Document text
92
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
WATERGATE
SUMMARY!
PART 1 of 2
FILE NUMBER : 139-4089
e
4 a 1.
_i' £1-F
E
.13"
-.~- 7'
-.+-
r
TV.
,;..~r'1 5;1-.
" I;-q.¢.-
-- --7
5*
F, *
¢__
'1' 2»-J?*1.. ->1 1"'._x -.
.
'. 5-2r.
.i?__
-.
. -v_;.- -11::
.37 l
.tw
r
=~
3'
._ D:
.5:
.-1*
*. -'5.
L,
" V»_;,
{"1 -
.12-it< ._an
1 ."=1
P.- :~.T '5,-.
15:. .5
... _..-.
'_._ .
.1} .-.1, -92
-.
4 -_..', as2-.__ §
' 11r"2
Q.
41:...,92
*.'.
1%
-ii.-'=.- .7. I
sf. ,§,~as
,; .-..,
~a
"Kr 9;; s -
3-."
.!"_ _
'7'-.
3'-Y-" 7
Kr
..92.-_-,.
c
_-Q;
. r=:.i:
"5-JP
:1
1%
1
oi.-9'
.!.|=__
_ _V ._. k If
1 |.' "
as
as
;_ .1 g .
/~
FROM
sun3sc"r.~ ~nmseron om. t/5/r43. l *7 I .r:r:.?a.§" ' M-~-
' 0h'B|n.nm. .11 '-' *_ :'UNITED STATES GOVERNMENTMemorandum M M9.9- lb Mn. __
Ann. Pin; '__
-ldnin.
Comp. Syn, ____§..- All .In nrvnn ,__.____
File! I Cg, ___
Gill. lllv,
Hum. ___~____
llhyecllon _____,= 0. T. ACOBSON 0% ii . ........_. I ,§gygfg;r
,- M1i'__I'_!5.5B.CtATE.IblVESTIGATI0N.-. C - L__;;-3;:
,/ bPE,ANALYSlS - ' I f_ .6: /,_ rd;-I ..........-_D iroetu 5;; yignud aa¢~a,~~l-~.
Pursuant to the Director's instructions on 5/ 14/ 74 for ~
the Office of Planning and Evaluation OPE! to conduct a complete analysis
of the FBI's conduct of the Watergate and related investigations the _. i .enclosed study has been prepared. The General Investigative Division d 17
participated in major portions oi this study.
In view oi the immense scope of me Watergate investigations,
it was necessary for OPE to narrow the focus of this analysis to those
areas of the investigations which have caused critical commentary relating
to the Bureau's performance. Therefore, the OPE staff undertook a review
of selected materials which provided a comprehensive cross section of
commentary regarding these investigations. The materials reviewed
included "White House Transcripts", proceedings of the Senate Watergate
Committee; confirmation testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on the nomination of L. Patrick Gray IE to he FBI Director, Earl J.
Silbert to be U. S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and William D.
Ruckelshaus to be Deputy Attorney General. Numerous books and articles
relating to the Watergate matters were also reviewed. In addition, Inspection
reports, summary memoranda, and selected file materials were reviewed
and analyzed as to content. _ D. <1. -84 /_. '"Enclosure/&"IZJ f? REC / ---P
Mr. Ca1lm'ian{Enc1.! '77- - Mr. Adams Encl.! _ .},__0/£ 7/ , ' 52 JUL 23 1974 '
..- -
.-=,,'_>
: ts,
w. ','
21. .,, ... 51
,.I.
_ e
:7F -.92
lie.4__ -
i. *.
.1 .
-.. 92
.._' I
.31,
,..
.--
1. _,
-is
,1?-
rs ._._-,5'
,., .
__ it.. .92_ .§
2'4 1
ii *1.;-,,,
a .
z
.1-"
. 3
j;F-"..;:_ .
i,}e-
._,._.-92I J1
,'
- i, is
is
ii
,.
:5.
-I.
if.
L. _.
3..
1:.
J
-2
= u»-1-_ .1
1!
..,
'
1:.
I
A
.'7.
Ii
.1=.
. aswill£5.
X 1 -
:=@
15.;
iii:1-_'
.0"
:5
F-92..-Q»
;Q-:1
11>,Dii
T
ka-1:..i.~v'. .-'0!!
-s._.:;1;-
.»:-, .II-
_.
5A
E
3K1
e
3
1:
1
I_. gg _.92_ _.1. =:-I-fr
iii1..
ti?
. R.
I
,. .
Q
1
Aw5 .~ .Memorandum to The Director
RE: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION -
OPE ANALYSIS
After the conclusion of this review process OPE was able
to define fifteen general areas of criticism which encompassed essentially
the entire range of responsible public commentary on the Bureau's
involvement in the Watergate matters. These fifteen areas of criticism
are as follows:
1. miewing John Dean te sit in on interviews of White Heuse
personnel; submitting copies and/or reports of the FBI
investigative results to Dean, and clearing proposed investi-
gative activity through Dean.
2. Failure to interview all CRP employees re Watergate;
delay in reviewing CRP files; CRP attorneys sitting in
on FBI interview of CRP employees, and CRP attorneys
ing access te FBI file material.
3. Delay and/or failure to obtain access to and account for
contents of Howard Hunt's desk and safe at the White House.
4. Failure to fully explore all possible ramifications of
Watergate matter with subjects, suspects and potential
material witnesses.
::'. Jr
.l; F.
L I2i 1%___ __ _ Y-,1' 0
1}
1 '
3 ;*
.3-v
be4- 92'r
1 3"Iv 5.-ti, L-
.1~;1. '
-igi
. .. - .r$a~..-~ -.3 _ :9-I ,1 =;.r-.2'- ;'.4! -
' - .r
*;-.<=- =r,_'-':'it . '-_ .
1,"-z. -2. . 2. :'J11 "-.3_. : gIi: .3 1
K ; - .
_:~_ ' 92 ..571_-
. 3".,:H
_.»_>_ I.1! ' ;T_'¥'-11.2" 2";1:; =1.1- -"Tr1: .»;.., .
=3 ! 1 .2
l;~-. i Hi
. 1 ;
>-., _. ..1?,-2;: J. q. _
.-:51-2 ' _ag= --
.;"." T--:» v. 41..;
A ¥
922§T7
Ei
*2.~ s
.- T:
*..r.:. 1
='
E
i.
Fain.%,
,>
F5. 5;
r -- .-
It»._-; t __.-. -- -=.~ . re.»q ..,r4,
x '_2&=t;._-..
-1 ..' _.; 1-. L 4;- '-.1J,= iiMemorandum to The Director
RE: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION -
OPE ANALYSIS
8.
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15lAlleged failure to detect and remove "bug" from the
telephone of Spencer Oliver in the Democratic National
Committee Headquarters.
Failm'e to promptly and thoroughly investigate alleged
election law violations by Segretti and others associated
with CRP or the White House.
Alleged activities by former Acting Director Gray to limit,
contain or obstruct FBI investigation of Watergate matter.
Alleged leaks of Watergate investigative results to news -
media, Congress or other unauthorized parties by Bureau
personnel.
Failure to interview or inadequacy of interview with certain
White House officials Haldeman, Colson, Chapin, et cetera!.
111 92 1- 11- I more I I A- II pl. 1 u
Alleged activities on part 01 uepartment OI Jl1St1ce OI11C13.lS
to limit, contain, or obstruct FBI investigation Kleindienst,
Petersen, Silbert, et cetera!.
Alleged attempt by CIA officials to interfere, contain or
impede FBI Watergate investigation.
Alleged activities on part of White House officials to limit,
contain or obstruct FBI Watergate investigation. Dean,
Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Colson, et cetera!.
General Investigative Division was f1.u'nished the 15 areas of
criticism along with references as to origin and was requested to provide
OPE with the following:
-3- CONTINUED - OVER
AV -t. -.1 v.-, a-.., _,... - Q
5
"
;¥~_; '" 2.t it
.-'i.":
.7 ... t
Ma 1'1 <i ., .->.- 2
fa 92
~ '. .1"?
1 _;;==
2»?
"E" T5'=:1' = ?--.11 "
-I} £3.l -,5 ~' -_92',. .. 1
. ..' i-A.
It 0
3 ,
_:~; I
£5, '
=5
Hi .. I
v. :32-1=
iii p-
~i '5,46:1 ii
. 1
1.. . '1,._-' ¢2;§¢'_." H .,: *1?11""- 1%
3'39:',-:1 :
Q1; '3,
.-'=._ , ---3 'at!- .-1
-J .._. -q.
5K11
is
oz 2% ,
2; so:. w 'J91-5.-1':_- :-
~I-" 5 £3
.»_-F.v-I. :iféI._'_H _I¢_==1-. 4.1;. .1?. I _-p
ivit -
Memorandum to The Director
RE: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION -
OPE ANALYSIS
! A brief summary of the investigative activity conducted
which gave rise to the criticism.
! General Investigative Division's appraisal of the validity
of the criticism and how it might have been avoided.
Any changes of policy that have re '* '" ""
criticism.
! General Investigative Division's instructions brief summary!
to the field relating to any of the above cited matters.
! Citations to file materials and communications which sub-
stantiate the Bureau's position in each of the areas mentioned
above. .
After receipt of General Investigative Division's information
set forth in Section IV of the study!, the position of the Bureau in regard to
each area of criticism was analyzed by OPE and where indicated original
file materials were reviewed. The results of the overall OPE analysis
are set forth in Section V of the study.
1
"K 1- .n_ 1* *-
I-
.
-- - 1!.L, -,-es
is-. vs;
_ .I|4 .1_» ~,_ .
2.S -._g1 _
-._ ..-s
... _.. , , -. I.'7* l
;_.~s~ L1- 92.*_.' _ .
DE: if-T
__.1::'
A s",
ii__ A ._ -1 ;g-'- -':P Y-'-
'~ e.- .1
"_--='-_-r.-. *' -I- 5"_¢'- "l ~T.*.-_',- .5-P {E-'
'53 '1 '
2
Q! 11,] . ,_
%..- --;~=:- -' '., ._,,_ .
i I -Hi,.. =.J -'1 '_t 1 >-
~'¢-'. '?;_'5 _- -'4.. , V. 1.,
3;4% ~-I 5: Q?W7! .'.-ii".22:.-' 1 -.
1-?
- an. l.-v.1-..
Z11
c
».-11»
- -jzen i-.-1.:
Q»:
.2.- 92 ?...'Ii '
Memorandum to The Director
RE: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION -
OPE ANALYSIS
that the actions of former Attorney Generals Mitchell and Kleindienst
served to thwart and/or impede the Bureau's investigative effort. The
actions of Jolm W. Dean at the White House and J eb S. Magruder at the
Committee to Re-Elect the President were purposefully designed to mis-
lead and thwart the Bureau's legitimate line of inquiry. At every stage
of the investigation there were contrived covers placed in order to mislead
the investigators.
In spite of the most serious impediments posed in this
investigation, the professional approach used by the Bureau and the
perseverance of our investigative personnel were the ultimate key to the
solution of not only the Watergate break-in but the cover up itself.
Those most closely associated with the Bureau's efforts
including Acting U. S. Attorney Earl Silbert, Assistant Attorney General
Henry Petersen, former Acting Director Ruckelshaus and the Special
Prosecutor's Office have on several occasions praised the Bureau's
investigative performance in these cases. The direction given to Bureau
investigations by the U. S. Attorney's Office and the Criminal Division
of the Department of Justice has been the subject of much criticism due to
a clear intent to initially steer away from political issues. Acting U. S.
Attorney Silbert and Assistant Attorney General Petersen have borne the
brunt of most of this criticism. The FBI followed well established
Departmental policies in these areas and did vigorously pursue cases
when requested to do so by the Department and/ or the Special Prosecutor.
All information developed indicating any possible violations of Federal
law was properly referred to the Department.
In OPE's view the Bureau has a legitimate and compelling
defense in all but three of the areas of criticism. In these three areas
the facts must speak for themselves as no adequate explanation can be
rendered due to the circumstances involved.
-5- CONTINUED - OVER
., -q 1- _.;. - a
.-.' _:__ _';.1 . "
,
. ti;- .I -
'3;
-F
-. .2.
if -j_, .
2."
1:"-* I
.. .{:;...- _-
v: v.1. -
er
i
I?
.1
r JF7-
2'"-,'§
71.1.-.
152*
, .
pea-
'
I12
3;.
. ._ f 9 *~__».re X. 4:w--.. . vi;
fa} -J}:._;_ Igi
1%. .
all{ti
;~*.>:
if".-
H
FE
is
9 . '
fli-
T
FfI
.1
M
;'__.;. .-
3'1.
_*_.-Ln."
._: _...~ -
..
J-'.
., . -r -" "
__ 2,»92~|
-3-1-.
0.1, -ah ;If ~-
' 21*
_¢; -. 5r .
.1-1;- ¥r'&: 4
.25-'92.1'-1,.
1
.
to
-if" 5
.
£3*4.
.§
%§:'*"
T4
inQ -ii:45- x5-i, .
ii.-- 2
if+1
.-_'.
1';
I;
. g_.
-_f;.
._§'."-
21.-
..Y. *'?-, .
i
1
1
IT_->1 -
*3-.
J.
'9;
.<.'-.
F.
.5-.;,
5.-LL -_ . .... -_ ..-.-4 » ~.~ - .._~.-en...-,_.,_.. ... .
1.
Memorandum to The Director
," RE: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION -
OPE ANALYSIS
These areas are as follows:
The actions and activities of former Acting Director Gr
The actions of Mr. Gray have been fully investigated
and reported to the Special Prosecutor's Office. No
further action appears warranted by the Bureau in this
area.
