valley with making an illegal campaign contribution. The defendant enters a plea of guilty. Lehigh Valley sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00 (273) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff f V. LEHIGH VALLEY COOPERATIVE FARMERS RS, Defendant The Special Prosecutor Charges: COUNT ONE 1. At all times material to this Information, LEHIGH VALLEY COOPERATIVE FARMERS was a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. November 7, 1972, pursuant to the constitution and laws of the United states, a general election was held at which Presidential and vice Presidential electors were voted for. 3. At all times material to this Information, the Finance Committee to RE-ELECT the President was organized to support and did actively support the Presidential candidacy of Richard M. Nixon in the aforementioned general election. 4. From on or about April 19, 1972, to on or about April 27, 19?2, in t,he'Distrlet of Columbia and elsewhere, the def endant LEHIGH VALLEY COOPERATIVE FARMERS made a contribution in the amount of fifty thousand dollars $50,000) in connection with the aforesaid general election and with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select (274) candidates for the offices voted for in said election by delivering said amount to agents of the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. LEON JAWORSKI Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force 1425 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 (275) i United States v. John H. Melcher Jr. _ (CR 74-196, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceeding April 18, 1974 June 14, 1974 A one count information filed charging the defendant with being an accessory after the fact to the making of an illegal campaign contribution. The defendant enters a plea of guilty. Melcher sentenced to pay a fine of $2,500.00 (277) - UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA w ) Plaintiff, ) V. . ) JOEN H. MELCHER. JR. NO . 18 U.S.C. ¤¤ 3, 610 Defendant. ) INFORMAT ION THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR CHARGES: 1. The American Shipbuilding Company is and was, at all times material to this information a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey. 2. From on or about June l, 1973, and continuously thereafter up to and including the date of the filing of this information,-the defendant, JOEN H. MELCHER, JR., is and was the Executive Vice President and General Counsel of The American Shipbuilding Company. 0 ; 3. George M. Steinbrenner, III, is and was, at all times material to this information, an officer, to wit, . - the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive . . . . - Officer of The American Shipbuilding Company, and was acting O in that capacity. 0 f ~ - 4. In or about April, 1972, George M. Steinbrenner, III, in his capacity as an officer of The American Shipbuilding Company did willfully and unlawfully in violation of 18 United . . . . States Code, Section 610, _ ._ the making of a contribution by The American Shipbuilding Company in connection with the election of Presidential and Vice Presidential electors and United States Senators and Representatives in Congress, to wit: a contribution in the total amount of S25,000 to committees organized to support the Presidential (278) candidacy of Richard M.. Nixon in the general election held on November 7, 1972. 5. In or about August, 1973 and early September, 1973, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendant, JOHN H. MELCHER, JR., knowing that George M.. Steinbrenner, III, had committed an offense against the United States, to wit, the violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610, set forth in paragraph 4, did relieve, comfort, and assist Steinbrenner in order to hinder and prevent Steinbrenner's apprehension, trial, and punishment by using, among others, the following means: MELCHER conveyed a false and misleading explanation of the $25,000 contribution described in paragraph 4 to employees of The American Shipbuilding Company to enable said employees to give this story to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who were then investigating possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610. Further, with the knowledge and consent of Steinbrenner, MELCHER conveyed to an Assistant Special Prosecutor d the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, Department of Justice, -a false and misleading explanation of the $25,000 contri . . . bution by The American Shipbuilding Company at a time when said Assistant Special Prosecutor was conducting an . authorized investigation into possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610 in connection with said contribution. All in violation of Sections 3 and 610 of Title 18, United States Code. LEON JAWORSKI - Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force 1425 K Street, N.W - Washington, D C. 20005 (279) i United States v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company and Harry Heltzer (3-73 CR 131, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota) Major court proceedings October 17, 1973 Information filed charging Minnesota Mining with making an illegal campaign contribution (Count 1), and charging Heltzer with consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. Minnesota Mining sentenced to pay a fine of $3,000.00; Heltzer sentenced to pay a fine of $500.00. (281) - - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. MINNESOTA MINING- AND MANUFACTURING) COMPANY, and HARRY HELTZER ) No . (18 U.S.C. Sec. 610) The Special Prosecutor charges: 1. In the month of March, 1972, and at all times material to this Information, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company was a corporation organized under the laws Or the state of Delaware. . . 2. On November 7, 1972, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United states a general election was held at which Presidential and Ice-Presidential electors were voted for, 3. In the month Or March, 1972, and at all times material to this Information prior to April 7, 1972, the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President was -organized to support and did actively support the Presidential candidacy Or Richard M. Nixon in the aforesaid general election . - 4. In the month March:arch, 1972, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, in the District Or Minnesota, and elsewhere, made a contribution in the amount Or thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in cash in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election by delivering said amount to an officer and agent Or the Finance Committee for the Re-Election Or the President, in violation Or Section 610 Or Title 18, United states Code. (282) - • COUNT TWO 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 3 Or Count One Or this INFORMATION are incorporated by reference herein. 2. In the month of March, 1972, in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere, Harry Heltzer, being Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, consented to the contribution by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in cash in connection with the aforementioned 1972 general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses:held to select candidates for the offices in said election, in violation of Sec. 610 Or Title 18, United States Code. ARCE-|wASD COX Spec al Prosecutor 1425 Y Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20005 (283) United States v. Harold Nelson (CR 74-443, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings July 31, 1974 Information filed charging Nelson with conspiring to make an illegal campaign contribution, and making an illegal payment to a public official. Defendant enters a plea of guilty. (285) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLU:131A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. HAROLD S. NELSON, Defendant. ) ___ ) INFORMATION ) Criminal No. T/S9 3 ) ) Violation of 18 U.S.C. ) § 371 (conspiracy) 1. At all times material to this Information, up to on or about October 1, 1969, Milk'< Producers, Inc., (hereafter "MPI")"), was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas. 2. At all times material to this Information from on or about October 1, 1969, Associated Milk Producers, Inc., (hereafter "AMPI""), a successor corporation to F2I, was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kansas. 3. On or about November 5, 1968, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for and was preceded by primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said election (hereafter collectively referred to as the "1968 elections"). 4. On or about November 3, 1970, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Senators and Representatives to Congress were voted for and was preceded by primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said election (hereafter collectively referred to as the "1970 (286) —-2 — ._ . 5. On or about November 7, 1972, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws or the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors, and Senators and Representatives to Congress ware voted for and was preceded by primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said elections (hereafter collectively referred to as the "1972 elections") . 6. At all times material herein, HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, was the General Manager of MPI and AMPI and authorized by the Board of Directors of ASI and AMPI to act on behalf of the corporation. 7. At all times material herein, from on or about October 1, 1969, David L. Parr was Special Counsel to AMPI and authorized to act on behalf of the corporations. 8. At all times material herein, Bob A. Lilly was Assistant to the General Manager of MPI and HOPI and authorized to act on behalf of the corporations. times material herein, Robert was Controller of MPI and AMPI and authorized to act on behalf of the corporations. 10. From on or about January 1, 1967 to on or about January 12, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, ROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, MPI. AMPI, David L. Parr, Bob A. Lilly, Robert 0. Isham, Stuart H. Russell, named herein as co-conspirators but not as defendants, and others, conspired, combined, confederated and agreed together and with each other willfully to make corporate contributions and ex?endit~~~-es in. connection With the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610, and HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, Bob A. Lilly, Jake Jacobsen, named herein as conspirators but not as defendants, and others, conspired, combined, confederated and agreed together and with (287)) - each other to give a thing of value to a public official for and because of his performance of an otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(f). 11. It was part of said conspiracy for HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, and the co-conspirators MPI K SI, David L. Parr, Bob A. Lilly, Robert O. Isham, Stuart H. Russell and others, to cause MPI and ANTI to make corporate contributions and expenditures in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections. 12. It was further a part of said conspiracy for HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, and the co-conspirators MPI, AMPI, David L. Parr, Bob A. Lilly, Robert O. Isham, Stuart H. Russell and others to attempt to conceal the corporate origins of the contributions referred to in paragraph 11 in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections. Among the means by which these corporate contributions would be made and concealed were the following: a. Certain employees of MPI and A.!2I, pursuant to the authorization of HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, would work full-time on behalf of candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections and make disbursements on behalf of such candidates, these disbursements and the salaries of the employees, for the period they were working full-time on behalf of candidates, to be paid by MPI and SKI. b. Certain employees of MPI and AMPI, pursuant to the authorization of HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, would make contributions to candidates for federal elective off ce with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections and se reimbursed by the co-conspirators Stuart H. Russell and other attorneys for MPI and/or AMPI who in turn would be reimbursed (288) A' by billing MPI and AMPI under the guise of legal fees, amounts equivalent to those paid employees pursuant to this scheme plus additional amounts to compensate for added income tax liability. MPI and AMPI?I would pay these bills. c. Certain employees of IIPI and AMPI, pursuant to the authorization of HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, would make contributions to candidates for federal in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections and would be reimbursed by public relations firms on retainer with MPI and AMPI:?I, who in turn would be reimbursed by billing ISI and AMPI under the guise of having rendered services, amounts ~~~ ts equi valent to those paid to employees pursuant to this scheme. MBI and AMPS would pay these bills. d. MPI and AMPI, pursuant to the authorization of HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, would pay for part of services rendered to candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1970 and 1972 elections without intending to receive the benefit of such services. e. Certain employees of HOPI and AS-:PI, pursuant to the authorization of HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, would make contributions in connection-With the 1968 elections, and would be reimbursed by DIPI and AMPI pursuant to arrangements made by co-conspirator Robert 0. Isham. 13. It was further a part of said conspiracy for HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, and the consp?irators Bob A. Lilly and Jake Jacobsen, directly and indirectly, otherwise than as provided by law, to give a thing of value to a public official, namely the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, for and because of an official act performed by him. 14. It was further a part of said conspiracy and among the means by which said conspiracy was carried out for HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, to authorize Bob A. L Lilly, (289) - to give J-!