The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate

by James Rosen

  3. James R. Williamson, Federal Antitrust Policy During the Kennedy-Johnson Years (Greenwood Press, 1995), p. xi; Lester A. Sobel, ed., Corruption in Business (Facts on File, 1977), pp. 78–179.

  4. Sobel, Corruption in Business, p. 178; Grover, “Cabinet Enigma.”

  5. WH memo for the attorney general from Alexander P. Butterfield, Subject: Notes from the president, March 25, 1969; WHCF FG J-L, Box 9 (agree, anti-business); and WSPF memo from Paul Hoeber to the file, Re: Office Interview with John Mitchell [conducted December 14, 1973], [filed] December 19, 1973; RG 460 WSPF U.S. v. Mitchell (Jencks)—Mitchell, both in NARA.

  6. Viorst, “‘The Justice Department’” (rather aggressive); Mark Green, The Closed Enterprise System: Ralph Nader’s Study Group Report on Antitrust Enforcement (Grossman, 1972), p. 100.

  7. WSPF transcript (Conversation No. 697–29).

  8. WH memo to The President from John D. Ehrlichman, Subject: Anti-Trust Policy, April 28, 1971, reprinted at HJC, V: 830–31; EN, September 1, 1971.

  9. Robert J. Schoenberg, Geneen (Warner Books, 1986), pp. 20–30; Anthony Sampson, The Sovereign State of ITT (Stein and Day, 1973), p. 72; Priscilla S. Meyer, “ITT: Emerging Contradictions,” Wall Street Journal, March 22, 1972; Anderson and Clifford, Anderson Papers, p. 51.

  10. DOJ memorandum for John Ehrlichman from Richard W. McLaren, July 30, 1970, reprinted at HJC, V: 147–52.

  11. Green, Closed Enterprise, pp. 44–45; Anderson and Clifford, Anderson Papers, p. 64.

  12. HJCW, III: 735; HJC, V: 138 (inappropriate).

  13. WH memo for Richard McLaren from Tod R. Hullin, Re: Ehrlichman’s meeting with Mr. Geneen, ITT, August 10, 1970; WHSF—SMOF, JDE Chronological File, Box 53, NARA. Compounding the insult was the fact that prior to his meeting with Geneen, Ehrlichman had requested from McLaren—and received—a detailed memo outlining the status of all three cases against ITT; see DOJ letter to Tod R. Hullin from Richard W. McLaren [with attached memorandum], July 30, 1970, at HJC, V: 147–52.

  14. KCH, 540 (express), 562 (theoretical); 551 (rebuffed), 576 (no change); Anderson and Clifford, Anderson Papers, pp. 109–10 (academic exercise). Tom Casey, ITT’s Washington-based director of corporate planning, wrote Charles Colson three days after the Mitchell-Geneen meeting with his own account—its source unstated—of what was said. “Mr. Geneen and the attorney general,” wrote Casey, “both agreed that because of the recent changes in the tax law, the decision of the Accounting Principles Board and the depressed state of the stock market and economy, the merger wave was over and we would not see such happenings again” see ITT letter to Charles Colson from Thomas H. Casey, August 7, 1970, at HJC, V: 663–64. One ITT lobbyist claimed, also without substantiation, that the corporation gave “heavy financial support” to Nixon’s ’68 campaign; see WH memo for John Ehrlichman from Colonel James D. Hughes, [no subject], September 19, 1969, at HJC, V: 142.

  15. ITT letter from Ned [Gerrity] to Ted [Agnew], August 7, 1970, with attached memorandum, [no subject], August 7, 1970, at HJC, V/674–76; Jack Anderson, “Agnew and Connally Linked to ITT Fix: Secret Papers,” United Feature Syndicate, March 17, 1973, MFC; EN, August 7, 1970 (Rumsfeld).

  16. WH memo for the attorney general from John D. Ehrlichman, Re: The United States vs. [sic] ITT, September 17, 1970, WHCF Chronological File, Box 38, NARA (Ehrlichman also sent a copy to Colson). That ITT viewed Ehrlichman as more receptive than Mitchell is clear from a thank-you note the company’s Bill Merriam wrote after he and Geneen met again with the White House aide on March 3, 1971: “[We] came away…with the thought that you understand our position perfectly and are sympathetic,” Merriam told Ehrlichman; see Schoenberg, Geneen, p. 265.

