by James Rosen
37. SSC, V: 2097–99; HJCW, III: 537, 569. Dean claimed he told Kalmbach everything he knew about Watergate, but Kalmbach recalled that Dean told him next to nothing about it, and certainly never identified Mitchell as the authority behind the hush-money scheme; see HJCW, III: 682.
38. SSC, V: 2106–10; Renata Adler, “Searching for the Real Nixon Scandal: A Last Inference,” Atlantic Monthly, December 1976 (tough and dangerous). Ehrlichman denied that Kalmbach asked him to vouch for Dean; see SSC, VI: 2568–71.
39. UVM, 8307 (never tried); CI, April 19, 1988 (know anything, fish); CI [Kalmbach], April 27, 1988.
40. WSPF draft memo, July 22, 1974.
41. Ibid. (underlining in original, emphasis added). On another element of Dean’s hush-money story—a supposed meeting with Fred LaRue—Frampton found the encounter Dean described “apparently didn’t take place,” and concluded: “We probably would do well simply to omit Dean’s testimony about this.”
42. UVM, 2729–31 (hold, explore), 4019–21 (time to time, Kalmbach angle).
43. WSPF memo to Richard Ben-Veniste from Peter F. Rient, Subject: Material Discrepancies Between the Senate Select Committee Testimony of John Dean and the Tapes of Dean’s Meetings with the President, February 6, 1974; letter to John J. Sirica from Charles Shaffer, Re: United States v. John W. Dean, III, Criminal Case No. 866–73, [written] July 28, 1974 (Ervin); both in RG 460 WSPF—WGTF, Investigative files—Witness File, Dean, Box 101, NARA. See also James Rosen, “Anniversarygate,” National Review, July 14, 1997.
44. DOJ memo to Professor Archibald Cox from Earl J. Silbert and Seymour Glanzer, Subject: Contacts Between Prosecution of John W. Dean, III, from April 1 [1973] Up to Date, [filed] May 31, 1973 (center, gradual); WSPF memo to James F. Neal from Larry Iason, Subject: [“]What Dean told the Prosecutors (directly and through Shaffer)[”], October 8, 1974 (deliver); DOJ memo to Earl J. Silbert from Seymour Glanzer, [no subject], June 12, 1973 (incriminating, inadvertent); WSPF memo to Files from Peter F. Rient and Judy Denny, Subject: Interview of Earl Silbert on August 31, 1973, [filed] September 6, 1973 (Kalmbach); all in RG 460 WSPF—WGTF, Investigative files—Witness File, Dean, Box 101, NARA.
45. Author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Haldeman, Conversation No. 343-37, EOB Office, June 26, 1972, 12:35 p.m. to 1:25 p.m.
46. Nixon, Memoirs: Volume 2, p. 138 (harm); THD, 478.
47. HJC transcript of Nixon-Mitchell-Haldeman meeting, June 30, 1972, at HJC, II: 514–16. The House version of this transcript appears far more reliable than the special prosecutors’ see WSPF Reference Transcript, RG 460 WSPF, February, 23, 1971–March 23, 1973, Box 1, NARA.
48. SSC, IV: 1665, 1674; SSC, VIII: 3165–66; HJCW, II: 136–38, 168–69; UVM, 8067.
OFF THE RESERVATION
1. Author’s transcript of The David Frost Show, April 8, 1971, WHCA Tape No. 4265, NARA.
2. Jerry Greene, “Mitchell Gives Up Politics for Love,” New York Daily News, July 2, 1972; Robert B. Semple Jr., “Mitchell Quits Post, Putting Family First,” New York Times, July 2, 1972; George Lardner Jr., “Mitchell Resigns to Spend Time with His Family,” Washington Post, July 2, 1972.
3. Author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Haldeman, Conversation No. 744-24/745-1, Oval Office, June 20, 1972, 3:28 to 4:22 p.m.
