folder 9/4: henry s. ruth file: ruth & richard j. davis memoranda of interview of president nixon,...

8/3/2019 Folder 9/4: Henry S. Ruth File: Ruth & Richard J. Davis memoranda of interview of President Nixon, Ruth and Davi

1/85


2/85

-

R . ~ . N . - prepa ra t ion for l 'ppearan:lE!

- --/!

EMPIRE F O L D ~ F I - .-Better folders for better lUes

60') SSend your Order t nearest ..Y and fr'j,rRepresentatives or LU our Home OffDce

YAWMANANDERBE [email protected] fIIet.1ts and E,ICUIlY, 0

ROC.HESTER, N. Y.B''Ulcb . and A ~ e n '" all Principal '=ideo


3/85

SEE RICIf.F.RD J . DAVI S FILE UNDER TAB (9 )

for notes on rreet inJs with President Njxon' s a-ttorneys Herbert J . Miller, Jand Stan Mortenson dated: May 13 , 1975, May 20/May 21 , 1975;May 26, 1975; and

Outline of deposition-taking procedure June 23 an:1 June 24, 1976.

FOR RICH DAVIS handwritten notes re June 24 , 1976 questioniJ'ljof Nixon, see Penry Ruth f i le urrler tab (9) re preparationfor grarrl jury appearance of Ricb.ard Njxon .


4/85

HSR:bas tllWJ'-WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEMemorandumTO : Fi les DATE: July 7, 1975

FROM Henry Ruth

SUBJECT: Inte rview of Richard M. Nixon

Following the conclusion o f h is 2 days o f sworn te s t imony,Richard Nixon wa s in terviewed by Rich Davis and mysel f onJune 24, 1975, a t the Coas t Guard S t a t i o n , San Mateo, C a l i f o r n i a ,from approximately 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. in the presence of h i sa t to rneys , Herber t J . Mil le r , J r . , and R. Sa n Montenson. Mr.Davis has wri t t en a memo on the inte rview in so fa r as it per ta inedto da i r y indus t r y ma t t e r s . This memo covers three areas o fques t ioning in which the ques t ions were asked pr imar i ly byMr. Davis .

1 . Richard Moore's Testimony as to the La CostaMeeting:Mr. Davis read to Mr. Nixon from the Apr i l 19, 1973, t r a n s c r i p t o f the Moore-Nixon conversa t ion about La Costa , p a r t i c u l a r lythe sec t ion a t th e top o f page 50. Mr. Nixon s t a t ed t h a t he hadno independent r eco l l ec t ion o f eve r d i scuss ing Moore 's te s t imonye i t h e r a t th e Senate Selec t Committee o r a t the grand jury; andth e t r a n s c r ip t did no t r e f resh h i s r eco l l ec t ion . Nixon s t a t e d

t h a t he made it a p r a c t i c e n o t to discuss such te s t imony withWhite House witnesses . He did r e c a l l , however, t h a t LeonJaworski a t some po in t had informed a White House lawyer t h a tRichard Moore wa s no t a t a r g e t o f o ur inves t iga t ion .2. Alleged Assaul t s on Demonstrators :Mr. Nixon wa s reminded o f th e "goons" discuss ion on th eMay 5 , 1971, tape t r a n s c r ip t invo lv ing Haldeman and Nixon. Thewitness s t a t ed t h a t , sure , the re wa s plen ty o f di scuss ion as tohow to deal with demonstrators . He sa id t h a t with 300,000demonstra tors on your doors tep , wi th an i n a b i l i t y t o s l eepbecause o f a l l th e noise and with vandal ism rampant , such asp ie rc ing o f automobile t i r e s , the witness and othe r s t a lkedmany t imes of various th ing s t h a t could be done about th edemonst ra tors . They probably d id t a lk about some o f th e d r a s t i ct h ings mentioned on th e t apes , but they never did any th ing , toh is knowledge, t h a t involved violence . There was no followthrough with Fitzsimmons of the Teamsters , the re was no roughingup o f people , the re was nothing invo lv ing vio lence and r e c r u i t -

ment o f the hardha ts . They would urge people to ge t the hardha ts


5/85

2

ou t to do t h e i r own demonst ra t ions about what they f e l t wa s th er i g h t course o f ac t ion and Colson may wel l have t a lked toGleason o r Brennan (probably Brennan) about t ha t , bu t no t aboutcaus ing any violence . Chapin ' s man, as mentioned on pages 10-11o f the t r a n s c r ip t , i s no t something known d i rec t ly by Mr. Nixon,but he thought t h a t it wa s S e g r e t t i . The witness then r e f e r r edto the violence he encountered in h i s 1972 campaign.As fo r the Apr i l 25, 1973, t ape and the re fe rence to theCubans, Mr . Nixon s t a t ed t h a t he knew nothing t h a t might havebeen corning up dur ing the Hoover se rv ices in May 1972 o r th eant i -war demonst ra t ion conducted a t the Capi tol a t th e samet ime . When asked about th e Miamians being paid to corne up fromFlor ida fo r t h a t occas ion , the wi tness sa id he knew nothing aboutt h a t and he asked: if we had goonsquads and roughnecks andhoodlums doing our work in the Washington, D.C. , a r ea , why wouldwe go to the t r oub le o f paying people to corne up from Miami?

When asked sp e c i f i c a l l y whether o r not anyone, inc luding Colson,had eve r promised to , o r did g e t , him a Vietcong f l a g , Mr. Nixons t a t ed t h a t if anyone had ever done so , he would have beenturned down ou t r igh t o r th e f lag would have been burned by Nixonhimsel f . No one had so offered or de l ive r ed to " nim. He doesno t remember th e name " B i l l Rhat igan ," o r such a person, and as toDick Howard, he does no t remember who Howard was. When to ld t h a tHoward worked fo r Colson, t h a t s t i r r ed some r eco l l ec t ion t h a t the rewas a Dick Howard in the White House, b ut Nixon does n ot r e c a l lany di scuss ions about Dick Howard con t ro l l ing o r having anythingto do with money fo r demons t ra to rs , coun ter -demons t ra to rs o r theMay 3, 1972, inc iden t .3. Th e "Bluebook" and I t s Transmiss ion to House

JUdic iary :In genera l , the wi tness s t a t ed t h a t he d id n ot want anyp a r t i a l submissions submit ted piece-by-piece to the House becauseo f se lec t ive l eaks t h a t would r e s u l t , such as the "gol-darn-wop"s to ry in the New York Times. So, he decided t h a t th e Watergatet apes should be t r anscr ibed a l l a t once, p u t toge the r in one bookand re leased to the publ ic as wel l as to the House Committee.He does n ot know who authored th e phrase "mater ia l unr e l a t ed toPres iden t i a l ac t ion . " Th e Bluebook wa s a l l done in a g r e a t hurryand the re probably were many mis takes caused by the rush . Inf ac t , one whole tape wa s omit ted by mis take . I f t he r e wereconsidered omiss ions , Buzhardt o r S t. C l a i r would have corne to

RN for dec is ion. Diane Sawyer and Frank Gannon did no t work onany subs tance 1 r a t h e r they worked on such matte r s as paragraphingand exp le t ives de le ted .


6/85

3

As to the March 17 tape t ranscr ip t , wherein the f i r s t 20pa?es were omitted, the witness had no recol lect ion as to theo m ~ s s i o n . He wonders i f it was a c le r ica l er ror an d does notreca l l Buzhardt coming to him for advice or orders concerningth is , or an y other , omission of major proportions. At any ra te ,said Mr. Nixon, there was no at tempt to mislead the House tha the reca l l s infuis par t icu lar omission or an y other omission.

As to the omissions of the discussions on the April 16an d April 17 tape t r anscr ip t s about what happened on March 21 ,the witness does not reca l l tha t the subject of these omissionswas ra ised with him. I f it was ra ised with him, he very wellmight have decided to omit these port ions as being redundantmaterial in tha t the March 21 tape spoke for i t s e l f .As to the omissions in the Apri l 17 tape t ranscr ip t oflegal fees and Rebozo discussions, again Mr. Nixon has noindependent recol lect ion of dealing with tha t omission. Againhowever, he stated tha t i f asked, he would have said tha t tha tdiscussion should have been omitted because the matiers discussedwere never afterwards actual ly done and therefore they were notrelated to an y act ion tha t occurred. (At th i s point , Nixon statedtha t as to an y omissions he would have deal t with Buzhardt andnot with St. Clai r . )As to the omission in the Apri l 14 tape t ranscr ip t of thepardon discussion between Nixon an d Ehrlichman, the witness hasno recol lect ion about th is t ranscr ip t .Again, in general , Nixon does not know i f one or morelawyers in the White House l i s tened to tapes other than those in

the Bluebook and he did not t e l l St. Cla i r what was in the tapeshe ( the witness) l i s tened to .As to the of fer to the House tha t Rodino and Hutchinsoncould l i s ten to the ent i re tapes of each conversat ion covered inthe Bluebook, Mr. Nixon said tha t the offer was made in goodfai th . They did not know ahead of t ime whether or not theoffer would be accepted and among those in the White House, somewere guessing the offer would be accepted an d others were guessingin the negative. Nixon told his s t a f f tha t in doing the Bluebook,the s t a f f should assume tha t Rodino an d Hutchinson e i ther wil l ormight come to l i s ten .Nixon said tha t th i s of fer precludes any thought of cr iminal i tyin the preparation of the Bluebook. As fa r as he knew, no omis-

sions were del iberate other than within proper ground rules . Hereca l l s no speci f ic inst ruct ions tha t he gave to the lawyers otherthan the general order tha t mater ia l tha t was i r r e l evant , tha t wasembarassing to outside th i rd par t i es with no addi t ional understandingof the Watergate issues , an d tha t was redundant need not be included.


7/85

WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MemorandumTO F i l e s DATE: Ju ly 16, 1975

FROM Richard J . Davis

SUBJECT: In terv iew of Richard M. Nixon

Fol lowing th e conclusion o f h is sworn test imonyon June 24, 1975 Richard M. Nixon wa s in te rv iewed byHenry S. Ruth, J r . and Richard J . Davis in connect ion withfour areas of inqui ry being conducted by t h i s o f f i c e :1) h is knowledge of the $2 mil l ion da i ry fund pledge andthe r e l a t ionsh ip between t h a t pledge and h is milk p r i c esuppor t dec is ion in March, 1971; 2) the submission of the"bluebook" to th e House Jud ic i a r y Committee; 3) RichardMoore 's t es t imony concerning the La Costa meet ing and;4) re fe rences in var ious t r a n sc r i p t s to the use of "goons"and h is knowledge of organized assau l t s on demons t ra to rs .Mr. Ruth was the ques t ioner in the f i r s t area and Mr . Davisthe pr inc ipa l one in th e remaining areas .

