Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
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.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Mr. THOMPSON. Might I ask a question at that point, pardon me for interrupting you. But of course, this was a long time after the fact. Did you realize this point of law at the time you called these embassies? Mr. MCCORD. Oh, I have had a pretty clear knowledge of the law since June 17, through what is called jailhouse lawyers who do as much reading as they can. Mr. THOMPSON. Did Mr. Liddy advise you? Mr. MCCORD. I think I talked with him, yes, quite a few of them, about the predicament we were in. But he did not discuss this particular point. Mr. THOMPSON. What you are saying is that at the time you made these calls, you realized that they would be possibly intercepted. You realized even at that time that they possibly might be irrelevant. Mr. MCCORD. I knew they were irrelevant. There was no possibility in it. But I had read, to finish the rest of it, I had read, for example, in the Month before the Dr. Ellsberg situation, where the Government had for 5 months denied that there were any interceptions of Mr. Ellsberg's calls or calls of his attorney. Yet, it was not until the defense attorneys required, requested a court order be issued searching the records of 12 different agencies and some 30 to 45 days later, calls, intercepted calls of Mr. Boudin were then disclosed by the Government showing that calls actually had been intercepted when previously they had been denied. Mr. THOMPSON. Calls to these two embassies? Mr. MCCORD. No. Mr. THOMPSON. Why did you mention these two embassies? What made you assume that these embassies were bugged? Mr. MCCORD. At random. Mr. THOMPSON. I beg your pardon? Mr. MCCORD. At random. Mr. THOMPSON. You picked them at random? Mr. McCORD. Um hm. Mr. THOMPSON. Because you read in the papers that some people have alleged in times past that governments do these sort of things against one another. Is that what you are saying? Mr. MCCORD. Something like that. Mr. THOMPSON. Let me ask you another question on another subject. I beg your pardon? Mr. McCORD. I believe my attorney says something like that.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Mr. THOMPSON. These FBI reports and Internal Security documents that we have been talking about now, could you tell me--are you talking about classified material that is improper to be disseminated to political parties, or are you talking about materials that you disseminated to both parties, local police chiefs and things of this nature? I understand the FBI does disseminate a certain amount of material. I do not know about the Justice Department, but perhaps you do. Could you give us some idea as to the nature of these documents that were talked about? Mr. MCCORD. Of course, Mr. Martin, who headed that division, could give you an accurate statement of the facts. I am drawing a conclusion, and my conclusion now, this is not only an appropriate thing to do, I think it is a very necessary thing to do to both parties, for example, when a convention is forthcoming and there is violence anticipated. Let me put it another way. I think to fail to disclose to either party prior to such a convention where violence is anticipated and lives may be lost is almost criminal dereliction where it could have been prevented by disclosure of anything of this type, that had they received it, they perhaps could have taken steps to prevent the loss of life or destruction of property. I thought it was entirely appropriate at that time. Now, your question as to classification. I understood the material was, had been declassified or was not classified. My memory is not as clear as it should be. Some of it may well have been classified. I do not know. But I felt the propriety of it was entirely proper. Mr. THOMPSON. At the time, you did not feel that you were dealing w/ classified documents or you were getting anything that was improper for you to get? Mr. MCCORD. I did not feel there was anything improper. Quite to the contrary, as you said, I felt to fail to get it is to fail to get information that effects the lives of people that you are charged with protecting. Mr. THOMPSON. Did you know, or did you have an understanding during this period of time as to whether or not the Democratic Party also had this material available to them? Mr. McCORD. I had an understanding that the Democratic Party was getting some comparable type of information. From whom they got it, through what channels, I don't know. Mr. THOMPSON. All right; one more question, Mr. McCord. You mentioned you discussed the logs in response to Mr. Dashes question a minute ago, and I just have one question. To whom were these logs sent? The record is not clear about this and I think in fairness, you should set the record straight. Specifically, I refer to a story that was printed in the Washington Post on one occasion, stating that supposedly Mr. William Timmons, Glen Sedam, and Mr. Robert Odle received these logs. Do you know whether or not on any occasion any of these men ever received the results of the wiretaps or the bugging that you were carrying out? Mr. McCORD. I have perfectly certain in my own mind that none of them received it. I think something of Mr. Baldwin's memory was in error if and when he made such a statement. I can understand how he made it at the time. The fact is, I have no knowledge that they did receive it, I. do not know whether they did receive it. They certainly did not receive it from me. Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know if they were involved in any manner in this? Mr. MCCORD. Absolutely none. Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. McCord. Mr. Chairman.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator Sam ERVIN (D-NC). Mr. McCord, Mr. Thompson asked you why you did not speak earlier. At the time the trial was in progress and until after the trial, you had knowledge or at least information that all of the people involved with you, including Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt, were receiving compensation from the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. MCCORD. I believe I did sir, yes sir. [Senator ERVIN has a considerable amount of trouble with the next question, it's funny] Senator ERVIN. And you had witnesses at the trial and you had seen and heard the deputy director or deputy chairman, or whatever they called him, of the committee, Mr. Magruder, give testimony which you believed to constitute perjury? Mr. MCCORD. I did sir. Senator ERVIN. You had been urged by your lawyer to keep silent? Mr. MCCORD. Well, my lawyer had communicated to me the matter of Executive clemency. I can't recall that he tried to get me to keep silent. Senator ERVIN. Now, Mr. Caulfield had come and seen you three times and urged you to keep silent? Mr. McCORD. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you felt at that time there was nobody else that you knew that knew anything about this that you thought was willing to speak at that time? Mr. McCORD. No other defendants; no, sir. Senator ERVIN. So if you had come out and said anything, you Would have been the lone voice, would you not, as far as you could see? Mr. MCCORD. A two-part answer. I communicated my concern to Mr. Caulfield, a law enforcement officer, an assistant director of the Alcohol and Tax Unit. Senator ERVIN. Well, were you influenced by the considerations considering what I asked you to postpone making any statements until later? Mr. McCORD. Yes, sir, I certainly was. Senator ERVIN. I would like to make a statement on behalf of myself as an individual and member of the committee, not as the chairman, I want to thank you for your cooperation with the committee in its effort to ascertain the facts about this matter. Mr. McCORD. Thank you, sir. Can I respond? Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. MCCORD. I think, sir, that this country at this point in time, in having the very distinguished Senators and the staff that we have, is extremely fortunate in having such great men here to probe into this without fear of where it is going to end and develop all the be facts, I am grateful. Senator ERVIN. You will be available for further testimony if this committee decides to call you? Mr. MCCORD. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Thank you Mr. McCord. Senator ERVIN, Thank you. Counsel will call the next witness.