  17. U.S. v. International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (1970), 324 F. Supp. 19–55, at HJC, V: 217–53.

  18. Kleindienst, Justice, p. 90–96.

  19. HJC transcript, NT, Nixon-Ehrlichman-Shultz, Oval Office, April 19, 1971, 3:03–3:34 p.m., at HJC, V: 312–45. Schoenberg, Geneen, claimed (p. 396) it was unclear how much time elapsed between the end of the Ehrlichman-Kleindienst call and the start of the Nixon-Ehrlichman-Shultz meeting, and guessed a few minutes; yet in the HJC transcript Ehrlichman stated: “I just talked to [Kleindienst] about an hour ago.”

  20. HJC transcript, NT, Nixon-Kleindienst, Conversation No. 2–2, White House Telephone, April 19, 1971, 3:04 p.m.–3:09 p.m., at HJC, V: 346–48. The words “you son-of-a-bitch” and “Don’t you understand the English language?” were purposely omitted by House stenographers who prepared the first transcript of this tape, for the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearings.

  21. HN, April 19, 1971. Haldeman noted the time of this discussion as “1545,” meaning eleven minutes after the president’s session with Ehrlichman and Shultz had ended.

  22. WSPF Hoeber memo (fucking Ehrlichman); Kleindienst, Justice, p. 92 (McLaren and Griswold); Kleindienst interview (follow this directive, take it easy).

  23. HJC, V: 362; Griswold, Ould Fields, pp. 292–96.

  24. HJC transcript, NT, Nixon-Mitchell, Conversation No. 485–4, Oval office, April 21, 1971, 4:18–6:13 p.m., at HJC, V: 372–76. Almost a year later, Nixon mused: “ITT is a bad company, I suppose” see WSPF transcript (Conversation No. 697–29); and Kleindienst, Justice, p. 93.

  25. Brit Hume, Inside Story (Doubleday, 1975), p. 121; Schoenberg, Geneen, pp. 139–40; SJC transcript of interview of Dita Beard by Mike Wallace, 60 Minutes, CBS News program, [aired] April 2, 1972, at KCH, 1641–44; David Fleming, interview with author, December 1, 2003; Brit Hume, Memo for record, February 24[1972], MFC. Fleming remembered that Beard drank a quart of Old Crow whiskey a day.

  26. KCH, 541 (could not and would not, repeated my desire), 544 (two minutes, same harangue, dinner table), 545 (shove off), 546 (sweet disposition, Nunn confirmed); Hume, Inside Story, pp. 159–60.

  27. WH memo for The Attorney General from John D. Ehrlichman, [no subject], May 5, 1971, at HJC, V: 829.

  28. Kleindienst interview (quite taken, anybody else); Kleindienst, Justice, p. 97 (McLaren was right).

  29. DOJ memo for the deputy attorney general from Richard W. McLaren, Re: Proposed Procedure in ITT Merger Cases, June 17, 1971, at HJC, V: 550–52.

  30. Letter to James O. Eastland from Howard J. Aibel, Re: Senate Committee on the Judiciary Hearings on the Nomination of Richard G. Kleindienst, April 7, 1972, at KCH, 1330–31; “Questions About a Cozy Relationship,” Time, April 10, 1972; UPI, “McLaren Defends ITT Antitrust Pact,” March 20, 1972; Griswold, Ould Fields, p. 296; Griswold interview. In 1995, ITT’s board of directors agreed to dissolve the conglomerate into three separate industrial, insurance, and hotel/gaming companies; see Tony Jackson, “ITT to Split into Three Businesses,” Financial Times, June 14, 1995.

  31. KCH, 584 (pleading guilty), 577 (confirmation), 617 (largest divestiture).

  32. Photocopies of Mitchell’s handwritten letter of resignation, and Nixon’s handwritten letter accepting it, are reprinted in Eric Hamburg, ed., Nixon: An Oliver Stone Film (Hyperion, 1995), pp. 342–44. For Mitchell’s undated yellow-pad draft of his resignation letter, see JMRC.