Pr esen t a lso a t the in te rview were Herber t J . Mil le r , J r .and R. Stan Mortenson, counsel fo r Mr . Nixon. At the ou t se tMr. Mil le r s t a t ed t h a t he had not fu l ly reviewed these a reaswith Mr. Nixon and t h a t if any problem r esu l ted from t h i s interms of h is c l i e n t ' s ab i l i t y to provide in fo rmat ion hewould undertake to check the f ac t s out fu r the r . No suchproblem wa s i den t i f i ed to us during the inte rview.

Mr. Ruth began t h i s sec t ion of th e in te rview byreviewing gene r a l ly the ev idence r e l a t ing to what hadtaken place in connect ion wi th the milk pr ice suppor tdec i s ion in March, 1971. During t h i s nar ra t ion Mr. Nixonnoted t h a t he had r a i s ed the suppor t to 85%, but Congressionalmai l f avored it being r a i s ed to 90%.Mr. Nixon was shown the September 9, 1970 br ie f ingmemorandum and sa id he had no r eco l l ec t ion o f it al thoughhe might have scanned it. He s t a t ed t h a t it wa s commont a lk in the White House, involving Colson, Hil l ings and

Chot iner fo r example, t h a t the milk producers were bigcon t r ibu to r s and they hoped t o g e t a big "slug" fo r thecampaign. He , Nixon, never t a lked to the milk producersabout money.


8/85

-2 -

Nixon does no t know why Colson was involved inob ta in ing con t r ibu t ions from t h i s group. He also has nor eco l l ec t ion o f a l a t e r discuss ion with Colson about thecommitment, al though he does remember being pressured toa t t end t he i r convent ion. He d id no t do so . Nixon wasthen shown the Hil l ings l e t t e r and said he had no r eco l l ec t iono f see ing it or ta lk ing to Colson about it. Nor d id het a lk to H i l l ings abou t t h i s sub jec t . He a l so has nor eco l l ec t ion of a knowing about a Colson s ta tement in tendedfo r the milk people t h a t giving to both s ides i s no t beingon our s ide . Wilbur Mil l s , however, has to ld hi m t h a t heg o t milk money and d is t r ibu ted it t o o the r s .

Nixon was r e f e r r ed to page 37 of th e March 23rdt r a n s c r ip t . After not ing t h a t it wa s d i s jo in ted and hardto fo l low he s t a t ed t h a t a l l he knows i s t h a t he d id " i t "in an upr igh t way s ince M il l s and Albe r t were to ld aboutth e decis ion before it became pub l ic . The Colson assignmentr e f e r r ed to , he th inks , would be to t e l l the milk peop le .At t h i s p o i n t Mr. Nixon noted t h a t they d i d n ' t keep thecommitment and d i d n ' t give $2 mil l ion . Ruth mentioned t h a tthey did give over $800,000.

Nixon said t h a t he heard nothing about the mat te ra f t e r making the decis ion on March 23rd and t h a t he had noknowledge of the a t tempts to have the milk people reaf f i rmt h e i r commitment.Nixon was shown th e t r a n s c r ip t of the l a s t tw ominutes o f the March 23rd t ape and advised of the disputeas to its accuracy . He s t a t ed t h a t h i s r eco l l ec t ion o f

the conversa t ion was t h a t Connally said the milk peopleshould make a con t r ibu t ion and asked who should handleit, t h a t he (Nixon) said t h a t he should as he wantedConnally to dea l with the milk people . He had in mindDemocrats fo r Nixon as a rec ip ien t o f the money o r someof it. He l a t e r to ld Haldeman to t e l l Connally whichcon tes t s the money should be used fo r apar t from poss ib lyt h i s group. He be l ieves Connally learned about the milkpeop le ' s prac t i ce of giving money from Leon Jaworsk i . Hehas no ind ica t ion Connally was aware of the commitment.

While he knew the milk producers would con t r ibu te ,he d i d n ' t know how much an d d o e sn ' t r eca l l who t o ld himt h i s fac t . This knowledge had no e f f e c t on h is dec i s ional though he agrees t h a t the 3/26 /71 , Haldeman note i nd ica test h a t the sub jec t of money must have corne up in t h i s per iod .


9/85


10/85


11/85


12/85

hr . '+ JJIXi


13/85


14/85


15/85


16/85

WATERGATE SPECIAL P,R0SECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

MemorandumTO

FROM

SUBJECT:

Pe te r Kreind le r DATE: Ju ly 10, 1975

Henry L. Hecht J4LJ-.\Typographical Errors in the Nixon Transc r ip t

In my review of the quest ioning of RichardNixon concerning al leged harassment o f LarryO'Brien by th e IRS, I found the fo l lowing typo-graph ica l e r ro r s .(1) Page 170, l ine 11, nwxt should read nex t .(2 ) Page 173, Claud De Sau te l s should readClaude DeSaute ls .(3) Page 184, l ine 3, type should read t i p .(4) Page 184, l ine 8 , type should read t i p .(5) Page 184, l ine 25, type should read t i p .(6) Page 197, I n t e r na l Repor t should read

i n t e r na l r epor t .Because of the s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h i s depos i t ion ,

I have no t made a chron or f i l e copy o f t h i s memorandum.


17/85

My name i s Henry S. Ruth, Jr . , and with me i s Thomas McBrideand Richard Davis, and we are representat ives of the WatergateSpecial Prosecution Force. During the course of th is deposit ionother attorneys from tha t office wil l also be present in orderto question you concerning cer ta in invest igat ions for which theyare responsible. Before we begin this morning, however, we wantto outl ine the nature of th i s proceeding and advise you of yourr ights and obligations in your appearance here.

This deposit ion is being taken as par t of various inves t i -gations being conducted by th e January 7, 1974, Grand Jury forthe Dist r ic t of Columbia. In order to as s i s t them with variousinvest igat ions tha t body authorized us, as the i r counsel, af tera series of meetings with your counsel, to arrange for the takingof your sworn deposit ion in California in the presence of tworepresentat ives of the Grand Jury. In order to allow th i sdeposit ion to go forward in such a manner, Chief Judge Hart thensigned an order authorizing the presence of two members of theGrand Jury a t a deposit ion in California conducted anci l laryto the Grand Jury 's invest igat ion. Therefore present today are

FOIA(b) 6 I both members of the January 7,1974, Grand Jury. Addit ionally, a t ranscr ipt of th is proceedingwill be read to the Grand Jury in Washington.

The areas of inquiry, as fully discussed with your counselpr io r to today, include the following:

NW#:36514

1. The circumstances surrounding the 18-1/2 minutegap in the tape of a meeting between you an dMr. Haldeman on June 20, 1972.2. Alleged receipt of large amounts of cash byCharles G. Rebozo or Rose Mary Woods on yourbehalf an d f inancial transactions betweenMr. Rebozo and you.

Docld:31442600


18/85

2

3. Attempts to prevent the disclosure of theexistence of the National Security Councilwiretap program through removal of therecords from the FBI, the dealing with anythreats to reveal the exis tence of suchrecords, and the testimony of L. PatrickGray a t his confirmation hearings.

4. Any relat ionship between campaign contributionsand the consideration of ambassadorships forRuth Farkas, J . Fife Symington, J r . , VincentdeRoulet, Cornelius V. Whitney, and KingdonGould, J r .5. The obtaining and release of information bythe White House concerning Lawrence O'Brienthrough use of the Internal Revenue Service.As we understand i t , you are appearing here to respondvoluntar i ly to questions in these areas . Your counsel,

Herbert J . Miller, Jr . , and R. Stan Mortenson, are presentin the room and you may consul t with them a t any timeduring the questioning. Neither Mr. Miller no r Mr. Mortenson,however, may make any statements or perform any other roleduring this deposition, although of course, we are availableto consult with them outside the hearing room i f tha tbecomes necessary. Finally , since th is deposition i sbeing conducted ancillary to the Grand Jury, you should beadvised tha t the making of any false material declarat ionduring this deposition is a violat ion of Ti t le 18, UnitedStates Code, Section 1623 which makes it a crime to makesuch a false statement.

Assuming tha t you understand everything I have said ,we are prepared to begin the questioning. The f i r s t areaof inquiry wil l be the consideration of cer ta in individualsto become Ambassadors.


19/85

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMB I h

IN RE JANUARY 7, 1974GRAND JURY Misc. No .

MOTION OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

The Spe c i a l Prosecu tor moves t h i s Cour t fo r a n orde r :(1 ) au thor i z ing the Sp ec i a l P ro s ecu t o r to segrega te thosepor t ions o f th e 'c ranscr ipt o f an examinat ion under oath o fRichard M. Nixon t h a t th e Sp ec i a l Prosecu tor be l i eves ma yappr opr i a t e ly be sub jec t t o c l a s s i f i c a t i o n becau s e theyconta in mat te rs r e l a t ing to th e fo re ign a f f a i r s


20/85

- 2 -

fo r Nat ional Secur i ty Affa i r s with r espec t to th e segregatedpor t ions of the t r a n s c r ip t .

Da ted : June 2 7 , 1 975 .

Respec t ful ly submit ted ,

~ ~ c h . HENRy\S. RUTH, JR .Specia l Prosecu tor


21/85

.. ,- ,.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLU!1BIA

IN RE JANUARY 7, 1974GRAND JURY

o R D E R

Misc. No.

WHEREAS on June 23 and 24, 1975, Richard M. Nixonvo lun ta r i ly submi t ted to an examinat ion under oath a t th eSan Mateo Loran Sta t ion , United Sta tes Coast Guard, SanDiego County, C a l i f o r n i a , s a id examinat ion conducted bythe Watergate Sp ec i a l Prosecu t ion Force on mat t e r s s u b j e c tto pending Grand Jury inves t iga t ions , sa id e X ~ l i n a t i o n anc i l l a ry to and with the consen t (b ased on th e hea l th o fRichard M. Nixon and o t h e r l egal considera t ions) of theJanuary 7, 197 4 Grand Jury o f the United S t a t e s D is t r i c tCour t fo r th e D i s t r i c t o f Columbia , and sa id examinat iona t t ended by tlvo Grand Jur or s \vi th the approval o f theChie f Judge o f t h i s Court ; and

' ~ E R E A S th e Specia l Prosecu tor be l i eves t h a t cer t a inpor t ions o f the t r a n s c r ip t of sa id examinat ion conta inmat ters r e l a t ing to th e fo re ign a f f a i r s and th e na t iona lsecur i ty o f the Un ited Sta tes , th e d isc losure of whichmight se r ious ly j eopard i ze th e n a t i o n a l secur i ty o f theUni ted Sta tes ;

NOW , THEREFORE , it i s by th e Court on t h i s 26th dayo f June , 1975 , hereby ORDERED:

1. Tha t th e Sp ec i a l Prosecu tor may segregate thosepor t ions of the t r a n sc r i p t o f the examinat ion t h a t heb e l i eves may appr opr i a t e ly be subj e c t to c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ;


22/85

.. ""

- 2 -

2 . That the Spec ia l Prosecu tor may .d isc lose th esegregated por t ions o f th e t r an sc r ip t to th e DeputyAss is tan t to th e Pres iden t fo r Nat ional Secur i ty Affa i r sfo r th e purpose o f determin in g \. ,hich por t ions should bec lass i f ied ; and

3. That the Spec i a l Prosecu tor sha l l r epor t to theCour t on any ac t ion t aken by th e Deputy Ass i s t an t to th ePre s iden t fo r Nat ional Secur i ty Affa i r s .

