Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Mr. James McCORD. (continues) The newspapers over the week-end have also referred to some calls to some local embassy's. And I'll try to explain those in the statement that I'll read at this time. In July, 1972 Mrs. Hunt had told me that Paul O'Brien, attorney for the Committee to Re-elect the President had told her husband that when the Watergate case had broke in June, the Committee for the Re-election of the President had told attorney O'Brien the operation was a CIA operation. I believe I referred to this earlier, in the earlier statement . She said that Howard Hunt had exploded at this and told O'Brien that this was not true, that it was not a CIA operation. A few days later, Mrs. Hunt told me that the CRP lawyers were now reporting that the administration was going to allege at the trial, that Liddy had stolen sixteen thousand dollars, and had bribed Hunt and McCord to perform the operation. I told her that it looked like they were now changing their cover stories referring to the administration and that I would not sit still for either false story and I shortly wrote my attorney Gerald Alch repeating this information in setting forth these same views of mine. In September 1972, the indictments came out and no one was being indicted among the higher ups, so there looked like a further cover-up to me. Also, in September and October 1972, there began to be a series of telephone anomalies on my phone, that indicated to me that the phone had been tapped. Further I had read that in August 1972 in Newsweek Magazine, I believe that Mr. Elsberg had tried for five months to get the government to admit wire-tapping on his telephone calls and on those of his attorney and the government had denied such calls, until a court order forced a search of twelve separate law enforcement agencies and turned up telephone interception of Leonard Budeen's (sp ?) calls to the Columbian Embassy. In addition, I knew that the government had not been truthful in denying wire-tapping in the (Koplan) case (video drops out) some years earlier and in the Hoffa case in subsequent years. For several weeks until disclosure was forced from the government. In an effort to test the truthfulness of the government on a forthcoming motion for disclosure of wire-tapping of the defendants phones in the Watergate case, including my own, I made two calls in September and October 1972 to two local embassies.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
James McCord continues statement: On Oct 10, 1972, 1 asked for the filing of a motion for Government disclosure of any interceptions and 2 weeks later the Government came back with a denial of any, saying a search of Government records had been made. I knew that 2 weeks was too short a time to search 12 different Government agencies for such records, and believed the government was not telling the truth. In Jan 1973, after Caulfield had initiated contact with me, I advised him of the perjury of Jeb Magruder and of the two telephone calls I have just referred to, plus the other indications to me of illegal interception of my phone calls, & asked Jack to check into both. He came back a few days later and said that the Government had found nothing on the phone calls. He did not say what he had done about the information of perjury by Magruder. In January I also asked nay attorney to renew the motion for discovery of interception of my calls so there could be such a motion on the record and I believe he did so on Jan 16, 1973. I knew that the two embassy calls would be insufficient to overturn the case, because all that would happen if such were on the record would be for the Government to take the information to the bench and for the judge to declare the information not relevant, furthermore the Government would state that the information would not be used against me in evidence anyway. I did believe that such disclosure would be a way of testing the truthfulness of the Government regarding such illegal interceptions and I was greatly concerned that there had been other illegal interceptions of my telephone conversations and those of the other defendants beginning June 17, 1972. Further, I did believe that if sufficient illegal interceptions of my phone calls had occurred such would have a bearing on my case. I still believe there was such an interception just as Dr. Ellsberg believed that his own phone calls had been intercepted. Mr. James McCORD. There is an attachment to this, the New York Times of today's date. The title of the article "Warning Against Blaming of CIA Laid to McCord."