  33. UPI, “Senate Panel Unanimous in Supporting Kleindienst,” New York Times, February 25, 1972.

  34. Hume, Inside Story, pp. 1–18; Leonard Downie Jr., The New Muckrakers (Mentor Books, 1978), p. 158 (brash). In 1974, Hume published Inside Story, which remains the most thorough, though not an objective, chronicle of the ITT scandal. Hume later spent twenty-three years as an ABC News correspondent, covering Congress and the White House. In 1996 he became anchor and Washington managing editor at Fox News, where the author has worked under him as a correspondent since 1999. Hume has neither sought, nor been asked, to contribute in any way to this book. Except where noted, all references to Hume’s work on the ITT story are drawn from his book (pp. 107–254).

  35. A photocopy of the original memorandum appears in HJC, V: 614–15 (emphases in original).

  36. Griswold recalled: “Mitchell g
ot [McLaren] out by getting him nominated and confirmed as a federal judge in about five days.” Asked if this was Mitchell’s compromise with the White House, Griswold replied: “Yes…It was surmised, but it was reasonably clear” see Griswold interview.

  37. Hume memo.

  38. Letter to John N. Mitchell from Lawrence F. O’Brien, December 13, 1971, at KCH, 1662; DOJ letter from Richard G. Kleindienst to Lawrence F. O’Brien, December 13, 1971, at KCH, 120 (emphasis added).

  39. Jack Anderson, “Secret Memo Bares Mitchell-ITT Move,” Washington Post, February 29, 1972.

  40. DOJ Statement by John N. Mitchell, February 28, 1972, at HJC, V: 632.

  41. Jack Anderson, “Kleindienst Accused in ITT Case,” Washington Post, March 1, 1972.

  42. Jack Anderson, “Mitchell, ITT Try to Lie Way Out of Scandal; California Colleagues Say Mitchell Knew All; ITT’s Statement Contradicts Evidence On Hand,” Universal Feature Syndicate, March 3, 1972, MFC; Jack Anderson, “Contradictions Cited in ITT Case,” Washington Post, March 3, 1972.

  43. WSPF RG 460, U.S. Attorney File—Documentary Evidence, Martinez-Mitchell, Box 31, NARA.

  44. Robert Walters, “Was Mitchell Told of Fund? Reinecke Says Yes,” Washington Star, March 3, 1972; Robert Walters, “Reinecke Urges GOP to Refuse ITT’s Gift,” Washington Star, March 4, 1972; KCH, 1495–1502.

  45. Walters, “Was Mitchell Told” KCH, 1501–16; Lawrence Feinberg, “Reinecke Briefed, Dean’s Aide Says,” Washington Post, July 18, 1974 (Mardian).

  46. WH memo for H. R. Haldeman from Gordon Strachan, Subject: 1972 Convention Site, June 29, 1971, MFC.

  47. Kleindienst interview; Kleindienst, Justice, p. 103.

  48. SSCEX, E. Howard Hunt, July 25, 1973; SSC, IX: 3753–91.

  49. Dan Thomasson, “Dita: Memo Is a ‘Hoax,’” Washington Daily News, March 18, 1972; Dita Beard Statement, March 26, 1972, at HJC, V: 720–21; SJC transcript; KCH, 1641–44.