The possibility of information having been leaked from
FBI personnel.
There are indications that certain Bureau materials
relating to the Watergate matters were leaked. This
is the subject of a continuing Inspection Division
inquiry and has not been further pursued by OPE.
The alleged failure to detect an electronic "bug" in a
search of the Democratic Watergate Headquarters.
The possibility of Bureau personnel overlooking or
failing to detect an electronic device during a search
of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters
cannot be disproven. Our personnel say they could
not have overlooked such a device, but responsible
authorities cite facts and circumstances leading them
to believe that the Bureau personnel failed to detect a
"bugging device" planted by James McCord. Thereay.
92 - .L ii-.w;
-..
J.-.-~'.
.1 Q 1Ln-' --V 1 ..- 5 .-
1: '
5: ~ Q1+, "
'<.i
H '.
'_.929292 , -~
-a=-:c.. i 55 -'.o
i-':"§.."
:?._. __1;§y
"f .' 3'.
Via-X 92
LI
L' v .- -92 .
. I
if '
i
it . . ~_I;-.-.
"s
;:3_1' L ifvi - I.,~ '-r." - Li:
fr £5;
Q1. ..,- '
. _, .W
i ,3.- w. 3 .-
';;;lz_.~_ ; mg1.3; r..-1 1 -.-F.,- . . .4;.-., _;»"' "1 = §
"I?!J5 .' =r:r-- ."
ifk5: 5V,-1
1- A..1 .:1? _ _ 1.Z 1" .
.' 2
I T-'
~., E
Q,
"I i»
-.w
E-'5 Law ;I-
. : as
_._t*-5
1 5:
._ ,9:_ _'_;J;. . .> 1
ta.-Z
ya;
A_~f
...,._iv . - .~.j¢ _ '11,», .-- -_.. - ..__ _ _. U a . _-.. ._,. _ . .92., ,_.- 51-9. . __. Iv, _ :._ -S.->_ -.----. __ _.-...._.,_¢. ,_. -...-._... M . .1 _. -_ _ . _v -92. :_ .. "
. _,'_ IJ5, Q
Memorandum to The Director
RE: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION -
OPE ANALYSIS
The Bureau's position relative to the total activities
involved in the Watergate investigations can be strongly defended as the
enclosed study indicates. OPE believes that the information and documentation
contained in this study thoroughly demonstrate the high caliber of investigative
1 effort and professional conduct of Bureau personnel involved in the Watergate
matters.
ACTION:
For information.
92
,
-7-
"'-1-J-_ T _ "-'_';" I3 '92 ,?}'.J'r'T__":',1 1v§_92.; _:"_*_1;_7.92.--*.:=:1-92:.-:;"v_=i1*r92t.-vs--w'92ijs-!'r ~ 1 Pew *""'--"1 -=1-W ;- *-'1-'' '1 "' --'_-"_" ~:-_"-- "'_"",-31 i"." =" "' .',""- ".-'.,7' '5T". _' ~::" '7' 1- - ~"'- ~ -' 1-. -.'= .>'- ~ '1 "*1- -_- ~ ;' ' '. . " -~ - ¢ '" s I - ' ,-'- ' -~. ,1" - A - ---,_-92- .¢- . =1.» __ --4 3} ,.-'_;-3;,-92-, _,_ _-. -,>- A_ = 92 . =-92 __ _, , -_. .- . =.'_ __ . _ -, _ . >1 .-I ,_ _ .'- . -_ 2-., - _. ;- _, v_-.-_.;» -_ -. - . - . .- -- _ -
i__
_
V
W
W v_
__,W_"
__
__
__
TW
_W
Wu
{'@
iv _'-""_',I". _ _3','l"1
FBI J..:*"7 1* .~ =
WATERGATE
INVESTIGATION-gj"
.:.<=...;_¢ z .x_
=¢2.92-=2 .
I <'¢-1?!1 ?- ' ":-'31. $7. ,_-- ;»;.~_.q:._-_;'£-'-_' ¢¢, @-M 1? % " jsé; tiw1i.".'>:.'»--*1
OPE ANALYSIS, ' =- =-1'11 P1? Q 1" - -1" - :5 '.-P - "s5f<T*="=.? -g_»?_1@i'2_'.~*
-' %I ~ .- _
'i..¢- *- "..sh
»-." ';, >-J .1
-I5-'7,
1'". _ ¢.-_1,; '.92 "__ - iT-t
r gnj; ,;~ ...- - z;- "-
-2
.§ . .".-'.' '-
4;
i'.7.:~92:.r... .I , » *..._~,-~_
:7 iv, - -12 3 , . . . r_ 1 U Q. . _ _l _ L _ Q: _: ;_iM§:,J_:-A S.-. , 3, A § >=1 I ' ' k '
1*.5- - .- ._492_- _. I -_-' 1- -'.'._ I!
ii-ans tr; - -.
,. ,' =
1 --'-.'_,'"-"*1_:"..=._92;nh _L_.<_._ - Y4~.t. . .:,.' =- _ - .
-1-;r~ra; .=:',v¢=& U I'¬'7¬=_ '-. *. fc§~§_92. '.6 L2 ~
1 " ,4 Q;-':.: 9,n;.=:.?1;'-_- _._;, ;l_-=&_3l__ -9351 _ .
1512* '
,"- - -:| <
-/1
, -,- __1f 92L nil 1-.
_»= .-1.>'- J = _.#,;,_-.*-*.:~-1?
. r ~* - . L "-- w-.1-'--'5 1" -".'ri§"$"."1-{!!*?'»
. --P -~z -a-» .~ -,=*-".-=4;*%3 é "_ . ,L_. -PA - . ~£92;bvE.a.'.'_ "- 92'92::_I 0-_92 --- -.- -
1 fiir-f 111??
v .> ._ -~ -- -f ' ..r.. n
.'._,.- -.+.._'.;92.a I-1»-J .- v
wen:-k -aL-§-§:- '2-e *. ._ ~.-_.-_-¬,i*;;~.- ~ ¢- --- ?'-.02 r;=Ah1_§-'¢r*=-'3 ivA _ 92 .'.'- |'.a I
Q-r»
~__t,,..
' 7. -' '
" _ 92f_ .1J E..-_ ._,
_ -' Iv P;
4 ...2; ' ' T; FJ."
1 '5.- §*:''.u
-|=.;->- 4-44¢» Q . -in ii
;;; :»<i:i-;a,-»+~_- ¢.r.:. , .~I '31:; Ar-;.'.1_..92.='-'5'?v!..$*.L-.1 Q -.-, 7 7» .".v' T ":1?-.-~. »r¢'~-1 "+..*é*-'1" .-- -92_..?,-F. V-I.
- i -I ~ .-. M-fa
¢-waf_-uo, ~=-11; . -n-no-0'!-92:.;.92-r92--1-92.-5. _ . ~ .1 -_;_¢_'-1""! -um: -.1.-,.~.,, -. -'.7;~-,%;~-*
3_"._ 1§':.~, . g H , -14-5-1é'_1>}§4- I '»
'¢,;.-.-»-J l: -1:=»snpg-- _
92I
.-_3
FBI WATERGATE INVESTIGATION
OPE ANALYSIS
Table of Contents
PREDICATION
SCOPE OF STUDY
PREVIOUS AUDITS AND INSPECTION REVIEWS
AREAS OF PRINCIPAL CRITICISM AND
BUREAU POSITION REGARDING THESE
CRITICISMS
1. Bureau activities relative to John W. Dean
2. Failure to interview all Committee to Re-
Elect the President CRP! employees and
allowing CRP attorneys to monitor employee
interviews
3. Delay and/ or failure to obtain access to
and contents of Howard Hxmt's effects at
the White House _
4. Alleged failure to conduct comprehensive
interviews with Watergate subjects, suspects
and witnesses
5. Delay or failure to interview several
individuals re monies and/or checks found
in possession of defendants or having been
_I...__._:l.__I L_ LI__:__ 1__._I_ _ ___-_._L_UBPUSILBU EU I-H811 UHIIK HCCUUIILU
6. Failure to obtain and execute search warrants
for search of original ve subjects homes,
offices and automobiies1
2
5
10
10
12
20
23
"E -t
Q.I!
Q
"I
X
9
I»
T
1!
1*
B
A
-v1.3 !
7. Failure to identify and interview all persons
listed in address books, notebooks, et cetera,
which were seized and determined to be the
property of the five original subjects
8. Alleged failure to detect and remove "bug"
from the telephone of Spencer Oliver in the
Democratic National Committee Headquarters
9. Failure to promptly and thoroughly investi-
gate alleged election law violations by
Segretti and others associated with CRP or
the White House
0. Alleged activities by former Acting Director
Gray to limit, contain or obstruct FBI
investigation of Watergate matter
11. Alleged leaks of Watergate investigative
results to news media, Congress or other
unauthorized parties by Bureau personnel
12. Failure to interview or inadequacy of inter-
view with certain White House officials
13. Alleged activities on part of certain
Department of Justice officials to limit,
contain, or obstruct FBI investigation
14.. Alleged attempt by CIA officials to interfere,
contain, or impede FBI Watergate investi-
gation
15. Alleged activities on part of certain White
House officials to limit, contain, or
obstruct FBI Watergate investigation
16. Comments and Observations of
General Investigative Division "'
WATERGATE INVESTIGATION -
OPE ANALYSIS
14.!" rm
'1.
*
5
F.
at _
I
ut-
Ex.3 !
APPENDICES
A. Chronology of Signicant Watergate
Related Events
B. Biographical Sketch of Most Significant
Shbjects
. Bernard L. Barker
. Dwight L. Chapin
. Charles W. Colson
. John W. Dean III
. John D. Ehrlichman
. Virgilio Ramon Gonzalez
. Harry Robbins I-laldeman
. George A. Hearing
. E. Howard Hunt
10. Herbert W. Kalmbach
11. Egil E. Krogh, Jr.
12. Frederick C. LaRue
13. George Gordon Liddy
14. J eb Stuart Magruder
15. Robert C. Mardian
16. Eugenio Rolando Martinez
1'7. James Walter McCord, Jr.
18. John N. Mitchell
19.20.
21.
22.
23.Kenneth W. Parkinson
Herbert L. Porter
Donald H. Segretti
Gordon C. Strachan
Frank Anthony Sturgis
C. Explanatory Notes and Documentation
{Y
5,
'5
E
,.=, a
FBI WATERGATE INVESTIGATION
' OPE ANALYSIS
I. PREDICATIQN:
' The Office of Planning and Evaluation OPE! undertook . - i.
a study and analysis of the Bureau's Watergate and related investigations
based upon the Director's instructions issued by memorandum dated
May 14, 1974. In this memorandum the Director noted that recent
revelations have newly introduced certain circumstances which may have
a bearing on subsequent efforts to support the Bureau's investigative
__ effort in the Watergate and related matters. He instructed OPE to pre-
pare a complete analysis of the situation in order that the full ramifica-
gi; tions be determined and discussed.
- ®
al az
- _ ,-
.5
.»
-.. . . _....._._,___,»_,*._. .. . . - ~
.1:
q__rJ
*2
i i S
;~: ..17!¬i'>~92 aF4,
.. Q
. 5*
1", 1
E.. l
,, _ a
._. 4
f '5
1~ _.." ;§'_.~.92,-~§
_,.. _._,é92._,..1.A'. .
.
4-
e
. 1-Q
4
t
l .'-,_ 1 .1:
, ..- N £-
.
...- .,_
fl ..
er *~ .
T. _ 92.V_.0 ..92_<
~=-r--1j#' s
p
=1.
4 .» .
i- 5.,.
$1..,.,.
, .
,-.7* .3
- 3- SCOPE 91?" QP1-F. §TUPY= .. __ 4;2-; _ , : ...-, l' 92 - ~- J '
. ' In view of the immense volume of the Watergate investi-t
gation, it was necessary for OPE to narrow the focus of this analysis to
E those areas of the investigation which have caused critical commentary
in the Executive Branch, Congress, courts and the news media. In order C ' ~
to detect and identity specific areas of critical commentary relating to
the Bureau's performance in the Watergate and related investigations,
. the OPE staff undertook a review of selected materials which would pro-
. -_
@- vide a comprehensive cross section of commentary regarding these investi-
- gations. Material reviewed to ascertain the most comment on specific
criticisms included the following: ~ '5
! Submission of Recorded Presidential Conversations to
the Committeei on the Judiciary of the House of Repre- F31 --¥7
sentativesghy President Richard fliizicnil, April 30, 1971'.. 4 1 92 I 2%;
.11. ! Report of Proceedings Held Before Senate Judiciary
Committee re Nomination of Earl J.mSilhert to be '
- _ .- Qtorney for_the _!_istrict of
Senate Watergate Hearings. _ _.-Q~. - -. " I ~ ' '*~ eff _
_ ,»|. H,. /,_ l.,, .,_ - L - ! A Piece gt fifapez The Watergate Story: _1jact_ and_I{ic_t__ion;
by James W. McCord, JrI W it
. if ' -- ..:*-. "n I7:.H 1' - P-1 1'
§il_the_ P_res_ident's Men, by Carl Bernsteinilnd BobWoodward. C it P
- '. I
! Watergate: The FulliInsidei§tory, by Lewis Chester, et a1.!
'92 ' 1 .-mt. ..<.¢ 1-.» . . ...-. I u-1 . _ :_,:!,,92r-.23. V 1 ..- ' . _1 ':92._ _ '."~-_=9292 Mm; - - . '92~ _fe- - -=. =-= ~ -gt-=.-_. ..
1. p . p . _ ,. M.
..92. n 4 92
is._ -2--<11
.. ,$4
i
t
®C !