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) continues to testify vis a vis his perception of official sanctioning of WATERGATE BURGLARY by both White House and Attorney General. Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Mr. James McCORD. Uppermost in everyone's minds, at that point, in time and certainly in mine, was the bloodshed which had occurred at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, and I constantly sought intelligence from any source which might help forewarn us and help us avoid in 1972 that danger to the lives of our people. The right to demonstrate, or the right of peaceful assembly is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and I took absolutely no issue with that. It was the 2 percent to 3 percent of the demonstrators who focused on violence, damage to life and property that concerned me. In 1969 we had seen the bombing of the Capitol Building itself. In May 1972 we had seen the bombing of the Pentagon with the equivalent of 18 sticks of dynamite. In Feb 1972 there were four pipe bombs emplaced at a police station in Manchester, N.H., one of which went off prematurely, and mangled the arm of the young man who had reportedly emplaced them. Caught with him was a young lady who had in her possession four letters which said, "we have just bombed the offices of the Committee To Re-Elect the President in New Hampshire." Found in her apartment were the makings of other pipe bombs. It was clear to me and to others that the intentions of the two were to go on from the police station and drop off other bombs at the CRP offices in Manchester, where there had been demonstrations and trouble a few days before. Only their arrest preempted that action. A few days later in Oakland, Calif., another pipe bomb was emplaced on the first floor of the Republican county headquarters and blew out all of the windows & damaged a pillar to the building. Luckily no one was injured or killed. Already in February there was a pattern then of bombings beginning to develop against the committee and against Republican offices. Subsequently, in Austin, Texas, the offices of Senator Tower were destroyed by a firebomb which, I believe, as I recall did a million dollars worth of damage and destroyed irreplaceable files. So the concern was not of a theoretical threat, but of a realistic threat of violence, and I wanted advance notice from anywhere that I could receive it, of action planned against us of this sort-- advance notice, advance warning, so we could take measures to protect against it and protect our people's lives. Property could be replaced, lives could not.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
James McCord (Jim McCord) continues statement: Questions were on my mind such as : Who are these people who bombed in New Hampshire, in Oakland, the Pentagon Building, the Capitol Building? How are they funded? Who are they working with? Is anyone in collusion with them, encouraging them, or funding them? The Vietnam Veterans Against the War was one violence-oriented group that was already saying in the spring of 1972, that they were going to cause destruction to life and property at the August Republican Convention, using in their own words, their own bodies & other weapons as the spearhead of the attack there--these are their exact words & some of them have since been indicted in Tallahassee, Florida, w/ additional plans to damage the life & property in the convention. Later in the summer of 1972 the VVAW did in fact have offices in the DNC in Washington, as I understood. I had also received information from the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice in May 1972, that some individuals in Florida planned to forge college press credentials to get into both the Democratic & Republican Convention sites & blow up the communication centers of both parties there & cause havoc on the convention floor. That information was part of the basis for my going to Miami in June 1972, w/ members of the White House staff to survey and strengthen the security of the Doral Hotel where both the White House staff & the CRP staff were to have both offices & quarters for July & August 1972. Some 30 recommendations were made as a result of that survey, to help protect against such violence & I believe that most were put into effect before the convention.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
[cut shot of DASH conferring with an aide while BAKER stares at witness and ERVIN takes notes.] James McCord (Jim McCord) continues reading statement: Now, we also had word from CRP sources alleging that the McGovern committee had "a pipeline" directly into the offices of the Committee To Re-Elect the President in Washington; allegedly, they were feeding out, on a regular basis, policy position papers, that is plans & strategy, which were rather important to the success of a candidate's campaign. If the other side is reading your poker hand, he can negate your plans. We had word that one of the volunteers at the Committee To Re-Elect the President had in fact prior to coming aboard the committee, threatened the life of John Mitchell & other persons. This was about the same time Governor Wallace was almost killed in an assassination attempt. There were numerous threats in writing & by phone against John Mitchell & his wife. One such call came to the Unlisted telephone of Mrs. Mitchell at their apartment & got her greatly upset, as it would any woman, b/c it appeared that even the unlisted telephone number appeared then no longer safe, we certainly had sufficient indications that violence -oriented groups were out to endanger both life and property. With some 250,000 demonstrators planning to go to the convention in early 1972 & there were statements that some would be out to commit violence. The questions were, Who are such people? Who is funding them-encouraging them? Who is In collusion with them? What are they planning next and where? Are any of them being supported and encouraged by any staff members of the McGovern committee or DNC? I had no indication whatever that Larry O'Brien or Senator McGovern had either any knowledge of or part in such-- just to the contrary, I was completely convinced that they did not. But I was not so sure that, w/o their knowledge, other staff members might not be working behind their backs to quietly encourage such groups as the VVAW. McGovern's early political base was w/ some of the radical groups. My questions were, What was the extent of such encouragement, if any, and how far did it go? Did they let such groups use their telephones and work in their offices? There were indications later 1972, that such groups actually did just that in California and in DNC headquarters in Washington. These then were some of my concerns in my role as security chief of the CRP; I felt that the Watergate operation might produce some leads answering some of these questions, and I had been advised that the operation had the sanction of the White House and of the Attorney General, while he was AG. In hindsight, I do not believe that the operation should have been sanctioned or executed, nor should I have participated. However, you've previously asked some of my motivations & what some of the atmosphere at that time. Those are some of the things that make up my atmosphere & some of my motivations.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