  50. THD, 427; The President’s News Conference of March 24, 1972.

  51. Dean, Blind Ambition, pp. 43–51; UVM, 8118 (circus); HJCW, III: 525 (weighed in).

  52. WSPF transcript, NT, Nixon-Haldeman, Conversation No. 697–15, Oval Office, March 30, 1972, WSPF Reference Transcript, RG 460, February 23, 1971–March 23, 1973, Box 1, NARA. Kleindienst’s nomination was eventually approved by the Judiciary Committee and confirmed by the full Senate. He served as attorney general from June 1972 to April 1973, when he resigned under pressure during Watergate. In May 1974 he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge that he had refused to testify “accurately and fully” before the Senate Judiciary Committee about Nixon’s angry telephone call to him in April 1971. In so pleading, Kleindienst became the first cabinet officer convicted of a crime since 1929. Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski said the charges against Kleindienst carried “no implication” that Nixon’s order to Kleindienst had been illegal. Kleindienst was sentenced to a month in jail and a $100 fine, both suspended; see Edward W. Knappman and Evan Drossman, Watergate and the White House, Volume 3, January-September 1974, pp. 134–65. As one observer has noted, Kleindienst, far from “refusing” to testify, actually demanded to testify, at the confirmation hearings reopened at his urging, then testified falsely. Many thought he received undue leniency, among them three WSPF staff attorneys who resigned in protest. Kleindienst returned to practice law in Arizona, where a state court tried him in 1981 on new perjury charges stemming from his representation of a client involved in a $23 million Teamsters’ insurance transaction. Kleindienst was acquitted, but suspended for a year and fined $11,823; see Schoenberg, Geneen, pp. 278–80. He died in February 2000.

  53. Anderson and Clifford, Anderson Papers, p. 108 (wearing); “Investigations: ‘Fake’?” Newsweek, March 27, 1972 (cool); Mary McGrory, “The Philosopher,” New York Post, March 15, 1972; KCH, 626 (grounds, cards).

  54. KCH, 547 (locating), 568 (may have), 569 (wouldn’t be, impression).

  55. Ibid., 568.

  56. Ibid., 1513 (Kennedy), 1535 (Fong).

  57. The calls were entered on Mitchell’s phone logs for May 21, June 2, and June 23, 1971; see WSPF Box 31.

  58. Lawrence Feinberg, “Reinecke Told Prosecutors of Fatigue,” Washington Post, July 19, 1974 (situation; volunteer; substantive); and Feinberg, “Reinecke Briefed” (coaching).

  59. Lawrence Feinberg, “Reinecke Testimony Conflicts,” Washington Post, July 20, 1974.

  60. Knappman and Drossman, Watergate, pp. 129–35, 218; Schoenberg, Geneen, pp. 280–81. A third perjury count in Reinecke’s indictment, relating to when he himself first learned of ITT’s convention pledge, was dropped.

  61. E. W. Kenworthy, “Watergate Jury Indicts Reinecke For Lies on I.T.T.,” New York Times, April 4, 1974. Asked about his dealings with Reinecke by the Watergate special prosecutors, Mitchell claimed he did not recall if the lieutenant governor mentioned ITT’s convention pledge. Financing was the RNC’s job, Mitchell said, so he “did not care what ITT did with its money” see WSPF, Hoeber memo.

  62. KCH, 552.

  63. WSPF, Hoeber memo.

  64. Associated Press, “Mitchell Seen Escaping New Charges,” Washington Post, March 28, 1975.

  65. KCH, 633. Two weeks after Mitchell testified, Charles Colson sent H. R. Haldeman a memorandum in which Colson claimed he and Fred Fielding, the deputy White House counsel, had uncovered a handful of White House and ITT documents that “contradict Mitchell’s testimony” see WH memo to H. R. Haldeman from Charles Colson, Subject: ITT, March 30, 1972, at SSC, VIII: 3372–76. Informed of Colson’s claim, Nixon said: “I don’t want to see the damn memorandum on this thing. I don’t want one floating around in here, this memorandum. It’ll be in the Washington Post in a few days” see WSPF transcript (Conversation No. 697–15).

  The documents Colson cited included Ehrlichman’s memos to Mitchell from 1970 and 1971 about “assurances” and “agreed-upon ends”—which, though embarrassing to Ehrlichman and the White House, had no discernible effect on Mitchell or the ITT case, and hardly proved malfeasance by Mitchell; and Ned Gerrity’s 1970 “Dear Ted” letter to Vice President Agnew, in which the ITT man claimed Mitchell had promised Harold Geneen he would “talk with McLaren and get back to Hal.” Despite this secondhand account of what Mitchell supposedly told Geneen in private, no evidence ever surfaced showing Mitchell interfered with McLaren or “got back to Hal” indeed, even the Beard-Merriam memo, dated almost eleven months after the Gerrity letter, lamented that ITT was still “suffering McLaren’s mickey-mouse.” The final document Colson cited against Mitchell was a 1971 memo from Herb Klein to H. R. Haldeman mentioning ITT’s convention pledge, copies of which were sent to three other officials, including Mitchell; see WH memo for H. R. Haldeman from Herbert G. Klein, Subject: 1972 Convention Site, June 30, 1971, at HJC, V: 820. The Klein memo, Colson concluded, “put the AG on constructive notice…[of] facts which he has denied under oath.” Confronted with the Klein memo, Mitchell’s lawyer, Bill Hundley, aptly scoffed that he was “inclined to doubt that Mr. Mitchell read—or paid much attention to—copies of Herb Klein memos” see James M. Naughton, “Rodino Indicates He Seeks Data on Nixon’s Role in I.T.T. Case,” New York Times, April 24, 1974.