\-e Jacobsen 0 ' 0, O'JI) .03 to give e to John D . (,~~~ on March 25, 1971. OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy and to e- effect the objects thereof, the following overt acts were co ~~~.'ttec ' the District of Columbia and elsewhere a. On or about October 28, 1968, Harold S. S~~~-~~~--?,, the defendant, and others caused $53,500.00 in checks c'-a-^— by directors, employees, persons affiliated with ND~~~ a-d others to be delivered to the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C. for tickets to the Salute to the vice President Dinner,a fund raising dinner held in con-.ectic;n -vi the 1968 election. HAROLD S. NELSON, caused the payors of the checks to be reimbursed with. corporate?e--=_ funds for the amount Of said checks. b. In 1968, HAROLD S. NELSON-, the defendant-.=, and Others, caused cons?i¢2tor Bob A Lilly to spend portions of the period from April to October 1963, working i the States of Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, T-.ashin5tcn, Alaska r Hawaii and West Virginia in connection .. primary election Campaign of Hubert H Hump. dant, and others, caused cons?irator bob ', Lilly 10 expend' $33,000 00 of the corporate fur is of consp-.s?i-.-tc= MPI in support of the candidacy of Hubert -- H. .?h~e~~~- and G= -= in the above mentioned states in connection with the 1963 elect.-- i- ions (290) — 6 — c. From on or about December 17, 1969, to on or about November 16, 1970, HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendants coconspirators Bob A. Lilly, Robert 0. Isham and others, caused $100, 000.00 in corporate funds to be used to pay the Trust for Agricultural Political Education (hereafter "TAPE"), the political affiliate of AMPI, a segregated fund organized to receive voluntary contributions from members and employees of AMPI for political purposes, in the following manner: i) The co-conspirator Bob A. Lilly borrowed $100,000.00 with which he reimbursed TAPE for $100,000.00 it had paid Herbert W. Kalmbach in August of 1969 for the purpose of securing access to White House officials by officers of AMPI, in order to obviate the need for TAPE to report said payment publicly. ii) Certain attorneys and public relations firms retained by AMPI, paid $100,000.CO to Bob A. Lilly to reimburse him for his $100,000.00 payment to TP PE . iii) Such attorneys and public relations firms for AMPI in some or all cases, billed AMPI for purported services not in fact rendered, in order to obtain reimbursement for the monies paid to Bob A. Lilly plus additional amounts to compensate for their increased tax liability. iv) AMPI paid the attorneys and public relations firms for the amounts so billed. d. In 1970 HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, co-conspirator Bob A. Lilly and others caused co-conspirator AMPI to make contributions of corporate funds totalling $23, 950 00 to the senatorial candidacy of Hubert H. Humphrey (Minnesota) in connection with the the 1970 elections . ~~~ . (291) — 7 — _ e. In 1970 HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, and others caused co-conspirator AMPI to make contributions of corporate funds totalling:lg $5,000.00 to the senatorial candidacy of Phillip Hoff (Vermont) in connection with the 1970 elections. f. In 1970 HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant and others caused coconspirator AMPI to contribute $10,000.00 of corporate funds to representatives of and to Page Belcher (Oklahoma), a candidate for the House of Representatives, in connection with the 1970 elections. g. On or about July 24, 1970, and November 24, 1970, HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, cocorspirator Stuart H. Russell, and others, caused contributions totalling $8,400.Ga to be made to committees organized to receive funds in behalf of the senatorial candidacy of Edmund 5. Muskie (Maine) in connection with the 1970 elections. Such contributions were reimbursed with corporate funds of AMPI. In connection with said contributions, on or about July 24, 1970, coconspirator Stuart H. Russell mailed two checks to a public relations firm in Washington, D. C . h. From on or about July 16, 1971, to on or about December 21, 1971, HAROLD S. NELSON, the defendant, 2nd others caused $82,000.00 in corporate funds to be paid to Valentine, Sherman and Associates, a computer mail service firm, $7,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine, Sherman and Associates for the senatorial candidacy of James Abourezk (South Dakota), in connection with the 1972 elections, $25,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine. Sherman and Associates for the c.^ncid.2cv of HUSC—| H. Humphrey for the Presidential nomination in connection with the 1972 elections, and $50,000.00 being in partial payment for services performed by Valentine, Sherman.~~~n 2nd Associates and intended to benefit various Democratic Party candidates for Federal elective office in the State of iowa in connection with the 1972 elections. (292) and { . A; . - 8 - i. On or about May 14, 1971, J2'. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section '71) HENRY 5. RUTH, JR. Deputy Special Prosecutor (293) j ; ~~rl '~~; r; / 1, J. l f ) ,! r J re Fr~~ ,~~; r I .|1 4-) ~~11 t't t*I i... g. () .,. i1 r! c) ff r z tE i' 4 111 trS rJ . . •J } *1 } t) (I (r1 r—l i, > tr I t]n 4.1 tt.1 ,1 S r I ';, [ J ~~, r f 0 r; z ~~ { i l & ! ¥t1 (H' I i'l qJ .-; ,;1 1,,-.! (J 11 ¥,t it' it] ,| .!.! D t, . r.' i'J '') ~l ,l r>, C! W.) 1 p i \ r) (,1 (') O l) FI C; t.) n! J z .~~ 1 o .Lk ,rt (- t!1 tlJ r;) A-1 ;1 ,, ~ .11 rJ 4.1 r 4 rll ¥t1 'S1 rrl o a~~ Jl v r~~ trf 21) r, [6 (E~~ ;t ,r r) '~~! Lr ,f, ,,: rr,~~ j; r! f.~~ a,1 iot5 0 o .) J .! i ,1,,1 O r) Prt iJ r- ! t'l; U -I-J , - v I ~~' r.,,r, O rn r: kl O . ) 1~~ -I t r.J a) rZ ' J F ~~, { '1 (-, J.) (t) v tlE s t:terl i1} tJl ¥. i r-e } f f . r 1 .i ! t' 1 , 1 ti' .tJ 1~~ r) ~~': .1 i: t O t.L) ' ,' ,_1 n rr5 ,.1 (! I wr-t -...... 4> ,-r (, ,r, r: ,-1 Al S I D O D O V'~~4 41 tit .. C) 1-# 0 ('1 ('I 1 } ,S': l-~~, m r: s; rli I I a I frX I J >, 1 r:: O ¥6 1 rq O Sr f:' .f t-1 r, 4 o l " { C) .t} 01 tZt tr;^ ,-i rl an r | Pr-l ~~81 f.t (. ) [~~ ^) brl 1 l r-4 v. 1, v () .'': t) r5 (d -,. I f r~~} •) Fri •. () .iJ g .1~~ f) ~~,} r.; .(J '>. t) O tr) ,! tr,1 ,C' (r) r/) rrJ rtl t) iist FiJ (: wrj r!) () tn o fl) rg r3 s.~~ t.r *> rtX *- () r rt) riR r) t't s, i-:-l-) O rq ,- l r.^' 'b'"4 t: X rD rl +>1 C) en -,1 j O () t1 '> !7 0 21 iNl (n 1-t ,1) i'~~) tn tan r [; (r) t;5 Cs ,-t il) r,l a) r-l trt () ,r: J! S-, r; 01 trQJ rUt r F>t n) '>Irr'7 ~ rl U# I/J ,-1 ri ;'; r~~ rg Eq r-t *' e rt i1J 1 ¥1 ) rl U rt ,~~.S isa) ¥~~n cD vJ p} nt ~~~~ > ^ r~~ sn . 1: 4J Ki a) 1tOrl rZ r<5 1t,~~^ 4-l rj : ~~1, rn sr l"J X ,>l r) 0 5'1 rl,) ,sn XJ O .S t;~~ r s \ \ S., S .4 . t " t-D ''' c-' o' 'S 1 tw7 , ~~rS r.l ¥1) 8£) t) ;1 "4 .) ,4 0 1 '81 rt tn U ,rQ rl r~~ rgi -el "4 ~~J al iJ ,'!, r';) to rv O 1 1 )4 ~~ ~~) rn tr} >t 4 ) k f 'n' q rrS ,1 r~~.; O O rtl au ~~ ,s~~i'll S ~~ i United States v. Northrop Corporation and Thomas Jones (CR 74-226, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings May 1, 1974 Information filed charging Northrop with making an illegal campaign contribution (Count 1) and charging Jones with consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. The defendants sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00. (297) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ._ . . , . ¥ R UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V NORTHROP CORPORATION and HOMAS V. JONES, Defendants he Special Prosecutor charges: ) Criminal No. ; ) (18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 611) - COUNT ONE : - 1. At all times material to this Information, the NORTHROP CORPORATION was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California 2. At all times material to this Information, the NORTHROP CORPORATION was under contract with the United States or departments or agencies thereof for the rendition of services and the furnishing of material, supplies or equipment to the United States or departments or agencies thereof. - - . 3. On or about November 7, 1972, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and Laws of the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for. - -- - . 4. At all times material to this Information, the Finance Committee to ReElect the President, the California Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President, and their predecessor committees, were political committees organized to promote the candidacy of Richard M. Nixon in the aforesaid general election. (298) - 6 - 5. From on or about March 16, 1972, to on or about March 4, 1974, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the NORTHROP CORPORATION made contributions totalling approximately one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to the aforesaid political committees by the following means: a. By the making of advances of Northrop corporate funds to a European consultant of the NORTHROP CORPORATION, portions of which advances were to be used for the making of said political contributions; b. By delivering a total of approximately one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to representatives of the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President and > total of fifty thousand dollars $50,000) to representatives of the California Finance Committee to Re-elect the President, or their predecessor committees, which funds were obtained through said European consultant from advances to him of Northrop corporate funds; - c. By arranging for the substitution on or about January 25, 1973, of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) of personal funds for a portion of the aforesaid contributions made by the NORTHROP CORPORATION, and the preparation of back-dated documents reflecting that such personal funds were advanced pursuant to arrangements made on or about February 28, 1972, whereas in fact such arrangements were made in or about December 1972 and January 1973; (299) : 3 ¥: d. By representing to government agencies investigating possible violations of the law by the NORTHROP CORPORATION and its executives through submission of the aforesaid back-dated documents and by other diverse means, that the aforesaid contributions had at all times consisted of personal funds contributed by Northrop executives. All in violation of Section 611, Title 18, United States Code. ; . COUNT TWO 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs one through five of Count One of this Information are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 2. At all times material to this Information, THOMAS V. JONES was an officer, to wit, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of the Northrop Corporation, and was acting in that capacity. 3. From on and about February 28, 1972, to on or about March 4, 1974, THOMAS V. JONES did aid, abet, counsel and command the Northrop Corporation, through himself and others, to engage in the acts and conduct specified in paragraph five of Count One of this Information. All in violation of Sections 2 al;. 611, Title 18, United States Code. - . Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force (300) United States v. David Parr (CR 74-426, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings July 23, 1974 Information filed charging Parr with conspiring to make an illegal campaign contribution. Defendant enters a plea of guilty. (301) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ._ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAVID L. PARR, ) Violation of 18 U.S.C. ? §371 (conspiracy) Defendan t INFORMATION 1. At all times material to this Information, up to on or about October 1, 1969, Milk Producers, Inc. (hereafter "MPI""), was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas. 2. At all times material to this Information from on or about October 1, 1969, Associated Milk Producers, Inc. (hereafter "AMPI"), a successor corporation to MPI, was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kansas 3. On or about November 5, 1968, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for and was preceded by primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said elections (hereafter collectively referred to as "1968 elections"). 4. On o- about November 3, 1970, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Senators and Representatives to Congress were voted for and was preceded by primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said elections (hereafter collectively referred to as "1970 elections"). (302) —2— 5. On or about November 7, 1972, a general election was held pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors and Senators and Representatives to Congress were voted for and was preceded by primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for said elections (hereafter collectively referred to as "1972 elections"). 6. At all times material herein, Harold S. Nelson was the General Manager of DIPI and AMPI and authorized by the Boards of Directors of MPI and AMPI to act on behalf of the corporations. 7. At all times material herein, from on or about A, October 1, 1969, DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, was Special Counsel to AMPI and authorized to act on behalf of the corporation. 8. At all times material herein, Bob A. Lilly was Assistant to the General Manager of ASI and SMPI and authorized to act on behalf of the corporations. 9. At all times material herein, Robert O. Isham was Controller of ASI and AMPI and authorized to act on behalf of the corporations. 10. From on or about January 1, 1968, to on or about January 12, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, MPI, AMPI, Harold S. Nelson, Bob A. Lilly, Robert O. Isham, Stuart H. Russell, named herein as co-conspirators but not as defendants, and others, conspired, combined, confederated and agreed together and with each other to com..mit offenses against the United States, to wit, willfully to make corporate contributions and expenditures in connection with the 1968, 1970, and 1972 elections, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 610. (303) —3— ._ . 