CHIEF JUDGE


23/85

RJD/pr

Herbert J . Miller, Jr .2555 M Stree t , N . ~ ' l . Suite 500

June 19, 1975

Wasbington, D.C. 20037Dear Mr. Miller

Enolosed are materials related to our investiqatioAinto tbe circllJUtances surrounding an 18 ' /2 minute gapin a recording of a conversation On June 20 , 1972 betweenMr. Nixon and Mr. HaJ.denutn. The dOCNment desoribed as"Safe Acce.8 Log- refers to the safe in Rosemary Wood'sroom in &ay Biscayne where she stored the t a p ~ s duringthe weekend of October " , 1913.

I f you have any questions please foel trc.c. toconuct me.

.&ncloaureFileChron JRuth (2)Davis

Very t ruly yours,

Richard J . Davis


24/85

RD/ca

June 19. 1975

Herbert J . Miller J r . , Esq.2555 H Street# N. WSuite 500ilasuington, j ) . C. 2003'1Dear Mr. Mil1ex':

Enclosed are the fol lowing t ra. lscripts;1 . March 17, 1973 Richard Nixon, John uean andH. R. Haldeman2. March 27 , 1973 - Richard Nixon, U. R.. halJeoailn,John E h r 1 i c ~ . a n 4nd RonaldZiegler (excerpt.)3. Apr i l 17, 1973 - Riohard Nixon an('! lie R. lillldenan(9:47 a,m.)4. Apri l 17, 1973 - Richard taxon, H. R. Haldeman,(5:20 p.m.) John Ehrl ichman, W l 1 1 i ~ Rogers

Very t ruly yours ,

RICH.4.RD J . DlWISA 6 S i s t ~ ~ t Special Prosecutor

4 -nels.

cc : f i l eG ; : ~ r. Rutr;/' avl.S


25/85

PRH:bjr

Borber t J . Mil le r , Esq.Mil le r , Cass idy , Larroca & Lewin1320 19th St r ee t , north\ ' lestHnshington, D. C.Dear N r. M i l l e r :

June 18, 1975

I enc lose an "Index to Exhibi ts" l i s t i n g every documentI in tend t.o 5hm'" your c l i e n t uur ing th e ques t ion ing concerning Unreported Cmr.paign Funds un d cop ie s o f 'elle fo l lm-l ingdOCD..'1lents which are the only ones on th e list \';h icn ' ileren o t previous 1y l j rovided;

I ' __ f_,...."""\-1 .-- - . . . .-- ............~ . ......H r. Nixon, August 20, 1970.(2) Newspaper column "lvashington Herry-GoRound" from Washington Pos t , August G, 1971, anda typescr ip- t of excerp t s theref rom.(3) NeHspaper colum..'1 "Washington Horry-GoRound" f ron Hashington Post , January 18, 1973,and a typesc r ip t of excerp t s 'b. '1erefrom.

Sincere ly ,

Paul R. HichelA ss i s t a n t Spec ia l P rosecu to rEnclosures - 4cc : Ruth (2) /DavisMichel


26/85

l1ay 16, 1975

Herbert J . Hil l r , Esquiro2555 1 Street . , N. ~ j . Suite 500washington, D. C. 20037Dear l ' ir. M i l l t ; l r ~

As we nave indicat.e in the past , th is otf ice hasbeen e v a l u a . t i ~ v J i t s need to question your cl ient , RichardH.J ixon, in connection with various investigations beingconducted by us. I t has now been decided that it i sn6:!ceS$ 1."":1 to do so. After consult ing with the Grand JuryWe hava d e t e t ' l I ~ i n e d tha t his testimony i s required inconnection wit.h cll:Irtain areas of continuing inquiry.Accordingly, we plan to issue a 8'Ubpoena on May 19, 1975requirir"q your c l ient ' $ t ~ r e s o ! n c e before the Grand Juryon .1ay 29, 19'15.

We expect that we will be able to cover the areas ofinquiry before the Grand Jury in e ight hours of questionin9. spread over a two-day period. During tha t tune weplan on COVering ([Uestions in the following general areas:1.

2.

3.

Tne circtwstances surrounding an 1S 1/2 minutegap in the tape of a meeting between l-lr. n i xO l iand Mr. Haldeman on June 20 , 1972.A."y receipt of l * q e amounts of cash by CharlesG. Reba or Ros a r t Woods on Mr. laXon ISbehalf and financ al transactions betweenMr ixon and Mr. Rebozo.A t t ~ p t s to prevent the discloBure of ~ ~ a existence of the National Security councilwiretap program through removal of the recordsfrom the FBI, the dealing with any threats toreveal the i r existence, and the testimony ofL. Patr ick Gray a t his oonfirmation hearings.


27/85

\4.

s.

- ,2-

J!JJ"y relation.s.!ip betwl;!enceu:lPaign contr1l:1'.1tionaand t lC c Q n s i ~ E l r a . t i o n for Ambassadorships foratb rarkws, J. F i f ~ S } ~ i ~ ~ t o n , J r . , V i n c ~ n t d o . R o u . l o t ~ Corni!lius ' I . Whitney an King ....onGould, J r ...he obtainin-j and/or release of i.nfornation bythe Whit.e House concer:liug Lawrence O"Brient;.i1X'ouqh usc of tae I n t ~ n a l Revenue Service.

In each of t . h ~ s ~ inquiries , the attoruey principally illvolv din the investigation 1s p r ~ p a r e d t prior to ~ s . Nixon'sa p l f e a r a n c ~ , to diseuse W'it'1 you in more de t a i l tne flubjectt t e r t ha t your cl i$nt wil l be q u e s t i o n ~ 1 about t to makAvailable any t ranscripts have of pert inent tapes, andto i d ~ n t i f y the :principal docUl!le!lts wbich will . be used intne Grand Jury. Additionally, wo stand read}' to consi e rany reasonable request you Clay t.u1ka aim$il At preserV'.'i.:ng thenormal ~ o n f i d e n t i a l 1 ~ y of 4 Grand Jury ~ p p e a r a n c e and a tavoiding any unneces.ary i n c o n v ~ ~ i c n c e to Mr. ~ i x o n . As W$alreaey f ~ V . told you, i f neoossary. we are p r e l ~ r Q d to aeukperllissiolJ. to convcu}.e the Grand Jur'l in anoth&r secure placein t.he District . of .';olumt.ia other thiU\ th e courtnou.se. Also,as we discussed with you on May 13th, i f ! ~ . Nixon is pre-ared to voluntarily appear in the Grand Jury , ve would bewilling to postpone the date of that ~ p p a a r a n c : : : e to sometimoin J\1ue.

'""here are a.lso .. small number o f suDject:. lUtters about~ h l c h we w o ~ l d l ike to ~ I U e a t i o n Mr. Nixon, but for which aG r a . ~ Jury appearance will not be necessary. We are, ofcourse, willing to proviae you with the same rl$tail aboutthese subject$ 4 $ wa are about those propo.ed for GrandJ ~ y qU$stioning.

I t also may be n e c ~ s . a r y to As k k . Nixon some queationaconcerning the dele t ion ot spec i f ied ~ t e r 1 a l from the eubai .s ion of t ranscripts of Presidential conversations tothe House Judiciary COmmittee on April 30 , 1'74. I f yourol ient i. will ing, w a r ~ .prepared to discu th is within An 1nterviev. I f , however be declines to be lntervieweaOn this subject , t en we would .1ao iuclude th is in thearOUG of Grand Jury inquiry. I ahould aiM, howClver, thait may be unnece.aary to spea with Mr. ' ixon about thismatter i t we Ara able to ask Hr. ~ ~ 3 h a r d t and Mr. St. Claira l igieed n u m ~ e r of que8tions.


28/85

RD/ca -3 -

As eentloned ahove, we w111 be issuing a subpo.:lnll onHay 19th. Since we assume t ha t you would l ike th1a St lb poella to be served v i b .. :ninh'lum of inconvenience to yourc l ien t or publicity , we .ill contact you a t thAt time todi.cues the procedure for service .

cc : f i l ecbronMr. RuthH r. KreindlerMr. Davis

Sincerely,

ilENRY S . RUTH, JR.Special Proaecutor


29/85

r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - -

RD/ca

June l e t 1.975

horb r t J . ! '\ .i l ler, J r . . ~ s q ,,555 0,1 St ree t N. i i .SUit0 SOC Ashingtoll , D. C. 20037

b n ~ l o a e d are addi t iona l o c w . ~ o n t s per t inentto oar i n v ~ s t i 9 a t i o n $ into the r ~ u o v a l of tne w i r ~ t precords from the FllI, t ~ l t ' .arch 1971 ~ d l k pr i cosuyport d ~ c i s l o u llU.J. thea Internal R e ~ e n u e Sorvicn sinlJuir:l il'l.to t;.h", a f fa i r s of La.wrence O D r i e ~ \ .

I f you have any 'l14",stion& r p l ~ s e f c e l fre.e t. ocoutac t m ~ . verJ t ru ly yours,

RICi14i.RD J . !lAVISAssistant ;;ipecial Prosecutcr. c.

cc: f i l eC : : ~ ~ ~ roll". Davis


30/85

RD/oa

June 10, 1975

Herbert J . Miller , J r . , Esq.2555 M Street , N. W.Suite 500Washington, D. C. 20037Dear Mr. Miller :

Enclosed i8 a draf t t ranscript of a conversationbetween Mr. Nixon and Richard Moore on Apri l 19, 1973and some background materials pertinent to ourinvest igat ion into the decision to adjust the milkprice support in March, 1971.

I f you have an y questions, please do not h .s i t a t eto contact me.

cc: f i l echranR u t h ~ Davis

Very t ruly yours,

RICHARD J . DAVISAssis tant Special Prosecutor


31/85

r - - - - - - - - = - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - _ . . _ _ _ RD/ca

I

aerbert J . i l l e r , J r Esq.2555 M street f . ~ . w.waa ington, D. c . 20031Dear Miller:

ncloseQ a r ~ two t ranscripts of recorded.conversations relevant to the wiretap investigation.As we have previously advised you i these t ranacriptsare preliminary draf ts .I f you have ~ l Y .. iona please do not hesi tateto contact me.