! Ihe Judgefwho 'If1;ied_l-larder by George V. Higgins in .
The Atlantic Magazine, April 1974.
B! Report of _IjIearin_gs*gHe*1d_Before Senate Judiciary Committee
re Nomination of_iL.*PiatrickWG_ray to be Director of theFederal Bure_au of_InvestigationI i 7* i
9! Watergate: _Chronoiogy pf A_Crisis; volumes! by
The Congressional Quarterly.
Numerous news media articles were also reviewed. In
addition, summary memoranda prepared during the course of the investi-
gation by both the Washington Field Office WFO! and the General Investi-
gative Division were reviewed. The results of previous Inspection Division
reviews of the Watergate investigation were also analyzed. Only those
cases directly relating to the Watergate burglary, the cover up of the
burglary, the activities of the "White House Plumbers" group and illegal
campaign activities have been incorporated within this analysis.
Cases such as the "ITT" matter, the "milk fund" case,
and the Vesco case are not included as they preceded the Watergate
activities and are not directly connected with Watergate matters.
. After the conclusion of the review process set forth supra - -
OPE was able to define fifteen general areas of criticism which encompassed
essentially the entire range of responsible public commentary on the
Bureau's involvement in and investigation of the Watergate matters.
-3- g
' Q ? -E_ _ ... . ... ___....... _... ._
9E A
-M1
QUI-
:~
~ 1
iD
These fifteen areas of criticism, which are set forth in Section V infra,
were then referred to the General Investigative Division with appropriate
references to the origin of criticism. The General Investigative Division
was requested to provide OPE with the following information:
! A brief summary of the investigative activity conducted .
which gave rise to the criticism.
! General Investigative Division's appraisal of the validity
of the criticism and how it might have been avoided.
! Any changes of policy that have resulted from such
criticism.
to the field relating to any of the above cited matters.
! Citations to file materials and communications which sub-
stantiate the Bureau's position in each of the areas mentioned
above .
After receipt of the above cited information, the position of
the Bureau in regard to each area of criticism was carefully reviewed by
OPE and where indicated original file materials were reviewed. There-
after an analysis of the situation in each of the specified areas was con-
ducted. The results of this analysis are set forth in Section V of this paper?
In order to place the complex events surrounding this most
extensive case in proper perspective, this paper includes a summary of
past audits of the investigation and an appendix designed to provide ready
' reference to data relating to Watergate matters.
_4_1! General Investigative Division's instructions brief summary!
Y
A £3
fl
1
In
ev-
E
92
fans.
3
1
1
- i
i-"-- I 3
111. Pasvious AUDITS AND 1i~zs1=1Ecf1j10N REVIEWS
From the outset of the Watergate investigation these cases
have received the highest priority or supervision and direction, both in the
Field and at the Headquarters level. Initial instructions to various field 7
offices involved were transmitted telephonically by FBIHQ supervisors.
These instructions were to give this case immediate priority attention
A "Personal Attention" airtei
under the personal supervision of in
was sent from Headquarters on June 20, 1972, to all field offices having
outstanding leads. This airtel stated in part as follows:
"This will confirm instructions to appropriate offices that
all logical investigation is to receive immediate attention
under the personal direction of SACS by as rnany SAs as
are needed to insure absolute, thorough, immediate,
imaginative investigation is conducted in this case. Allleads are to be set out by telephone or teletype as appro-
priate. Bureau is to be aware of all leads. "
Throughout this investigation there has been very close
"1
violations of election laws have been supervised by the Civil Rights Section
and the operation of the "P1umbers"2 and Daniel Ellsberg matters have
been supervised by the Intelligence Division. In August, 1973, a Watergate
Special Matters Unit was established within the Accounting and Fraud
Section to afford intensive Headquarters review and coordination of
Watergate investigative matters and to handle liaison with the Special
Prosecutor's Office.
In addition to the intensive supervision that these cases
have been given by SACs in the Field and by Headquarters supervisors
and officials they have also been subjected to close review by the
Inspection Division. During the inspection of WFO, March 8-27, 1973,
the Watergate investigations were reviewed. No errors of substance
were detected and no formal suggestions were rendered by the Inspection .
Staff. During the inspection of the General Investigative Division,
July 30 - August 10, 1973, Watergate investigative matters and the
Headquarter's supervision and coordination of these matters were closely
reviewed. The inspection determined that the investigations were being
vigorously and properly pursued, and were being afforded maximum
direction and control. No errors of substance were detected or formal
investigative suggestions rendered. 3
On May 22, 1973, former Acting Director William D.
Ruckelshaus instructed that an analysis of allegations concerning the
-5-
£39.
.-v.
@Wu
®
G
1:ii _ ;
possible involvement by former Acting Director L. Patrick Gray I11 in
actions to cover up, impede, or delay the Bureau's Watergate investigation
be undertaken. 4 The Inspection Division was assigned this task with the
assistance of the Office of Legal Counsel.
On May 23, 1973, Mr. Carl Eardley, Executive Assistant
to then Acting Director Ruckelshaus, who had been given the responsibility
of conducting a thorough analysis of the Bureau's Watergate investigations,
posed a series of thirty questions to Bureau officials concerning the initial
handling of the case and the related activities of Mr. Gray. 5 Based upon
this series of questions the Inspection Division separated its inquiry into
two distinct phases as follows:
A. Publicized Allegations Concerning Former Acting
Director L. Patrick Gray HI.
J
B. Pertinent Events at Initial Stages of Case and
Questions Relative Thereto Posed by Mr. Eardley.
Mr. Eardley's questions were primarily based upon an
inzformal log relating to the Watergate case maintained by then Assistant
Director Bates. This log recorded events relating to the Watergate
investigation involving Mr. Bates from June 21, 1972, to July 6, 1972.
The Inspection Division coordinated the preparation of responses to A
Mr. Eardleys questions and furnished the facts to Acting Director
Ruckelshaus by letterhead memorandum dated June '7, 1973. 6 This
document which is captioned "Watergate Events at Initial Stage of
Case" was furnished to the Special Prosecutor's Office on June 7, 1973,
1R:
3
-.-
lV
var
-' H '1~ 4
3
%"1 3
The Inspection Division completed its analysis of the
activities of former Acting Director Gray on J1me 26, 1973. Ten specific
allegations were addressed in the analysis set forth in a memorandum
which is twelve pages in length. The most significant aspect of the
Inspection staif's analysis appears to be the following observations:
"In considering possible impediments to obtaining the
full facts of the Watergate case the furnishing of numerous
FBI reports and other communications by Gray to Dean must
be considered. . . It is true there is no evidence in the les
indicating this action by Gray impeded our investigation from
an investigator's standpoint. Access by Dean to our investi-
gation would logically indicate to him what information had
been developed and which would enable him to work out strategy
to cover up the case. Likewise, the destruction by Gray of
documents apparently furnished him from Hunt's safe would
have impeded the investigation although this cannot be stated
A 92
positively since we do not know what specific material he
destroyed, ii any."7
c On April 10, 1974, the Inspection Division's analysis of
iv Mr. Gray's activities relating to the Watergate investigation were
fiii the Special Prosecutor-s Office along with 32 other Bureau
F
"L.,_.
P9
la;
e
:5?
' 15
-I-.._
{fl ,
. {Ti -'
".
.92"3 '3
documents. 3 These documents were furnished to the Special Pro-
secutor's Office based upon a formal request received March 19, 1974,
for copies of memoranda prepared during 1973 dealing with possible
violations of law by L. Patrick Gray III.
.5?"
s
-9- 2
5?
w
.£
'-»92
?=
2
¢
t
5.
i.1.
x gs
®IV. AREAS OF CRITICISM AND COMMENTS '
1. Allowing John Dean to sit in on interviews of White House
personnel; submitting copies and/or reports of the FBI investigative
results to Dean, and clearing proposed investigative activity through
Dean.
Q_ lh_{IMENTS:_ On June 19, 1972, WFO by teletype requested authority to
interview Charles W. Colson since information had been developed that
Hunt had worked for Colson at the White House. On June 22, I972,
Mr. Gray telephonically authorized then Assistant Director Bates to
have WFO contact John Dean to set up interview with Colson. Dean sub- . -.
sequently indicated he would sit in on interviews of White House personnel
and all requests for investigation at the White House had to be cleared
through him.
Criticism of FBI interviews in the presence oi Dean and
clearing proposed investigative activities through him is justified.
However, there appeared no alternative to WFO and to the Accounting »
and Fraud Section to following this procedure since the decision concerning
this apparently had been made between Mr. Gray and Dean, and neither l
Bureau supervisors nor field agents were in a position to overrule
decisions of the Acting Director. _
With respect to the submitting of copies of FBI reports
to Dean, this is probably the most serious blunder from an investigative
-10-
-1-we
1
5
92
atbi
L
5
kl-
92
1 z.92.4.-
T@5
fit
»-. ,5 ,
1-.
. iin-
"75*:V ._4
an
¢.J
-¢I.
5
I1 .92A
5,- ..
itt
r
¢~
F< .
:_'.
n
i
J4
I
éq
:5
I,
.- .
w
: '- .' '.',_ =.._3;. ii
. _ _ . _ - -_ 4- --- .standpoint made by Mr. uray. The facts concerning this development up
became known outside Mr. Gray's staff for the first time on 'Febriiary 5 ,
1973. This is long after the substantive investigation into the Democratic
National Committee Headquarters DNCH! break-in was completed and,_
in fact, was alter the trial or those originally implicated was completed.
While Dean's role as the master manipulator of the cover up was unknown
and, in fact, the cover up itself was unknown during the investigation,
obviously the furnishing to Dean by Mr. Gray of our reports allowed '
Dean the total opportunity to plan a conrse of action to thwart the FBis
investigation and grand jury inquiry. There was no way that FBI
personnel could have avoided this situation since it was unknown that
Mr. Gray was furnishing the reports to Dean.
TL ....__£.....-=2.-.5-.1 I4-.1--_.92_ 3-A I.-.1 1JI92.!ICQIl92d92Al I-EA-H In 311!: pl J.l1L.I.l.Id.1 icaauu LU m-: u::¢u. ncu 1l.Ul!l S lii . rarely
should we conduct interviews in the presence of an attorney and never
should we allow the same attorney to sit in on all interviews relative to
a certain situation. Further, FBI reports should be disseminated only J
¢"i1
uuuaannagu-]-Aqg 4-u--4-I 4-gl92qn_I92_n:--1-nr nnvvaqn I-A LA 1 J92 Asian VEJl.|JD:92192l92¢92Jl. Clll-Kl LUZ |'-G-Ill]-J 11!:-'Vt:1 I-U Ll C .l192Jl-IDCQn
4-
'.- 5'91
- ?T.¥&*§é?;*
i
>. , f=,=I'?»;
%
ww-"'7
2. Failure to interview all Committee to Re-Elect the
President CRP! employees re Watergate; delay in reviewing CRP
les; CRP attorneys sitting in on FBI interview of CRP employees,
and CRP attorneys having access to FBI file material. McCord
states that ii FBI had interviewed Robert Reisner, Magruder's assistant
at CRP, the "Gemstone" le and Mitchell's role in the DNC wire-
tapping would have been uncovered. 1°
COMMENTS: There was no apparent reason to interview all the
several hundred employees for CRP and such a shotgun approach to
the investigation was never considered by WFO or by the Bureau.
Rather, since we had definite leads to CRP in view of the arrest of
McCord, our investigation proceeded upon logical lines. Specically,
we initially concentrated on identifying McCord's associates at the
security end of CRP. We were endeavoring to determine whether
others at CRP were involved in the conspiracy. We tried to determine
who hired McCord; what finances were made available to him; and who
worked with him. '
e We also concentrated on endeavoring to develop any
tie-ins between Hunt and CRP since information was developed at the
White House that a memorandum had been written by Richard Howard
to Bruce Kehrli recommending that Hunt be dropped at the White House
and picked up at 1701 the address of CRP Headquarters was 1701
-13-
,, 4. . V.
I1<3?=.
.i-71
Q1!it as
=2
1
4
92
it
* .
r *"Q-14
.,_ 1,!if;
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW!. We also sought through interviews at CRP
to obtain similar-type information concerning Alfred Baldwin.
We also conducted interviews at CRP concerning the
financing of the DNCH break-in in view of the information developed
by Miami on June 22, 1972, relative to the $89, 000 in Mexican bank
drafts and the $25, 000 cashier's check of Dahlberg. We conducted
additional intensive interviews of CRP personnel concerning Liddy who
was identied as a contact of the Watergate burglars when we got hold of
Barker's and Martinez address books from the Metropolitan Police
Department on June 23, 1972. Those address books contained the name
George, beside which was the number we determined to be used by
Liddy at CRP.
In all, we conducted about 60 interviews of CRP people
including interviews of several of them more than one time. Oi this
number, several obviously lied to us, most notably John Mitchell,
J eb Magruder, Bart Porter, Sally Harmony and Maurice Stans. Hugh
Sloan never permitted us to interview him but finally permitted an
interview of him by the AUSAs after Sloan's attorney held discussions
prior thereto with the AUSAs. Sloan, over national television before
the Ervin Committee, said the FBI never interviewed him about the
Watergate matter, which is true, although he incorrectly made it
appear we did not desire or try to interview him.!
-13-
Ii
2-e ,~-
.11.r ,, ,.. z'luf;..
an »-21,.
]_,__ .92.
|.
;.é.
J .
m
1
o
1'.
92'.5.n
41
-- - 221;?
a
.21.8.
I
§
t P
1.at
1..
7'0
4-_.
a
, ea
F
1-,_
E
9£7
JI
1
W
Iv
92.-P.