4. Ashman and Engelmayer, Martha, pp. 10–11.
5. Paul Hoffman, Lions in the Street: The Inside Story of the Great Wall Street Law Firms (Signet, paperback ed., 1973), pp. 111–15; Michael C. Jensen, “Mitchell and His Law Firm,” New York Times, May 7, 1972; Robert B. Semple Jr., “Mitchell Relaxes in New Office Only 50 Paces from His Old,” New York Times, July 8, 1972. The Times found “no known cases of blatant White House or Justice Department influence” in behalf of Mudge Rose clients, but such charges recurred frequently; see Hoffman, Lions in the Street, and Jon Frappier, “The Lawyers,” in Steve Weissman, ed., Big Brother and the Holding Company: The World Behind Watergate (Ramparts Press, 1974), pp. 219–43. Martha Mitchell told Helen Thomas the move was “what I wanted” see “Nixon Discusses Mitchell’s Move,” New York Times, July 3, 1972.
6. FBI report of interview with John N. Mitchell by SA’s [sic] Daniel C. Mahan and Robert E. Lill, [conducted] July 5, 1972, [filed] July 6, 1972; UVM Government Exhibit 64; HJCW, II: 147 (slight variance).
7. Lukas, “Why the Watergate Break-In?” (key link); THD, 483–84. Dean claimed he advised Haldeman only that Magruder “be removed in a graceful manner that would not unduly jeopardize him” see SSC, III: 951.
8. SSC, II: 802 (heat); Magruder, An American Life, pp. 271, 283, 294; Glanzer notes (volunteer). Magruder testified that Mitchell brought Magruder’s offer of self-sacrifice to the White House, and that it was rejected there; see UVM, 4556–57. “I think there were some takers,” Magruder told the Senate, “but it was turned down” see SSCEX, Magruder.
9. Author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Mitchell-Haldeman-MacGregor, Conversation No. 768-4, Oval Office, August 14, 1972, 9:55 to 10:42 a.m.
10. Magruder, An American Life, pp. 271–72.
11. SSC, IV: 1624–25; SSC, V: 1859 (Ervin).
12. SSC, III: 944–52; SSC, IV: 1358; WHT, 141 (totally aware); SSC, II: 803 (two hours); FBI memo to Mr. Long from C. A. Nuzum, Subject: James Walter McCord Jr., et al./Burglary of Democratic National Committee Headquarters, June 17, 1972/ Interception of Communications, May 1, 1973 (eighty-three); FBI report [unsigned], Watergate—Events at Initial Stage of Case, June, 7, 1973; both in RG 460 WSPF—WGTF, U.S. v. Mitchell (Evidence Not Used), Ehrlichman Materials, FBI Internal Investigation, NARA; WH memo for Richard G. Kleindienst from John W. Dean, III, [no subject], September 17, 1970, RG 460 WSPF—CCTF #804, Hughes-Rebozo, John W. Dean Documents Received, Box 15, NARA; Magruder, An American Life, pp. 295–99. Dean claimed he read fewer than twenty reports “out of the eighty I received,” and that he “did not sit in on every single [FBI] interview that occurred at the White House” see SSCEX, Dean. At U.S. v. Mitchell, Fred LaRue testified he was present at a meeting of Mitchell and Dean where the latter “was given the assignment of trying to get copies of these [FBI] interviews [with CRP personnel] so that our attorneys could examine them” but LaRue could only place the alleged meeting in “mid-July” 1972. On one other occasion—to House impeachment investigators—LaRue claimed to have shown FBI reports to Mitchell, but couldn’t recall “what he passed on” see UVM, 6660; and HJC memo of Interview with Fred C. LaRue by Dick Cates, Bernie Nussbaum, Bill White, and Bob Murphy, April 9–10, 1974, RG 460 WSPF Investigative Files, U.S. v. Mitchell (Jencks Material), Box 72, NARA.
13. Linda Amster, “Chronology 1968–1974: Events Leading to the Resignation of Richard M. Nixon,” in The End of a Presidency (Bantam, 1974), p. 153 (was reported); UVM, 8122, 8318. Silbert later said Mitchell’s use of the word “non-productive” stirred momentary “disturbance” in him, but he “never dreamed…a former attorney general of the United States would lie to the grand jury” see George V. Higgins, “The Judge Who Tried Harder,” Atlantic Monthly, April 1974.