En.:loaure

cc: f i lechronRuth ---Davis

Very truly your.,

RICliAlID J . DAVISAssistant Special. Prosecutor


32/85

WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTIO;\ FORCEUnited States Department of Ju stice1425 K Street. N.W .Washington , D.C. 20005

May 28, 1975

Herber t Mil ler , 'EsquireSui te 5002555 M St r ee t , N. W.Washington, D. C. 20037Dear Mr . Mi l l e r :

Enclosed are mater i a l s pe r t i nen t to th e i n v e s t i -ga t ions in to th e causes of the 18 1 /2 minute gap inth e tape of a conver sa t ion recorded on June 20, 1972,and in to ce r t a in unrepor ted campaign funds (UCF).Addi t iona l ly , we a re enclosing t r ansc r ip t s of var iousrecorded conver sa t ions r e l evan t to th e "Gray" and"wiretap" i nves t i ga t i ons . In those in s tances inwhich "ltle a re supplying t r ansc r ip t s not used a t th et r i a l o f United St a t e s v. Mitchel l , e t a l , we cau t ionyou t h a t these a re pre l iminary dr a f t s and do no tnecessar i ly cons t i t u t e complete t r ansc r ip t ions o f a l lt h a t i s on these var ious recordings . We be l i eve ,however, t h a t they a re su f f i c ien t ly prec i se to a s s i s tyour c l i en t in re f resh ing h i s r eco l l ec t i on on thesesub j ec t s . We a re in the process of comple t ing severa lo the r t r a n s c r i p t s and these wi l l be suppl ied to youshor t l y .

I f yo u have any quest ions , p lease do no t hes i t a t eto contac t me.Very t r u ly yours ,

J ~ 0 ~ ! J J ) ~ Richard J . DavisAss i s t an t Spec ia l P rosecu to rEnclosures


33/85

R.JD: HSR: b as

WATERGATE SPEC IA L PROSECUTIO ;-.l FORCEUnited States Department of Justice1425 K Street, l\.W .Washington . D.C. 20005

May 23, 1975

Herber t J . M il l e r , Jr., Esq.M il l e r , Cass idy, Lar roca & Lewin2555 M S t r e e t NW.Sui t e 500Washington, D.C. 20037Dear Mr . M i l l e r :

A-t o u r meet ing wi th you and Nr . Mortenson on May 20.,and wi th Mr. Mor tenson on May 21, we de t a i l ed a t l e n g t hth e areas in which we in tend to seek th e grand ju ry t e s t i -mony o f yo u r c l i e n t , Richard Nixon. As we i n d i c a t e d a tt h e se se s s i o n s , we a re w i l l i n g to supp ly th e p r i n c i p a ldocuments which would be used dur ing q u e s t i o n i n g an dwhich should be h e l p f u l in r e f r e sh i n g y our c l i e n t ' sr e c o l l e c t i o n abou t th e p e r t i n e n t even ts in which th egrand j u ry i s i n t e r es t ed .

We a re e n c l o s i n g c o p i e s o f th e p r i n c i p a l documents, , ,hich w i l l be used in connec t ion w ith th e i nqu i ry in to th es e l e c t i o n o f ce r t a i n ambassadors and th e use o f th eI n t e r na l Revenue Serv ice wi th r e sp e c t to Lawrence O'Br ien .In those i n s t a n c e s where you a l ready have th e documentinvo lved , we a re only i d e n t i f y in g on the a t t ached listth e do cument number and package da te in which it can bel oca ted . In th e O'Br ien area , t he re a re a l so a fewdocuments t h a t should remain in our cus tody . Bu t wewould ce r t a i n l y consen t to th e examinat ion o f thesedocuments by you o r your des igna ted a s s o c i a t e in t h i so f f i c e .

As '-ITe assemble documents i n o t h e r a r e a s , we w i l lmake them a v a i l a b l e t o you. In a d d i t i o n , as we r ece ivef u r t h e r documents o r con t inue to rev iew our f i l e s , o th e rp e r t i n e n t m a te r i a l s ma y come to our a t t en t i on . When andif t h i s occurs , we w i l l adv ise you o f any s i g n i f i c a n tm a te r i a l s .

f i l e ./ch ro nRu th (2 ) \Da v i s, ; re i n d l e r


34/85

2

I unders tand from Mr. Mortenson t h a t by Monday, May 26,you wi l l provide us a medica l r epor t on th e c u r r e n t s t a tu so f your c l i e n t ' s hea l th and h is ab i lity to t r ave l toWashington, D.C. , fo r tes t imony. I a lso unders tand thai:you want to t a lk f u r t he r about the da te and p lace o f th eproposed tes t imony. On t h a t bas i s , we have no t y e t serveda grand ju ry subpoena; bu t if it becomes necessary toserve such a subpoena, we i n t end , as you agreed, to makethe subpoena re tu rnab le on May 29. Of course , vo lun ta rytes t imony would be pos tponed u n t i l sometime in t he middleo f June 1975.

Enclosure

Since r e l y ,

HENRY S. RUTH, JR.Spec ia l Prosecutor


35/85

/ WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE

Memorandum 4-2DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE~ , 7 2 S ~

: Henry S. Ruth DATE: June 3 , 1975

Frank M. Tuerkheimer

SUBJECT: In terview o f Richard M. Nixon on Milk

There are bas i ca l l y tw o areas Nixon should beques t ioned on in the connect ion with dai ry con t r ibu t ionsand the decision-making process: (1) knowledge of the$2 mil l ion commitment; and (2 ) h is involvement ina t tempt ing to insure execut ion o f t h a t commitment aroundthe t ime o f the pr ice suppor t dec is ion . In t h i s connec t ion ,the White House r e lease on milk and a knowledge of i t sweaknesses i s es sen t i a l to a thorough examination.

A. Knowledge of CommitmentProof t ha t Nixon knew o f th e commitment i s s t rong .The a t t ached memo was sent to him by Colson on September 9,1970 pr i o r to a meeting Nixon had with Nelson and Par r .Before seeing the memo, Colson thought he did not d i scuss

the $2 mil l ion commitment with Nixon; a f t e r seeing it hesa id he must have. This i s s t rong evidence t h a t Nixon wasaware of the commitment and should be seen in the con tex to f h is own s t a t emen t s , which I cannot presen t ly l oca te ; tothe e f f e c t t h a t he made it a mat te r o f po l i cy to avoidd i scuss ing con t r ibu t ions .

Nixon ought also to be asked about h is knowledgeof the Hi l l i ngs ' l e t t e r . The White House paper deniesonly t h a t he ever sa w it, n o t t h a t he was unaware of itscon ten ts . This in turn-may lead to quest ions about theen t i r e ty of Haldeman's r e l a t i on to da i ry moneys. a complexand l eng thy s tory .B. Nixon Role in Secur ing Reaff i rmat ion o f theCommi tmen -,Ou r general theory as to what happened in March of 1971i s concise ly as fo l lows:The Admin is t r a t ion was forced to increased th e pr icesuppor t l eve l because o f p o l i t i c a l pressu re from Congressand decided to use inevi t ab le f a c t of the increase as a


36/85

- 2 -

means o f so l i fy ing the $2 m i l l i o n commitment by makingit appear to Nelson t h a t the tw o even ts we r e r e l a t edwhen in f ac t they were no t . As we a lso have sa i d , thepic ture i s incomple te ; Ni xon ' s r ecol l ec t ion may fill inp a r t o f the incomple teness , o r he may prove it inaccura te .

In any event the r e a re th ree f ac t areas involvingNixon which form th e bas i s of po t en t i a l quest ioning:1 . His acknowledgment on the March 23t ape t h a t "Colson was deal ing . . followedby a swi tch of gea rs to the s ta tement t ha t i nany eve n t the re was a good game p lan , found a tpage 37 of the at tached t r ansc r ip t . Th e most

l i ke ly and probably accura te guess der ived fromthe t r a n s c r i p t i s t h a t Nixon knew t h a t Colsonwas i n s t rumenta l in ar ranging the Kalmbach/Nelson/Chot iner meeting a t which the commitmentwas to be reaf f i rmed b u t t h a t he r ea l i zed t h a the had be t t e r no t spe l l it out ;2. Th e l a s t tw o minutes o f the March 23meet ing , as r e f l ec t ed by our t r a n s c r i p t ofthe Nixon/Connal ly conversat ion , revea ls t h a tConnal ly spoke about a "subs tant i a l a l loca t iono f o i l in Texas" a t Nixon 's d i sc r e t i on . Ourview i s t h a t perhaps because of the presenceof a wai te r , Connal ly d id no t use the word"cash ." Th e milk producers , o f course , were

headquar te red in San Antonio, Texas. Ina d d i t i o n , Nixon to ld Connal ly t h a t the wholeth ing was cold p o l i t i c a l dea l ;3. Haldeman's notes show t h a t on March 26,19 71 , Nixon to ld Haldeman to t e l l Connal ly whoto give the milk money to . Haldeman's check-marksind ica te t h a t th i s was done.

----


37/85

WATERGATE SPECIA L PROSECUTION FORCEMemorandumTO : Fi les DATE: May 30 r 1975

FROM : Richard Davis

SUBJECT: Richard Nixon

NW#: 36514

On May 29, 1975 Henry Ruth, P e t e r Kreindler ,Richard Davis and Thomas McBride met with the GrandJur y . At t h a t t ime th e Grand Jury approved accept ingMr . Nixon ' s of fe r to vo lun ta r i ly submit to be ingquest ioned in Ca l i fo rn ia by th e Specia l Prosecu to r ' so f f i c e . Th e ques t ion ing would be anc i l l a ry to theGrand Jur y , under oa th , sub jec t to th e pena l t i e s o fper ju ry , in th e presence o f tw o Grand Jury membersas observers who could r eques t the Prosecu tors to aska d d i t i o n a l ques t ions and would cover those areasenumerated in th e May 16, 1975 l e t t e r to Mr. M i l l e rprevious ly approved by th e Grand Jur y . We to ld theGrand Jury t h a t Mr. M il l e r i n s i s t ed on being presen tdur ing th e ques t ion ing as a condi t ion to h i s agree ingto the procedure , a l though he agreed n ot to i n t e r r u p tth e proceedings and to l i m i t h is ro le to consu l t i ngh is c l i e n t . The Grand Jury wa s a l so advised t h a t ift h i s proposa l was agreed to , Mr. Nixon would waive anyexecu t ive pr iv i l ege he might have and respond to ques t ionsin th e enumerated areas .

The Grand Jury was a l so to ld t h a t we would con t inueto nego t ia te with Mr. M il l e r on th e i s sue o f h ispresence , bu t t h a t we favored accep t ing th e planwhether he wa s pr e sen t or not . During t he d i scuss ion\.,e t o ld th e Grand Jury t h a t i f they r e j ec ted th e proposa lwe would proceed t o i s sue a subpoena and the r e s u l twould be l i t i ga t i on fo r an unknown per iod o f t ime. Wealso advised them of the in format ion supp l ied to usconcerning Mr. Nixon ' s hea l th . Also, during th e d i s -cuss ion in our presence , in which we answered ques t ions ,no one expressed opposi t ion to the proposa l . The GrandJury then approved it.