11. It was part of the conspiracy for DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, MPI, AMPI, Harold S. Nelson, sob A. Lilly, Robert O. Isham, Stuart H. Russell and others corporate contributions and expenditures in the form of PSI and AMPI funds to be made in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections. 12. It was further a part of said conspiracy for DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and the co-conspirators HOPI, A}IPI, Harold S. Nelson, Bob A. Lilly, Robert O. Isham, Stuart H. Russell, and others, to attempt to conceal the corporate origins of the contributions referred to in paragraph 11. Among the means by which these corporate contributions would be made and concealed were the following: a. Certain employees of MPI and AM2I, pursuant to the authorization of DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others would work full-time on behalf of candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1968, 1970, and 1972 elections and make disbursements on behalf of such candidates, these disbursements and the salaries of the employees for the period they were working full-time on behalf of said candidates to be paid by MPI and AMPI. b. Certain employees of MPI and AMPI, pursuant to the au authorization of DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others would make contributions to candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1968, 1970, and 1972 elections and be reimbursed by the coconspirator Stuart H. Russell and other attorneys for MPI and AMPI who in turn would be reimbursed by billing MPI and AMPI under the guise of legal fees, amounts equivalent to those paid to employees pursuant to this scheme plus in some cases, additional amounts to compensate for their added income tax liability. MPI and AMPI would pay these bills. c. Certain employees of HOPI and AUDI, pursuant to the authorization of DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others /: Jo / (304) —4— would make contributions to candidates for federal elective _ . office in connection with the 1968, 1970 and 1972 elections and would be reimbursed by public relations firms on retainer with MPI and A}IPI, who would in turn be reimbursed by billing ANTI, under the guise of having rendered services, amounts equivalent to those paid to employees pursuant to this scheme. AMPI would pay these bills. d. MSI and s SI, pursuant to the authorization of DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others would pay for par. of services rendered to candidates for federal elective office in connection with the 1970 and 1972 elections, without intending to receive the benefit of such services. e. Certain employees of ISI and x SI, pursuant to the authorization of DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others would make contributions in connection with the 1968 elections and would be reimbursed by MPI and AMPI pursuant to arrangement made by coconspirator Robert O. Isham. OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, the following overt acts were committed Do the District of Columbia and elsewhere: a. On or about October 28, 1968, DAVID L. PEER, the defendant, and others caused $63,500.00 in checks drawn by di rectors, employees and persons affiliated with HP: to be delivered to the Democratic National Committee in Washington D.C., in part for tickets to the Salute to the Vice President.^t Dinner, 2 fund raising dinner held in connection with the 1968 election. DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others caused some of the payors of the checks to be reimbursedwith corporate funds for the amount of said checks (305) —5— ._ . b. In 1968 DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others, caused coconspirator Bob A. Lilly to spend portions of the period from April to October 1968 working in the States of Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia, in connection with the Presidential primary election campaign of Hubert H. Humphrey, the salary and expenses of Bob A. Lilly for the period to be paid by the co-conspirator MPI. Further, DAVID L. PARR, the defendants and others would cause co-conspirator Bob A. Lilly to expend $38,000.00 of the corporate funds of co-conspirator MPI in support of the candidacy of Hubert H. Humphrey and others in the above mentioned States in connection with the 1968 elections. c. In 1970, DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, co- conspirator Bob A. Lilly, and others would cause co- conspirator NISI to make contributions of corporate funds totalling $23,950.00 to the senatorial candidacy of Humbert H. Humphrey (Minnesota) in connection with the 1970 elections. a. In 1970 DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others would cause co-conspirator A:4SI to contribute $10,000.00 of corporate funds to representatives of and to Page Belcher (Oklahoma), candidate for the House of Representatives, in connection with the 1970 elections. e. From or about April 22, 1970, to May 29, 1970, pursuant to the authorization of DAVID L. PAPS, the defendant, co-conspirator-= Bob A. Lilly went to California and worked full-time in support of the candidacy of Patrick Hillings (California), a candidate for the House of Representatives in connection with the 1970 elections while receiving his salary from AMPI. f. In 1971 DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others caused co-conspirator HOPI to expend $25,000.00 of corporate funds to purchase computer services for the candidacy of Hubert }I. Humphrey for nomination to the Presidency of the United States in connection with the 1972 elections. (306) / — 6 — g. From in or about April, 1971, to in or about January 1972, DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others caused coconspirator AMPI to expend $5,000.00 of corporate funds by delivering $5,000.00 to a representative of the Draft Mills for President Committee in Washington, D.C. and by causing two employees of AMSI to work for the Draft Mills for President Committee in Washington, D.C., while having their salaries and expenses paid by AMPI, in support of the candidacy of Wilbur Mills for nomination to the Presidency of the United States in connection with the 1972 elections. h. In 1972, DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others, caused co-conspirator ANTI to expend $7,000.00 of corporate funds to purchase computer services for the Senatorial campaign of James Abourezk (South Dakota) in connection with the 1972 elections. i. In 1972 DAVID L. PARR, the defendant, and others caused-co-conspirator A}IPI to expend $50,000.00 of corporate -funds to purchase computer services for the Senatorial campaign of Richard Clark (Iowa) in connection with the 1972 elections. (In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) ~~~~~~~~ ~~. HENRY 5. RUTH, JR. Deputy Special Prosecutor (307) July 22, 1974 Fred A, Gipson, Esq. Harr i s, Berry s Gipson 1700 Pennsy 1 vania,.2> Dear Mr. Gipson: On the understanding specified below, the United States will accept a guilty plea from David L. Parr r to a one count charge all eging a violation of 18 ET. S .~~. 5 371. This will dispose of potential charges against Mr. Parr based on ma-~~ers presently known to this o ffice in connection with and r elating to corporate cont ributions by Associated Milk Producers, Inc. and Milk Producers, Inc. up to the 1972 elections. not recei ving immunity from prosecution for possible violations of ,~~ 201 and 371 of Title 18, United States code, in connection with the March 95, 1971 milk price support decision, nor from any Title 25 proceeding . The understandings are: (1& that Mr. Parr will enter his plea in the District Cour. for the District of Columbia; (2) that Mr. Parr will waive indictment the 18 U.S.C. 5 371 charge; (33 that full and truthful disclosure will 52 made of all relevant information and documents in Id. Parr's knowledge and possession; (4) that t?. Parr may 'se required to testify as a witness called by the U.nited States in matters where he may have relevant info m anion; and (308) 2 (5) that in addition to the restrictions and obligations placed on the United States in the first paragraph of this letter, the sole obligation on the United States is to bring to the attention of pre- sentencing investigators or court if requested, the extend and value of Mr. Parr's cooperation with the United States, It is understood that the United States will make no recommendations concerning Nor. Parr' 3 sentence. The understandings contained in this letter are expressly conditioned on full and truthful disclosure by Mr. Parr and will not bar Prosecution for any false testimony given thereafter or for any serious offenses commited by Mr. Parr of which this office is presently unaware. HENRY S. RUTH Deputy Special Prosecutor (309) i United States v. Phillips Petroleum Company and . William W. Keeler (CR 998-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings December 4, 1973 Information filed charging Phillips with one count of making an illegal campaign contribution (Count 1) and Keeler with one count of consenting to said contribution being made (Count 2). The defendants enter a plea of guilty. Phillips sentenced to pay a fine of $5,000.00; Keeler sentenced to pay a fine of S1,000.00. (311) - IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF x AMERICA, : Plaintiff V. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COME ANY : and WILLIAM W. KEELER, . Defendants : INFORMATION Crim. NO. (18 U.S.C §610) The Special Prosecutor charges: COUNT ONE 1. From on or about February 9, 1972, to on or about March 28, 1972, and at all times material to this Information, Phillips Petroleum Company was a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. 2. On November 7, 1972, pursuant to _ tion and laws of the United States, a general election was held at which Presidential and Vice Presidential electors were voted for. 3. From on or about February 9, 1972, to on or about March 28, 1972, and at all times material to this Information, the Finance Committee for the Reelection of. the President was organized to support and did actively support the Presidential candidacy of Richard M. Nixon in the aforesaid general election. 4. From on or about February 9^ 1972, to on or about March 28, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, Phillips Petroleum Company made a contribution of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in cash in connection with the aforesaid general election and in connection with primary elections, political conventions and (312) — 2 — caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election by delivering said contribution to an officer and agent of the Finance Committee for the Re-election of the President, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. COUNT TOO 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 3 of Count One of this Information are realleged and incorporated by reference herein. 2. From on or about February 9, 1972, to on or about March 28, 1972, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, William W. Keeler, being Chairman of the Board • of Directors and Chief Executive Officer of Phillips Petroleum Company, consented to the contribution by Phillips . Petroleun Company of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) in cash in connection with primary elections, political conventions and caucuses held to select candidates for the offices in said election, in violation of Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code. LEON JAWORSKI Special Prosecutor Watergate Special Prosecution Force 1425 X Street, N.W.. Washington, D. C. 20005 (313) United States v. Donald Segretti (CR 828-73, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings September 27, 1973 October 1, 1973 November 4, 1973 Indictment filed charging the defendant with one count of conspiracy (Count 1) and three counts of distribution of illegal campaign literature (Counts 2, 3, 4) in connection with his activities during the 1972 Presidential primary in Florida. The defendant withdraws a plea of not guilty; enters a plea of guilty to Counts 1, 2 and 4. Copy of a letter filed dated September 10, 1973 from Archibald Cox to Victor Sherman. Sentence: The defendant is sentenced to one year on each of Counts 1, 2 and 4, to serve six months, remainder of the sentence suspended; the defendant is placed on probation for a period of three years. Count 3 of indictment is dismissed. (315) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA v, DONALD H. SEGRETTI 82873 CASE N0. 7'- 1Sa -CR-T-|9 (18 USC 512, 2, 371) The Grand Jury charges: COUNT ONE Prom on or about December l, 1971, through March 14, 1972, in Pinellas County, Florida, Hillsborough County, Florida, and elsewhere in the Middle District of Florida, DONALD H. SEGRET!I, the defendant, together with Robert P:elton Benz, and George A. Hearing, named herein as cocons?irators but not as defendants, and others presently unknown to the Grand Jury, did wilfully and knowingly conspire, combine, confederate and agree together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States, that is, to wilfully cause to be published and distributed letters, cards and posters Which did not contain the names of the persons, associations, committees or corporations responsible for the publication or distribution of the same, and relating to and concerning persons who had publicly declared their intentions to seek the office of President of '>he United States in a primary election and convention of a political party and wno caused and permitted their intentions to co so to be publicly declared; and in furtherance of said conspiracy and in order to effect the objects thereof, the conspirators committed the following overt acts: (316) Overt Acts 1. On or about December 1, 1971, at the Causeway Inn in Hillsborough County, Florida, Donald H. Segretti and Robert Melton Benz had a conversation, at which time they discussed the disruption o the campaigns of Senators Henry Jackson and Edmund Muskie 2. On or about December 1, 1971, Donald a. Segretti paid to Robert Melton Benz $50.00 for the work to be done in the disruption of the said campaigns. 