14. Agis Salpukas, “2 Nixon Ex-Aides Among 7 Indicted in Raid in Capital,” New York Times, September 16, 1972; WHT, 57–69; Joseph Lelyveld, “Earl Silbert, Soon to Be Sworn In as U.S. Attorney, Reflects on His Days as Prosecutor in Watergate Case,” New York Times, October 16, 1975; Karlyn Barker and Walter Pincus, “Watergate Revisited: 20 Years After the Break-in, the Story Continues to Unfold,” Washington Post, June 14, 1992 (severe). On Mitchell’s showdown with Edward Bennett Williams, see O’Brienv. McCord, Mitchell deposition; Robert Pack, Edward Bennett Williams for the Defense (Harper & Row, 1983), pp. 3–14; author’s transcript of “Watergate: Twenty-Five Years Later,” American Bar Association symposium, June 1997; and Joseph A. Califano Jr., Inside: A Public and Private Life (Public Affairs, 2004), pp. 267–72. Califano claimed Mitchell “had to squeeze his thighs together to avoid wetting his pants,” but Williams’s cross-examination, while skillful, gave rise to no perjury charges.
15. Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward
, “Mitchell Controlled Secret GOP Fund,” Washington Post, September 29, 1972; Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, All the President’s Men (Warner, 1976), pp. 107–12; CBS Evening News, October 19, 1972 (Harris poll). Two years earlier, when the Post publicly apologized for having misquoted him, Mitchell privately wrote Mrs. Graham: “Now you can see why I say the Post is the best paper in the country” see Chalmers M. Roberts, In the Shadow of Power: The Story of the Washington Post (Seven Locks Press, 1989), p. 408. Nixon also used the expression “tit in the wringer” see author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Haig-Ziegler, Conversation No. 917-44, Oval Office, May 14, 1973, 6:28 p.m. to 7:27 p.m.
16. WH transcript of Colson-Hunt conversation, November 13, 1972, at SSC, VIV: 3888–91. The Senate Watergate committee erroneously placed this call in “late November.”
17. SSC, III: 969–70 (tell Mitchell); SSC, IV: 1658 (turned down cold); HJC summary, July 4, 1974; HJCW, II: 134–35, 233 (hell); UVM, 8084–85; Dean, Blind Ambition, pp. 157–58; SSCEX, Dean (no instruction). In executive session, Dean completely omitted the Metropolitan Club meeting; in his memoir, he claimed Mitchell listened to the entire tape.
18. SSC, V: 2111 (set fire), 2114 (most often), 2135 (primary); WSPF letter to Clifford Kaden from Thomas F. McBride, Subject: Herbert W. Kalmbach, June 5, 1974, RG 460 WSPF—CCTF, Townhouse File #807, Planning and Coordination, Investigative Correspondence, Box 1, NARA (fire).
19. SSCEX, Dean; SSC, III: 970, SSC, IV: 1649 (no control); HJCW, II: 232; UVM, 2933–40; THD, 543–44; Dean, Blind Ambition, pp. 159–62, 183 (ringmaster), 302 (concrete); SSC memo of interview with Kenneth Parkinson by David Dorsen, James Hamilton, Donald Sanders, and Robert Silverstein, [conducted] June 2, 1973, [filed] June 4, 1973, at HJC, III: 427–29 (the prosecutors agreed on the date of December 1, using it in the U.S. v. Mitchell indictment). LaRue told the House he raised with Mitchell in September or October 1972 the possibility of using the White House fund to pay the Watergate defendants, and that Mitchell advised him to take the matter up with Dean; see HJCW, 1: 243. In his Senate testimony, Haldeman was always careful to say he was informed of the payments by Dean and “possibly also by John Mitchell” see, for example, SSC, VII: 2885 and SSC, VIII: 3046. Haldeman also claimed he thought the payments were lawful deposits into a proper defense fund, a claim difficult to substantiate or refute. The tapes show that as early as August 1, 1972, he told Nixon, “Hunt’s happy,” to which Nixon replied: “At considerable cost, I guess?” “Yes,” Haldeman said. “It’s worth it,” Nixon countered. “It’s very expensive,” Haldeman replied. “They have to be paid,” Nixon concluded, adding: “That’s all there is to that.” The discussion marked Nixon’s earliest—if only ex post facto—approval of the payments, eight months before the infamous “cancer on the presidency” meeting; but neither Haldeman nor Nixon made clear he understood the payments to be illegal. See author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Haldeman, Conversation No. 758-11, Oval Office, August 1, 1972, 11:03 a.m. to 11:58 a.m.