Docld:31442600


38/85

NW#:36514

-2 -

We had t o ld th e Grand Jury t h a t we suggested t h a tthe Foreman and one othe r j u ro r se lec ted by them bye i t h e r l o t o r e lec t ion be des igna ted as t h e i r represent a t i v e s a t t h i s depos i t i on . They decided to p r o c ~ e d bylo t and th e name selected in t h a t mannerI FOIA(b) 6 L I FOIA(b) 6 I wa s then se lec ted by a seconddrawing as the a l te rna te .

cc : f i l echronRuthDavisKreindlerMcBride

Docld:31442600


39/85

WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT O f JLJSTICEMemorandumTO Pe te r Kre ind le r DATE: May 30, 1975

FROM Kenneth Geller}tfr'. SUBJECT: Adminis t ra t ion o f oath to Richard Nixon

Here are my pre l iminary f indings on the quest ionof who would be author ized to adminis ter an oath toRichard Nixon in the proposed depos i t ion i n Ca l i f o r n i a .S t a t u t e s o f the United St a t e s author ize var iousof f ice r s to adminis ter oa ths in ce r t a in types of pro -ceedin gs . The only s ta tu te s which would appear ap-p l i cab le to th i s s i tua t ion are the fol lowing:1 . United St a t e s magis t r a tes . 28 U.S.C. 636(a)(2 ) 2. Jus t i ce s and judges of the United St a t e s . 28U.S.C. 459.3. Each f edera l c le rk of cour t and h is depu t ie s .28 U.S.C. 959.4. The Vice Pres ident of the United Sta t e s . 5U.S.C. 2903(c) (1) .

5 . "An ind iv idual auth6r ized by l o c a l law toa ~ ~ i n i s t e r oa ths in the Sta t e , D i s t r i c t , or t e r r i t o r yo r possession of the United Sta tes where the oath i sadminis tered ." 5 U.S.C. 2903(c) (2) . I have no t y e tchecked Cal i forn ia law bu t I would assume t h i s categorywould inc lude Cal i forn ia judges and no t a r i e s pub l ic .

Several other provis ions which would be nice touse do not seem app l i cab l e . Rule 6(c) o f the CriminalRules au thor izes the foreman o f a grand jury to adminis -t e r o a ~ h s , bu t I would assume t h a t i s l imi ted to ac t ua lgrand jury proceedings and no t proceedings anc i l l a ry toa grand ju ry . S imi lar ly , Rule 28(a) . of the Ci v i l Rulesprovides tha t " the cour t in v.'hich [an) ac t ion i s pending "may a ppo i n t a person to admini s t e r oaths in a depos i t ion ,b u t t h i s obvious ly i s not a de pos i t ion being taken pur-suan t to the Federal Rules of Civi l Procedure. Fi na l l y ,


40/85

-2 -

5 U.S.C. 303 provides :An employee of an Execut ive depar tment law-fu l ly ass igned to i nves t i ga t e f rauds on orat tempts to defraud the United Sta t e s , ori r r e g u l a r i t y o r misconduct of an employeeor agen t of the United Sta t e s , may admin i s t e ran oath to a wi tness a t tend ing to t e s t i f y ordepose in th e course of the i nves t i ga t i on .

More work must be done on t h i s sec t i on , bu t I havet en t a t ive ly concluded tha t our subjec t s of inquirywould no t f a l l with in those enumerated. Indeed, theonly repor ted dec is ion cons t ru ing sec t ion 303 viewedthe s ta tu te qui te narrowly and reversed a per ju ry con-v ic t ion . United Sta t e s v. Doshen, 133 F.2d 757 (3 dCir . 1943) .

My t en ta t ive conc lus ion , t he r e f o r e , i s t h a t weuse th e serv ices of a United Sta tes magis t ra te who, ofthe categor ies of persons l i s t e d above, can probablybe depended upon to be most d i s c r e e t .More to come.

cc: Mr. Ruth


41/85

-

~ o J ] j ~ L f 7,


42/85

WATERGATE SPECIAL P,R0SECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEMemorandumTO : Henry Ruth DATE: May 28, 1975

FROM Kenneth G e l l e r

SUBJECT: Nixon Grand Jury Appearance

I have not been involved in apy o f th e r ecen tnego t ia t ions with Jack Mil ler concerning Nixon 's grandjury appearance, and I therefore have only hearsayknowledge of Nixon 's pending o f f e r in l i eu of such anappearance. Never the less , in my view we should r e j ec twhat has been proposed and l i t i g a t e , if necessary , th egrand ju r y ' s r igh t to Nixon 's in person tes t imony

1. F i r s t , I th ink our chances of prevai l ing inl i t i g a t i o n a re n o t i n s i g n i f i c a n t . I assume we couldmake a compel l ing showing t h a t we have reason to b el i eve t h a t Nixon has f i r s t -hand , noncumulative informa-t ion re levant to severa l ongoing grand jury i nves t i ga t i ons . Moreover, from what I have been to ld of Nixon 'sdoc to r ' s r epo r t , his hea l th claim i s weaker than we ex-pec ted . Execut ive pr iv i l ege would no t p reven t h is beingcal l ed to t e s t i f y al though, l ike any o th e r pr iv i l ege , itmay allow him to re fuse to answer a spec i f ic ques t ion .

2. I 'm no t as pess i mi s t i c as everyone e l se tha twe cou l dn ' t g e t a de f in i t i ve d i s t r i c t cour t ru l ing byJuly 7 : An order by Chief Judge Har t t h a t Nixon appearwould n o t be appea lab le , so he would e i t h e r have tocomply or be held in contempt.3. I be l ieve f i rmly t h a t we would n o t come ou t ofa l i t ~ g a t i o n any worse than we would be under Nixon 'scur r en t proposal - - L .e . , t h a t he t e s t i f y under oath inCal i forn ia with h is a t to rney present . Indeed , it wouldn o t surpr i se me if Hart t r i ed to force some compromlsealong these l i n e s , and we might end up being allowed to.depose Nixon on th e West Coast without M il l e r be ing

present . (For example, we might po i n t ou t to Hart dur ingthe course of such compromise d iscuss ions t h a t M il l e rr epresent s many o t he r c l i en t s whom we want to ask Nixonabout) .4. Even if the subpoena were to be quashed in i t sen t i r e ty , I d o n ' t th ink we su f f e r subs t an t i a l l y . There


43/85

-2 -seems to be un ive rsa l agreement wi th in the of f i ce t ha tNixon w i l l divulge no th ing u s e f u l . Anyway, we wouldnever use him as a wi tness even if he d id tell us some-t h ing o f s i gn i f i cance . Of cour se , he might give us al ead to evidence which we could use in c o u r t , bu t thechances o f t h i s in my op in ion a re n o t s t rong enough toconvince me t h a t we t r u l y gain anything by compromisea t t h i s po i n t . I f th e c o u r t quashes th e subpoena, a tl e a s t we w i l l be perce ived by t he pub l i c and by h i s t o r yas having t r i e d to do our job i mpar t i a l l y . Th e d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n , if t h e r e be any , w i l l be with Judge Har t ,whose repu ta t ion fo r f a i r ness i s quest ioned by manypeople anyway. I have long been motivated by th e f e e l i n gt h a t when th e d e t a i l s o f a Nixon "deposi t ion" come ou t- - as they su re ly w i l l if we agree to - such a dea l - -we w i l l be c r i t i c i z e d (perhaps unfa i r ly b u t never the lessvoc i f e rous ly ) fo r the " s p e c i a l t rea tment" we gave Nixon.Compare t he ou tc ry when it was l ea rned t h a t S i l b e r t a l lowed Stans n o t to appear befo re th e grand ju ry .

5. Th e op in ions no ted above, which have earnedme a repu ta t ion a s a "hard l i n e r , " have been motivatedby the f irm b e l i e f t h a t our bargaining pos i t i on wi thM il l e r has always been s t ronger than we have been wi l l i ngto admi t to ou rse lves . Nixon i s up t o h i s e a r s in c i v i ll i t i g a t i o n - - Dobrovi r has made it c l e a r he i n t ends toseek to depose him - - and i s a lso concerned with salvagingwhat he can o f h is p lace in h i s t o r y . I cannot be l ievet h a t Nixon des i r e s a pub l ic conf ron ta t ion with our o f f i ce over th e e x t e n t o f h is cont inuing "cover -up , " norcan I b e l i e v e t h a t Nixon wants (with c i v i l depos i t ionson th e hor izon) to t e s t h is medica l claim in its weakestpos tu re - - to avoid a grand j u ry subpoena. His expecteda t t ack upon the new l e g i s l a t i o n i s a lso dependent in p a r tupon h is coopera t ion wi th u s . In sum, I t r u ly be l ievet h a t Nixon wants to avoid a conf ron ta t ion with us a t a l lcos t s and t h a t with the excep t ion of h is coming toWashington, D. C. - - which Nixon i s probably parano idabout - - he w i l l give in on everything e l se in order toavoid such a conf ron ta t ion . Once befo re when we ca l l edM i l le r ' s b l u f f he backed down and made us an o f f e r whichwa s a s i g n i f i c a n t advance from h is prev ious pos i t i on .I would no t be su rp r i sed if M i l l e r were to back down againand would accep t a depos i t ion under oath ou t s ide o f h ispresence if he were t o l d t h a t the a l t e rna t ive was liti-ga t ion in pub l ic over th e whole b a l l o f wax. In any e v e n t ,as I noted e a r l i e r , the downside r i sk to us from a liti-ga t ion i s s l i g h t in my opinion, and wel l worth the gamble.


44/85


MemorandumTO Henry S. Ruth, J r . DATE: May 27, 1975

FROM Nick A e f t l ~ f '

SUBJECT: White House Goon Squads For Demonstrat ions

I have l i s t ened tobetween Nixon and Haldemao th e r t h i ngs , the 1971 Maydemonstrat ions in genera l . There are tw o s i g n i f i c a n t[items mentioned on t h i s t ape . F i r s t , Haldeman t e l l sthe Pres iden t t h a t Dwight Chapin has a f r i end , knownonly to Chapin, a " r ea l consp i ra to r type , " who wasrganiz ing a group to " t ea r th ings up" a t demonst ra t ions .Haldeman s ta te s tha t th i s fel low had been responsib lefo r the Nixon s igns when Muskie wa s in New Hampshire .There are also references to Rhon Walker, the head ofth e White House Advance Operat ion fo r Pres iden t i a l appearanceand the advancemen, bu t it i s d i f f i c u l t to f igu re ou thow they r e l a t e to Chapin 's unnamed f r i end o th e r than thea

a c t t h a t Chapin wa s Walker ' s boss . Second, Haldemanto ld Nixon t h a t he (Haldeman) had sugges ted to Colsont h a t he (Colson) con tac t Fitzsimmons of the Teamstersto get h i s (Fitzsimmon's) paid thungs to "beat the s h i t4-- ou t of" an t i -Admin is t ra t ion demonst ra tors .