3. On or about February 12, 1972, Robert Melton Benz attended a political rally for Governor George Wallace m Pinellas County, Florida, and distributed cards which stated "If you like Hitler, you'll love Wallace ace ... Vote for Muskie." 4. On or about February 20, 1972, Donald H. Segretti mailed a letter and a supply of Citizens for Muskie stationery and envelopes to Robert Melton Benz in Hillsborough County, Florida. 5. On or about February 25, 1972, Donald H. Segretti caused a letter which was printed upon Citizens for Muskie stationery to be distributed in the Middle District of Florida, and elsewhere. The letter alleged that certain office equipment and personnel from Congressman Gibbons' office were being utilized at the Muskie headquarters in Tampa, Florida. 6. On or about February 25, 1972,- Robert Melton Benz gave to George A. Hearing the Citizens for Muskie stationery and a proposed letter for the purpose of having the proposed letter printed on the said stationery. —2— (317) 41-570 0 - 74 - 21 - 7. On or about March 1, 1972, posters whlch stated "Help Muskie Support Busing Our Children Now" were received in the mail at Tampa, Florida, by Robert Melton Benz. 8. From on or about March 1, 1972, through March 14, 1972, George A. Hearing and Robert Melton Benz distributed said posters in the Middle District of Florida. 9. On or about March 11, 1972, George A. Hearing distributed through the mails to various persons within the Middle District of Florida and elsewhere a letter printed upon Citizens for Muskie stationery which pertained to Senators Henry M. Jackson and Hubert H. Humphrey. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 612 and 371. COCK TWO On or about February 12, 1972, in Pinell as County, Florida, in the Middle District of Florida, DONALD H. SEGRETTI did willfully cause to be published and distributed a card relating to Senator Edmund S. Muskie and Governor George Wallace, who had publicly declared their intentions to seek the office of President of the United States in a primary election or convention Or a political party, and said card did not contain the names of the persons, associations, committees or corporations responsible for the publication or distribution of the same; all in violation of Title AS) United States Code, Sections 612 and 2. —3— (318) COUNT THREE On or about February 25, 1372, in Hillsborough County, Florida, in the Middle District of Florida,, DONALD H. SEGRETTI did wilfully cause to be published and distributed a letter relating to Senator Edmund S. MUSKIE. who had publicly declared his intention to seek the office of President of the United States in a primary election or convention of a political party, and said letter did not contain the names of the persons, associations, committees or corporations responsible for the publication or distribution of the same; all in violation of Title 78, United States Code, Sections 612 and 2. COUNT FOUR On or about March 11, 1972, in Hillsborough County, Florida, in the Middle District of Florid-, DONALD H. SEGRETTI did wilfully cause to be published and distributed a letter relating to Senators Henry M. Jackson and Hubert H. Humphrey, who had publicly declared their intentions to seek the office of President of the United States in a primary election or convention of a political party, and said letter did not contain the names of the persons, associations, committees or corporations responsible for the publication or distribution of the same; all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 612 and 2. A TRUE BELL ~~~~,/-2s United States Attorney (319) FOREMAN K F^N HM z ~~ HdX'utc p t g Ht noutqtS cfi'ld t.1t t) tyti,[i)< ~~-> ts Cj tr O pa D 's (t pt P Ct' > p S Q @ Ft g = > ,2 },4 o ;> t tb 64) ;,, 14_ 14 ;~~ |— {3~~ 0 S 44 4-j, |'9 p W > 1; >8 ; Ft Fj itj o ia tr; •s, d iu i; i.i, (, |> 1~~ 0 t~~ "' ~~' O 4 O •; () ij @ >3 t'i t~~ (;; P (,4 iA Rtt r g :t; < i,; w. . it Sr W ,, (~~ J; H RJ p; Fi 1} P~~ ft (lt rS tt 81 i"~~ i,t La J < a ~~~~ i ~~$ ;4; b } •,,<} ,~~} ~~~~ u ~~;~~ P O b3 ct t) '(s FO tt ~~~~ N O t) ;~~ p ;;~~ #R] ;~~ tb Fz } ~~~~ P tf 1>-N "o 2 S [wA&G DU Ftt~~tF-tt AtHl t+H¢J e ~~3 w > Er W 4t. iaM\Ja tX'N O X tY iD t9, O f FJ 04 iXg g O S O R H H Q o [r F u; X to) N * * iz tJ) ns¢o ct g > HO F ,> * fD ~~,} ¥+Lo O wr~~* WN t1 2Ht);:y ts F~~ e ¥U CJ tD O tO sff 0 M v5 W C: ,: " n H H CX N P C:) os O c;) ta w Q P- ta CA D L5 O D <, xFlt' < t O i, Fu 4 ~~t P o @1 it e-r O 13 ;, H [,/ Fa ,~~ #s n 1D F t w n e J Q ' (> C C.) f a D X ut t ta tM H N Fb S A z t tX P p [J t'1 O '.1> X FS (o {9 F ~~r t tFft{) (0 Q $ u Pd D'D o t) >^4 tt <*sr ~~" t~~ {~~ R g: 1> J St > Fb X S'J J ~~' f~~ pt 1~~ o t G ht [1 iw > ~~-1 > H >< [) < tU > |X o eq H < H D o 8-J A t'. EJ e (o a > o ej ¥>r iz; w rt w ~~>~~ ,y ,_~~ F>' tJ F Fb o 2; t~~J tV it @ W S a o o O'l @ {o tf O ~~1* # {ti t1 g: e W FJ st(r <> w~~ *>2 u Pt &~~ }& <) {{7 ~~>' O H lA S t) () >': tD st t > a w X t)FD X H HD FXDfi b U S P b tD CW IJ Es tA e S FJ D) ct W cr s; Sj ¢M (r ce t] .} ;S ., D tz X t H o t)0 aj IX t {t b rD 0S o Fw o o D '; <9 s.'S W 2 p 's U t) m S tt FO tt '~~ s; o s-. Li w D v pa %S 1— 1* ~~ g wa W 1J) IJ~~ t) b rS C) C) tD tS> ,-r '! >1 M L:~~ (~~ (t M F H }' S w g p, tb e) < O @ X rU of S e < '@ o FW aJ cbt > H te to O' e > fo D ow " o P t) t) S Ws W o Fr ¢ t- t3 ta (t rtZa st t:i) (t B r FY ¥t, Q lQ F} @; ' b anll)fD t^U R o FJ FJ H *~~ X F4,, U : 4 0 •D ~ = ru ') D tt (t gbst (L Q ;H 7@ X D b tJ ft cP (0 > ,> :D > n, cr .rt st 2 (b et 5 *'1 }1 Q H 4' I @ I 2 cooper3tion azd as ,0- br3wU kn3w (fo hn'/o n.3 tt3,Y~2 tO pr^Z>rsw '55e 5r.5tin+~lcxn e 2r.y svaxe o;~ r ofoal asvoseCUX4c>.s .Or aS,, . Cet;rAtXt . .8oW;>752) t; ~'~~ E ;?^ CTtezs~;>tt1 1 S 2 COvOO C-0 nn *O'>18 >— unr s3n o1Le . H 4h 2-o o ¥-s_ t 1 ~>s oMr beDo. aerow-Js bO sJ-e'S<.-zo 7:.1'5 c-5n:,fln., tv 2;5.,-jr -O¢-I'el~;-.qr w b ~T 3 9 o U > _ D_ z3 * { n S ~: fl t _ 5 a, . * ¤ X 7 ¥_ @ t _ { t_ l T r _ c e t v e u _ _ :~;l 3z i • J 1 n W o. e e _ 9 _ _ ,s 2 s; d S ._ J _ G w -n 1 _ v ~ 3 v _ ~ . O n y a— az^~lng to Ms a^_~'vi~5es 1R W>r ~^ST72 t~9aiSa. Thi3 ~^'>rat~~d2nO ti3 preATt^aved uson ,,1~, Sey^4tS's co-.x31e~- ccop>taWic:ltaith the C-0-E~92~~nt, ~ncludinv, tWe t~2d43¤ ~, tuan tnd ~n1th;w}u1 d4se5osure oS 2l1 4E>o~..atton i4n ni 3 Dos3i>s3wer, ~.d hi3 2Ope~a^.>~ as a -WS finev5 for tAs Gotze^~3ent at a~Ut trta1 whe>e hi 3 Fe3~ inony i3 rel eswent . Flnnlly, SX crl~inal acts co-m5t~ed ky :7;r. SoOrettl r.cav relateQ fs:> hflS t ~Dot v acttvihies come to cur attenslon, we w111 not be bomnd by th2 te~S o-S thi3 ' etter In D}z~- su5.~ vhose ~t~ers. Since ~ ly, .M~chibald Cox Scaclal Pro3Acator R1)2YSS: bm (~or td'sr_ Cos) (321) i United States v. George M. Steinbrenner, III and the American Shipbuilding Company ._ (CR 74-174, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio) Major court proceedings April 5, 1974 April 19, 1974 Indictment filed charging Steinbrenner with one count of conspiracy (Count 1); FIVE counts of making an illegal campaign contribution (Counts 2-6); two counts of aiding an individual to make false statement to agents of the FBI (Counts 8, 9); four counts of obstruction of justice (Counts 10-13); and two counts of obstruction of a criminal investigation (Counts 14, 15). American Shipbuilding charged with one count of conspiracy (Count 1) and one count of making an illegal campaign contribution (Count 7). Defendants enter a plea of not guilty. (323) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ._ . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff f, 1 , Ïr I 'GEORGE N. STEINBRENNER III, and ) TEIE AME:RICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, ) Def endants . INDICTMENT COWT ONE THE GRAND JURY CHARGES: No . 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 371, 610, 1001, 1503 1510 1. The defendant, TEE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COCK, is and was, at all times material to this indictment, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey. 2. The defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, is and was, at all ti ~~ s material to this indictment, an officer, to wit, the Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, of the defendant, TEE AMERICANS SHIPBUILDING Z G C02~~ ~~ , and was acting in that capacity. 3, Robert E. Bartlome, an un ~~ dinted co-conspirator, is i was, at all ti-*s material to this indictment, an officer, to wit, the Secretary, of the defendant, THE: AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY ~~ Y. and was acting in that capacity. (324) * 4. Stanley J. Lepkowski, an unindicted co-conspirator, is and was, at all times material to this indictment, an officer, to wit, the Treasurer and Comptroller, of the defendant, THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, and was acting in that capacity. 5. At all times hereinafter mentioned the term "election" refers to a general election held pursuant to the laws of the United States and of the several states at which, among others, Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors, United States Senators and Representatives in Congress were voted for, and a primary election, political convention, and caucus held to select candidates for any of the foregoing offices. - C. From in or about September, 1970, and continuously thereafter up to and including September, 1973, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere, GEORGE H. . . STEINBRENNER III, and THE AW{ERIC&Y SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, the defendants herein, and Robert E. Bartlome and Stanley J. Lepkowski, named herein as co-conspirators but not as -defendants, with each other and with other persons to the grand jury known and unknown, did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree to violate Section 610 of Title 18, United States Code, in that they did knowingly, willfully and unlawfully conspire and agree to cause THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY to make contributions and expenditures in connection with elections at which Presidential and Vice - Presidential electors,.United States Senators, and Representatives in Congress were to be voted for, and in (325) connection with primary elections, political conventions, and caucuses held to select candidates for the foregoing offices, and did so conspire and agree willfully to consent to the making of such contributions by THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY. Of the conspiracy that, among other means, contributions by the defendant, THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, to candidates in said elections would be made in the following manner: the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, together with Robert E. Bartlome and Stanley J. Lepkowski, would select a group of trusted employees who were to receive what appeared to be bonuses from BEE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and who would he directed to contribute the net proceeds after taxes from these bonuses to candidates in said elections; STEINBRENNER would authorize the payment of such bonuses to the employees who had been selected; STEINBRENNER would also direct the submission of fictitious expense vouchers by employees of THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY to cre employees for contributions; STEINBRENNER would instruct . Bartlome what candidates were to receive contributions and STEINBRENNER would specify the amount of the contributions; Bartlome would direct the employees who had received the bonuses and those who were to be reimbursed from the cash fund to make out personal checks for the contributions specified by STEINBRENNER; the employees would write out their personal checks for the contributions (326) — 4 — 8. It was further a part of the conspiracy that the source of these contributions would be disguised so as to conceal their illegal nature from federal investigative authorities and others by using, among others, the following means: In or about January, 1973, a company- wide pattern of giving bonuses would be established to camouflage the bonuses that had already been given. The defendant STEINBRENMER would cause the destruction and alteration of records and the creation of false and misleading records concerning the payment of bonuses by the defendant, THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects and purposes thereof, the following overt acts, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere: OVERT ACTS 1. In or about September, 1970, the defendant GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, had a discussion with coconspirators Robert E. Bartlome and Stanley J. Lepkowski. 2. In or about September, 1970, the defendant, -GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, authorized the payment of-a gross bonus of $5,000 before taxes were withheld to be paid to each of the following persons: Robert E. Bartlome, Matthew E. Clark, Jr., Robert L. Dibble, Erhard E. Eckert, Stanley J. Lepkowski, and Gordon Stafford. 3. On or about September 25, 1970, Stanley J. Lepkowski wrote on an attachment to a payroll register of the defendant, THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY: "SPECIAL Bonus Chargeable to CGC Calim-- Reward for Extra Work s Effort Per Instructions GMS III." (327) 4. On or about September 30, 1970, Robert E Bartlome issued a personal check for S750 payable to Mosher for Congress. . 5. On or about September 30, 1970 Stanley J. Lepkowski issued a personal check for $750 payable to Mosher for Congress. 6. On or about October 9, 1970, Robert E. Bartlome issued 2 personal check for $1,000 payable to the Democratic Congressional Dinner Co.mmittee. 7. On or about October 12, 1970, Stanley J. Lepkowski issued a personal check for $1,000 payable to the Democratic Congressional Dinner Committee. 8. In or about October, 1970, Robert E. Bartlone had a conversation with Gordon Stafford in which Bartlome told Stafford to issue a personal check for S500 to the Bow for Congress Committee. 9. In or about October, 1970, Robert E. Bartlome had a conversation with Matthew E. Clark, Jr., in which Bartlome told Clark to issue a personal check for S700 to the National Tribute to Senator Hartke. 