  The principal goal behind Colson’s memo was not to provide an honest assessment of Mitchell’s testimony—Colson made no secret of his loathing for Mitchell, and vice versa—but to sway the president against Mitchell’s advice that the White House should continue supporting Kleindienst’s nomination. Yet disclosure of the Colson memo in August 1973, during the Senate Watergate hearings, led many journalists to conclude, erroneously, that the ITT antitrust cases must have been fixed after all. “I must say, this makes the Dita Beard memorandum look a little better,” reported CBS News correspondent Neil Strawser; see CBS Morning News with John Hart, August 2, 1973. Brit Hume thought Colson’s memo “explosive,” and said it revealed the ITT “cover up” in the “starkest terms” see Hume, Inside Story, pp. 239–54.

  66. WSPF transcript, Conversat
ion No. 697–29.

  67. “Impeachment: ITT and Milk,” Washington Post, July 20, 1974.

  68. UVM, 8195.

  PETTY THIEF

  1. UMS, 5423.

  2. Joseph Carragher, “Mitchell Opposes Jersey Casino Proposal; Speaks at Sears Testimonial,” Newark Star-Ledger, March 13, 1971; Audrey A. Fecht, “Mitchell Zeroes In on Crime in N.J.,” Newark Evening News, March 13, 1971; Charles Q. Finley, “Martha Sparkled, But Let John Speak for Himself,” Newark Star-Ledger, March 14, 1971; UMS, 3153–54, 3910. Asked what he’d told Mitchell about Vesco prior to this event, Sears said: “I told him…that I had been given help by a friend who had been a contributor and who had come to my rescue, both during the campaign and after, to help me on the debt…. Mr. Mitchell prior to March of 1971 would only have known Bob Vesco, if he remembered him, as a person who had helped me out” see UMS, 4093. Another attendee testified that after Mitchell’s speech, Mr. and Mrs. Vesco approached the podium with Sears. “Harry and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Vesco were talking as I was working my way across a crowded ballroom,” Laurence Richardson testified; see UMS, 4235.

  3. Arthur Herzog, Vesco (Doubleday, 1987), pp. 7–25; UMS, 5276 (namedropper); A. L. Eisenhauer and Robin Moore with Robert J. Flood, The Flying Carpetbagger (Pinnacle, 1976), p. 248. Vesco once claimed he’d given $100,000 in 1968; see UMS, 2043, 3420.

  4. Robert A. Hutchinson, Vesco (Praeger, 1974), pp. 2–8, 32 (federal regulators), 47 (offshore interest), 79 (chaotic); Herzog, Vesco, pp. 51–61.

  5. UMS, 3176 (witch hunt), 3999 (fuse), 6958.

  6. Letter to John N. Mitchell from Harry L. Sears, May 18, 1971, and letter to Harry L. Sears from John N. Mitchell, June 10, 1971, UMS, 3186, 3410–12 (no way of knowing), 7550–55 (Sears’s letters, talked to Casey), 7771 (mollify).

  7. Mitchell’s office log for November 30, 1971, in WSPF Box 31; UMS, 3220–22, 8854–55. On some details, however, Mitchell’s recollection differed from Vine’s. Testifying before a federal grand jury in New York on March 20, 1973, Mitchell said Vine told him only that “they were looking into” the case, and that “when they found out, he would let me know.” Before the grand jury, and later at trial, Mitchell said nothing about Vine’s assertion that the jailing of Vesco was “warranted,” nor did Mitchell mention his own inquiry about the potential usefulness of a certain local judge.