James McCord (Jim McCord continues reading statement) My next memorandum deals with the subject of the Intelligence Advisory Committee I previously referred to in the CIA memorandum, [cut to shot of Senator BAKER pointing out the reference to Senator ERVIN] which I referred to Mr. Robert Mardian. In May, 1972, Robert Mardian had told me that he, John Mitchell, Robert Haldeman and John Ehrlichman were key members of an "Intelligence Advisory Committee." I now assume that this was the Intelligence Evaluation Committee, referred to, I believe, in the New York Times of May 21, 1973. I have Previously submitted a tape to the Senate Watergate committee which I believe contains material which was the product of that Committee, which I obtained from the evaluation section of the Internal Security Division of the Department of Justice, a contact established through Mr. Robert Mardian, in May 1972. I have no knowledge of the sources of that committee. Robert Mardian during a brief conversation in June 1972, stated to me that he as going to be "in charge of intelligence operations at Miami during the convention." He did not elaborate further.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord). Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator Howard BAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Mr. McCord, I am very grateful, I think you supplied a great deal of additional information & it raises a great number of new questions & I am sure my colleagues on the committee will want to pursue that or other questions, so I will not detain you long in this first series of questions. I think that your further elaboration & extension of your state of mind or motives in the several operations & especially the Watergate operation now appears more clear, at least to me. Let me try to paraphrase the essence of your motivation, if I may, & if I am wrong for goodness sakes tell me so, but I want to know if this is the general message that you are giving us. One, you had a long background of experience w/ Government agencies, the FBI & the CIA. You had become accustomed to activities related to sensitive matters, security matters, and to taking direction & accepting at face value the representations of the orders or the purported orders of very high officials in the Government, particularly the Justice Department & the White House. That for a variety of reasons, when you were called on to enter the Democratic National headquarters in Washington at the Watergate complex for a variety of reasons, inc your general knowledge of threats against the CRP, threats against General Mitchell & his family, threats against others, pipe bombings, fire bombings, threats of violence & the like, coupled w/ your concern for national security matters, if that is the proper way to characterize it, that you decided on the assumption that your authority was complete, that you no longer need to concern yourself with the legality of it, that based on this information that you had, & based on the assurances which were forthcoming, that it seemed appropriate that you undertake that entry. Is that a fair statement of your general motivation at the time? Mr. McCORD. I would think so, yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Mr. McCord, did you have any motivation to enter the Democratic National Committee for political purposes as distinguished from security purposes? It is not important in terms of the facts and the proof but it is important in terms of your state of mind. Mr. MCCORD. Let me answer it in a couple of sentences, if I may. I was fully aware that others had such motivations. My own motivations I have stated here. I had a role to play in the sense of an electronic component of the team and I played that role.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator BAKER. Mr. McCord, speaking of electronic surveillance, do you know of or did you ever investigate the bugging of Republican headquarters of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President headquarters here, New York, or elsewhere? Mr. MCCORD. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Would you describe that for the committee? Mr. MCCORD. It was a regular ongoing activity at the offices, in Washington and at the New York arm of CREEP, which was referred to as the November Group; they had offices I believe on Park Avenue in New York. It was done on a regular basis, it was done frequently at the end of the day or the beginning of the day or during sensitive conferences that we're going on, in order to determine if in fact there was any activity of this sort targeted against the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. Senator BAKER. Did you discover any incident of that sort? Mr. McCORD. There was one incident on June 16 of some concern at the New York office of CREEP. There had been earlier signs of possibly some illegal activity at those offices prior to June 16, which I could describe, if you would like. Senator BAKER. I'd like. Mr. MCCORD. On the afternoon of June 16, 1972, about mid-afternoon, I received a call from the head of the office of the November Group in New York City, who stated that he and his entire office staff were quite concerned about an incident that had just occurred. He went ahead to relate that one of the secretaries at the office had received a call from a male individual in Los Angeles, Calif., and that she had immediately told that party that she would call him back on the WATS line, which is a leased line, call him back on that line and immediately did so. She called him, as I recall, at the Beverley Wilshire Hotel, although I cannot be absolutely certain, at the phone booth there. And during the conversation that the two of them had, about a few minutes into the conversation there was a click over the phone which was heard by her and by the male on the other end of the line, and what appeared to be a tape recording was played over the telephone line which was, as she described it when I talked with her, an anti-Nixon and antiwar harangue. Senator BAKER. Mr. McCord, could I interrupt you for a moment? Mr. MCCORD. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. I understand this to be a call that was initiated from New York on a WATS line; that is, a flat rate monthly telephone line all over the country? Mr. MCCORD. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. To a number in California? Mr. McCORD. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Can you say whether or not the situation you described does in fact constitute a tapping or an intrusion into that circuit by someone unauthorized? Mr. MCCORD. It clearly appeared to be. I had not the slightest doubt about it & neither did the telephone company in New York when I called them that afternoon. Senator BAKER. Did you ever locate the, source of that tap?