In add i t ion to th i s t ape , we have al so receivedHaldeman's notes of Ju ly 24, 1970, wri t t en near ly a yearp r i o r to the May 5th conversa t ion , which r e la te to us inggoon squads to bea t up demonst ra tors . The notes readas fo l lows:g e t a goon squad to s t a r t roughing up demo'sVFW or Legion - - no i n s u l t to Puse hard ha tsIt should al so be noted t h a t a reference to DwightChapin ' s ab i l i t y to r e c r u i t thugs in l a t e 1971 i s found~ in John Dean's s t a t emen t to the Senate Watergate Committee.D e a n s t a t ed :cc : Fi l e s

rowitzAkerman (2)


45/85

2.

I was made aware of the Pres ident ' s strongfeel ings about even the smal les t of demons t ra t ions during the l a te Winter of 1971,when the President happened to look out thewindows of the residence of the White Housean d saw a lone man with a large 10-foot signs t re tched out in f ront of Lafayette Park.Mr. Higby ca l led me to his off ice to t e l l meof the Pres ident ' s displeasure with the signin the park and told me t ha t Mr. Haldeman saidthe sign had to come down. When I came outof Mr. Higby's of f i ce , I ran into Mr. DwightChapin who said tha t he" was going to get some"thugs" to remove t ha t man from Lafayette Park.He said it would take him a few hours to getthem, but they could do the job. I to ld himI didn ' t bel ieve t ha t was necessary ." (EmphasisAdded)This Office has received only two a l lega t ions re -l a t ing to White House of f i c i a l s direc t ing goon squads tobeat up demonstrators. Both inc idents involved CharlesColson and do not re la te to the May 5th taped conversa-

i o n or Haldeman's notes . One i s the use of Hunt 'sCuban-American f r iends to assau l t anti-war demonstratorson May 3, 1972. The other inc ident which has not been"nvest igated by th is Office was the beating up of demon-r a t o r s by hard hats on Wall Street in New York Cityin May, 1970, a year pr io r to the Nixon-Haldeman tapedconversat ion of May 5, 1971.

I I f the White House did in f ac t use Teamsters or someother group to beat up demonstrators on any par t icu la roccasion, it i s ent i re ly conceivable tha t th i s type ofinc ident would not have come to our at tent ion simply because there would have been no reason fo r anyone to bel ieve t ha t it was l inked to the White House.


46/85

r"K k \ . ~ ~ ') ~ { ' v ~ Y f ( ) \. II ('j;\ \ '_ ~ ~ ' 1 , ~ S ( 2 d u\ I

Merro to Davis and Kreindler fran HR re: Health Status of GJ WitnessStan M::lrtenson called Friday evening, May 23, to give us an oral reportof Dr. Lundgren's findings.Mr. Nixon's health has ilrporved substantially since his operation las t F

and his blood pressure has r t :M stabil ized. There are no active blood clots anth e patient could t ravel to Washington, D.C. However, Dr. Lundgren states tha

l' there i s a clear additional risk, which cannot be quantified, to the advent oJlHU health problems through the canbination of t ravel , the pressures of grajury testirrony am::l preparation and the possible "Reman circus" atm:::>sphere surrounding Mr. Nixon's f i r s t t r ip l i i t for any purpose, l e t alone for testirronyl iMit Blood pressure will certainly r ise and the need for anti-coagulants inc r ~ t h e health r isk i f any c lot or other health change should o c = . Forthis reason, Dr. Lundgren ha s recarmerrled no traVel unti l the endOf 1975 andMr. Nixon has agreed. Dr. Lurrlgren states that or--the sueL n rrental, errotional and physical- factors - alrm cCilibination - cannot be prdicted on a quantified basis am he has advised Mr. Nixon not to cane to D.C.for testinony in order to negate these possibly substantial r ~ s k s to health.

Mr. Nixon would give-a sworn deposition in California--hlt wil l not caneto Washington for testirrony unless ordered by a court to do so af te r his at toneys have pursued a l l avalhlable legal remedies. Mr. Nixon fears t ravel andstress as a health r isk and does not wish th is a t his stage of l i f e .

I told M::lrtenson we ~ u l d see him M::lrrlay. Jack Miller ha s not yet approvStan 's or iginal proposal to have tw:l grand jury nanbers present in california

1--- - -__ -+!--.1._,said-:hat 1Ne-WOUlcLalsc>-l:ave-.to. discuss tbeiLposit ion on their presence a t_.a....deposition and the place and corxlitions thereof.I said final ly that we would have to go to the grand jury Thursday an d fo

JlUllate our own reccmnerrlation to them as to grand jury testirrony vs. California deposition. Stan also agreed that the May 29 return date s t i l l stood finn

I. unt i l further discussions.


47/85

HLH:amsWATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF JU STICEAlemorandumTO : Rich Davis DATE: May 22, 1975

'".:>>jP'1:rFROM : Henry L . Hecht "

SUBJECT: Provi s ion of documents to Herbe r t J . Mi l l e r fo rin terv iew r e : IRS inves t iga t ion of Lar ry O'Brien

Th e fo l lowing documents should be used by Herber t J .Mil l e r in prepar ing h is c l i e n t to be in te rv iewed concerninga l l ega t ions o f White House at temp t s to use th e IRS to harassLar ry O 'Br ien .

I

l. D-99 3/27/752 D-100 3/27/753. C-1Bl 4/16/754. C-IB2 4/16/755. D-55 3/7/756. D-l13 4/4 /75

have at t ached fo r h is use the fol lowing:1 . Transc r ip t of a recording of a meeting amongthe Pr e s id en t ,H .R , Haldeman and John Dean onSeptember 15, 1972 a t 5:27 to 6:17 p .m.(F i r s t Ins ta l lment )2. Transc r ip t of a recording of a meeting amongthe Pres ident , H.R. Haldeman and John Dean onSeptember 15, 1972 a t 5:27 to 6:17 p.m .(Second Ins ta l lment )3. Notes of H.R. Haldeman concerning th e meeting

descr ibed in I tems 1 and 2.4. A list of approximate ly 500 members of McGoverncampaign s t a f f and campaign con t r ibu to r s .


48/85

2*5. Memorandum of Interview o f Lawrence O'Brien, Sr.on August 17, 1972 (a 6 page vers ion , a 3 pagesummary, and a 1 page summary . )*6 . A memorandum prepared by th e IRS concerning th eHoward Hughes Pro je c t as it r e l a t e s toLawrence O'Brien, da ted 8/28/72. ( the th i r de x h i b i t has not been included as it r e f e r s tonumerous t axpayers unre la ted to t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n~ ' 7 . Memorandum prepared by the IRS concerning theHughes Pro je c t as it r e l a t e s t o Lawrence O'Br ien ,unda ted , bu t b e l i eved to have been prepared on o rabout 8 /30 /72 .*8. Memorandum prepa red by -the IRS concerning theHughes Pro je c t as it r e l a t e s to Lawrence O'Briendated 9/1 /72 but be l i eved to have been rev isedon or about 9/5 /72 .

With r e spec t to th e l a s t 4 i tems which a re marked withan a s t e r i s k ( * ) , it i s impor tan t ' .to ( po in t ou t to !-lr. Mil le r t h a tt he se documents conta in tax informat ion and should no t be copiedfo r any o the r purposes o the r t han prepar ing h is c l i e n t .At t a c : n r l ' t S l ~ s g

c ~ r o ~ jJ ~ - j - ~ d An ./F ~ l e s J r W T T ~ Horowitzh t


49/85


MemorandumTO DATE: May 22, 1975

FROM Nick Akeri:1!1ii1111"""

SUBJECT: Questions For Former Pr es i den t Nixon

Se t for th below are the ques t ions fo r formerPr es i den t Nixon r e l a t ing to (1 ) the as sau l t on demons t r a to r s on May 3 , 1972, (2 ) Richard Moore 's Senateand grand ju ry tes t imony on the February 13-15, 1972,La Costa meeting: (3 ) th e use of th e Post Off ice Depar tment to obta in information on Pr es iden t ia l candidateGeorge McGovern's campaign con t r ibu t ions , and (4 ) the1971 May Day demonstra t ions .

Assau l t on DemonstratorsOn o r about May 3 , 1972, d id you have any conver sa t ions with Charles Colson about an ant iwar demonstrat i o n , a counterdemonstra t ion o r an as sau l t on demons t r a t o r s a l l o f which took place on the Capi to l s teps

on the evening o f May 3, 1972, when J . Edgar Hoover 'sbody was ly ing in s t a t e in the Rotunda?In a June 28, 1972, a r t i c l e in the New York Times,

it was f i r s t r epor ted t h a t th e Miamians involved in theWatergate break- in had confronted ant iwar demonst ra tors"out s ide th e Capi to l while the body of J . Edgar Hooverlay in s t a t e . " On o r about the t ime t h a t a r t i c l e waspubl i shed , d id you d i scuss t h i s i nc iden t with Char lesColson or anyone e l se?In an Apr i l 25, 1973, conversa t ion with Haldemanand Ehrlichman in the Oval Off ice , there i s a discuss ionabout "b r ing ing th e Cubans up to rough-up the demons t r a to r s . " Who f i r s t informed you about t h i s inc ident?

cc: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ) A erman Chron_ ' - 4 .Davis


50/85

2.

Was it Colson? Speci f ical ly , yo u s ta te t ha t "DickHoward gets involved with the money." Who to ldyo u tha t? What did you understand to be Colson'sand Rhatican's ro le in th is inc ident?Richard Moore

Subsequent to April 19, 1973, did yo u have anyfur ther discussion with Richard Moore about theFebruary 13-15, 1973, meeting a t La Costa or abouth is test imony on t h i s meeting before the Senate Committeeo r the Watergate grand jury?Speci f ical ly , did your conversat ions with Mr. Moore

on Apri l 20, 1973, and May 8, 1973, re la te to thesetopics?Post Office

In a discuss ion about McGovern's campaign cont r i butions, in the September 15, 1972, tape Haldeman andNixon engage in the fol lowing in terchange:

PRESIDENT:* * *

He may have some big angels .don ' t think he i s get t ing a he l l ofof smal l money. I don ' t think so .don ' t bel ieve t h i s crap. I mean i fHave you had your Post Office check

Ia lo tIhe - yet?

HALDEMAN: That John was going to do. I don ' t know.PRESIDENT: That ' s an in te r es t ing thing to check.HALDEMAN: Yeah.

* * *When did you f i r s t lea rn about th is pro ject tomonitor McGovern's mail?When did t h i s pro jec t s t a r t ?How often wa s it done?Did the purpose and scope of t h i s pro jec t extendbeyond checking the volume of mail to McGovern?


51/85

3 .