10. In or about October, l970, Robert E. Bartlome had a conversation with Erhard E. Eckert, in which. Bartlome told Eckert to issue a personal check for S300 to the National Tribute to Senator Hartke. ~ 11. In or about November, 1971, the defendants GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, authorized a gross bonus of S5,000 before taxes were withheld to be paid to each of the following persons- Robert E. Bartlome, Mathew E Clark, Jr., Robert L. Dibble, Stanley J .Lepkowski, and Gordon Stafford. (328) — 6 — _ 12. On or about February 1, 1972, Robert E ~~ issued a personal check for 51,040 payable to the National Democratic Cong essional Dinner. 13. On or about February 1, 1972, Stanley J Lep. 14. On or about February 26, 1972, Robert E_ Bartlome issued a personal check for $2,C00 payable to the Senate/ House Majority Dinner. 15. 0: or about February 26, 1972, Stanley J Lepkowski the Senate /H ouse Majority Dinner. for $2,000 payable to 16.- On or about February 29, 1972, GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, gave A. David Ba umhart, an employee of THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY', a package of chocks amounting to $10,000 payable to the Senate/ House Majority Dinner. 17. In or about-April, 1972, the defendant GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, authorized a gross bonus of S5,000 before taxes were withheld to be paid to each of the following persons: Robert E. Bartlome, Matthew E. Clark, Dibble, Daniel A Kissel, Stanley C. Lepkowski, Gordon Stafford, 2nd Roy F_ Walker 18. On or about April 6, 1972, Robert E; Bartlome issued a personal check for S3,000 payable to a committee organized to support the Presidential candidacy of Richard M. Nixon in an election held on November 7, 1972_ 19 On or about April 6, 1972, Stanley J Leskowski issued z personal check for S3.200 payable to a (329) organized to support the Presidential candidacy of Richard M. Nixon, in an election held on November 7, 1972 20. On or about April 6, 1972, Robert E. Bartlo=.e gave a package of checks, including S25,000 in checks from Robert E. Bartlome, Matthew E. Clark, Jr., Ian Cushenan, Robert L. Dibble, Daniel A. Rissel, Stanley J. Lep'. 21. In or about November, 1972, the defendant GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, had a discussion with Robe_t E. Bartlame and Stanley J. Lepkowski in which he directed them to submit fictitious expense vouchers and make the proceeds available for contributions to candidates in elections. 22. In or about July, 1973, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER III, directed Robert E. Bartlome and Stanley J. Lepkowski to issue personal checks in a total amount of $500 payable to a committee organized to support the Senatorial candidacy of United States Senator Daniel R. Insuye. 23. In or about April, 1973, the defendant GEORGE M. STEINBRERZNER III, destroyed Robert E_ Bartlome's records of bonuses paid to and contributions made by employees of the defendant, THE AMERI Go SHIPBUILDING Conway . 24. In or about June, 1973, Robert E. Bartlome signed a certificate that stated that his 1972 bonus of S5,000 "was in no manner, either directly or indirectly, (330) — 8 — _ conditioned upon or subject to the making by hin of any contribution, whether charitable, political or otherwise.'' All in violation of Section 371, Title 18, United States Code. . (331) cOtlNT T T ~ THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 and 2 and paragraph 5 of Count I of this indictment are . . incorporated in this count. 2. In or about September and October, 1970, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER, III, in his capacity as an officer of The American Shipbuilding Company, did willfully and unlawfully consent to the making of a contribution by The American Shipbuilding Company in connection with the election of Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors and United States Senators and Representatives in Congress . . at the 1970 election, to wit: a contribu ion in the total amount of $5, 000 to the Mosher for Congress Committee . All in violation of Section 610, Title 18, United States Code. (332) ThE GRAaND JURY CHARGES: 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 and paragraph 5 of Count I of this indictment are incorporated in this count. 2. In or about October, 1970, in the Northern District •of Ohio and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE tI. STEINBRESEl'ER, III, in his capacity as an officer of The American Shipbuilding . Company, did willfully and unlawfully consent to the making of a contribution by The American Shipbuilding Company in connection with the election of Presidential and V::ePresidential electors and United States Senators and Representatives in Congress at the 1970 election, to wit: a contribution in the total amount of $6,000 to the Democratic Congressional Dinner Committee. All in violation of Section 610, Title 18, United States Code. (333) COUNT IV THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1. and 2 and paragraph 5 of Count I of this indictment are incorporated in this count. 2. In or about February, 1972, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewnere, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINS OTHER, III, in his capacity as an officer of The American Shipbuilding Company, did willfully and unlawfully consent to the making of a contribution by The American Shipbuilding CompanZ in connection with the election of Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors and United- - States Senators and Representatives in Congress at the 1972 election, to wit: a contribution in the total amount of $5,000 to the Democratic Congressional Dinuner Committee. All in violation of Section 610, Title 18, United States Code. (334) COUNT V - - - - THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1 The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 and paragraph 5 of Count I of this indictment are incorporated in this count. 2. In or about February, 1972, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the defendant, GEORGE LI. STEIN3P~ENNER, III, in his capacity as an officer of The American Shipbuilding Company, did willfully and unlawfully consent to the making of a.contribution by The American Shipbuilding Company in connection with the-election of Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors and United States Senators and Representatives in Congress at the 1972 election, to wit: a contribution in the total amount of 610,000 to the Senate- House MaJority Dinner. All in violation of Section 610, Title 18, United States Code. (335) COUNT VI THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 and 2 and paragraph 5 of Count I of-this indictment are incorporated in this count. 2. In or about April 1972, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsehwere, the defendant, GEORGE HI_ STEINBRENNER, III, in his capacity as an officer of The American Shipbuilding~Co3pany, did willfully and unlawfully consent to the making of a contribution by The American Shipbuilding Company is connection with the election of Presidential and Vice Presidential electors and United States Senators and Representatives in Congress at the 1972 election, to wit: a contribution in the totalanount of $25,000 to committees organized to support the Presidential candidacy of Richard EI. Nixon. All in violation of Section 610, Title 18, United States Code. (336) COUNT VII IHE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 5 of Count I of this indictment are incorporated in this count. 2. In or about September and October, 1970, in the Northern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the defendant, TEE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING C0MPAA'Z, did unlawfully make a contribution of $5,000 in connection with the election of Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors and United States Senators and Representatives in ConOress at the 1970 election, by making said contribution to the Mosher for Congress Committee. . All in violation of Section 510, Title 18, United States Code. (337) COUNT VIII THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: In or about August, 1973, in the Northern District of Ohio, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER, III, did willfully endeavor by means of misrepresentation, intimidation, and force and threats thereof to obstruct, delay, and prevent the communication of information relating to violations by The American Shipbuilding Company and its officers of criminal statutes of the United States, to wit, among others, Sections 371 and 610 of Title 18, United States Code, by Stanley J. Lepkowski to criminal investigators, that is, special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who were authorized by the Department of Justice to conduct of violations of said statutes and who were then conducting and engaging in such an investigation, as GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER, III, well knew. All in violation of Section 1510, Title 18, United States Code. (338) COUNT IX THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: In or about August, 1973, in the Northern District of Ohio, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER, III, did willfully endeavor by means of misrepresentation, intimidation, and force and threats thereof to obstruct, delay, and prevent the communication of information relating to violations by The American Shipbuilding Company and its officers of criminal statutes, to wit, among others, - Sections 371 and 610 of Title 18, United States Code, by Robert L. Dibble, to criminal investigators, that is, special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, ¥ x who were authorized by the Department of Justice to conduct and engage in investigations of violations of said statutes and who were then conducting and engaging in such an investigation, as GEORGE H. STEINBRENNER, III, well knew. All in violation of Section 1510, Title 18, United States Code. (339) COUNT X THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. On or about August 28, 1973, in the Northern District of Ohio, Matthew E. Clark, Jr., did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, which Departmant was then conducting an investigation into a matter within its jurisdiction, namely, possible violations by The American Shipbuilding Company and its officers, of Twtle 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 610, and other federal statutes in that Clark falsely stated that he inquired of Robert E. Bartlo2e how Clark would go about making a contribution to the reselection campaign of Richard M. Nixon and that he chose one of the committees to which he would contribute from a list provided by Bartlome. 2. In or about late August, 1973, the defendant, GEORGE- M. STEINBRENNER, III, did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully aid, abet, counsel, co 2 and, induce, procure, and cause Matthew E. Clark, Jr., to make the false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations described in paragraph 1 of this count. All in violation of Sections 2 and 1001 of Title 18, United States Code. (340) CaT7NT XI = A_ * THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. On or about August 28, 1973, in the Northern District of Ohio, Ian R. Cushenan did knowingly and willfully make false, ficitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, which Department was then conducting an investigation into a matter within its jurisdiction, namely, possible violations by The American Shipbuilding Company and its officers, of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 610, and other . federal statutes, in that Cushenan falsely stated that his . contribution to the 1972 Presidential campaign of Richard H_ Nixon was motivated solely by his own desire to make a contribution to Mr. Nixon and that he was in a financial position to make such a contribution. 2 In or about late August, 1973, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEIN8RENWER, III, did knowingiy, willfully, and unlawfully aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, and cause Ian R. Cushenan to make the false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements and representations described in paragraph 1 of this count. . All in violation of Sections 2 and 1001 of Title 18, United States Code. 0 : (341) COUNT XtI THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. On or about August 13, 1973, a federal grand jury of the United States District Court for the District of ColuSbia was duly empanelled and sworn and, at all times material to this count, was investigatingt among other things, possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sectiong371 and 610. 2. From on or about August 31, 1973 to in or about early September, 1973, in the Northern District of Ohio, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBRENmER, III, did corruptly ar.d by threats and force endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice, . in that the said GEORGE M. STEINBRSsNER, III, knowing that . Robert E. Bartlome was to be a witness before the aforemen- tioned Grand Jury, urged, advised, and counselled Robert E. Bartlome to give false testimony before the Grand Jury in relation to its investigation. All in violation of Section 1503, Title 18, United States Code. (3£2) - COUNT XIII THE GRAND JURY FURTHER caARGEs 1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Count XII of this indictment was incorporated in this Count 2. From in or about the Labor Day Weekend, 1973 to in or about early September, 1973, in the Northern District of Ohio, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER, ISIS did corruptly and by threats and force endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due admistration of Justice, in that the said GEORGE M. STEINBREUNER, III, knowing that Stanley J. Lepkowski was to be a witness before the aforementioned Grand Jury, urged,advised, and counselled Stanley J. Lepkowski to give false testimony before the Grand Jury in relation to its investigation. All in violation of Section 1503, Title 18, United States Code. (343) - coUNT xsv THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: 1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 oE Count XII of this indictment are incorporated in this Count. 