by James Rosen
8. UMS, 3233 (some assistance), 3417 (small change), 4637–38 (Felt testimony), 7458–63 (looking), 7558 (forgotten), 7785 (Swiss matter); and FBI memo from H. A. Boynton Jr. to Mr. E. S. Miller, 6/21/73, Subject: John N. Mitchell/Securities and Exchange Act, FBIM. For his single phone call to Mitchell, Sears received an additional $5,000 from IOS; see UMS, 4089.
9. UMS, 3234–53a (get John Mitchell, do much good); Hutchison, Vesco, p. 38 (occasion).
10. EN, January 18, 1972; UMS, 3272, 5493. Mitchell said he never saw Ehrlichman’s memo; see UMS, 7788–89.
11. UMS, 3286–91, 7562–65, 7813 (Mitchell denial).
12. Ibid., 5164–75, 5294, 7707–8. Mitchell’s alleged perjury before the grand jury on this point appears at UMS, 7706–7. Not until his second grand jury appearance did Casey recall Mitchell having told him about the SEC’s interference in Geneva.
13. UMS, 4646, 7567, 7790–91 (genesis), 8011 (misimpression); Hutchison, Vesco, p. 270. Felt recorded Mitchell’s request in an internal FBI document: “Attorney General contacted Bureau this date stating he wanted U.S. ambassador in Beirut to know that Attorney General and the administration have the utmost confidence in the integrity of Robert Vesco, who is in Beirut at this time. You should immediately so advise the ambassador.”
14. UMS, 3346–48, 7569–70.
15. Ibid., 3353–55.
16. Schoenebaum, Profiles of an Era, pp. 615–18; “Sketches of Four Men Indicted in Campaign Gift Case,” New York Times, May 11, 1973.
17. UMS, 4264–70; Hutchison, Vesco, p. 237. Stans steadfastly denied he asked Vesco to make his gift in cash; UMS, 2046.
18. UMS, 4575–77 (see Mr. Vesco, sum and substance), 4625 (I stay away). Appearing before the grand jury on March 6, 1973, Hofgren testified Mitchell’s admonition was both longer and more personalized: “Dan, stay away from it. It is being taken care of” see UMS, 4618–19. At trial, Hofgren testified he told Stans about his run-in with Mitchell, and Stans replied: “Okay, we will take care of [the Vesco matter] in another way” see UMS, 4575–77. On another point—what happened in Vesco’s March 8 meeting with Stans—Hofgren initially told the grand jury he had not attended, then amended his story both to acknowledge his presence and to assert, uniquely, that when Vesco complained about the SEC, Stans spontaneously, and successfully, arranged an appointment for Vesco with John Mitchell. Even Vesco’s associate, Richardson, did not remember Stans doing this; see UMS, 4572–74, 4617, 7668.
19. UMS, 4283.
20. Ibid., 3429–31. At disbarment hearings before the Morris County Ethics Committee in April and May 1975, Sears was asked if he was unaware of the true purpose behind Vesco’s contribution: “I am not trying to paint myself here as somebody who didn’t, who was so naïve and so stupid as not to know [that] in Vesco’s mind, he hopes he gets some attention” see In the Matter of Harry L. Sears, An Attorney at Law, 71 N.J. 175, 364 A. 2d 777, Supreme Court of New Jersey, September 30, 1976.
21. UMS, 3435–37 (few minutes), 5189–90 (in town).
22. Ibid., 3438–48, 5192.
23. Ibid., 4673–79, 4772 (grand jury testimony).
24. Ibid., 5707 (based on a telephone conversation), 8829 (Stans grand jury testimony), 7603 (hell, rationale). John Dean claimed Mitchell first learned about the use of the initials, and confronted Stans about it, at a meeting all three attended in New York. According to Dean, Stans’s reply was, “Well, it is there and that’s just the fact.” Before the grand jury, Dean had testified he was “certain” this meeting occurred in “late September, October” at trial he testified it was November 1. Mitchell was in New York from October 25 to November 14; see UMS, 5566, 5779–97; and WSPF, Box 31.
25. UMS, 7863 (emphasis added); Ralph Blumenthal, “Mitchell-Stans Jury Expected to Be Seated Today,” New York Times, February 28, 1974. When they were both in the cabinet, Stans replaced a consumer protection bill that Mitchell supported with a weaker version that made it harder for consumers to collect in class-action lawsuits; see Schoenebaum, Profiles of an Era, p. 616. Stans denied he and Mitchell seldom spoke. “That was a mistaken impression…. We were good friends, we were on good terms…. We were mutual victims, we thought, of an ambitious local [U.S.] attorney” see Stans interview.