§ .On no less than seven occasions during the period June 19-
29, 1972, did the investigating agents request records and documentation
from Robert C. Odle, Jr. , Director of Administration for CRP; Judy
Hoback, Accounting Department, Finance CRP; and Robert L. Houston,
Security Coordinator, CRP, concerning McCords employment; payroll
records for individuals employed by McCord; an inventory of McCord's
electronic equipment and copies of supporting invoices; copies of all
disbursements from CRP to McCord and McCords Associates during the
period November 15, 1971 to Jime 19, 1972; the identities of the personnel
employed by McCord who would have worked at CRP; and records con-
cerning Alfred C. Baldwin III.
The investigation developed that there were two situations
in which CRP files apparently were destroyed. All our investigation
was reported to and discussed with the AUSAs; was the subject of lengthy
Federal grand jury inquiry; but the evidence was not sufficient to warrant
OOJ indictments. -
Finance records such as ledgers and records regarding
contributors were destroyed about April 6, 1972, prior to the date on
which the new regulations relative to disclosure of the names of con-_
tributors and the expenditure of funds wentiinto effect on April 7, 1972.
Second, there apparently was destruction of material having to do with
Liddy's intelligence gathering operation. Herbert Porter on July 19, 1972
advised he threw away receipts Liddy gave for the money that Porter re-
-15..
9 92 ... ..... H- .,,. ,.. , _ .,__,,..._, vim HM..- _ _ _ _
_~_- i_' __ __, : , v_:___~, _ '_ ,;._.;~.v=-.-1-',¢,|-4; v -. ' ~ ;:~i--e.-it-.»+»-he-Q w*=.»;?"@~:1"?_~§f& .i ~re=':"~"5Is.J§ 1'?"- ,1,- , - J-----_~,_,-.,-. -v 5.1! - ' _.- " .' ,_ -9- ~ ,---»<-.-. =, ~ I-A -~1~ ~ ,»- - . - -'~ »-é$'§'92-.., -.. - '§§-*-hi -we -*
_ _,;392;?:l~_'I .» ~".f-i'-5r _ "_:?'.',_*._-1.-.-1F~,=.'92tg-1;-_-1.5»>'--;a"*§»<;<T§.='*§I¢F -; 2=.:.e<i'., ;_ $3: .,g._92,>§-"§..,. K"~=- --="--:-.-l;1.s'.=e =, - '*~=-' .», '- =1:-:-.~'-_ ..";;'.'.;=2-,*_;,f_;j ,,. , . . '1'-"3" ii-=3 - a.. '-= .' -»-<;~:ig* -"-' ; er- 1t$»15§§5 §dF
5"" n =-a . ". . K - ~ ~~ "-* "1 --.. . ~ i-- ' ' - ' =.' 52- ' l» wk, _-,- - _ , _,_. '- _ c,-.". ~ -
' . E - l .' ' " .-=I'?',.°" .§¢~ -F". ' .-,4-' 7. ""~ A .- ,'~ ' -' " ' ""*>"»?'-".7~"3-ii - r¬.",i-"- . rt wt. -.1 92.>'_ .7 1'» §.nT,~:j¢-. -.,=_ci nn 1* L EBA! I-ml: :' u .*'* r'**7 9 VI. ll? '_- "11-'=' '_~- 4;.-i. . -'1-3. '~é. ; 1- .51;.~ ' ' 1 - '.-' I ' 1: ..-F1. -"' - - - '2: ,-,-Fay :§'---"7.',-=h,"='-' r;.¢;.-e§,>'-1./1 '
shredder on June 1'7, 1972, after the arrest at the waterL_ '7
Sam was In .3-4!.
overhearmgs of the conversations on Spencer Oliverfs te1eph0p§l:"-
hm A A ma 1'
Y
Z
FJ
ii
i
1
E
1
i
I
E
¥3 .1
On July 18, 1972, Judith Hoback, then Assistant to the
Treasurer of the Finance CRP, advised us that about five ledger books
used to record cash were destroyed prior to April 7, 1972. Also, all
bank accounts of the Finance CRP were closed on April 6, 1972, and
all pertinent records destroyed. Mrs. Hoback also told us that she heard
from unrecalled persons at the office that Liddy was shredding office
papers on the day of the burglary. She said she believed all lists of
contributors were destroyed prior to April 7, 1972. We pursued this
shredding angle but could never develop firsthand information.
On June 30, 1972, Stephen Anderson, a security guard at
CRP, was interviewed in the presence of CRP attorney H. Donald Kistler.
He furnished only negligible information at the time but late in the day on
June 30, 1972, he telephoned WFO and requested to speak to the agents
who had previously interviewed him. He told us that on the evening of
June 16, 1972, McCord stayed at the CRP office much later than usual
and instructed Anderson to get a key for each desk, file cabinet and office
on the second floor of CRP the Finance CRP floor!. McCord told him
the Finance CRP had some papers which they had ordered to be
destroyed and the desks and cabinets would have to be checked to
verify this destruction. Anderson assembled the keys and placed them on
top of a file cabinet with written instructions as to what was to be done
with the keys. Anderson also advised that Penny Gleason told him that
on June 18, 1972, she observed Robert Houston going through file cabinets
i
.
1
A
1
S
III
Jt25
-at
-tI1
papers. However, Houston denied such actions to us.
With respect to the CRP attorneys sitting in on our inter-
ez-1¬'|l--.1-. .-'|- :---=.:92----l-e ----92-92 :--1-92 1--J-'-----1-quarters, BUCII dl ldI1§BlIlBIll.b WUIU mauu UCLWBUI
attorney Kenneth Parkinson, USA Titus and AUSA Silbert. Parkinson
represented to these men that he would like to sit in on the interviews
in view of the fact that CRP was the defendant in the civil damage suit
.. . . . _ i l92 1- A
-qnnqwen I15 KT;-92l»q;92-Q-I I-panama-I-J-AA an anlll[92:ld-Ll L-d--l92.Illd.l 92.»Ul.l.l.l.|.!.192.LCI:- § d.l
!~
L
|
E
,..* "-It!
that the attorney not be present, A total of 61 employees at DNCH were
interviewed in the presence of an attorney.
Although we did not make available any FBI material to
CRP attorneys, apparently Dean allowed Mardian, Parkinson and Paul
O'Brien CRP counsel! to review some of the reports which Mr. Gray
furnished to Dean. This subversion of our investigation was not known
to the Bureau but Dean testified in the Summer of 1973 to this before the
Ervin Committee.
5'
E
l
§
r-.
i
E
1
:
1
I
r
2.
i
i92;_
I
l
l
i
E
ii141;.
§
I-'
..at
"03. Delay and/or failure to obtain access to and account for
contents of Howard Htmt's desk and safe at the White House.
COMMENTS: On June 1'7, 1972 Hunt's probable involvement in the
Watergate incident came to WFO's attention because of his country club
bill found in the Watergate Hotel and because of information contained
in Barker's address book. WFO, about 6:00-7:00 pm, June 1'7, 1972,
contacted Buttereld of the White House and learned that Hunt had pre-
viously worked as a consultant to the White House. Butterfield was
told Hunt may be involved in the DNCH burglary. On June 18, 1972,
Butterfield recontacted WFO and advised that Hunt had worked for '
Charles Colson, Special Counsel to the President.
On June 19, 1972, SA Saunders reviewed Hunt's personnel
file at the White House and also called White House number 456-2282
which number was contained in Barker's address book!, asked to speak
to Mr. Hunt and was informed that he had not come to his office that
day. On the afternoon of June 19, 1972, WFO by teletype requested
Bureau authority to interview Colson. On June 22, 1972, upon Mr. Gray's
instructions, then Assistant Director Bates, at about 10:25 am, authorized
SAC Kunkel to have agents contact Dean to discuss an interview with
Coison and discuss obtaining of telephone toll call records involving Hunt
at the White House. Thereaiter, SA Saunders contacted Dean to set up
interview of Colson which was conducted on the afternoon of June 22, 1972,
in Dean's office with Dean present.
-20-
'7 -. - 1 _,, ..A
:
F
fa. .During the interview when Colson said that he believed
Hunt had worked on the third floor of the building, SA Lano asked Dean if
the agents could accompany Dean to Hunt's office on the third floor to
determine if Hunt may have left anything there. Dean stated that this was
the first he was aware of this office. In response to an Agent's request
to examine the office, Dean advised the White House would provide the
FBI with any contents belonging to Hunt. On the morning of June 26,
1972, Dean called SA Lano and advised he had something to turn over to
the FBI. SAs Mahan and Michael J. King were then sent to Dean's
office. At approximately 11:00 am, Dean gave these agents a box con-
taining some of Hunt's effects and between 4:00 and 4:30 pm, June 26,
1972, Dean's assistant, Fred Fielding, gave same agents a second box
of Hunt's effects.
It is not apparent from the foregoing that there is any
validity to criticism of Bureau agents for delay in obtaining access to
Hunt's space at the White House. The Accounting and Fraud Section
cannot explain why the interview of Colson, which was recommended
June 19, 1972, was not approved by Mr. Gray until June 22, 1972. As
soon as his approval was obtained, immediate steps were taken to inter-
view Colson. As set out above, Dean thwarted our efforts to gain access
to Hunt's office at the White House.
-21..
.__'. .. .',__-...._... " " ' "1... ...._.____- .. ._ . § ~+
F
Y
S
Fr
Q
i
E
?
k
F/.*>_
. #1,,r -.-'- .-.5-1. i.-The possibility of obtaining a search warrant for Hunt's
office at the White House and the fact that we did not have the necessary
probable cause is discussed later under Item #6.
-32-
.:"~
.22-
P-w.
: '.-4|.1" - ei- !n as
4. Failure to fully explore all possible ramifications of
Watergate matter with subjects, suspects and potential material witnesses. 12
COMMENTS: This criticism is absolutely false and has no basis in
fact. To the contrary, our agents were in fact very thorough in exploring
all aspects with every possible subject, suspect and witness. It is an
absolute fact that we conducted thousands of interviews and tracked down
and interviewed all the people who were indicated to have been in contact
with the subjects. Not one of the subjects of the investigation would talk
to our agents and none of them would cooperate with the AUSAs or testify
before the Federal grand jury despite very substantial efforts which were
made to endeavor to secure cooperation and the full story. This included
an unsuccessful effort to immunize Gonzalez who was considered to be
the likely best prospect for immunity! and at least two efforts by Silbert
to give McCord a deal in exchange for his cooperation.
There is absolutely no question that the conspiracy in this
case was broken only when the time came when some of those inside the
conspiracy, specifically McCord, Dean and Magruder, came to feel that
it was to their better self-interest to tell their stories. An investigation
succeeds in discovering the total truth only when investigators have the
opportunity to interview different suspects thoroughly, to compare the
information obtained and exploit differences in stories obtained. We
were prevented from making any benefit from this necessary investigative
_g3_
__, L__~ ' ' _ - -n-»_.»,.¢.
:1
>
i
E
I
92
1
1
{.
4
11'
e.
,
iP
I
.~
ru
F 2
5»92 .Li:92
AH;
<>-;'-JW
technique by the fact that all of those involved who would talk lied and kept
their stories straight and together. Since Dean was kept completely
informed of our investigation by ivir. Gray and apparently to some ex-tent
by Assistant Attorney General Petersen, there was no possibility that we
could get a break.
As a matter of fact the testimony of former Attorney
Gener" A - * " * "re the Ervin Committee on J" " "'
2
i
e
i
2
P
r
i
A
l-
I
-r
1!
2r1.70"? ?
5. Delay or failure to interview several individuals re
monies and/ or checks found in possession of defendants or having been
deposited to their bank accounts. 13
COMMENTS: At the time of the subjects arrests 0nJune 1'7, 1972,
and subsequent search of their hotel rooms at the Watergate Hotel,
Washington, D. C. , 44 new one hundred dollar bills were found, some
of which were sequentially numbered. It was determined from the Bureau
of Engraving and Printing on June 19, 1972, that the Prefix F bills were
distributed to the Miami Branch, Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank FRB!,
and the Prefix C bills were distributed to the FRB, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, during early February, 1972. On June 20, 1972, records
of FRB, Miami, disclosed the foregoing one hundred dollar bills were
part of a $50, 000 shipment on April 18, 1972, to the Republic National
Bank, Miami, at which bank Bernard L. Barker maintained a business
account. A review on June 21 and June 22, 1972, of this account showed
that Barker, on April 20., 1972, deposited four drafts totaling $89, 000
drawn on the Banco lnternacional, Mexico City, Mexico, all payable to
t
2
1.
F
i
E
F
t
E
E
325%;
3' :92,. =>It was also developed that on April 20, 1972 Barker had
presented a cashier's check dated April 10, 1972, payable to Kenneth
Dahlberg, drawn on the First Bank and Trust Company of Boca Baton,
Florida, for which Barker received cash. Investigation showed Dahlberg
to be a prominent Minneapolis businessman and fund raiser for CRP.
Efforts to interview Dahlberg initially on Jime 22, June 23, June 24, and
June 26, 1972, were unsuccessful as he evaded our agents and finally on
June 26, 1972, declined interview on the basis of his counsel's advice.
Mr. Helms, then Director of CIA, on June 28, 1972,
allegedly informed Mr. Gray orally that It regordeq cont;-*6
I
Z
if -1-1
. 7- _
.'-?92_ ~1'-='1
1staying in Southeast Florida prior to and during early April
however, in August, 1972, Dahlberg changed his story and admitted the
contribution was in fact that of Dwayne Andreas, a prominent businessman
who wished to make an anonymous contribution.
7 4_4i
. However, in Mr. Fe1ts memorandum of June 29, 1972, J
$-
if.