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator Howard BAKER. I hope we are coming close to the end of your rather extended testimony. Senator Montoya. Senator Joseph MONTOYA (D-NM). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McCord, with respect to your suspicion that your phone had. been tapped at your home did you conduct any investigation around your premises to determine whether there was actually a phone tap? Mr. McCORD. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. And what did you find? Mr. McCORD. I had some equipment in Sept 1972, that normally when you go through a particular procedure with it if there is an extension, a telephone extension off of the phone you are testing or if certain types of devices are being used on the line there is an alarm that is sounded somewhat like a buzzer. And I would make these tests periodically through the fall of the year & it would go into the alarm during some of the tests. There were also many phone calls that had some very unusual things that occurred when a call would come in, in which we would hear an extension be picked up shortly after the call and other things. Senator MONTOYA. Permit me to ask you this question, then, on the basis of your investigation, are you concluding definitely that your phone had been tapped? Mr. McCORD. I had no doubt then, sir, and I have no doubt now. Senator MONTOYA. Were you also under the impression that as you spoke to other parties that your conversations may have been recorded during the time you communicated with anybody? Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. Senator MONTOYA. About this case? Mr. MCCORD. About this case, yes sir. Senator MONTOYA. On how Many occasions did you suspect this or were you certain that this occurred? Mr. MCCORD. I Would say at least a half dozen times, perhaps more during September and October, particularly of 1972. Senator MONTOYA. And when you mentioned these things to Mr. Caulfield, you indicated that you cited only two instances? McCORD. I referred to the two specific calls I was concerned about but I told him also about all these other things that had been happening that led me to believe that the phone was tapped. Senator MONTOYA. Did you complain to anyone else? Mr. McCORD. I made a lot of complaints to my lawyer in terms of filing motions, to Mr. Bitman when I discussed it with him. These motions went in the record. Senator MONTOYA. Did you allege these occurrences in your motions? Mr. McCORD. Yes, sir.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator MONTOYA. Now, with respect to your statements in your previous testimony that you were under the impression that the President knew of the clemency offer, would you please refresh my memory as to the actual conversations that led you into this belief? Mr. McCORD. Yes, sir. The information that and knowledge that led me to believe stemmed w/ conversations, stemmed from conversations w/ Mr. Liddy, Gordon Liddy - in Jan & Feb 1972, in which he told me about the meetings with the Attorney General in the AG's offices w/ Mr. Dean present in which the operation was deliberately he stated at length that the pros & cons of the operation were discussed by those present, presumably meaning the advantages & disadvantages of them in what appeared to be the deliberate consideration, careful consideration, given to the operation by the Attorney General. I believe I stated that there was a 30-day delay which to me seemed quite significant. I believe I stated that the Attorney General was in my opinion, a very decisive man. Senator MONTOYA. Mr. McCord, I do not know whether you understood my question. But we are going back to Jan 1972, in relating what transpired there. My question was: What led you to believe that the offer of clemency had the endorsement or approval of the President? Mr. MCCORD. I'm sorry sir, I misunderstood the question. The statements from Mr. Caulfield to me. Senator MONTOYA. Will you relate those statements again? Mr. MCCORD. Yes, sir. Mr. Caulfield stated that he was carrying the message of Executive clemency to me. Senator MONTOYA. Did he state so, specifically? Mr. MCCORD. Yes, sir. "From the very highest levels of the White House," these were his exact words. He stated that the President of the United States was in Key Biscayne, Florida that weekend, that he already had been told of the forthcoming meeting with me. This was, I believe, on Friday, Jan 12th, that the President had been told about the forthcoming meeting with me & would be immediately told of the results of the meeting. Senator MONTOYA. Did you check with Mr. Liddy after your meetings to ascertain whether or not the offer and your response had been communicated to the President? Was there any follow-up on your part? Mr. McCORD. With Mr. Liddy, sir? Senator MONTOYA. With Mr. Caulfield. Mr. McCORD. Mr. Caulfield? I would like to answer the question this way, if I may. He told me that the results of the meetings would be communicated with the President, that meeting of January 12, that Friday, that the results of the meeting he and I were then having, was then having, would be communicated to the President, and he said, "I may have a message to you at our next meeting from the President himself." This is an exact quote. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever receive a message through Mr. Caulfield purporting to be a communication from the President? Mr. McCORD. He came back to me at subsequent meetings discussing Executive clemency and a large number of other matters. He did not specifically state that the President said them.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator MONTOYA. Now, you mentioned that you received a note in your box from Mr. Caulfield which was signed "Jack". You also mentioned a letter that you wrote to Mr. Caulfield which you addressed "Dear Jack". Now, were you on a first-name basis with Jack Caulfield? Mr. McCORD. Yes, Sir. Senator MONTOYA. How long have you known him? Mr. McCORD. I first met him when he contacted me about the job at Commitee to Re-elect the President in September, that was my first meeting with him, first time I'd met him. Senator MONTOYA. Was he the only one connected either with the White House or the committee to ask you to come to work? Mr. McCORD. No sir, the first person that contacted me conveyed a message to me that - the first person was an individual in the Secret Service that I had known & he said that there was a possibility of a position open in campaign security work during 1972 campaign and did I have any interest. My answer was, this gentleman called me by phone in Sept 1972, in about a 1-2-minute conversation, my answer was I would have liked to have heard more about it. He said, well, you may be getting a call. I shortly did receive a call from Mr. Caulfield. Senator MONTOYA. Who was that person in the Secret Service? Mr. McCORD. Mr. Alfred Wong.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator MONTOYA. And you went to work for the Republican National Committee in October and you worked with them and for them until January, is that correct, January 1972? Mr. McCORD. No sir, the relationship continued until June 1972. Senator MONTOYA. Then you were on their payroll at $600 a month? Mr. McCORD. Approximately. Senator MONTOYA. You hadn't mentioned this before, because I interrogated you about the payroll at the CRP. You were on their payroll, too, were you not? Mr. McCORD. Yes, sir, I mentioned these matters in the executive session to the investigators and I apologize if I appeared to mislead you. Senator MONTOYA. What was your salary with the CRP from January until June 17? Mr. McCORD. Gross salary was-- Senator MONTOYA. On a monthly basis. Mr. McCORD. Monthly basis, the net pay was about $1,250 Month. Senator MONTOYA. Who employed you at the Republican National Committee? Mr. McCORD. Mr. Barry Mountain (spells it) Senator MONTOYA. What is his capacity there or what was his capacity at that time? Mr. McCORD. Director of administration. Senator MONTOYA. And how long did you work for the Republican National Committee again? Mr. McCORD. I was on their payroll through some part of June, approximately the middle.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator MONTOYA. Now, you mentioned also that in December, some of you or all the defendants got together somewhere for a strategy meeting with respect to the trial, is that correct? Mr. James McCORD. I can't recall that testimony, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Did you get together at any time in December or before the trial with respect to a trial strategy? Mr. JIM McCORD. I think I know what you're referring to, yes sir I did. Senator MONTOYA. With the other defendants? Mr. McCORD. No sir, only a general discussion with Mr. Barker a day or two before the trial. Senator MONTOYA. And did you discuss anything there with respect to the offer of clemency or any help from the individuals at the White House or in Government or at the CRP (Committee to Re-Elect the President). Mr. McCORD. I can recall some conversations that took place at this meeting, in which Mr. Barker was talking about pleading guilty or not to plead guilty. I can't be sure whether Executive clemency was mentioned at that point in time. I think now it was. Senator MONTOYA. By whom? Mr. McCORD. By Mr. Barker, stating that Executive clemency had-- he understood it had been mentioned by Hunt or promised by Hunt. Senator MONTOYA. And were you in constant touch with Mr. Hunt during the course of the trial? Mr. McCORD. Not contact as such. I saw him during the first week of the trial, before be pled guilty. I did not see him thereafter. Senator MONTOYA. Now, there was an article, a statement by Mr. Caulfield on Saturday, and I'll read this statement quoting him. It was a press statement: "I have briefly reviewed Mr. McCord's statement before the Senate Select Committee, and while it does not fully reflect my best recollection of the events which took place between he and I during January of this year, it is true that I met with Mr. McCord on three occasions in January and conveyed to him certain messages from a high White House official." Now, do you have any dispute with that statement? Mr. McCORD. Do I have any what, sir? Senator Mr. MONTOYA. Dispute with that