2. From in or about the Labor Day Weekend, 1973 to in or about early September, 1973, in the Northern Distract of Ohio, the defendant, GEORGE !1. STETNBRs,NNER, III, did corruptly and by threats and force endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in that said GEORGE M. STEINBREWNER, III, knowing that Matthew E. Clark, Jr., was to be a witness before the aforementioned Grand Jury, urged, advised, and counselled Matthew E. Clark, Jr., to give false testimony before the Grand Jury in relation to its-investigation. All in violation of Section 1503, Title 18, United States Code. (344) COUNT XV THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES: _ , . 1. The allegations contained in paragraph 1 of Count XII of this indictment are incorporated in this Count. 2. From in or about the Labor Day Weekend, 1973 to in or about early September, 1973, in the Northern District of Ohio, the defendant, GEORGE M. STEINBPENZER, III, did corruptly and by threats and force endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the cue ammlnlstra.~on or justice in that the said GEORGE M. STEINBRENNER, III, knowing that Robert L. Dibble was to be a witness before the aforementioned Grand Jury urged, advised, and counselled Robert L. Dibble to give false testimony before the Grand Jury in relation to its investigation. All in violation of Section 1503, Title 18, United States Code. IEON JAh g Special Prosecutor (345) i l ATTEMPTS TO IMPROPERLY INFLUENCE GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT (347) i United States v. John Connally, Jake Jacobsen (CR 74-440, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings July 29, 1974 Indictment filed charging Connally with two counts of accepting an illegal payment by a public official (Counts 2,3); one count of conspiracy to commit perjury and obstruction of justice (Count 4); and two counts of making false declaration before a Grand Jury (Counts 5,6). Jacobsen charged with one count of giving an illegal campaign contribution to a public official. (Count 1) (349) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLU.43IA ._ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) V. ) JOHN s. CONNALLY, and ) JAxE JACOssEN, ) Defendants. ) INDICTMENT COUNT ONE The Grand Jury charges: Criminal No. ) +~~ / tt 69 Violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections201(f) and (g), 371 and 1623 (illegal gratuity, conspiracy and false declarations) From on or about May 14, 1971, to September 24, 1971, in the District of Columbia, JAKE JACosSEN, the defendant, unlawfully and knowingly, did directly give a thing of value, to wit, a total of $10,000.00 in cash, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duties,to John Is. Connally, then Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, a public official, for and because of official acts performed by him, to wit, his recommendations in his official capacity concerning an increase in the federal milk price support level to be fixed by the Secretary of Agriculture, announced on March 25, 1971. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(f).) COUNT TWO The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about May 14, 1971, in the District of Columbia, JOHN A. CONNALLY, the defendant, being a public official, namely Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, unlawfully and knowingly did directly receive, otherwise than as provided for b-Er law for the proper discharge of official duties, a thing of value, to wit, $5,000 in cash for and because of official acts performed by him, to wit, his (350) — 2 — recommendations in his official capacity concerning an increase in the federal milk price support level to be fixed by the Secretary of Agriculture, announced on Larch 25, 1971. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(g).) COUNT THREE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about September 24, 1971, in the District of Columbia, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, being a public official, namely Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, unlawfully and knowingly did directly receive, otherwise than as provided for by law for the proper discharge of official duties, a thing of value, to wit, $5,000 in cash for and because of official acts performed by - him, to wit, his recommendations in his official capacity concerning an increase in the federal milk price support level to be fixed by the Secretary of Agriculture, announced on March 25, 1971. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 201(g).) COUNT FOUR The Grand Jury further charges: 1. From on or about October 24, 1973, up to on or about February 21, 1974, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant and Jake Jacobsen, named as a co-conspirator but not a defendant herein, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly did combine, conspire, confederate and agree together and with each other to commit offenses against the United States, to wit: corruptly to influence, obstruct and impede and to endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1503; corruptly to influence, obstruct and impede and to endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due and proper power of an inquiry (351) - and investigation by a Committee of the United States Senate in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 150S; to make false material declarations under oath in a proceeding before and ancillary to a grand jury of the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623; and to testify willfully, after having taken an oath before a competent tribunal in a case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, to material matters that they did not believe to be true, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621. 2. It was part of said conspiracy that JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen would corruptly influence, obstruct and impede and endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice and the due and proper powers of Congressional inquiry. 3. It was further part of said conspiracy that JCHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen would knowingly make false material declarations under oath in proceedings before and ancillary to an investigation being conducted by the August 13, 1973, Grand Jury empaneled in and for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, (hereafter "the Grand Jury"). 4. It was further a part of said conspiracy that JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen would, under oath, testify falsely as to material matters before the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities created pursuant to Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973 (hereafter "Select Committee"), a competent tribunal in which a law of the United States authorized an oath to be administered. 5. The following were further a part of said conspiracy and the means by which JOHN I. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen would carry out said conspiracy: (352) — 4 — a. Al-though $10,000.00 which Jake Jacobsen received - from Associated Milk Producers, Inc. to give to JOHN s. CONNALLY, the defendant, in fact was given to JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, while he was Secretary of the Treasury, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen would each testify falsely before the Grand Jury and the Select Committee that Jake Jacobsen offered the $10,000.00 to JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, twice, first for the purpose of enabling him to give it to candidates for public office and second as a contribution to "Democrats for Nixon" and that JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, declined the offer on each occasion. b. JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen would each testify falsely before the Grand Jury and the Select Committee that the reason given for declining the first of the two offers referred to in subparagraph 5(a) was that JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, was then a Democrat in a Republican administration and did not want to appear to favor the candidacy of persons from either the Democratic or Republican party. c. JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Make Jacobsen would each testify falsely before the Grand Jury and the Select Conmittee that the reason given for declining the second of the two offers referred to in subparagraph 5(a) was that in light of several of the problems Associated Milk Producers, Inc. had at that time, it would be prudent to decline the offer. d. Jake Jacobsen would testify falsely before the Grand Jury and the Select Conmittee that he kept the $10,000.00 referred to in subparagraph 5(a) in a safe deposit box from on or about the time he received it to the time of his appearance before the Grand Jury and the Select Committee. e. JOliN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, would obtain $10,000.00 in cash to give to Jake Jacobsen so that he could make it available for inspection if called upon. (353) 41-s70 o - 74 - 24 — 5 — f. Jake Jacobsen would make available for inventory by investigative bodies $10,000.00 in cash received from JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, pursuant to this conspiracy as described in subparagraph 5(e). OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy and to effect the objects thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere: 1. On or about October 24, 1973, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen had a telephone conversation between Austin, Texas and Houston, Texas. 2. On or about October 26, 1973, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen met in Austin, Texas. 3. On or about October 28, 1973, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen had a telephone conversation between Austin, Texas and Houston, Texas. 4. On or about October 29, 1973, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, gave Jake Jacobsen $10,000.00 in cash in Houston, Texas. 5. On November 2, 1973, Jake Jacobsen testified before the Grand Jury in Washington, D.C. 6. On or about November 12, 1973, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen had a telephone conversation between Austin, Texas and Houston, Texas. 7. On November 14, 1973, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, testified before the Grand Jury in Washington, D.C. 8. On November 15, 1973, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, testified before the Select Committee in Washington, D.C. 9. On or about November 25, 1973, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, gave Jake Jacobsen $10,000.00 in cash in Austin, Texas 10. On or about November 25, 1973, Jake Jacobsen went to the Citizens' National Bank in Austin, Texas. 11. On December 14, 1973, Jake Jacobsen testified before the Select Committee in Washington, D.C. (354) 12. On January 25, 1974, Jake Jacobsen testified before - the Gralld Jury in Washington, D.C. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.) COUNT FIVE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about November 14, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, having taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying before the August 13, 1973 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empaneled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the August 13, 1973 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation into possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 201, 371, 1503, 1505, 1621, 1623 and other federal laws in connection with the Secretary of Agriculture's milk price support decision of March 25, 1971 and the connection, if any, between that decision and funds pledged and paid by dairy interests to public officials or political organizations. Said Grand Jury had heard testimony by Jake Jacobsen that he had twice offered to give to JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, $10,000.00 he had received from Associated Milk Producers, Inc., and that on each occasion JOHN A. CONNALLY, the defendant, had declined the offer. Said Grand Jury had heard similar testimony by JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant. 3. It was material to said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain when JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, last discussed the $10,000.00 with Jake Jacobsen, and the number of conversations he had had with Jake Jacobsen in the four weeks preceding-his November 14, 1973 testimony. 