E
¢
I
iE
92§
:= r . :-wt'3
and has had no interest in Kenneth Dahlberg since 1961. With Mr. Gray's
The criticism concerning the delay in interviewing Dahlberg "
and Ogarrio is valid only if leveled against Mr. Gray, assuming he was
aware on June 27, 1972, that no restrictions by CIA were placed on our
interviews of Dahlberg and Ogarrio. The criticism of Mr. Gray might not .
be valid if he had been misled by CIA or someone else such as Dean or
Ehrlichman, especially since during the early stages of this investigation
there were very real indications that the FBI's investigation may be leading
into a CIA operation with respect to the money or the burglary of DNCH
itself; however, we did not develop solid evidence as the investigation
progressed to indicate that CIA was involved in the planning or execution
of the Watergate break-in. In any event, the criticism is not valid if
leveled against the execution of investigative responsibility by the _
Accounting and Fraud Section or the Field.
-23-
E
Ehi?
5;|92-_-Tgt
6. Failure to obtain and execute search warrants for
search of original five subjects homes, offices and automobiles. 14
COMMENTS: This particular criticism has received widespared publicity
irom four principal sources, each of which should know better. Probably
the primary criticism has been directed to us by NBC broadcaster Carl
Stern who provided "expert legal opinion" during the nationally televised
Ervin Committee hearings, closely followed by McCord and Senators
Hart and Ervin of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The fact is that con-
siderable consideration was given to obtaining search warrants and in
each instance in which we could meet the constitutional requirements
of the Fourth Amendment, search warrants were obtained. It should be
common knowledge of individuals having legal training and that includes
Stern, McCord and Senators Hart and Ervin, that probable cause for the
issuance of a search warrant specically includes: 1! That there is
knowledge which can be testified to before a Magistrate that there is present
at a certain location, evidence, fruits or instrumentalities of a crime; and
2! Information must be recent and must be corroborated. Mere suspicion
is pnotiprobable cause .
It was the opinion of AUSA Silbert in the Summer of 1972,
which continues to the present as he stated in his testimony before the
Senate Judiciary Committee on April 23, 1974, that there was not probable
-39-
92
I
E
1
E
E
¥
t
ii.
F1r....__ 3,1"
cause to sustain a search warrant for McCord's home or office. WFO did
conduct extensive investigation, including interviews of McCord's neighbor
to endeavor to develop evidence that anyone had seen electronic equipment
or McCord's truck at his home shortly after the arrest but this investi-
gation did not bear fruit. The first positive evidence we developed that
bugging equipment had been taken to McCord's home after the arrest was
obtained on July 10, 1972, from Alfred Baldwin. Since this was 23 days
after the date that Baldwin drove McCords truck with equipment to
McCord's home, it was Si1berts opinion that too much time had elapsed
to permit the obtaining of a search warrant then. The lack of probable
cause also kept us from obtaining search warrants for Hunt's home and
offices as well as the homes and offices of the other defendants.
It is interesting to note that search warrants were
obtained by the Metropolitan Police Department, with FBI assistance,
for two rooms at the Watergate Hotel occupied by the subjects the night of
the arrests, which rooms were searched on June 1'7, 1972, An automobile
rented in Washington, D. C. , by the subjects was also searched pursuant
to a search warrant. In addition, when information was obtained on
June 21, 1972 from an informant in Miami that Martinez had a car parked
at the Miami Airport which was reported to contain a. gun and other evidence
Miami obtained a search warrant for this car and the car was searched.
Based on the foregoing, it appears this criticism is totally
without merit.
92
I
E
S
e
14S.-
K»-.1.
was
."»~>s1 a
_ __.:AMo
7. Failure to identify and interview all persons listed in the
address books, notebooks, et cetera, which were seized and determined
to be the property of the seven original subjects. 15
COMMENTS: The Barker and Martinez address books were seized by
the Metropolitan Police Department as a result of the search of the two rooms
at the Watergate Hotel, occupied by the arrested subjects on June 1'7, 1972.
The search Warrants which legally authorized search of these two rooms
were obtained by Metropolitan Police Department officers and the items
seized were taken by the police officers.
About June 23, 1972, SA Lano, through contact with
the Metropolitan Police Department officers, obtained access to the
Barker and Martinez address books for investigative use and the books
themselves were returned to the Metropolitan Police Department. On
June 26, 1972, AUSA Silbert requested the FBI to take possession of the
evidence seized including the books which were officially turned over to
WFO by the Metropolitan Police Department on June 28, 1972.
By airtel dated June 23, 1972, to Miami, WFO forwarded
two photographic copies of each of these address books for investigative
assistance of Miami and instructed Miami to review both books and conduct
appropriate investigation regarding the information set forth in the books.
WFO had already extracted information from the books concerning names,
addresses and telephone numbers in the Washington, D. C. , Maryland and
=
it
:
it
E,vi
it
C
an
Ki?
i
i
|
1P ..¢.r";_..!
Virginia areas and conducted investigation concerning each of these
_ notations and all persons interviewed. In January, 1973, during the trial
I92
._.. 1.1.. .. a.I116 uiul.
._ __.:_=.__1 ..,..--..... .'|..:..__.|,._a.... :4. ..-,...., 1...,..,_.....| :Urlglllal DEV CI]. JU1¬Ill.ld.lI.|-5, 1|. Wdb 192.7d.1ll.U92-l 1
Miami had not interviewed each individual in these books who was from
South Florida.
Upon inquiry by FBI]-IQ in January, 1973, the Miami
V I92!92lI 'Dnn'lr4an'n I'l4;A9292I'92.l!92|.'I "92I92r92I.ra-ll Dd-I. $1 5 a92.rl92.|.1 CD5 I-92¢|'92IL§
f'92¢-I-=4 Q-H-I-,8;-H-t.-I {Ln} an 1-AA an I.92JJ.lI.bU lil.92.I.V'I.§C92-l I-ll.l, GB DUUII G-D J-
were received from WFO, the books were examined by Miami Special
r
a
E
i
l
h
it
E
t
if-1- - I --and which was focused on tying hunt and Lindy into the conspiracy. it
would have been much better had Miami later contacted all of the individuals
in these books not previously interviewed, in the interest of total com-
pleteness of the investigation. However, interestingly enough, the judgment
'afni Special Agents who reviewed these books and selected targets
for interviews proved to be good since the contacts of those individuals
whom we had not interviewed, by the press, did not bring to light any
additional information. Considerable consideration was given in J anuary,
-. .. 1..,..--:__.. 1.1.- :__ _'|:--:.:__,.1..._ _..:. ,.1....,._1-- :...a..._..,..-:..---.-..1 _.__a.,.- ...lld.V1I1g U115 ]..C11V.l. .lLld.1b HUI. d.i.lb'd. .I_Y .LllLl:'1 V11:-'WUI.1, CUll.LdU
by Miami. This proposal was not accepted by Mr. Gray, and probably
rightfully so, on the premise that had we conducted these interviews
during the trial, there no doubt would have been sensational press stories
It
'F
é
H
I
P
t
F.,3
8. Alleged failure to detect and remove "bug" from the
telephone of Spencer Oliver in the Democratic National Committee
Headquarters. McCord states that he installed two electronic devices
on telephones in the DNC that were not detected or removed by the
Bureau, the first was removed in September of 1972 and the second
was not removed imtil April of 1973. 16
COMMENTS: The Bureau has been criticized a number of times pre-
viously concerning this matter, most strenuously in September, 1972,
when AUSA Silbert forwarded a memorandum dated September 28, 1972,
to Assistant Attorney General Petersen in which he atly stated that he
believed the Bureau "goofed" in its security survey of DNCH shortly after
the Watergate break-in. Mr. Silbert set forth five reasons which led him
to believe this and the Laboratory personnel who had conducted the
security check analyzed these reasons point by point and rejected the
validity of same. The principal points made by the Laboratory were
that a thorough physical search had been conducted by Bureau personnel
of DNCH, the bug located September 13, 1972, on Oliver's telephone was
so large that it could not have been missed had it been on 0livers tele-
phone in June, 1972, and that physical security of DNCH space was such
as to make access for the installation of the device relatively easy.
There follows a brief discussion of the matter of security
survey of DNCH. On June 19, 1972, Mr. Felt held a discussion with the
Q
@
? 't92
.¬-T :-
3, .Attorney General concerning the investigation and it was agreed that a
sweep of DNCH was a logical investigative step. However, the Attorney
General suggested that in view of the sensitive nature of this case,
Mr. Gray might want to personally contact Democratic Chairman
O'Brien to suggest this.
On June 21, 1972, Mr. Felt sent a note to Mr. Gray
suggesting that the security sweep be implemented at once. Ivir. Gray
instructed that this be held off at that time but on the morning of June 22,
1972, he authorized then Assistant Director Bates to contact Chairman
O'Brien of DNCH to offer to conduct an electronic sweep. Arrangements
.l__. 1.I_:_ _._____._ ______ ___-__!:___.l._ __ ____1._--__ ____I
ID! U115 SWEEP W¬IB CUOI'Q1I13.iI8 ratory H.110
1
I
1
M
I
1.-
t
@listening device, which had not worked, in a telephone located at DNCH
_ .
in a room adjacent to the office occupied by Oliver. Based on this
J.__L2___ __-__ -_- I __--Q l92
testimony, on April s
FBi Laboratory personnel conducted
another check of all telephones located in the DNCH offices and no
listening device was located.
This testimony by McCord caused further inquiry into
.. .....,..u..... ...: -.-:..,..4...... .:,.--:_..... ..i I'92_ l...__llld-I-I-CI U1 -VVJ.1'CL'¢l.l-I UCVIUUD dl -IJ uu npr
=
1
i
F
-
1L?La $-_¢.27
vs?Q! :1!
1
It .T
»»
4%
W73
. .f92 1Tl__:1____ L __.______._L1__ _uU. Ii:l.1.I.92lI'U to promptly a
n roughly investigate aiieged
election law violations by Segretti and others associated with CRP or
Q II.-mg-C l'lUUbC-
' F COMMENTS: Information concerning Donald Henry Segretti came to
our attention on June 22, 1972, during the early stages of the Watergate
investigation when the thrust of the FBI's efforts was logically concentrated
- on the original seven defendants. We interviewed Segretti who was not
cooperative in furnishing useful information. Thereafter we conducted
extensive investigation to try to determine his possible involvement in the
DNCH break-in conspiracy. When it became obvious that Segretti was
not a part of that conspiracy but rather was only involved in campaign
"dirty tricks," a possible but unlikely Election Laws matter, we ceased
investigating him with AUSA Silbert's concurrence.
The long-standing Department policy regarding Election
Laws is that allegations of violations are referred to the Department of
U-
F
V.4%
I?When massive newspaper publicity about Segrettis
activities began in the second week of October, 1972, principally in the
l _ __ _ 4-1 _ ...___ n_ _ _ _ 7 _i_i_ 7
form of articles written by "The Washington Post reporters Bernstein
a.nd Woodward, the Acting Director instructed then Legal Counsel
Assistant Director Dalbey to review the newspaper stories and the
analysis of same which had been made by the General Investigative
Division
_ _ __ _- _ Q_n92_ r92_ _11- _ u 0 0 an A-In 1 1IIIl1Il¬ wnetner negretu was Ill V10l.3.lIl0ll or l"8Cl8I3.1
law. Mr. Dalbey was of the opinion that the information available was
L _ _ _ . _ ~ _ a_:.E:_ 1... ___J. _._.___LJ.: :._ __:_1_J.:_._ _£ _a__ 'I!|_l!_i-_1 1_," _aaa__i1
LUU IIUIISPUUILIC LU PHI. DBgI'Bl.I.1 H1 VIOIHLIUD. OI any I eueral law QXCBPI
possibly Election Laws matters.
_ -1 J'92 -n 1-_ _ J92 5-. -l._ -... 2Q. :-
n-
is
L
1
as
I-taV ! J
This criticism of the FBI is not justified as we performed
in accordance with established practice. The fact that the Special
Prosecutor's Office, when it was established, decided to have us pursue
Segretti's activities is not indicative of any prior dereliction on the part
of the FBI. We still conduct full investigation of possible Election Laws
violations only upon request of the Department or of the USA. FBH-IQ
clears such USA requests for fuii investigation through the Department
before the field is authorized to conduct same. ! It is interesting to note
that the exhaustive investigation of Segretti's "dirty tricks" activities
conducted pursuant to the Special Prosecutor's request, has not resulted
in any prosecutive activity. The prosecution of Segretti which has been
done grew out of a separate FBI investigation, conducted at the request
of the Criminal Division, months before the Special Prosecutor's Office
was established. "
-40-
9
:1.,$.
iii
r. .' .|
, ii}
¬
1
I
J
rm
ii
~1-
-92i
JWe,-
'7T¬~" .
E9!
41-. --- - .- ... - - 1 .- -92- - 4- I
1U. Alleged activities by iormer Acting uirector uray to
limit, contain or obstruct FBI investigation of Watergate matter. 18
COMMENTS: In general, since the outset of the Watergate investigation,
numerous public allegations have appeared suggesting the possibility that
the investigation was impeded by instructions given by Mr. Gray.
The major areas of criticism of alleged questionable
activities of Mr. Gray are as follows:
a. Delay in authorizing interviews of Charles Colson and David
Young at the White House and the interview of Kathleen Chenow, London,
England.
WFO by teletype June 19, 1972, requested authority to
interview Charles W. Colson as Hunt had worked for Colson at the
White House. A memorandum was prepared during the afternoon of
June 19, 1972, recommending this interview but this was not approved
by Mr. Gray until the morning of June 22, 1972. The reason for this
delay is not known. -
By teletype dated June 28, 1972, WFO requested_
. interview Kathleen Chenow, former secretary
to David Young Apparently at Mr. Gray's instructions,
this lead was not immediately covered but was held in abeyance because
of "national security considerations. " Mr. Gray later advised that Chenow
was being brought back to the United States in a military aircraft in company
_41_
E
92
E
-.>
~
ii
Iea
92§
W
of Fred Fielding, Dean's assistant. When interviewed July 3, 1972 P
in Dean's presence, she furnished little, if any, useful information.