statement? Do you question the accuracy' of that statement? Mr. McCORD. He apparently has a separate recollection than I do, sir, from his statement, so there must be some differences of opinion as to what was said. I don't know what he might mean at this point in time. Senator MONTOYA. But in view of his statement, you still state that what you said to this committee was correct as far as you knew and as far as you recall? Mr. McCORD. It is accurate and correct to the best of my recollection, yes sir. Senator MONTOYA. Why did you turn down the overtures toward Executive clemency? Mr. McCORD. Well, there are a number of reasons. In the first place, I intended to plead not guilty. I intended to fight the case through the courts of appeal, I never had any intention of taking Executive clemency or pleading guilty, either; both of which were usually connected together when the terms were used. In other words, if you plead guilty, there will be Executive clemency offered to you. My basic position was essentially that I wouldn't even discuss it, either one. Senator MONTOYA. That is all, Mr. Chairman. [Senator Baker recesses the committee in Senator Ervin's absence--wide shot of front of committee table shows photographers in action, senators getting up to leave]
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Watergate Hearings - Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Samuel Dash, attorney. Mr. McCord, I just have a few questions. There were many questions put to you for the period of your testimony and I just have a few, and I do understand Minority Counsel Thompson has some questions. I think that one of the areas that has not been covered is the role of the person who was on the other side of the wiretap which you installed the end of May 1972. Now, did you employ Mr. Alfred Baldwin for that purpose? James McCord. Yes, I did. Samuel Dash, attorney. And what was his particular assignment with regard to monitoring the wiretap? James McCord. His assignment was to listen on a radio receiver that received the transmissions from the Democratic National Committee telephones, in which the electronic devices had been installed in connection with the two dates of Memorial Day weekend and June 17, 1972. Samuel Dash, attorney. Where was he located when he was doing this monitoring? James McCord. On the seventh floor of the Howard Johnson Motel across the street from the Democratic National Committee headquarters.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Samuel Dash, attorney. Now Mr. McCord, can you see the chart on the easel there? [Exhibit No. 12, P. 101.1] James McCord. Yes. Samuel Dash, attorney. The picture (drawing) purports to show the Howard Johnson on your right and the Watergate Office Building on your left. [cut to close-up of chart showing blueprint-styled diagrams of the two buildings] Now, does it represent the room 723 which was used by Mr. Baldwin for monitoring of those telephones? James McCord. Yes, it does. Samuel Dash, attorney. And he was just right across the street in doing that? James McCord. Yes, sir. Samuel Dash, attorney. In his monitoring how was he recording what he was hearing? James McCord. He would listen with headphones to the conversations that were being transmitted and would take down the substance of the conversations, the time, the date on a yellow legal sized scratch pad, and then ultimately would type them up a summary of them by time, chronological summary, and turn that typed log in to me and I would deliver them to Mr. Liddy. Samuel Dash, attorney. Did you deliver them to Mr. Liddy directly? James McCord. Yes.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Samuel Dash, attorney. Now, did there come a time when you were delivering those logs that they were retyped? James McCord. I know of at least one instance in which that occurred because I saw them being retyped. Samuel Dash, attorney. Was it your understanding that that occurred on more than one occasion, even though you yourself may not know? James McCord. Yes. Samuel Dash, attorney. What was the purpose of retyping the log, did Mr. Liddy explain that to you? James McCord. I believe some general explanation, in substance that he wanted them in a more final complete form for discussion with Mr. Mitchell and whoever else received them. Samuel Dash, attorney. Now, who did this retyping? James McCord. Sally Harmony, H-a-r-m-o-n-y, who was the secretary to Mr. Liddy at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. Samuel Dash, attorney. Did you have occasion to observe her typing the logs? James McCord. Yes, I did. Samuel Dash, attorney. Did you have occasion to talk to her while she was doing it? James McCord. Yes, I did. Samuel Dash, attorney. In that conversation you had with Sally Harmony, did she give you any indication that she understood what she was doing when she was retyping that log? James McCord. Yes, she did. Samuel Dash, attorney. As a matter of fact, could you briefly describe, without going into any of the contents what a log would be, what actually would be entered on the log which Mr. Baldwin would first type and then be retyped by Miss Harmony? James McCord. It would be similar to any other telephone conversation that one person might make to another beginning with a statement on his log of the time of the call, who was calling whom; a summary of what was said during the conversation itself, including names of persons who were mentioned that Mr. Baldwin apparently believed were of sufficient significance to set forth in the log. Samuel Dash, attorney. Then it would be true that anybody reading that would have no difficulty knowing it came from a telephone conversation? James McCord. That is correct.