4. At the time and place alleged in paragraph 1, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the Grand Jury, did knowingly make the (355) A. Q. A. following declarationsin response to the following questions related to the material matter alleged in paragraph 3: Q. Did you express any surprise or did you think it odd when he offered to make available to you this $10,000.00 cash political contribution in the spring or summer of 1971? No, not odd, because the posture in which he put it -- Jake and I have been good friends for a number of years, and he obviously would not do anything -he didn't offer it to me; he said "the money is available for a committee or candidate of your designation, if you will make one." And I said, "l^1ell, I don't want to do that." And I have already explained that to you, but it wasn't odd at all, simply because he was as familiar with the fact that, as I was, that I was here and he was trying in some way to befriend the people that I felt should be befriended. And I just simply said, "I don't want to participate." When have you last discussed this matter with Mr. Jacobsen? Oh, gosh, a long time ago. I don't recall. Q. Have you discussed it with him recently, within the last three or four weeks? A. No. Q. Have you had any conversations with him in the last three or four weeks? A. No, I have been gone for a little over two weeks now, and I had one conversation with him about two and a half weeks ago, I guess, or three weeks ago, in which I asked him to check into a bank application for me, but that is the only contact I have had with him. Q. Where was that conversation? A. In Houston. Q. In person? A. Yes. Q. What was the occasion of his visit to Houston? A. Well, I am not sure I know precisely, but part of it was for this purpose. Q. Would you give us a little rrore of the surrounding circumstances? A. Well, only that one of the people that we normally represent in my law firm had filed an application for a bank charter in an area where they owned a lot of real estate. It was a national bank charter. (356) 8 - Frankly, in the firm, we don't handle bank charters and yet, they wanted us to look after it, and I didn't want to look after it. I didn't want to participate in it, so I asked him if he would do so, and that is the last conversation I have had with him. Q. Do you know if that was prior to or following his appearance before this Grand Jury? A. No, I don't know. I don't know when he appeared. Q. Were you aware he has appeared before this Grand Jury? A. I understand now he has but I have not talked to him since then. Q. Did you discuss this $10,000.00 cash sum with him during that conversation? A. No, I don't recall that we did. Q. I suggest that given the somewhat peculiar nature of this transaction, that is $10,000.00 cash, that Mr. Jacobsen received from the dairy interests, that his making it available to you, that it is a subject matter which I would think you would recall had you discussed it with him that recently? A. Well, I think that is probably right. We have discussed this whole dairy thing, but I don't recall we did it_on that occasion and in our di_ussions, ¥,2 have .simoly treated it just li^-e ¥i2 treat anythinq_else, we are both going to tell _he truth aSout i,, and that is all there is_to it. Q. When was the last occasion on which you did discuss as you describe it, this whole dairy thing with Mr. Jacobsen? A. We really haven't -- I am just trying to think if there was any definitive discussion of it. Iidon_lt recall having any major discussions with him 5. The underscored declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, were material to the investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) COUNT SIX The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about April 11, 1974, in the District of Columbia, JOHN Is. CONNALLY, the defendant, having taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying before the August 13, 1973 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States (357) - 9 - duly cmpaneled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the August 13, 1973 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation into possible violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 201, 371, 1503, 1505, 1621, 1623 and other federal laws in connection with the Secretary of Agriculture's milk price support decision announced on March 25, 1971, and the connection, if any, between that decision and funds pledged and paid by dairy interests to public officials or political organizations. Said Grand Jury had heard testimony by Jake Jacobsen on November 2, 1973, that he had twice offered to give to JOHN s. CONNALLY, the defendant, $10,000.00 he had received from Associated 4ilk Producers, Inc. and that on each occasion JOHN Is. CONNALLY, the defendant, had declined the offer Said Grand Jury had heard similar testimony by JOHN A. CONNALLY, the defendant, on November 14, 1973. Said Grand Jury had also heard testimony by JOHN A. CONNALLY, the defendant, on November 14, 1973, that he had had a meeting with Jake Jacobsenin Houston, on or about October 29, 1973, and that that meeting was the only contact he had had with Jake Jacobsen in the three to four weeks before November 14, 1973. 3. It was material to said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain the number and nature of the contacts between JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, and Jake Jacobsen prior to November 14, 1973, and the reason for such contacts. 4. At the time and place alleged in paragraph 1, JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the Grand Jury, after stating that he telephoned Jake Jacobsen the day before the meeting described in paragraph 2, did knowingly make the following declarations in response to the following questions related to the material matter alleged in paragraph 3: (358) Q. Would you tell us the conversation between Mr. Jacobsen and yourself on Sunday, October 28 the telephone call? A. I called him and told him that I had a matter of considerable signi.i ance to him and I may_have told hem briefly what it lzas over the phone, and I to'd him I would very much like to talk with his, that I was leaving the country, that i didn't know what the time_element was, and I think perhaps i did tell him that it involved a bank charter, but that I would very much like for him to come down Monday morning, if he possibly could. He said, "Well, I don't know whether I can get a plane." I said, "Well, get one of Ragsdale's planes and come on down, because I really don't want to leave the country without getting something underway on this thing." I think that was about all of the conversation on that Did he tell you whetheror not he had been subpoenaed to appear before this Grand Jury in that telephone call? No he did not then. He had already told me that. , , When did he tell you that? He told me that on Friday. Where was that? In Austin. You had contact with Mr. Jacobsen on Friday in Austin? Friday in Austin, that is correct. Would you tell us about that, please? I had been -- I had gone to Austin to engage in a lot of different activities on Friday, March 26, I guess -on October 26th. Among other things we had a luncheon for the distinguished alumni of the University of Texas. I had a T17 taping, I had a meeting, a rehearsal out at the auditorium for the affair that evening. It was an extremely busy day and also I was in the process of selling my airplane at the same time, and I got back to the hotel, I guess, about 4:45 or maybe 5:00 o'clock -- in that range -- and had a message to call Mr. Jacobsen, so I called him and he said he needed to talk to me and I said, "Fine, come on down." I said "I am in a hell of a hurry," but, I said, "we have to be dressed and out at the University in a tux by 6:C0 o'clock, but come on down." So he did. T suppose he got there at 5:20 or sonethinq like that. Than is when he told me he had been subpoenaed. (359Az 5. The underscored declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by JOHN B. CONNALLY, the defendant, were material to the investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1623.) A TRUE sILL FOREMA N HENRY s. RUTH, JR. Deputy Special Prosecutor (360) United States v. Jake Jacobsen (CR 74-72, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings February 21, 1974 March 15, 1974 May 3, 1974 Indictment filed charging the defendant with one count of making false declaration to Grand Jury or Court in connection with a $10,000.00 contribution he received from Associated Milk Producers, Inc. The defendant enters a plea of not guilty. Indictment dismissed. (361) IN T!!< U~:IT;:D ';'>S8tES DiS""'tfT COUZ.'Z FOR 'SAME I)IS£l:IC: O' C5LU':bLSv UNITED ST,ZTES Or ,~.ERIC^, V. JAI;E JACOBSEN., ) Crirainal two. ) Xriola-cion Of lo U.S.C. ) Section 1623 {False ) Declaration) l Defendant ) ) INDICT;flaNT The Grand Jury charges: 1. On or about January 25, 1974, in the District of Columbia, JAXE JACOBSEN, the defendant, having taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and wshile testifying before the August 13, 1973 Grand Jury, a Grand Juror of the United States, duly em.panelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make a false material declaration as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the August 13, 1973 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an inwestigatxca into possible violations o f Title 18, United States Code, SS201, 371 and other sections in connection with the Secretary of Agriculture's milk price support decision of March 25, 1971 and the connec-ign, if any, between that decision and funds pledged and paid bi dairy interests to public officials or political organizations. Said Grand Jury had heard evidence that within two months after the March 25, 1971 price support (362) decision, JACK JACOBSEN, the defendant, had solicited and received $10,C00.00 from. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., an organization representing dainty interests, on the representation that such money was to be paid to a public official for his assistance in connection with the price support decision. 3_ It was material to said investigation that the Grand Jury ascertain what JAKE JACOBSEN, the defendant, did with the $10,000.00 he received pursuant to the solicitation described in paragraph 2. 4. At the time and place alleged in paragraphs, JAKE- JACOBSEN, the defendant, appearing as a witness under oath at a proceeding before the Grand Jury, after stating that he received S10,000.0Q from an official o. Associated t4ilk Producers, Inc. and that he had put it in a safe deposit be:., and that it bad remained there until inventoried by federal agents, did knowingly make the following declarations in response to the following questions related to the material matter 215 eged in paragraph 3: wQ. And it is your testimony that that $10,000.00 Was the $10,000.00 which you put into that box within a number of weeks aster i. wb25 Given to you by Mr. Lilly and it xvaq untouched by you between then 2nd the time you looked at it •fith the F.B.I. agent? [Now-em.ber 27, 19731 A. That is correct. Q. You are certain about that? (363) 5. The declarations quoted in paragraph 4, made by JP.KB JACCSSEN, the defendant, were material to the investigation and, as he then and there well knew, were false. bin violation of Title 18, United States Code, §1623.) A TRUE BILL FOPE2EN HENRY S. RUTH., JR. Deputy Special Prosecutor (364) United States v. Richard Kleindienst (CR 74-256, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings May 16, 1974 Information filed charging Kleindienst with violating Title 2, United States Code, Section 192. Defendant enters a plea of guilty. Defendant sentenced to a prison term of 30 days and fined $100.00. Suspended. (365) UNITED STATES DISTR CT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST, Defendan t. The Special Prosecutor charges: ) INFORMATION gout the 2nd day of March, 1972 up to on or about the 27th day of April, 1972, in accordance with Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, Rule 38 of the Rules of the United Senate and the customs and practices of the United States Senate, an inquiry was being had by the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, pursuant to the referral to said Committee of the nomination of RICHARD G. RLEINDiENST to be Attorney General of the United States into the qualifications of RICHARD G. RLEINDIENST to hold said office. As a material part of said inquiry said Committee was inquiring into the manner in which the United States Department of Justice had processed certain antitrust matters involving mergers made and contemplated by the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (hereinafter ITT), matters for which RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST had been Acting Attorney General. 2. During the course of the inquiry described in paragraph one, on or about the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and 8th days of March, 1972 and the 27th day of April,1972, in the District of Columbia, RICHARD G. KLEINDIF;sST, the defendant, having appeared as a witness (366) 2 before the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate of the - United States to give testimony upon the inquiry as described in paragraph one, did refuse and fail to answer accurately and fully questions pertinent to said inquiry, thereby withholding from said Committee the fact that he had received an order from Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, relating to the filing of the jurisdictional statement by the United States before the S_?~e-e Court of the United States in the case of United States of America v. International Telephone and Telegraph thereby refuse to answer questions relating to the following: 1. Communications in relation to antitrust cases involving ITT between the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon and members of the staff of said President, and the said RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST and Attorney General John N. Mitchell; 2. Communications in relation to antitrust cases involving ITT between Attorney General John N. Mitchell, who was disqualified from said cases, and himself; 3. The circumstances surrounding an application made on April 19, 1971, before the Supreme Court of the United States by and on behalf of the United States, which application requested that the time in which the United States could file its Jurisdictional statement in the above described case be extended for thirty days. (Title 2, United States Code, Section 192) (367) bL$ts~~-~ Leon Jlr,Jr.'ii Special Prosecutor WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION' FORCE United States Department of Justice 1425 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 May 10, 1974 . . Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Espy. Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin 1320 l9th Street, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20036 Dear Mr. M ller: This letter will record the understandings between you, your client, Richard G. Kleindienst, and my office relating to his agreement to plead guilty to a one-count information charging him with violating Title 2, United States Code, Section 192. The understandings are that Mr. Kleindienst will enter this plea in the District Court for the District of Columbia, that he will waive any possible objection to the bringing of this charge by virtue of the failure of the Senate to certify this matter to the Department of Justice and that he will waive defenses he might have to this charge. Based on the legal brief you have submitted, both you and your client agree that his conduct violates Section 192. If Mr. Kleindienst enters this plea, this will dispose of all charges of which this office is presently aware arising out of his testimony at his confirmation hearings, arising out of his handling of documents during his hearings and arising out of his appearance before the August, 1973 Grand Jury on December 21, 1973, unless substantial new evidence- develops demonstrating that Mr. Kleindienst has failed to disclose material matters relating to tohe ITT matter. One significant factor in my determination is that our investigation has failed to disclose any criminal conduct by Mr. Kleindienst in the manner in which he handled the ITT antitrust cases. In one of the cases he successfully opposed a direct Presidential order to abandon an appeal and leave the Government without any relief. (368) 2 _ Another important factor in my agreeing to this plea relates to Mr. Kleindienst having come forward voluntarily ar.d disclosed information material to the investigation conducted by this office on his understanding that ne would be given some consideration for doing so. T; is my belief that he is entitled to consideration in arriving at an appropriate disposition of this matter. After a full review of the facts, my conception of a fair disposition is for Mr. Kleindienst to plead to a violation of Title 2, United States Code, Section lD2. This disposition will not bar prosecution of Mr. Kleindienst for any other serious offenses about which evidence may develop. It is-thus specifically understood that if evidence is developed that Mr. Kleindienst was involved in any criminal obstruction of the ITT antitrust cases or any other matter within the Department of Justice, this disposition will not bar his prosecution for that offense. Sincerely, Leon Jaworski Special Prosecutor (369) 41-570 o - 74 - 25 United States v. Howard Edwin Reinecke (CR 74-155, United States District Court for the District of Columbia) Major court proceedings April 3, 1974 April 10, 1974 July 9, 1974 July 15, 1974 July 22, 1974 July 27, 1974 Indictment filed charging the defendant with three counts of perjury in connection with his testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate. The defendant enters a plea of not guilty. Count 3 dismissed. Case called for trial. Motion for judgment of acquittal as to Count l granted. Verdict: Defendant found guilty as to fourth alleged false statement in Count 2. (371) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT Ov COLUMBIA ) UNITtD STATES OF AMERICA ) v. ) HOt~#URD EDWIN REINECXE, Defendant. J Criminal No. Violation of 18 U.S.C. 6 1621 (perjury) INDICTMEN T COUNT ONE The Grand Jury charges: 1. On or about the l9th day of April, 1972, in the - District of Columbia, HO'.sARD EDWIN REINECXE, the DEFEND9NT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, conducting official hearings and inquiring into 2 matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and contrary to such oath state material matters hereinafter set forth which he did 2. At the time and place set forth above, the said Committee was conducting an inquiry and hearing into the qualifications of Richard G. Kleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States and, as part of the said inquiry and hearing, was inquiring into the manner in which the United States Department of Justice had processed antitrust matters and cases involving mergers made and contemplated by the International Telephone ar.d Telegraph Company (hereinafter ITT). One allegation being investigated was (372) that the settlement of three antitrust cases involving ITT, which settlement was announced by July 31, 1971, was influenced by a conmibment or offer of some kind by ITT or the Sheraton Corporation, a subsidiary of ITT, to assist in the financing of the Republican National Convention in 1972 in San Diego. The said hearing and inquiry was being conducted by the said Committee pursuant to the reference to it of the nomination of Richard G. Xleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States. 3. It was material to the said inquiry that the said Committee determine (a) whether John N. Mitchell, who in 1971 was Attorney General of the United States, had any knowledge of any such commitment or offer by ITT or the Sheraton Corporation prior to July 31, 1971, and (b) the first occasion HOWARD EDWIN REINECXE discussed the possibility that the 1972 Republican convention would be in San Diego and whether such discussion was with any individual on the staff of the President of the United States. 4. At the time and place alleged, HOWARD EDWIN REINECXE, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Committee, did willfully and knowingly state with respect to material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Senator Kennedy. Now, I believe you had the impression that in your meeting with fir. Mitchell when you informed him about the ITT financial pledge that he was aware of that earlier. He had been notified of that earlier by Bob Wilson. Mr. Reinecke. Yes, sir. Senator Kennedy. Can you tell us how? - 2 - (373) Mr. Reinecke. All I said to whichever reporter it was - .* Senator Kennedy. To Mr. Walters. Oar. Reinecke. -- Mr. Exalters, that I W25 not certain that I was the first one to reveal this information to him. So, I have no way of knowing whether or not he had heard of_the ran - ' ; +t-5n ts Prior to the time that I am 5 The underscored portion of the statements quoted in paragraph 4, made by HOnzIARD EDWIN REINECKE, the DEFENDANT, was naterial to the said inquiry and, as he then and there well knew, was false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621). (374) COUNT TUO - The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about the l9th day of April, 1972, in the District of Columbia, HOMEWARD EDWIN REINECXE, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and contrary to such oath state material matters hereinafter set forth which he did not beiieve to be true. 2. At the time and place set forth above, the said Committee was conducting an inquiry and hearing into the qualifications of Richard G. Kleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States and, as part of the said inquiry and hearing, was inquiring into the manner in which the United States Department of Justice had processed antitrust matters and cases involving mergers made and contemplated by the International Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter ITT). One allegation being investigated was that the settlement of three antitrust cases involving ITT, which settlement was announced by July 31, 1971, was influenced by a commitment or offer of some kind by ITT or the Sheraton Corporation, a subsidiary of ITT, to assist in the financing of the Republican National Convention in 1972 in San Diego. The said hearing and inquiry was being conducted by the said Committee pursuant to the reference to it of the nomination of Richard G. Xleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States. (375) 3. It was material to the said inquiry that the said Committee determine (a) whether John N. Mitchell, who in 1971 was Attorney General of the United States, had any knowledge of any such commitment or offer by ITT or the Sheraton Corporation prior to July 31, 1971, and (b) the first occasion HOWARD EDWIN REINECKE discussed the possibility that the 1972 Republican convention would be in San Diego and whether such discussion was with any individual on the staff of the President of the United States. 4. At the time and place alleged, HOTXARD EDWIN REINECRE, the DEPENDENT, appearing as a witness under oath before the said Committee, did willfully and knowingly state with respect to material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Senator Fong. Now, in the March 3, 1972, Washington Post, a column written by Jack Anderson makes the first reference to you and he goes on to say that -- the statement says: "The attorney General was not involved." Tt refers to the statement by Attorney General Mitchell relative to-the ITT matter and the statement says: "The Attorney General was not involved in any way with the Republican National Committee Convention r.egotiations and had no knowledge of anyone from the committee or elsewhere dealing with International Telephone and Telegraph" and the column goes on to say this is false. "In midway last year, California Lieutenant Governor Ed Reinecke and an aide, Edgar Gillenwaters, met with Mitchell in his Washington office to discuss efforts to hold the convention in San Diego." Eras there a mid-May meeting that you had with him? Mr. Reinecke too; there was not, sir. I did announce this to the press and so did Mr. Gillenwaters. We were in error because we both made the statement while we were out of the office and before we realized several statements had bean made -- they were nade in good faith but they were also in error -- but it was corrected and it has been mentioned several times today. (376) Senator Fong. I see. You had a meeting with Mr. Mitchell but it was not in May? Mr. Reinecke. The meeting was in September. Senator Fong. September? Mr. Reinecke. the convention. At which we discussed Senator Fong. I see. So the only tine you discussed the convention with Mr. Mitchell was in September after the ITT case had already been settled? Sir. Reinecke. That is correct. Senator. Senator Fong. Then the column goes on and says that he like the idea, referring to or. Mitchell, "That he like the idea of having the convention in San Diego." Did tar. Mitchell ever tell you that he liked the idea? Mr. Gillenwaters. I again had th_ impression that he was pleased about the idea but do not remem_er a direct statement. Senator Fong. I see. When did you give that statement -- to what date do you refer? Mr. Gillenwaters. The conversation with the Attorney General? Senator Fong. Yes. Mr. Gillenwaters. That was on the 17th of September, in his office at 9:30 in the morning. Senator Fong. So as far as you are concerned, as far as you can recollect, nothing happened prior to the 17th of September between you and Attorney General Mitchell? Mr Gillenwaters. Relative to the convention; that is correct. Senator Fonq. Yes. Lt. Governor, so far as you know, nothir.s transpired to the Attorney General prior to September 17, 1971? Mr. Reine-ke. That is correct, sir Senator Fonc Until nfevr Fhn Tab onco had been completed? (377) Mr. Reinecke. Pertaining to the convention; * * * Senator Fong. So as far as your testimony is concerned, Mr. Gillenwatcrs - Mr. Gillenwaters. Thank you. Senator Fong. and Lt. Governor Reinecke, is that prior to the settlement of the ITT case no conversation was had by either one of you to anyone in the Justice Department that the ITT people had promised to do certain things in San Diego? Mr. Reinecke. That is quite true. 5. The underscored portions of the statements quoted in paragraph 4, made by HO';JARD EDWIN REINECKE, the DEFENDANT, were material to the said inquiry and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621j. — 7 — (378) COUNT TIERED The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about the l9th day of April, 1972, in the District of ColuSbia, HO,.'XRD EDWIN REIIMECKE, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did unlawfully, willfully, knowingly, and contrary to such oath state material matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the time and place set forth above, the said Committee was conducting an inquiry and hearing into the qualifications of Richard G. Rleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States and, as part of the said inquiry and hearing, was inquiring into the manner in which the United States Department of Justice had processed antitrust matters and cases involving mergers made and contemplated by the International Telephone and Telegraph Company (hereinafter ITT). One allegation being investigated was that the settlement of three antitrust cases involving ITT, which settlement was announced by July 31, 1971, seas influenced by a commitment or offer of some kind by ITT or the Sheraton Corporation, a subsidiary of ITT, to assist in the financing of the Republican National Convention in 1972 in San Diego. The said hearing and inquiry was being conducted by the said Committee pursuant to the reference to it of the nomination of Richard G. Kleindienst to be Attorney General of the United States. - 8 - (379) 3. It was material to the said inquiry that the said Committee determine (a) whether John N. Mitchell, who in 1971 was Attorney General of the United States, had any knowledge of any such commitment or offer by ITT or the Sheraton Corporation prior to July 31, 1971, and (b) the first occasion EONALD EDWIN REINECKs discussed the possibility that the 1972 Republican convention would be in San Diego and whether such discussion was with any individual on the staff of the President of the United States. 4. At the time and place alleged, HOWARD EDWIN REINEass, the DEFENDANT, appearing as a witness under oath r before the said Committees did willfully and knowingly state with respect to material matters alleged in paragraph 3 as follows: Senator Tunney. When was the first discussion that you had about the possibility of bringing the Republican Convention to San Diego? Mr. Reinecke. In April. Senator Tunney. April. with whom? Do you recall? Mr. Reinecke. Yes. I was back here for reasons of economic develo=m..ent ar.d .s.^.ile xJe were hare there was a social rezentlon that seas attended bxt a Saran group of people iron San Diego n:^o r.2zzened to be in town on their owns for their ox.n re2ssns, but at the same time I tnink thex~N;ere Chamber of Commerce people and •.e discussed the possibility at that point and that alas where the idea really _ _ . natchea. Senator Hruska. When did you first conceive of the idea of attracting the convention of the Republicans to San Diego? Mr. Reinecke. n April at the receptign held at the National Committee suildirXq April_27. _ g _ 5. The underscored portions- of the statements quoted in paragraph 4, made by HOt'WARD EDWIN REINECRE, the DEFENDANU, were material to the said inquiry and, as he then and there well knew, were false. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1621.) A TRUE BILL LEON JAWORSXI Special Prosecutor — 10 — (381) To