It appears reason we had to wait to interview C-henow was
because Dean wanted to brief her beforehand.
By teletype June 29, 1972, WFO recommended immediate
interviews oi David Young at the White
I-191159; JQ1111 Mitghgll 111 New Ygrlgt g11d1 i
SAC, WFO, advised J92.ll'1¬ 30, 1972, that AUSA Silbert stated thatl -
tr
USA Titus felt there was some delay on the part of the FBI, referring
to the interviews of Young, Chenow and Ogarrio, and the receipt of '
copies oi reports. Thereafter, on the same date, Mr. Felt told Mr. Bates
that John Dean of the White House had said to hold off interview of Young
until Dean talks to Mr. Gray. Later that day Mr. Felt advised Mr. Bates _
that it was all right to interview Mitchell and Young and that Young would
be and was! made available at the White House on Monday, July 3, 1972.
.The reason for this delay is not known.
b. Delays in authorizing interviews in connection with the Dahlberg "*1
and Ogarrio checks which were funneled through Bernard Barker's bank
account in Miami, Florida.
On June 28, 1972, authority was granted_ to interview Manuel Ogarrio concerning the $89, 000 in
Cx-I 1-r
-e II"*1
.. . . . . . . .-. .
1:$¬tIK8I"S oanx account in Miami.
However, based on instructions from Mr. Gray, the §
interviews of Ogarrio and Kenneth Dahlberg were deferred due to
"national security considerations. " it is interesting to note c
John Dean testified before the Senate Select Committee that even though
CIA had cleared Ogarrio and Dahlberg for FBI interview, Dean called
Mr. Gray instructing that the interviews not be conducted at that time.
"arance for rrio ir " =
92 viewed Similarly, Dahlberg was sub-
/ sequently interviewed by the Minneapolis Office on July 6, 1972, based
A-Y
5.Acg:
standpoint, having Dean present at interviews undoubtedly had the effect
of limiting the furnishing of pertinent information to our agents. Although
eventually all the interviews the field desired to cover were handled with
the exception of the interview of a covert CIA employee as set out else-
where in this memorandum, delays were encountered in conducting some
pertinent interviews. The exact reasons for these delays and the effect
on the overall investigation are not known but have been the subject of
much speculation.
In considering the possible impediments to obtaining
the full facts of the Watergate case, the furnishing of numerous FBI
reports and other communications by Mr. Gray to Dean must be con-
sidered. The facts concerning this development first became known
February 5, 1973. Up to that time, apparently no one outside of
Mr. Gray's staff had any knowledge of what had transpired. There is
no evidence in the files indicating this action by Mr. Gray impeded
our investigation; however, it must be recognized that access by Dean
to our investigative reports would logically indicate to him what
information had been developed which would enable him to work out
strategy to cover up the case.
Similarly, Mr. Gray's concession to clear White House
investigation with Dean prior to it being conducted would give Dean time
to set the stage in order that the results of that investigation would be
more favorable to Dean's ultimate ends.
-44 ..
.-:- 1- 1 - t - - _-'--5. h e~._,,._ u,»-., -77., .1. ...,-..k_,,,¢-R-,_~, -~,_,, --~ u -. .~. | ._:_.5_._.__._._., . .. , . i. ... 1'
-=~-t
I
I
h
|.¢%T£3-'32
"I"G;
d. Acceptance from Dean of certain material allegedly taken from
Hunt's safe in the Executive Office Building, which Mr. Gray testified
he hm-ned.
We cannot state whether the destruction by Mr. Gray of
documents apparently furnished him from Hunt's safe would have impeded
our investigation as we do not know with certainty what material was
destroyed, if any. Although, admittedly, it is speculative, the acceptance
of this material from Dean in the fashion it was done and at a relatively
early date June 28, 1972! in the investigation, may very well have given
Dean even more control over Mr. Gray in future dealings.
e. Failure to pursue and investigate the political espionage and
sabotage activities allegedly planned by Segretti.
Concerning Mr. Gray's failure to pursue the Segretti
matter, this is discussed in Item #9 above and criticism of Mr. Gray
or the FBI in general in this regard does not appear to be justified.
By memorandum dated June 26, 1973, captioned "Watergate
Analysis of Possible Involvement by L. Patrick Gray," the above-cited
questionable areas were analyzed. Our response in part has been taken
from that memorandum. It appears that certain actions of Mr. Gray
may be construed as having impeded our investigation.
In conclusion, the investigating agents, supervisory
personnel and Bureau officials connected with the Watergate case were
-45-
. ...__ _ _D
'-i'*~»
»
wad
'-
i
~__!____1 _._ l.____ _.__-_-Z-___ I--. _l-I.-..__£._-92 1 4--- D92qlnzzeu on [WU UCl.IZ151Ull5 LU UCLCFIIIIIIU 1.1
they were not permitted to pursue. In all instances the answer was "no"
~,-..+
-.
4
,..
92.
5
513.: 2lI""2» .. ,3»' jfvl
Ti
I
._.,>,-
4.
4-.Q _
,..?.|':' F
411
v
G
5..
=1
l
@
..¢
.-
1:
r_,=..AW
ll. Alleged leaks of Watergate investigative results to news
media, Congress or other unauthorized parties by Bureau personnel. 19
COMMENTS: Allegations of leaks from the FBI concerning the Watergate
investigation began in the first week of our investigation and continue to
the present time. Although there has been much speculation concerning
the source of these leaks, hard facts pinning down these sources have
not as yet come to light. It is recalled that on Saturday, June 24, 1972,
Mr. Gray had SAC Kunkel and all the WFO Special Agents working on the
DNCH break-in into his office at which time he castigated the agents
severely concerning the alleged leaks of information. Newspaper stories
attributed to sources continued to erupt and during the following week,
at Mr. Gray's instructions, the Inspection staff interviewed 29 WFO
employees; seven General Investigative Division employees; six Laboratory
Division employees; and three Identification Division employees, with
ll II I II- I I Q I - - II -
negative results, in an effort to determine wnetner Bureau personnel
were responsible for these leaks.
In October, i972, "The Washington Post" reporters
Bernstein and Woodward wrote numerous articles dealing with Segretti's
activities. In connection with these articles, Bernstein attempted to
interview SA Angelo Lano, WFO case agent. SA Lano refused to offer
re é_|§_}}
L3 vi
source, he could furnish Lano with a "good clue. " Thereafter, with
the approval of then Assistant Director Bates, Lano met with Bernstein
on a street in Washington, D. C. , for the specic purpose of having
Bernstein identify his source. This effort proved unproductive and
SA Lano terminated the conversation. Later, on October 23, 1972,
Bernstein and Woodward were in the process of writing a somewhat
explosive story which raised the name of H. R. I-Ialdeman as being involved
in the so-called secret fund of cash maintained at CRP. Bernstein
telephonically contacted SA Lano late in the evening in an effort to get
confirmation of Haldeman's alleged involvement and SA Lano declined to
furnish Bernstein information. The following day, after this article was
printed, Bernstein and Woodward saw SA Lano in U. S. District Court
and in a somewhat agitated state, informed SA Lano they were under
pressure to identify their source and they would have to name SA Lano as
the source of the story involving l-laldeman. SA Lano categorically denied
this allegation to these reporters and on October 26, 1972, furnished the
Bureau a lengthy sworn affidavit outlining the whole matter. We wrote
the Attorney General a letter dated October 26, 1972, concerning this
matter. H
The matter of leaking information cannot be completely
dismissed when it comes to Congress. It is noted that in cormection
with his confirmation hearings, Mr. Gray on occasion instructed that
..48_
5'
i
Q
|,'
i
Ezn WQ
proposed questions and answers about various matters be prepared
which could be furnished to selected friendly Republican Senators. In
J-|.:.-. .....-...._._1 ......-..-,1-:.-.....-. --.|..: ...92. ..-...._.. ..-...,............:| _..-.1.-.1.:--.. 1.... 'r92....._..1.:| cl.-..-...,.-.u.:Lilli! regaru, LIUCDLLUIIS Wll.l.Ull WU]. C l.Jl'UPH.I'B I'll-1i:l.L1Vl'J LU l.J'Ulld.lU Dgl CLL1
as contained in a memorandum dated March 5, 1973, apparently were
furnished to Senator Gurney who asked Mr. Gray a number of questions
concerning the matter on the afternoon of March 7, 1973, before the
..92.
e
1.92-
1
A
:1
1'
.3
"5
F
é
L
Z
I
Q.»C;
'7?i_._ . Q.ii,If-.
.-.
1 ~
-1:.
i_
is
.1
11*
q;
~. g _.
cc;rs
_ l'I_ _ _'I 'I______1_ __A_I___ I"92I__ _ _ _ __I ___L LL LY-reports. The uenefai mvestigative uivisiorl pointed out unis pessime
leak had been pursued by the Inspection and Intelligence Divisions and
accordingly deferred a response to these respective Divisions.
In response, the Intelligence Division did do some
research in this matter, reviewing and comparing newspaper articles
with Bureau files. The results of this review were turned over to the
Inspection Division orally only!.
_ On July 23, 1973, Director Kelley advised Assistant
'I"92l...-.....4l.-- Tn-ALBA JIL l'92 QI92 - JJJ.l'l'.!IJI.Ul' ua.cum_-sun cI?iVu.-: ' ""' *6 -: ' mation iron; uii-Eu sp C1311
Prosecutor Archibald Cox to the effect that employees of his staff, during
the course of interview of a subject of the Watergate investigation,
namely Donald Segretti, had informed his people that John Crewdson,
I1 Ill92l92l92'I'l+Q ' _ 'Q LGPUI. L: "
J
4.
i
v
Y
E.1.
f.f
ii-Y
f&
92-$7A} 3
12. Failure to interview or inadequacy of interview with certain
White House officials Haldeman, Colson, Chapin, et cetera!.20
COMMENTS: In view of the extensive disclosures of the cover up of
the Watergate break-in, it is easy to see why an individual not know-
ledgeable of investigative procedures might think that the FBI's investi-
gation was inadequate since H. R. Haldeman was not interviewed.
However, the fact is that his name never arose as being an individual
who may have been involved in the break-in conspiracy or who would
have information. Accordingly, he was not interviewed. It must be
borne in mind that while Ha1deman's name is world famous now, during
the Summer of 1972 he enjoyed considerably less fame albeit considerably
more power.
In regard to our investigation involving the White House,
it is perhaps germane to consider a telephone conversation of July 19,
1972, between then Assistant Director Bates and Assistant Attorney
General Petersen at which time WFO desired to interview John Ehrlichman
The interview of Ehrlichman was made obvious since Hunt and Liddy had
worked under the general overall supervision of Ehrlichman while they
were employed at the White House. Petersen told Bates that he could not
see any objection to an interview of Ehrlichman but that he wanted to be
~t
sure that the FBI was not conducting a fishing expedition by interviewing
_51_
"' I 1- fa. _ _. .,
E.
~1-
@
3
1 im-a
- >
Q
¢.
.J
92nnnnln at H10 Thifn I-'ln11.¢:n_ Dntnrgnn urns: nsasznrnrl that urn warn nnn-.-,......1..... ..... -.... .........-. ..-.._--. _ _.--- ..._..- ....... ............ ...... ...-..- .._. IIf¢¥ ..-..
ducting only logical interviews. This, of course, is basic FBI investi-
gative mlicy and an important £u_n.etion oi the FBI supervisory sta is
to make certain that useless, unproductive, shing-type leads are not
set iorth in investgations.
It is noted that the Bureau has been criticized for apparent
failure to extract the truth from various people we interviewed such as
Colson, Chapin, Strachan, Magruder and others but the fact of the matter
is that when the cover up fell apart, the entire world learned that these
men were coached to lie and their testimony was rehearsed in advance.
They are now being prosecuted for their false stories. It is believed that
claims of inadequacy of our investigation are without merit.
1,! ,
I
-52-
- N - .___ _ A , __ ,.., .. ,_.@_.,.12¢-
m
- , !__!l.:__. _A ___.a -; 1-92_.__lli.--- _._;. _.e 'r_-..1.:_.. _:.|.':_:..!_1V1I1¬S OH part OI IJEPHITIDBHI U1 JHSIICB UIIICIELIB
to limit, contain, or obstruct FBI investigation Kleindienst, Petersen,
.1 -1 A_:._-i_92IT, BIZ ceteraj. "
COMMENTS: While there has been much testimony and discussion as
0PE's source references show, we are in possession of only slight
indications that Department of Justice officials limited, contained or
obstructed our investigation of the Watergate break-in and conspiracy.
Assistant Attorney General Petersen, as detailed in Item #9 above, did
not request us to pursue Segrettis activities during 1972; however, in
no way does this appear to have hampered our efforts. In fact, to have
called for a massive FBI investigation of political harassment in the
absence of clear-cut criminal allegations would have subjected the
Department and the Bureau to extensive, and probably justified, criticism
for interfering with the national elections.
L
i
i
92
1|
¬@c,1-
=2
1.
.51
i
-<
.1"ti!
testified that he had such a relationship with Mitchell that he did not believe
Mitchell would have sent a person like Liddy to come out and talk to
Kleindienst about anything. While Kleindienst further testified he immediatell
called Assistant Attorney General Petersen instructing that those arrested
should be given no treatment different than anybody who might have been
arrested in similar circumstances, such a general statement clearly
did not put Petersen, the prosecutors or the FBI on notice of the apparent
involvement of Liddy, Mitchell and unnamed other individuals from the
White House and CRP.