20. Seth S. King, “46 Aboard Jet Die When It Crashes on Chicago Homes,” New York Times, December 9, 1972; and John Kifner, “Toll in Chicago Crash Rises to 45 as 2 More Bodies Are Found,” New York Times, December 10, 1972. The formal investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board attributed the crash to “pilot error,” but charges of foul play persisted; see Barboura Morris Freed, “Flight 553: The Watergate Murder?” in Weissman, Big Brother, pp. 127–57. The pilot’s last words, as preserved by the flight recorder, reportedly were “I’m sorry” see CBS Morning News, September 28, 1973.
21. Goldman memo, September 13, 1973 (prostitutes); SSCEX, E. Howard Hunt, June 11, 1973 (son of a bitch, very bitter); SSCEX, E. Howard Hunt, July 26, 1973 (Colson hadn’t attended).
22. McCord letters, at SSC, VIV: 3834–42.
23. SSCEX, Dean; SSC, III: 972–76, 1080, 1289; Dean, Blind Ambition, p. 203; SSC, IV: 1634, 1650 (Florida, anybody else), 1673 (fabrication); HJCW, II: 286; UVM, 2993–99. Judge Sirica instructed the jury in U.S. v. Mitchell that the phrase “on or about” a given date could encompass events up to two months before or afterward; see UVM, 10012. Speaking to Haldeman in May 1973, Nixon made clear he believed Mitchell was guilty on this score, saying: “Mitchell is the fellow that, you know, had the greatest stake there and he was telling them to promise the Goddamn clemency.” But Nixon also remarked that Mitchell, “to his credit, never discussed it” with the president; see author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Haldeman, Conversation No. 167-10, Camp David, 12:26 p.m. to 12:54 p.m. Dean claimed in his public Senate testimony—but nowhere else—that in March 1973, shortly before the defendants’ sentencing, Mitchell called and again urged that Caulfield be dispatched to see McCord. According to Dean, Caulfield came to Dean’s office and exhibited, then destroyed, a diary McCord had kept, in which he had chronicled his previous contacts with Caulfield. Dean said he called Mitchell back and told him he “did not think that it was very wise” for Caulfield to see McCord again; see SSC, IV: 1545. On this story, Mitchell was apparently never questioned.
24. Lukas, Nightmare, pp. 306–7; UVM, 2688, 3410, 3648 (crux), 4190, 4340, 4376–77; Dean, Blind Ambition, pp. 167, 180–81; SSC, IV: 1439, 1587–88; SSC, IX: 3739, 3751–52, 3790; Hunt, Undercover, p. 277 (operational); Hearings Before the Select Committee on Assassinations, Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Deposition of E. Howard Hunt, November 3, 1978; Hunt interview, January 26, 2003 (self-preservation, incriminatory). Hunt recalled in 2003 that among the “incriminatory” entries in his notebooks was one reading: “‘Liddy said that John Dean had told him that there would be no problem of additional funding,’ something like that.” That Dean failed to mention his destruction of the notebooks during his lengthy testimony before the Senate Watergate committee he chalked up to simple forgetfulness; yet minority counsel Fred Thompson explicitly asked Dean what he knew about “certain documents or certain materials [that] had not been turned over to the authorities when [Hunt’s] safe was cleaned out.” Dean replied with a long, circumlocutory answer, only fleetingly acknowledging that questions remained about “where given items that were in the safe were located.” This exchange occurred only 160 days after Dean—“the man with the memory,” Time dubbed him—had completed the “sweaty act” of shredding the notebooks. Such testimony belied Dean’s claim that “I always, in dealing with any of the investigators from either this committee or from the prosecutor’s office, told them exactly what I knew” see “And Where Is the Palace Guard?” Time, August 11, 1975. On the motion to suppress disclosure of the contents of the DNC conversations, see Charles Morgan Jr., One Man, One Voice (Holt, Rinehart, 1979), pp. 217–27.