26. UMS, 3472–76 (deVescoization, a year, settle), 5833 (baby).
27. “Learning to Love Exile,” Time, February 9, 1976; John F. Berry, “New Law May Hit Famous Fugitive,” Washington Post, February 6, 1977; Stanley Penn, “Vesco Says He Won’t Consider Request to Leave Costa Rica Until Suits Settled,” Wall Street Journal, June 13, 1977; Herzog, Vesco, p. 199.
28. The text of the Figueres letter is reprinted in its entirety in Hutchison, Vesco, p. 369 (emphasis added); UMS, 3725.
29. Hutchinson, Vesco, photograph section; Eisenhauer, Flying Carpetbagger, photograph section.
30. UMS, 3612–13 (those bastards, there’s no way, ITT), 4358–59 (get hold of Mitchell, angry).
31. Ibid., 3615–17 (devastating, interested), 7603–4 (recollection, quash, postpone).
32. Ibid., 3626–27.
33. Ibid., 3628–38 (happy, relieved, grateful, going to talk to John Dean), 3643 (can’t expect), 4021 (additional), 7719–21 (grand jury, didn’t talk to John Dean).
34. Ibid., 3749 (sure relieved), 7952 (fine).
35. Sobel, Corruption in Business, p. 163; David L. Yermack, “After Years on Case, Those Pursuing Vesco Still Make Careers of It,” Wall Street Journal, September 13, 1984; Arthur Herzog, “The Vesco Myth,” New York Times, June 23, 1995.
36. UMS, 3836–38 (dogfight, petty thief ). Asked about Mitchell’s characterization, Vesco sounded wounded and disbelieving. “That may very well have been something that Mitchell might have said,” he told Walter Cronkite. “Whether or not John actually believed that or not, I don’t know” see CBS Evening News, April 1–2, 1974.
37. UMS, 9001 (nervous).
38. UMS, 7388–91 (Sprizzo).
39. UMS, 5456 (what the hell), 5480 (bastards, runaway, Kleindienst); WHT, 150. Mitchell denied telling Dean these things. Asked if he thought Wing and Rayhill had behaved like “little bastards,” Mitchell deadpanned: “Quite the contrary. They were very polite and seductive.” After Wing objected, provoking laughter from the courtroom, Judge Gagliardi—smiling—struck the word “seductive” from the record. “It doesn’t call for any humor,” he told Mitchell. “Your Honor, I am not smiling,” replied Mitchell’s attorney, Peter Fleming; see UMS, 7694–98; and D. J. Saunders and Theo Wilson, “Mitchell Claims Talks With the SEC Wasn’t Improper,” Daily News, April 16, 1974. Dean, meanwhile, admitted that while discussing these subjects with Nixon, he neither mentioned Mitchell’s supposed request that Kleindienst be asked to intervene, nor ascribed the words “runaway grand jury” to Mitchell. Asked how Dean could have come to regard the grand jury as “runaway” other than by hearing as much from Mitchell, the former attorney general snapped: “I imagine he has a great imagination” see UMS, 5606–7, 8030.
40. Author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Colson, Conversation No. 40-95, White House Telephone, June 13, 1971, 10:32 to 10:39 p.m. (didn’t make, prosecuting); author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Connally, Conversation No. 948-12, Oval Office, July 11, 1973. 3:03 to 4:22 p.m. (crook, never met).
41. CBS Evening News, April 24, 1973.
42. Clare Crawford, “A Fiery Martha Mitchell Gives Her Side of the Split-Up with John,” People, March 11, 1974.
43. “And the Mess Goes On,” Newsweek, May 21, 1973; Will R. Wilson Sr., A Fool for a Client: Richard Nixon’s Free Fall Toward Impeachment (Eakin Press, 2000), p. 112.
44. “A Connection Named Vesco,” Newsweek, May 21, 1973; CBS Midday News, May 10, 1973; CBS Evening News, May 10, 1973; CBS Evening News, May 21, 1973.
45. One week later, the trial was moved to Courtroom 110, where atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried; see Martin Arnold, “Mitchell and Stans Are Acquitted on All Counts After 48-Day Trial,” New York Times, April 29, 1974.
46.
Arnold H. Lubasch, “Mitchell, Stans Go on Trial Here,” New York Times, February 20, 1974; UMS, 120–21.
47. CBS Evening News, September 11, 1973; Hans Zeisel and Shari Seidman Diamond, “The Jury Selection in the Mitchell-Stans Conspiracy Trial,” American Bar Foundation Research Journal (1976: 151).
48. UMS, 1923–24.
49. Ibid., 1932 (heart), 1975 (crass).
50. Ibid., 1980–2003 (emphasis added). When Wing repeated the offense, during redirect examination of John Dean, it drew defense objections, but no mistrial motions; see UMS, 5681. Later, Gagliardi reprimanded Wing for similar remarks. “The government did not commit the crime that John Mitchell is charged with,” Wing said during arguments in Gagliardi’s robing room. “Nobody has committed those crimes,” Gagliardi shot back. “[Mitchell] is presumed to be innocent. You, above all people, ought to be saying that” see UMS, 7007.