The FBI was not aware of Liddy's contact with Kleindienst
until the above testimony over one year later. Powell Moore, when
interviewed July 24, 1972, made no mention of this meeting. In spite of
the foregoing, Fetersen and Kleindienst said they had no evidence of
high official involvement in the Watergate aifair until the early morning
hours of April 15, 1973, when they met with the Federal prosecutors who I
-in turn had just learned of it from John Dean and J eb Stuart Magruder 9 20
"-'25};:1___._ -2 rrI_:_..I:____.l. I11LlI¬ Ul I921B1I1Q1Bl18l'. '
It is difficult not to find fault w
to immediately advise the Bureau of Liddy's contact with him which occurred
just a few hours alter the DNCH break-in. Had he done so, there is no
doubt our investigative direction at CRP would have been vastly different.
i'
1
i
>-
Et
§
1».4 In July, 1972, interviews of Jeb Magruder and Bart3 *3
successful cover up would have never gotten off the ground since we would
have had reason to zero in on Mitchell and Liddy rather than tolwaste our
time checking into McCord's security set-up and security co-workers
at CRP. That investigation did not lead to involvement of any other
security people and in effect, was a waste of time.
A number of individuals, namely Stans, Krogh, Colson,
Chapin, Young and Strachan, were deposed rather than called before the
grand jury. Petersen testified that Stans was given special consideration
in that his testimony was taken outside the grand jury. Fetersen defended
the move as proper, if not customary, saying it was done to "avoid
publicity. " In the minds of some people, this may be obstructive of
the grand jury's investigation. However, it is quite speculative and it
is doubtful ii the taking of depositions as opposed to the taking of testi-
mony before the grand jury materially altered the results of the investi-
gation. '
-v
:
wt
r
,-
x
Q
.1
:-
EW
1-.3.
:. Ff 9'1
.,.-
9.
If1-.--.
F.
'1.
. *.. 92
92
uu
La-i
=11
T5»
_.fa W
any interviews, he did feel he should talk to these attorneys prior to the
interviews. On the afternoon of July 18, 1972, Petersen again contacted
Bates teiephonicaliy, advised " - rneys had cancel -"eating
and we should proceed with the interviews as we desired. Both these
individuals were thereafter interviewed, at which time they lied most
convincingly. It is not known whether the slight delay in the interviews
¢ 0 0 ......,. .... .. .. ......u..:.... 4.- .-:| .... ..... -1. ..-at: 111911 had allyululg LU u w :s|.G|.'1GS-
.~
I.
vis._,.,c
.:- 5 5;:
92%, t" ~.
14. Alleged attempt by CIA officials to interfere, contain or
impede FBI Watergate investigation. 22
COMMENTS: One of the recurring themes orchestrated by Senator Baker
of the Ervin Committee is that the DNCH break-in was a CIA operation.
This is an intriguing theory but the fact remains that during the course
of the investigation we did not develop evidence to indicate that CIA and/or
its officials were involved in the planning or execution of the Watergate
incident. We quickly suspected involvement by CIA as: 1! the cast of
characters directly and indirectly involved in the Watergate included a
number of former CIA employees or persons who at one time were of
interest to that agency; 2! Hunt and Liddy contacted a number of CIA
retirees to try to recruit them for intelligence gathering; 3! there were
several CIA people whose names were in Hunt's telephone book; and
4! personnel we contacted at CIA appeared considerably less than responsive
and candid in their replies to our inquiries.
Specifically, the guarded information we received in
response to name checks was about as informative as were the daily -
newspapers; the incredible backing and filling for about two weeks in
late June and early July, 1972, concerning our efforts to determine if
FBI interview of Ogarrio and Dahlberg would disrupt any CIA operation
certainly was suspicious. We, of course, had no knowledge at that time
-57-
'¥F .
92-
c
?
=-
.|.
®
.1--w-.'. -3" .-1-1-7%
K?-1'.'4 a3,?
of the discussions held at the White House by the President, Ehrlichman,
Dean, General Walters and Mr. Gray relative to possibly having CIA
pay salaries for those arrested. We also did not know of the apparent
efforts by the White House to use CIA to steer us away from investi-
gating the Ogarrio bank drafts.
Although there was extensive testimony about these activities
before the Ervin Committee, we still do not know the precise rationale
for that effort.
As noted earlier, the interviews of Ogarrio and Dahlberg
took place on July 6, 1972, and delays in these interviews actually did
V not appear to alter the ultimate outcome of the Watergate investigation.
However, at the time we were seeking to interview these men, we
thought there was a good possibility they were involved in the DNCI-I
break-in conspiracy.
Other delays encountered in the early stages of this »
-investigation with regard to the interviews of individuals presently or
previously affiliated with CIA are as follows: H --
by CIA Director Helms thaOn June 28, 1972, Mr. Gray was confidentially informed
therefore,
should not be interviewed. The Field was so instructed; however, prior -
to the receipt of that information,been interviewed resulting
_53-
.- -_.--.»-_ ; W _'-ti ,.___,_,, ,....-.92-,.,_. , .. _', .. _... . l . _ i_ ...__,_. 929292-- .._. _.. . .. ._ _ , 2* -",-a--w-i" 1' --'""*"-"",_,.. jklk - _ .,._n._..... ,W-.,,_,.,m. ,. .. .. a-e.,._..._._._.__, ._l___.n .a asB
r-
-1
.<
f
F
-i
a---I
5
a.
é
1
<5 .
" IL =9.-p:3|-
Q
mI
:51;c-' --,.~- '2P 92, e,
in no information of valuet never interviewed and no reason /1w
- to interview him 1s now known. I
At the time that WFO discovered the ,__-w-.--._
trr i On July '1, 1972, wro advised that the
' -
Alexandria was instructed to conduct appropriate investigation regarding
cgo develop his identity and association with Hunt and other subjects.,
On July 11, 1972, our Alexandria Office advised that CIA would furnish -
information concerning>nly to Acting Director Gray. On July 28, =
1972 a handwritten note was personally delivered by General Walters to ' ' *3
Mr- Grey,[ e
ta-
who was in contact with Hunt during August, 1971. General Walters also .'-,
csupp1ied a Uher recorder pursuant to Hunt's request; _
, .
92 I -_-'
M.- -92_ - 9292
.7: L-92__1 ~~.,I%?».,- -
_ :,5_ ..- ,.
_ ~ 1. ._..__helped him get it in shape for overt, not covert, use; and there was no
attempt to make the recorder useful for clandestine activities.
Aside from the above contact regarding the recorders,
there were contacts with Hunt by CIA regarding false documents and F
disguise for himself and an associate. CIA also loaned him a clandestine
camera which was returned. CIA also developed a roll of film for Hunt
of which it had copies showing some unidentiable place. Mr. Gray A _
instructed that in view of the contents of the note, no further investigation
was to be conducted.
-59-
- ~ Y -i- 'V.|"!-IF i.-.. .._.e,e,~ ,,_ .- ,. . _. _ - .__,_ ,._._ _ __' ..e, -_._>_,.; 7.. _ _ .. . .. - < . - . , ,."t1:' _,
4.->
Q ..~#,1
Hr. This CIA assistance rendered to Hunt we believe had
"E
_.Iz' nothing to do with the Watergate matter. Rather, it appears to have
been related to Hunt's activities while attached to the Plumbers
Operation in the White House and is related to the break-in at the J
..:..@
P
pk .
_ office of Dr. Fielding in September, 1971. The Ellsberg case.!
3 We do not know the full scenario among the President
and Messrs. Ehrlichman, Haldeman, Dean, Helms, Walters, Gray and
* possibly others; therefore, there is no way to evaluate the total effect,
if any, of their actions and those of CIA on the results of our investi-
gation.
@
1
I /
/E-"n
1 .~:~K
>'-
.w
-59-
'5-1 s:¢ ..W.
49.
'17" I.ff-1 5*. .'1_':'.1-_r ax
15. Alleged activities on part of White House officials to
limit, contain or obstruct FBI Watergate investigation Dean, Haldeman,
Ehrlichman, Colson, et cetera!.23
COMMENTS: There is absolutely no question but that the President's
most senior associates at the White House conspired with great success
for nine months to obstruct our investigation. It was a matter of common
knowledge during the early weeks of the investigation that the FBI was
receiving only lip service cooperation from White House officials such as
Dean. Special Prosecutor Jaworski probably summed up the matter as
succinctly as can be done in motions filed June 5, 1974, with the court
relative to the pending trial of Mitchell, I-Ialdeman, Ehrlichman, Colson,
Strachan, Parkinson, and Mardian. On that occasion Mr. Jaworski
attributed the success oi the Watergate cover up to high level perjury
in the early days of the investigation, charging that lies by Mitchell and
Ehrlichman were particularly convincing. Mr. Jaworski, who is know-
ledgeable of our investigative activities including our frustrations, noted
it was "quite natural" for FBI agents who talked to Mitchell and Ehrlichman
to "assume that men of their stature would have no involvement" in the
criminal activities under investigation and would be eager to tell the
truth in the interest of justice.
It is also noted that in his testimony of July 11, 1973,
before the Ervin Committee, Mitchell, in a colloquy with Senator Weicker,
-51-
'.#
_@u
r
0..
4*
gm,-.
2
E
21.
,..
pr,
- 2:? ,'
as---i
+0-~
'.:;.
-».
5 »
Sdescribed his motives and actions during the Watergate investigation in
part as follows: ". . . I certainly was not about to do anything that would
provide for the disclosure of it" referring to the so-called "White House
horrors, " i. e. , the Plumbers activities involving Hunt, Liddy and others,
which he feared would be exposed by our investigation.!
Messrs. Bates, Felt and Kunkel, when queried by the
Inspection Staff in June, 1973, about the matter of White House involve-
ment in the cover up, advised there were a number of discussions with
Mr. Gray during the early investigation at which time concern over the
lack of complete cooperation at the White House and CRP was voiced.
Mr. Felt particularly mentioned that on a number of occasions he
recommended to Mr. Gray that the President be urged to get the whole
case out in the open; however, Mr. Gray told Mr. Felt he did not think
an approach to the,President was the proper course to pursue.
OBSERVATIONS: It appears in light of the foregoing that the dogged
determination of the Special Agents who investigated and supervised
this case accomplished absolutely all that could be accomplished in the I
face of an extremely difficult situation and with many of the high cards
stacked against them. It is also of outstanding significance that the W
Special Prosecutor has virtually totally relied upon the same FBI investi-
gative and supervisory staff who conducted the original Watergate investi-
gation to handle investigations relative to the cover up.
_5g_
I
,'. '*..{K "'13
P'_."
I?-. _its
GENERAL COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS
BY THE
GENERAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISIONM
it
It is noted that virtually none of the above criticisms is
; _ -t
new and comments and explanations have been submitted by the Watergate
»_»_ Special Matters Unit concerning most, if not all of these items, several_r..
times previously on the following occasions:
a. Answers were given to several hundred critical questions
, by Mr. Gray and his sta from late Summer, 1972, to the end
of that year.
1
- -' b. Many of the same questions and criticisms were made
1:; - by the Senate and the news media in early 1973 during
Mr. Gray's conrmation hearings and these were analyzed
and answered by this Unit.
t c. Again when Mr. Ruckelshaus came on the scene in
the late Spring, 1973, his staff, particularly Carl Eardley,
questioned the handling of these matters and much of the same
ground was plowed for Ruckelshaus.
d. Subsequently, the Inspection Division analyzed the
handling of the Watergate matter and obtained comments
and explanations concerning many of the same items. q
e. Later in the Summer of 1973, the Special Prosecutor's
,5 Office requested and was furnished a massive detailing of
all FBII-IQ instructions issued during the entire investigation
of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters DNCH!
burglary.
' E
Q g OBSERVATIONS: As has been disclosed by the sensational revelationsr ' Z-__i_
. 4:.___
5- -- detailing the carefully and skillfully operated cover up, the odds were A F
1
_ " heavy against us in ever making a case against anyone other than the
-53-E
e
2
4 1
~r<
r
_.
.~ ,
» r
2
-V.
-eI
I II_ ,_ ..-...¢"__... -- --
._ ' _ I sf;-. -. ,= 1 i -u7_¢.V_- ~_ V -J-'.I.'>'.'~~;92;' i. __ i1"-." -. J; g-__,__.. _~ _ at--' __ -<-, 1;-,~. .,.¢;_ e f'92 LT. ,. "_»_ . ma __; __:92»_%,_m I. |,.< 1. .11: -__;,;_- F1" _'. I k_. -_',"_,..-
'
1. ,Jw:__. _ - _V_ ~;._,
. . -five arrested sub]ects. The plain fact is that the perforni__,4;g_E
'- .. fagents was admirable. There was tremendous pressure _ _ ».- 1,--_ r ; ~-,_ - . .- : _.,.1,>._,.'_:-t _ -.1
"""'92' ,'.,"{ f.~<:,;_ . - ..'~ *".?5 '-.:-1 '.*+ '..-1': -1 "=-¢""-£1 r i i c ~
- onnel for mo - 7 ;-,-__. ;_ :92-. - V 1_ l _ . -.. , <-_~ ._._/ ' .-,1-;:E_gative and policy Judgments which were made, _often ;;wltl?!ulitt1emm_9P;;ip. ' ..~."?i"?- 5 -,=:@.i.;J~@-¢'?.{1:"'*E2f*'-F._ _reection, proved to be valid.
- ' ' .---,..~ ~..~-. . . - .-'. 1; ~.9, -'.l-_- _However, the activities surrounding the Watergate" c. "_ _ .. ._.-..,_.<._.._- -_ L-I ~: _5:__.__-M.-.4.