The 1971 May Day Demonstrat ionsIn a May 5, 1971, conversa t ion wi th Haldeman,Haldeman and Nixon t a lk about goa l squads being r e -c ru i t ed by Colson and Chapin to bea t up demonstra tors .

It w i l l f i r s t be necessary to t r ansc r ibe t h i s tapebefore I can formulate ques t i ons . Th e ques t ioning ,however, w i l l focus on Nixon 's knowledge o f such goonsquads.


52/85

1.

: r\TE RGATE SPEC IAL PROS ECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF JUST ICEiWemorandumTO : Fi les DATE:May 20, 1975

FROM : Paul R. Michel

SUBJECT: Ma t t e rs and Tr ansactions for Grand Jury Examinat ionof Richard M. Nixon Concerning Unreported CampaignFundsRe ferences in taped conversation of Apri l 17, 1973( a ) offe r to Haldeman and Ehrlichman of $2-300 ,000 C ~ 5 &

I ' V V ~ lJ uYvj..L",- tv .fa ?for lega l fees,(b) size of fund "very substantial"(c)-1'- in check." f I JI ..-&uV--+ I '/-II I c" t :C ) (Documents 1, 3, 4, 6" 9 and 10)

It.s, Davis $50,000 in c: sr ~ e l i v e r E~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --Hughes sol ic i ta t ion by Rebozo r c h - ~ p r i l 1972.~ 1 ' V 1 ~ r"L',," fl ' ::) Wfvc fJ..' to ?tJJ< D a h ?Moncrief cash received period i cal ly by Woods .


53/85

2

Saf e deposit by Rebozo and Woods February 1968to April in Ne.v f i ! J a t t a n ~ f a c t u r e r s Hanover

yvh" ~ r v . - f1J' '"LvhtU l A ~ c ~ ~ ) _--__hi. 1It+ }. t


54/85

3Armat Stre e t house, Bethesdaa . loan by Nixon to Rebozo of $10,000b . loan by Pr ecis ion Valve Corp . to Rebozo of $50,000.

k e f o r - '

Response to IRS request fo r approval of interview ofRebozo and Wn t of inves t ig j t ion of Rebozo.it) , 'J;- + e ~ i : . - ; ~ ~ / f f < 7/5/v / t//{J

,_/\ I - - -1- - - -(b l


55/85


~ l l e m o r a n d U r f l TO File s DATE:May 20, 1975

FROM Paul R. Michel

SUBJECT: Matters and Transactions for Grand Jury Examinationof Richard M. Nixon Concerning Unreported CampaignFunds1. References in taped conversation of April 17, 1973

(a) offer to Haldeman and Ehrlichman of $2-300,000for l egal fees ,

(b) size of fund "very substantial"(c) Rebozo used fund to "get thing s . . . paid for

in check . "(Documents 1, 3, 4, 6" 9 and 10)

2. Hughes $100,000 in cash delivered . to Rebozo 1969-70.( receipt , report , use and return of the money)

3. Andreas $100,000 in cash delivered to Woods, 1971.(Documen t 2)

4. Davis $50,000 in cash delivered to Rebozo April 5, 1972.

5. Hughes sol ic i ta t ion by Rebozo March-April 1972.6. Moncrief cash received periodically by Woods.


56/85

2

7 . Safe deposit box held by Rebozo and Hoods February 1968to April 1970 in Ne'tv York City a t Hanufacturers HanoverTrust.

8 . Safe deposit box held by Rebozo 1970-73 at Key BiscayneBank and Trust Company an d used for storage of campaignfunds, including Hughes $100,000 .

9. Unreported contributions from J . Paul Getty.(Document 5)

10 . Unreported contributions from Robert L. Vesco (excluding$250,000 to Stans in 1972).(Documents 11 an d 12)

11. Swimming Pool an d other improvements to Pres ident ' shouses at Key Biscayne in 1969 and 1972 paid for byRebozo and others.

12. Earrings for Hrs . Nixon paid for in June 1972 by Woodsand Rebozo.

13. Communications, direct ly or through others, between Hr . Nixonand Mr. Hughes rea . ABM controversy (Document 7)b. Candidate Raggio in Nevada (Document 8)c. Dunes Hotel


57/85

314. Armat Street house, Bethesda

a . loan by Ni xon to Rebozo of $10,000b . loan by Precis ion Valve Corp. to Rebozo of $50,000.

15. Pendleton s i te for Nixon l ibrary (Document 11).

16 . Response to IRS request for approval of interview ofRebozo and mon i tor ing of invest igat ion of Rebozo .


58/85

DEPARTMENT Of JUSTICE WATERGATJ:. SPEC,fA L PROSECUTION FORCEMenl0randumTO File DATE: May 20, 1975

FROM Paul Michel

SUBJECT: Documents for use in Grand Jury Examinationof Richard M. Nixon1. Transcr ipt conversation Nixon, Haldeman and Ehrlichman on

April 17, 1973 between 5:20 - 7:14 p.m. (af ter departureWilliam Rogers) pp . 52-53, 64 .

2. Transcr ipt conversation Nixon, Haldeman on April 25, 1973between 4:40 - 5:30 p.m., p. 31.

3. Transcr ipt conversation Nixon, Haldeman and Ehr1ichmanApril 25 , 1973 between 11:06 a.m. and 1:55 p.m., p. 102.

4. Transcr ipt conversation, Nixon,Ha1deman and DeanMarch 21, 1973 between 10:17 - 11:55 a.m., p. 33 .5. Memo from Haldeman to Ehr1ichman dated February 17, 1969

re J. Paul Getty.6. Letter from Rebozo to Kalmbach dated April 28, 1969 re

money for "administration-connected costs ."7. Memo from Robert Maheu to Howard Hughes dated July 4,

1969 re Rebozo's discussion with Nixon about A.B.M.


59/85

2

8. Notes by Haldeman of meeting with Nixon on February 19,1970 re securing Hughes support of Raggio in Nevada.

9. Notes by Haldeman of meeting with Nixon July 20 , 1970re Kalmbach seeking $500,000 from Hughes and Getty,using Rebozo.

10. Notes by Haldeman of meeting with Nixon May 17, 1971re Rebozo wanting a review of the Dodd tax case.

11. Notes by Ehrlichman of meeting with Nixon July 12 , 1 ~ 7 l , re (1 ) Gilbert Straub and Donald A. Nixon and (2 ) "holdingout 300" for l ibrary.

12. Memorandum from Ehrlichman to Helms dated December 2,

' ~ " .

Referred

INW#:36514 Docld:31442600

.


60/85

/ 1"-:'') ,~ p ~ n ~ th e T ~ 5 t nf( lmi n b: l J i , ] ih1 :')

., .". .. . ...

I.e t !"">-=--: '3"..: ~ / o u f.: i s , : ~ ' ) , ~ 1 . ~ : ) . T . fi2-: 1 f t : : : ~ ; : ~ i l l ~ ) e ~ : ' . ' " ) s ' ' : ' 0 . r : . t i 2 . 1 ( ~ j ~ ! i _ ! 1 t r : - 1 1 ~ ~ l 5 ' ' ' ' ~ c : ) . :ti lot = ~ : : : ' ! l t , .; (q .... i .:-:.clj " \ ) - - lTn ' -.r ' ~ . ~ ? ; ; i?: 0 " ~ i l ! ) : , l l ' : ' c : i } l l c ( t ; : " , ~ i ~ ~ ) fu:!c1 .; ~ c : r - , l ! ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ i i ' : - : l 1 3 ... r :"')("; . ' " " " l - : ~ ' : " ' 2 < J . l . " , ~ : ! 1 i . r : . ~ : : : 1 g i j < ~ : ! ) . ( ~ ~ - : P ' - ' ! n , . . . . i ~ c ) t ~ C ! . " 0 i:.: \ . r . . ~ ' t ( ~ c ::n


61/85

c;r:cr :

PTlPSTD'SNT:

- - , , - . - ~ - ~ - - - - -

'TeL}' ~ U ; ) s ~ : : : l n t i a l . T:h, Dc}-,t"'! conlr1, ' J ~ 1 , ~ . - e co,:l.l, t111, if t h i s ' :i. s i 1 - ; r i ' l ; 1 , , ~ 1 ( > . : : ! n ( ~ , 1 1 ~ , - I han thOl :gh t tl:' .

I t h i n ! ~ :."0'.' .c;in. t r l \ : ~ a ' V C ' 1 . ~ . r s t r c ' l ~ = J _ ~ ~ : i t io!1th is th:1.!19_ f"!"'hrn",.l' (). lo t of r 1 i S t 2 ! ! C C : ~

betHe'n ~ n : , { h o { ' 1 l T U",."l.t' s n i'\l'10 (1 in t h i sth ing 2 : l ~ you ' l l t h a t ruch s t r o ~ ~ Q r . g r e a t cnse on ohs t ruc t ion of j u ~ t i r . Q . I guess t ~ F > ' re , l t :Cr ; -;S(1.0 t l \ rn : - : ; C"J.t to heDean b e c ~ u ~ 0 , h ~ c ~ u s c T h Q ~ ~ s t 0 ~ ~ ~ ~

t e ~ c h i n g ~ n ~ t ~ ~ t ' s t ~ ~ i caqo.n ~ T I 1)"':'7'1'1'"rr:!"!: r: ( ' I , no , ,,0, no , no .

Y e ~ h , tho P r ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ t , h a ~ to (unin t011ig ih le)


62/85

'T?" T,r'\'f ..... 7'. ,,, ;

, .. , ...!. ' 1 "',. . , .. :

~ - . T " ' 1 . , - .. ...... :

T1 ": T , -"' .... . . .... ,.,. . .. " " .'

..... 1 ~ ' r t T T "1 T" " .. , ., " ... . ,

. ~ . . , . , . . . - .

t ." f" 1.] \ .. r ,)'- r:: " - I 1- '-' .j" ' l ~ , .I. I " ~ ~ J l ) \ " >, T

, .. , ..-' , l : ., ,, -,

,I. 1, r". ,_ " r:

c , -L1, 1 1,,-, ::.- ZI ".

, . .....

,', ,.I

. ::

(>

,..

( ......... I ::L . .. , ~ ~ r ""'!, ! . . . . _

T - ; , , ,\1 1,-, '-.. ,


63/85

lli\I,DPIAN: You s a i d that, th : l t a p p r o a c h Hould bewrong ...PRESIDENT : Y e a h .J l A L D E H A ~ . . . t r y ing to get the money. No , becaused o n ' t you f e e l t h a t c l emency was wrong .

I think yo u f e l t t ha t you had somej u s t i f i ca t i o n fo r c l emency on Hunt .

PRESIDENT: Right .HALDEHAN: Because of h is fami ly , an d he t h e n , a c t u a l l y

he had ta lked about it fo r a l l of th embecause, because th e p e o p l ~ , they rea l ly areb e ing screl.]ed . . .