51. Joseph M. Treen, “For Defense, They Chose Democrats,” Newsday, March 17, 1974 (cracks); CBS Morning News, March 25, 1974; Daniel Wise, “Fleming, Master Litigator, to Seek Leaks,” New York Law Journal, December 16, 1991; Fleming interviews.
52. UMS, 2007–19.
53. CBS Morning News, March 14, 1974.
54. “Casey at the Bat,” Time, April 1, 1974. Two decades later, Wing argued Casey had been “less than candid under oath” in the Mitchell-Stans trial. “Many people have written many things about Mr. Casey since that time,” said Wing, alluding to the Iran-Contra scandal, “that might support the fact that perhaps he wasn’t always a truth-teller” see John Wing, interview with author, September 27, 1997.
55. CI, August 9, 1988.
56. Dean, Blind Ambition, p. 354; Maurice Stans, The Terrors of Justice: The Untold Story of Watergate (Everest, 1978), p. 346.
57. CBS Evening News, October 19, 1973; UMS, 118; Wing interview; James Rayhill, interview with author, December 11, 1997.
58. UMS, 5455.
59. Joseph M. Treen, “Defense Tries to Discredit Dean With Use of Tape Transcripts,” Newsday, March 27, 1974.
60. UMS, 5674 (Dean himself), 5264–65, 5738 (inconsistent), 5761–75 (razor’s-edge questions). On the Nixon-Dean talk, see also WHT, 150.
61. “Mr. Dean,” the judge advised early on during Fleming’s cross-examination, “if you will listen to the question and respond to the question, that’s what you should do.” The next day, Dean provoked Gagliardi to sterner words: “Mr. Dean, I must caution you—you are aware of it by training—if you will listen to the question and answer the question directly, there will not be motions to strike and I will not have to instruct the jury to disregard it.” There was a third offense (“Mr. Dean, I have cautioned you before, please answer the questions”) and a fourth (“You know, Mr. Dean, it is very difficult when a lawyer has to strike an answer and has to ask the court to give instructions [to the jury], and I would ask you again to listen to the question and respond directly to the question”) before the fifth engendered the judge’s explicit threat of punitive action (“Mr. Dean, I don’t want to reprimand you again, sir”); see UMS, 5529 (should do), 5549 (by training), 5613 (cautioned you), 5759 (very difficult), 5761 (use that date), 5788 (reprimand).
62. CBS Morning News, April 29, 1974; Marcia Chambers, “Jurors Couldn’t Believe Federal Witnesses,” New York Times, April 29, 1974 (often unbelievable). CBS Morning News, April 29, 1974 (reasonable doubt).
63. Joseph M. Treen, “Mistrial Ruled Out in Mitchell-Stans Case,” Newsday, March 5, 1974 (surprise); Joseph M. Treen, “Now It’s the Prosecution Who’s on Trial,” Newsday, March 25, 1974 (every prosecution witness); Fleming interview (jury wants); Fleming interview (always knew).
64. Fleming interviews.
65. UMS, 7527–29 (series, relented, somewheres).
66. Ibid., 7742–54.
67. Ibid., 7831–35.
68. Ibid., 7815 (in part), 7882 (three different), 7886 (bad notes).
69. Wing interview; Rayhill interview.
70. D. J. Saunders, “Charges Mitch, Stans Felt Above Law,” Daily News, April 25, 1974 (chin); Joseph M. Treen, “Accusations Abound as Lawyers Sum Up the Mitchell-Stans Case,” Newsday, April 25, 1974 (Fleming quotes).
71. Treen, “Accusations Abound” Martin Arnold, “Both Sides Sum Up in Mitchell Trial,” New York Times, April 25, 1974.
72. Stans interview.
73. Chambers, “Jurors Couldn’t Believe.”
74. D. J. Saunders and Theo Wilson, “Mitchell Jury Focuses on Memo to Don Nixon,” Daily News, April 27, 1974; Martin Arnold, “Mitchell-Stans Jury Seeks ‘Don Nixon Memorandum,’” New York Times, April 27, 1974; Martin Arnold, “Sears Testimony Studied by Jury,” New York Times, April 28, 1974.
75. Arnold, “Mitchell and Stans Are Acquitted.”
76. “Mitchell and Stans Found Innocent on All 18 Counts,” Daily News, April 29, 1974; Arnold, “Mitchell and Stans Are Acquitted.”