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 22, 1973 - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Mr. MCCORD. I said I thought the case was a sham, that the trial was a sham because of the perjured testimony and because of withholding highly material information by Jeb Magruder which would involve a number of higher-ups in the case, and perjury No. 2, we were not getting a fair trial. I have said this in many ways to Jack that thought the fact that we ought to have justice, as far as I was concerned, demanded that the case be kicked out and started all over again on this thing and start all over in a circumstance that, No. 1, we get a fair trial. We were not getting a fair trial. Perjury was being committed by key witnesses. Mr. THOMPSON. You were interested in your fair trial, of course, as your constitutional right. Mr. MCCORD. For all fair trials. Mr. THOMPSON. In your eyes, did Mr. Magruder's failure to tell the truth about it prejudice your case? Mr. MCCORD. Absolutely, If he was a key witness and all other testimony seems to fall into place around his testimony and he was withholding the names of principals in the case itself, that would say that prejudices the case and it puts a completely, totally different light on the case. In other words, the trial itself was appearing to indicate that Mr. Liddy was the sum total of this operation, he was the leader, the director, the funder, the whole package, and that the case cut off at this level. It did not. The case obviously extended much higher. Mr. THOMPSON. In other words, Mr. Magruder should have come in and implicated higher-ups so that you would not have to. Is that the way his testimony prejudices your case? Mr. McCORD. And he could prove it. Mr. THOMPSON. That is the way you looked at that, because-- I assume there was no controversy over the fact that you were caught with four other men, huddled behind a desk, with burglary tools on you and eavesdropping equipment on you. Mr. McCORD. No argument about that at all but I thought under any circumstances, at least a man deserves a fair trial. Mr. THOMPSON. Absolutely. Mr. MCCORD. And that we were not getting it.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Mr. THOMPSON. You mentioned your calls in September and October to the Chilean Embassy and the Israeli Embassy. Let me ask you this: What was the purpose of those phone calls? Mr. MCCORD. I think I previously stated - If not, I will restate it to try to test - Mr. THOMPSON. Try to test? Mr. CORD. Try to test the accuracy of the Government's response regarding intercepted conversations of mine. I was concerned that there had been wiretapping since June 17th of my conversations, and this would provide a test to see if in fact, all the Government records of the Government, some 12 agencies, had in fact been searched; the inferences by the response of the Government 12 days, 14 days after a motion was filed was there is nothing on the record in the Government of any interception of Mr. McCord's calls anywhere, and I knew that as I have stated, it takes more than 14 days normally to search 12 different Government agencies for records of such telephone calls. Mr. THOMPSON. How was this a test, Mr. McCord? Did you think or did you know that these two embassies had been bugged? Mr. MCCORD. I had assumed that they were. Mr. THOMPSON. You assumed that they were? Mr. MCCORD. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMPSON. And you based this assumption on your motion alleging that you were the subject of illegal surveillance? Mr. MCCORD. No, that is not, quite right. If I left that impression, I did not mean to. Mr. THOMPSON. Let me ask you this: if you assumed that they were bugged, would it be incorrect to say that possibly you called those embassies in order to more or less pull yourself up by your own bootstraps and have your conversations intercepted and perhaps get the Government in a position where it would have to deny or admit that those embassies were in fact bugged and, therefore, might dismiss your case on that basis? Mr. MCCORD. 0h, yes, if I may answer your question, oh, yes, I stated that this morning. I read it in the statement. But to finish the rest of the story. Let's suppose that any calls were intercepted at any point in time. The normal procedure would be for disclosure by the Government of those calls in camera before the judge himself and the judge to determine the relevancy of those calls. It was clear that those calls were not relevant to the trial itself and were not going to be entered in evidence. Therefore, the case could not be adjourned.