25. SSC, IV: 1631–32, 1649 (Mitchell); SSC, V: 2114 (most often); SSC, VI: 2291, 2297 (LaRue); HJCW, III: 561–62; UVM, 3012–13, 6615–66, 8307; CI [Kalmbach], April 27, 1988; Notes of Seymour Glanzer from Interviews with Fred LaRue, [undated—May 1973], May 10, 1973, May 16, 1973, and June 18, 1973, RG 460 WSPF Investigative Files, U.S. v. Mitchell (Jencks Material), Box 72, NARA; SSC memo, May 9, 1973, SSC memo, July 6–7, 1973; HJC memo, April 9–10, 1974; HJC summary, July 7, 1974. On LaRue’s claims about the summary sheet and the appeals to GOP donors, Mitchell was apparently never questioned.
26. NT, Conversation No. 758-11 (Hunt); author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Haldeman-Ehrlichman, Conversation No. 819-2, Oval Office, December 11, 1972, 11:07 a.m. to 2:25 p.m. (handling, kill).
27. George Lardner Jr. and Walter Pincus, “Nixon Ordered Tapes Destroyed,” Washington Post, October 30, 1997 (overseeing); “A Fateful Trial Closes a Sorry Chapter,” Time, January 13, 1975 (key figure); AOP, xiv (Kutler); Frost, I Gave Them a Sword, pp. 200–202, 243; Ehrlichman, Witness to Power, p. 60 (countless, rambling); Martin Levine, “An Interview with John Ehrlichman,” Book Digest, May 1982 (chewing, days).
28. Thompson, The Nixon Presidency, p. 138 (didn’t know what the truth was, particular moment); HJCW, 1:103 (incoherence); HJCW, III: 356 (genuinely confused); Associated Press, “Nixon Ill-Informed, Magruder
Says,” Staten Island Advance, June 13, 1974; Dean, Blind Ambition, pp. 184, 201; CI [Dean], January 5, 1989. Mitchell’s press aide assessed his boss’s “intellectual capabilities” far differently: “He had a quasi-photographic memory. He could remember the statistics and quotes and throw them back, and because of this he could jump from one subject to another, and back again” see Landau interview, December 16, 1993.
29. WHT, 137–47.
30. SSC, IV: 1631; SSC, VI: 2297–98, 2321–24; WHT, 132–81; HJC, III: 1120–33; HJCW, II: 128–32, 203, 262–63, 300; UVM, 8087–89; HJC summary, July 4, 1974; Brief on Behalf of the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, to the Committee on the Judiciary, Ninety-third Congress, United States House of Representatives, July 19, 1974, pp. 40–52. In all, between July 1972 and March 1973, the seven Watergate defendants, their families, and attorneys received $429, 500 in hush money.
THE BIG ENCHILADA
1. Author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Ziegler, Conversation No. 164-2, Camp David, April 28, 1973, 8:21 a.m. to 8:41 a.m.
2. WHT, 181–94; SSC, III: 1000; HJCW, II: 251; THD, 592.
3. THD, 605; WHT, 322, 510, 649; SSC, III: 1001; SSC, IV: 1394–95, 1650, 1663; SSC, VII: 2853; HJCW, I: 206; HJCW, II: 132, 165, 180, 251; UVM, 3211, 10015; SSCEX, Dean; Dean, Blind Ambition, p. 210.
4. HJCW, II: 251; WHT, 194–222; “Comparisons Between Passages in the White House and Committee Transcripts,” New York Times, July 10, 1974. The first version of the infamous “stonewall” transcript, leaked by House staff members, appeared in the Times on June 21, 1973; it differed in significant respects from the final committee version, published July 10. Both differed, in turn, with the version prepared by White House counsel, who, among other things, had Nixon concluding not with “save the plan,” but “save it for them,” a reading that made more sense in light of Nixon’s overall thrust, which concerned the protection of aides, not a specific “plan.” When the committee versions appeared, major news media downplayed or ignored Nixon’s second, more exculpatory set of remarks: The Washington Post, for example, bannered the indistinct “stonewall” segment across its front page, burying the rest on an inside page, while Newsweek omitted the second segment altogether; see Price, With Nixon, pp. 281–82.