77. Joseph M. Treen, “At the Victory Party, Feeling No Pain,” Newsday, April 29, 1974; Ida Libby Dengrove and Frank W. Martin, My Days in Court: Unique Views of the Famous and Infamous by a Court Artist (William Morrow, 1990), pp. 64–71. Dengrove said Mitchell “displayed remarkable control” as a witness, appearing “levelheaded even under cross-examination” off the stand, he was so flirtatious the ladies dubbed him “Mr. Twinkles.” Dengrove also suspected that during court recesses, Mitchell was “tippling in the back room,” adding “there were times…that he looked red-nosed and appeared to sway.”
GEMSTONE
1. WHT, 773.
2. UMS, 7651–52.
3. Hougan, Secret Agenda, pp. 44–45 (Triumph); Gordon Strachan quoted in Notes of Seymour Glanzer from Interview with Jeb Magruder, April 14, 1973, RG 460 WSPF—WGTF, Investigative Files, U.S. v. Mitchell (Jencks), Magruder, Box 73, NARA (Hitler incarnate). “I, a qualified Israeli Defense Force paratrooper, would just as well you did not indicate you think I am a Nazi,” Liddy told the author in 2004. Despite his undeniable obsession with the Third Reich, Liddy has taken pains to rebut unkind suggestions about his belief system. “I have absolutely no sympathy for Adolf Hitler and Nazism,” he told Playboy in 1980. “Remember, German history spans thousands of years, and the twelve years of the Third Reich was [sic] no more than a historical aberration…a stain on German honor from which the country will take many years to recover….[F]or Adolf Hitler and the psychopathic scum in the concentration camps who butchered babies on an assembly line because they were born into the wrong race, I have nothing but contempt.” Some scholars have questioned whether the Third Reich was a “historical aberration” in German history, and, too, Liddy’s characterization of European Jewry as a “race”—but his sincerity in condemning Nazism was genuine; see G. Barry Golson, ed., The Playboy Interview, Volume II (Perigee Books, 1983), p. 364 [originally published October 1980]; Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (Vintage, 1997); e-mail to the author from G. Gordon Liddy, November 14, 2004.
4. Liddy, Will, pp. 180–83, 200. In previously unpublished testimony before the Senate Watergate committee, Dean said he had “no specific knowledge of telling [Liddy] a million dollar figure” but “may” have told Liddy he would get “whatever you need” see SSCEX, John Dean, June 16, 1973. Testifying in public session, Dean said he had “no recollection” of “specifying a dollar amount” see SSC, IV: 1442. Yet in his 1976 memoir, Dean recalled telling Liddy he could have “maybe half a million bucks…maybe more” for intelligence operations; see Dean, Blind Ambition, p. 71. Asked in a 1995 deposition whether he promised Liddy “half a million dollars for openers,” Dean wavered. At one point he said “there was no such discussion” elsewhere, he claimed “no recollection of such a conversation” but added, “If it was said as a passing remark, it did not register with me”—a suggestion Dean paid his own words no heed. Finally, Dean allowed that he “might have said something to Gordon Liddy based on a question he had posed to me, ‘What kind of budget do I have?’ something to the effect
that, ‘A half-million-dollar budget.’” See Maureen K. Dean and John W. Dean v. St. Martin’s Press, et al., C.A. No. 92–1807 [hereinafter referred to as “DVS”], Deposition of John W. Dean [hereinafter “JDD”], September 13, 1995. Certainly the phrase “for openers” was a favorite of Dean’s; he used it, in contexts unrelated to the Liddy meeting, to end a sentence in each of the first four days of his deposition.
5. Magruder, An American Life, pp. 14–56; DVS, Deposition of Jeb Stuart Magruder, August 29, 1995.
6. Liddy, Will, pp. 185–86; CI, July 29, 1988 (spend); HJC summary (July 4, 1974) (left the matter). In the HJC interview and elsewhere, Mitchell said the November 24 meeting marked his first encounter with Liddy. However, Liddy testified in a 1972 deposition that he first met Mitchell, perfunctorily, in 1969; see CBS Morning News, February 7, 1973. Dean claimed Mitchell and Liddy held a “passing discussion” of intelligence, during which Liddy promised he would “familiarize himself with the problems…and would develop a plan.” According to Dean, Mitchell replied: “Fine, take him by to meet Magruder.” Dean’s account conflicts with that of the other men—who said there was no discussion of intelligence—and with logic itself: After all, the session was necessitated by Liddy’s salary dispute with Magruder; thus Mitchell would not suggest anyone take Liddy to “meet” Magruder. See SSCEX, Dean.
7. Dean, Blind Ambition, pp. 7–16.
8. SSC, II: 491; CI, March 11, 1988 (artistically). On the January 27 and February 4 meetings in Mitchell’s office, see the conflicting accounts of Dean, Blind Ambition, pp. 72–78; Magruder, An American Life, pp. 207–11; and Liddy, Will, p. 196–200. Magazine illustrators twice re-created the January 27 meeting: in New York (June 17, 1974) and Time (April 21, 1980).