PRES IDENT : Righ .HIII.DEMAN : . . . on an equi ty ba s i s .PRESIDENT: (Un i n t e l l i gib le ) .HALDE}l


64/85

3/

P } ~ E S I D E N T :

I J

Ei-:s-:.rCH!-!AN:

P F E S I D E I ~ T :

102

...h u t , bu t on a leavQ h as i s .Yeal1, ano. t 'na .t ;-lould 1)2 111)', th o.:c. \;ould1)-2 t!louqll 't , I 1l2.Ve Cl r I ha\,re a :ceal .p r a c ~ i c a l l e r n with , wi th a r e s i gna t i o n , ' . :hich shou ldn 't re a l l y ue igh inyour cons ide i a t i on .(Unin te l l ig i l J le )That_' s exac t lv it. (Unin- te l l ig ib le) 17el1 , i 'c i s a- f a c to r only i n t .l l is sense ,tllC:d: I Jch.e11 l1El'\7e to J a j o } : ~ , I I lave -togo to work, ( un in te l l i g i b l e ) p r ~ c t i c i n g 1en-7, I can . I :rr:e2.n 'th.c.t i s not theP!"Ob:i.G.2. I c an! . I J?"'.O':l tl?:at ~ o . i ~ ~ e l y where I go r ~ l a ~ l v e l y g o c ~ p ~ y l n g t n l ngjob . You l d r l 1 t 1 ) ( ~ ! t.(..!:('L'ibl:l '!'


65/85

33

HAHCiI 21, 1973, F P . . O ~ ' 1 10:12 TO 11:55 J ~ . H .

DEAN:

PRESIDENT:DEAN :

PRESIDE;H:DE}\N :PRESIDENT :

DEf.N:

PRESIDENT :

DEAN :

Thnt l s r ight : . It 1 s n re21 problem 2 S to" ,he ther ,!e could even do it . Plus t lJ2re ' sa r e a l problem in r.:1ising money . Uh,Hitche11 11


66/85

--

I February 17. 1969 .

MEi.rORANDUM FOR: MR. EHRLICHMAl"'1

Be Be Rebozo has been asked b y the President to contac t J. P a u lGetty in London regarding m a j o r contribut ions.BeBe would l ike advice from you o r someone as to how th is can .legally and technically be handled. The funds should go to S O I D eoperating entity other than the National Commit tee so that w e r e - .ta in fu l l control of thei r use .BeBe would apprecia te your ca l l ing him with this advice a.s soonas possib le s ince the P res iden t has asked h im to move qu ick ly .

-. .-_ .. -_. -- ---' .. . - , ' . -_. ".. --_ .-- ----- ' - - - . . -- - - - - ----- _ " . . -? , ~ / ~ U t F ~ 1 { S r 7 . s C =

\ 7" ' r r " - ... ,: "

" ' h f l I . I IFOLDER TlTLE: ' fY tL m Q$ I;:r; h J Eh ( jcbm{;.o(Ee.-h 1&]611" ' . .ROOM ~ l i 3 ~ : (5S:.'J./ CONTAINER ~ W . B E R : _ - - : - . 8'-1/:...-L.I___

Determined to be anAtHninistrative MarkingNot ~ t i o n a l SecuritY 'nforrBy I . NAR/r ()ateS& \


67/85

I

} . ~ . r [ H : ! . / i . . L ) C / ~ ; t . : } . r(f.JJ;:;0C!.C;l( ' . w t j ! ; ! ) ( 1 . C . ; L , D c . : ~ u / ; , . c . o . ' ~ J ~ c p j J & CfL .. ': .. ; ' ~ a / L t : 1 .

S u / ~ ~ e ~ 90 () ; ? ! . : ' p o : ~ t F , L , : : ( j j u ~ " ( P . ~ ( L Z a 550 ! . J 2 F ~ ) t ) . ' , : ; t C,:.n):C}L ' i ) " ' L ~ . V C ? . f : ~ J ! . ~ P O / L t c?(u2ft) CaU. . ; ~ o i U ~ / . a . 02(00

Ov ,z./[ . ) ~ r {llrJ!..(;.e.nd, 1 . 6 p ( ; f ~ q i,1:;._.:t\ ]O ::i l E : ~ ) ! ; : . : . c ~ ! : ; ! : 7 . 1 l cOid e ; : : ] ? _ : 7 . / } ~ 2 , d ; . ~ o ;Lh(!;(: -L.-t :::l:a bc..eH d2("(.dc. r.[ . i ~ : : ' : ~ f . : . ; ~ f . t e . ! ) ; ' ~ ~ = 2 O / ( : ' _ ( . 2 . {;;.!I,(.CJL I rr?. p./.:,Lc'ne. cl ..to UC'" 1- ! . : / " . ~ j ~ h .p.t :U?./L (!. '{',ft ( ~ ( / i . ; r ~ : ) ) ~ e . (; S 5 / f . . 2 . { ( ~ ~ ; z/.: [ ' _ C : : , L ; 7 . . L ~ ~ t r . . , ; ~ l C ; ! . . ~ r : ' n n 2 . c . f 2 . d ! J ; t s v/:...i..c.'!. ! . : / ~ ~ e ~ ) [ o m ; f J ~ j i ; 2 . ) ~ O ; . ~ ; _ ; : : ~ ..t ed:. ,ne. R.i:C::'.l, .z.tJ you. ; !e.e.d liiCO-':.e. ~ e . . f p

CC::'. :.th


68/85

7From. Maheui . Channel 10Howard, th e double payment natura l ly i s very in t r iguingto th e l oc a l au thor i t i e s but they f e e l incapable ofmaking an af f i rmat ive dec is ion because t h e i r a t to rneyshave informed them t ha t they wi l l not be able to tu rndown ad d i t i o n a l government funds i f Uncle Sam i n s i s t son dOing j u s t t ha t . Morgan wi l l g e t i n t o t h i s matter th e f i r s t th ing Monday morning and r ep o r t to us fo r t h -with .

2. Water Pro j e c tNow t ha t I have th e Landmark behind us, I w i l l t ru l y- ~ - - ~ - - - - - - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. _...._- -_ ..__. __._- .. "3. l\BMHoward, Rebozo has t r ansmit ted your message on th e l\BMto th e Pr es id en t . He wa s very apprec ia t ive bu t Rebozocould no t t e l l from th e reac t ion whether o r not th ePresiden t wa s ready to countermand th e p o s i t i o n o f h isSec. of Defense. We are cont inuing our e f f o r t s a t th el eg i s l a t ive l eve l . Howard, I do not th ink it would bef a i r to as k th e White House to re lease your concept o fth e Pol a r i s . As I am Bure yo u a re aware, th e . Navy hasbeen f igh t ing fo r t h i s concept fo r a long t ime now an d

. , ,; '

. 0 , 1

"'............... -.----:.,-

.. ...: !

,-,


69/85

)')

f ! .

,

- ,-I think we could engineer a plan whereby th e Navy couldi ssue a release s ta t ing that yo u wholeheartedly agree. Alternat ively , we could i ssue our own release.4. TaxesWe wil l follow your ins truct ions on a l l ta x matters.5. Parvin, e t a l.We ca n close th e Parvin deal tonight but I s t i l lbelieve they ar e placing unrea l i s t ic values on th e i rproper t ies . They claim tha t be cause of the big demand

. for th e hotel -casino .proper t i e s, th e Stardust i s worthtoday 60 mill ion dollars . The Fremont,they say , i s worth40 and th e Aladdin 20 . They i n s i s t that a to ta l pr iceof 135 mill ion i s 'a f a i r one, since they claim tha t the i r

. other business i s well worth 15 million. Howard, obviouslythese numbers are so damned unrea l i s t ic tha t it wouldappear we have no al ternat ive except to take the calcu-lated r isk that the s tock would h" i l c > r ! " ~ = ! . : . ~ ; ; ; ; ~ v , , ~ i a e r a o . l . y . I mentioned previously that "the at torney" i s prepared todel iver to us the Riviera but h is commitment is based upon.ou r buying th e PO stock from him a t 150 dollars a share.Be controls 100,000 shares of th is 8:ock out of 1,200,000which are outstanding. My man a t Caesars wil l be back , intown tomorrow and I have a meeting scheduled with himimmediately upon his return.6. Air WestHoward, ou r present in te l l igence indicatea tha t th ePresident 's approval an d t ~ ~ t ot th e CAB wil l come down

- ~ ~ - ~ - ~ - " " ' - - " - - - - - - - - - - " . - - ' " " ' - ~ - - " " - ' ~ - " ' - - ~ _ ~ . I - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _ ~ _ - - - . . , . . . _ ~ - : - - . . - . - _

"

, ~ " " " - ~ . ~ . , . - -

.'.... ~ ,


70/85

i.1

1

" "on Monday or Tuesday of next week. I have your in -s t ruct ions pertaining to capita l investments andplirchase of additional equipment. We shal l proceedaccordingly.

,r , :" .

. ,.',

"

.;.

.'

, .'

.S

, J

i .

i

. ...: ,


71/85

' : . '. : I . :. " " ', : ".: . . .

----- _. - - - - ~ --- - - - -

I .70


72/85

.J" II ~ O

!


73/85

10- - '- -3'1

/


74/85

.... ..

___ __ '" - -


75/85

DI: .,.', :. '.. . .. ~ . . . . . . , ( ",7- / 2

Refer red

--

.:: ':"'., ' '-"' '1/ , / /.1,;'"/ , t

.. _., ....-_ .... - ,- -, ", . .. .. .. .' . .

II

l ~ . . ..N' ", :{\J ' N . . :..,." '1 J ,. .


76/85

'Referred

, .. ," ;

,!

SUBJECT:

, I

P:!!cember 1., 1971

Honora':llc rUchar:l HelmsDirectorCentra l !ntcilig-ence . ' e ~ c y

J ~ h n D. EhrlichrnanAssistant to the Pres iden t

for Domestic i \ Hairs

IZ

~ . . ,


77/85

WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEMemorandumTO

FROM

SUBJECT:

Fi le s DATE: May 19, 1975

Pe te r M. K r e i n d l e r ~ ~ Nixon Testimony

Stan Mortenson ca l l ed t h i s morning to ask whe the r wewould delay i s su ing the subp oena u n t i l Wednesday. Is ta ted t h a t I would have to confer wi t h Mr. Ruth,bu t th a t in no event would we delay i ssuance if itwould mean t h a t we would have to change th e re turnda te or t h a t in a motion to quash, it wou ld be arguedt h a t they had been given l e s s not ice . After confer r ingwith Mr. Ruth and Mr. Davis, it was decided t h a t wewould agree no t to i s sue the subpoena u n t i l Wednesday,and I ca l l ed Mr. Mortenson, t e l l i ng him t h a t weexpected to hear from him noon, Wednesday.

cc : Hr. RuthMr . DavisMr. Gel l e r

rl

8/3/2019 Folder 9/4: Hen