?
,
!
t
Q
3
r
9
IF
i
P1'} Qac.-
Q
Winvestigation conducted. It is clear, as recent evidence has shown,
that these two actions by Mr. Gray made it impossible for the FBI or
. ry to break through the carefully prepared and
rehearsed pack of lies given to the Agents by White House and Committee
to Re-Elect the President personnel. Oi course, his naivete or his
villainy, depending on your point of view! in accepting material from
Hunt's White House eiee preferred to him by Dean and Ehrliehmah,
his failure to transmit that material for investigative and evidenciary
evaluation and his subsequent destruction of the material, has not had
a beneficial aitereect on the FBIs reputation.
<.-1'»
92@t
'9
g
L1-4
2;.2,ww, Q.
V. WATERGATE INVESTIGATION -
OPE ANALYSIS
"I"I-ac; 'E_"D'l"4: i-nvvnal--Ir:-Isl-§r92n n-I I-1-in v92rrr§§- ='1 : L U]. § l..ll92f!3Dl-l.5CI.l-J-Ull. J1 I-Ill; SM
up and related matters has been one of the most extensive and intensive
efforts in the Bureau's history. To date this complex investigation has
involved approximately 180 separate cases which have resulted in investi-
+' +' hr RR fa Ia rr ga.1ve ac.1v1., in .... ..e.... o..ices As oi
May 31, 1974, the Bureau had expended 83,042 agent hours and 25, 514
clerical hours - a total of 108, 556 man hours on these investigations.
F
I
E
I
5
r
l
'1
1?
I
B
% iii -II-' .;
W
'6'-k.
'» .".'
_, .=430"_. {Y9}
these cases as they have progressed. Three committees in Congress,
The Senate Judiciary, The Senate Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities known as the Ervin Committee and/ or the Senate
Watergate Committee!, and The House Judiciary Committee, have had
extensive access to the results of the Bureau's investigations and in
certain instances direct access to Bureau file material involving these
cases. The Justice Department, the U. S. Attorney for the District of
Columbia, and the Special Prosecutor's Office have been involved in the
directions taken in the Bureau's inquiries and have received voluminous
reports in all phases of these investigations. Finally, the news media
has given the Watergate and related activities unprecedented coverage
including the most extensive use of investigative reporters and condential
sources of any domestic event in the Nation's history.
The intensive interest in, and notoriety of , the Watergate
matters has unalterably led to criticism of both the investigation and
prosecution or lack of prosecution! by the FBI and the Justice Department.
Much of the criticism was raised during the confirmation hearings on the
nomination of L. Patrick Gray HI to be FBI Director, as well as during
the Senate Watergate hearing. The news media has had a virtual eld
day in criticizing all aspects of the Watergate investigation while at the
same time gratuitously claiming credit for most of the significant
revelations in the case. The release of the White House transcripts
-67..
'|
l
l
i
l
Era "a
/'3 tJ
____LI_ __ ____:...___ ¢..___L L
um:-:1" unique aspect w
by Fresident Nixon on Apr - -
the Watergate affair and resulted in further speculation regarding the
Bureau's handling of its responsibilities during the course of these
investigations.
'r_. __._-1..., 1... ...,.1.... ,. .,.-..........,...1..,....-.:-... ..--,.1..,.4-:..... .. ....s:__.-.11']. UFUUI I-U lIIl.dJ9292J d. l»Ullll UIIUIIDIVU UVd.l.Ud.I.l.Ull U 92'2l.l.l-LLB
matter OPE approached the Bureau's activities from a "devil's advocate"
position. The principal sources of critical commentary were reviewed
and their positions and/ or allegations were documented. Thereafter,
?
:i
92
4
I
i
n
1,
E
I!
.
.
k
5k
5
E
P
F
i
a
:-Sfr" "92 l I
c. The alleged failure to detect an electronic "bug"
in the Democratic National Committee Headquarters
while conducting a search for such devices.
The actions and activities of Mr. Gray concerning the
Watergate matters have been thoroughly examined within the Bureau
and a full accounting has been furnished to the Special Prosecutor's
Office. The commentary submitted by the General Investigative
Division in Section IV, Item #10 supra, fully explores the ramifications
of Mr. Gray's actions and OPE concurs in this evaluation. Since
Mr. Grays activities were completely self-initiated and in view of
the fact that his actions are now being scrutinized by the Special Pro-
secutor and a Federal grand jury it does not seem to be either
necessary or prudent to further pursue this matter at this time.
In the area of the possible leaks of information about
Watergate matters, there is no doubt that certain information was leaked
by Bureau personnel. The Inspection Division is conducting an inquiry
into this matter and therefore OPE did not further pursue this particular
aspect.
The criticism regarding the alleged failure to detect and
remove an electronic "bug" from one of the telephones in the Democratic
National Committee Headquarters is more difficult to deal with. In
addition to the Democratic National Committee Headquarters officials
and the news media, Acting U. S. Attorney Earl Silbert and Assistant
i
5
i
1
r
F
T
¢
I
1_,,...
U. S. Attorney General Henry Petersen have both stated that the FBI
missed the bug while conducting the search of the Democratic National
Committee Headquarters on Jtme 29, 1972. The following factors relate
to this controversial matter:
a. During interview of Alfred C. Baldwin I11 he admitted
to monitoring telephone calls of Spencer Oliver in the
Democratic National Committee Headquarters. This
monitoring took place up to June 16, 1972.
AL J-Ln 1|--Sum J-I-tn. :4:Ort92 n-In-SA.-I-1-1 -"A-n A---.»92n<l-nal 2-Q I-I-92;92b. 21!. L111: lllll LIIU LLVC DLIIJJCULD WU1'U d.l.'J.'92'J§LCl..l .l.ll- l-11¢
Democratic National Committee Headquarters at
the Watergate, three electronic "bugs" and one
transceiver were recovered, in their possession,
but not on any of the telephones. None of these
devices were operating on 118. 9 mz.
c. On September 13, 1972, an electronic "bug" was
ten.-id en the telephone of Spencer Oliver in me
Democratic National Committee Headquarters by
telephone company employees. This "bug" was
inoperative, but when activated it operated within
the general range that Baldwin stated he was
monitoring.
d. James McCord examined the "bug" taken from
Oliver's telephone and stated it was identical to
the one he placed in that location.
e. WFO conducted an extensive investigation but was
unable to establish that any other party had placed
this "bug".
The Laboratory Division states that its personnel conducted
a thorough sweep and the "bug" was not there. The Laboratory Division
also points out that Telephone Security personnel conducted a similar
=
I
i
L
?
t
z
tE
-r==
in
aw
. ,.. ....-. .-....-. 0....---,:4.. ....-.-..,.-U-..-wt.-.1 .-...,..:.-. ....|.-.-..-, ...-, ,...-... ..|_92..-we IU92I92 l92': A l-LA11!: DCULH. 1.1.!! PC! bU1LllI:1 llldut lI.Ut!;'b U1 1.111] ULILI: C U1 Uu-l..llC-
scene record of the extent of the search.
Based on the foregoing it is apparent that neither position
can be positively proven. Therefore, the only realistic position that
A _ _ __ !921II92 -in l92 q921 n92 vu-92.I'92r92.{v492-u92§ 'D<921nr92r929292 I92I92I!Cl.Cd.I.l ad-11 L456 1 IIIPCLCIIL Du-I ca-ll PCID
!'
I
!
I
i
2
?
i
I
v
l
§
2
I
L
GD
.'=. *3.
',.=. I5} .3
to the Special Prosecutor, who has been charged with the entire
responsibility for investigating the Watergate matter, including
allegations concerning the adequacy of the original investigation by
the FBI. "25
Ruckelshaus further advised the Committee "I have no
information in terms of the Watergate break-in that the FBI did anything
other than act in a totally professional manner, in terms of following
out any leads or any interviews or doing any investigation they were
asked to do. This is one of the things that got the FBI agents themselves
involved in some distress because they feel that they've done a very good
job in what they were supposed to be doing. They acted very professionally
And 1 think they're right. 1 think they did. "26
OI-E, based on the foregoing facts, also believes that the
FBI has no cause to be chagrined by its total effort in the Watergate
1_.. ..,.|.___._._,1_- _1_:___1-.158 C3585 C2111 U6 bl.I'UHg1y UBIBHQBCI. matters. The FBl's handling o
f
F
i
E
l
n
f
I
i
1 l
F
1
I.
5
it
f
I
Ewe.3 y ,3
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGY OF SIGNIFICANT
WATERGATE RELATED EVENTS
October 1 , 1971
James W. McCord, Jr. , former FBI agent and retired
CIA official, begins part-time consulting work for the Committee for the
Re-Election of the President CRP!.
December 1, 1971
G. Gordon Liddy leaves his post on the Domestic Council
and the White House and becomes counsel for the CRP.
January 9, 1972
McCord assumes the p
ordinator for CRP with additional dutie
Republican National Committee.U1 . e Security Cc=
ecurit oordinator for the
January 27, 1972
At a meeting in the Attorney General's Office, U. S.
Department of Justice, attended by John N. Mitchell, the Attorney General;
Jeb Stuart Magrnder, the Acting Director of the CRP; G. Cordon Liddy,
counsel to the CRP; and John W. Dean III, White House Counsel, Liddy
presents an intelligence plan which he proposes to be implemented for
the CRP. This plan allegedly included both legal and illegal activities
including electronic surveillance oi various potential political opponents
of the President and Democratic Party facilities. This plan was estimated
by Liddy to cost approximately one million dollars and according to the
testimony of both Dean and Mitchell, Mitchell turned the plan down directing
that a more realistic plan be devised.
I
i
L
F1;.
Zr-$5:
.f-'3'In
92d§> J 3
March 1, 1972 "
John N. Mitchell leaves his post as Attorney General and
becomes Director of the CRP.
March 22, 1972
George Gordon Liddy, after reported conflicts with Jeb
Magruder, leaves his post as counsel to the CRP and assumes the post
as counsel to the Financial CRP.
March 30, 1972
Another meeting is held to discuss intelligence plans for
CRP as developed by Liddy. This meeting is held in Key Biscayne, Florida
and is attended by John Mitchell, Frederick C. LaRue a former White
House aide who at that time held the position of assistant to Mitchell at
the CRP!, and Jeb Magruder. Magruder has testified that at this meeting
Mitchell approved the intelligence plan which included wiretapping and
authorized a budget of $250, 000 for these projects. Mitchell has denied
that he authorized the plan and Laue has been ambiguous in his state-
ments concerning whether or not the plan was authorized.
April 7, 1972
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 became effective
on this date. This Act, in addition to amending certain sections of the
Criminal Code relating to Election Laws, broadened the reporting require-
ments regulating Federal campaign contributions.
May 1, 1972
Alfred C. Baldwin Ill was offered a pesitien with the CRP
by James McCord who identified himself as the Security Coordinator for
the CRP. Baldwin accepted this offer and on May 2, 1972, traveled to
Washington, D. C. , where he undertook certain security related assign-
ments at the direction ef MeCerd.
May 22, 1972
Bernard L. Barker, Eugenio Martinez, Virgilio Gonzalez,
Frank A. Sturgis, Renaldo Pico, and Felipe DeDiego arrive in Washington,
D. C. , from Miami and register at the Manger Hamilton Hotel and begin a
series of meetings with E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy and James
McCord.
-74-
>"H'L E
?
E
'i
2
T
r
a
1
1
i
6
I
1
F
1__:~
.;'-
kg.M! id?
naay 25, 1972
Hunt and Gonzalez attempted an entry to the Democratic
National Committee Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building complex,
but were unsuccessful in their entry attempt.
May 27, 1972
A second break-in attempt is made at the Democratic
National Committee offices but entry is not successfully completed.
iaay 28, 1972
A successful entry is made into the Democratic National
Committee Headquarters on the sixth floor of the Watergate Office Building
complex. James McCord states that he placed electronic listening devices
on the telephones of Spencer Oliver and Lawrence O'Brien. At the same
time the members of the Barker group from Miami were taking photographs
of various documents which they were able to obtain in the Democratic
National Committee office space.
May 29, 19.72
Baldwin began monitoring the telephone coversations of
Spencer Oliver on communications equipment furnished by James McCord
and upon instructions of McCord prepared a log of the conversations inter-
cepted.
June 9, 1972 _
According to the testimony of Jeb Stuart Magruder on this
date he gave John Mitchell the wiretap logs which he, Magruder, had
obtained from Liddy. These transcripts were under the code name
"Gemstone". He allegedly provided to Mitchell photographs that had
been taken inside of the Democratic National Committee Headquarters.
Mitchell has vehemently denied the truth of this statement by Magruder.
June 1'7, 1972
At approximately 2:30 a. m. James McCord and four of the
Cuban-Americans, Barker, Sturgis, Gonzalez and Martinez, are captured
inside the Democratic National Committee Headquarters office by the
Washington Metropolitan Police Department. Found in the possession
I
i
|92
, .
!_1|
é
'I
i
|.5-i-.
J'92'f"_!92@A,
of these subjects was photographic equipment, burglary tools, electronic
equipment and what appeared to the police at that time to be an explosive
device. All of the subjects were using aliases at this time and refused
to be interviewed and to state for whom they were working and for what
..____.__.-92.... LL.-. -_-.-._.-. £5 J-L.-. I...--:'I.-ll---Ipurpose Lucy were l.ll uu: uuuuuig.
WFO was advised of the arrest of five men in the Democratic
National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate and it was indicated
that they appeared to have been attempting to place a bomb in it. Special
Agents were dispatched immediately to the police station where the evidence
and the subjects had been taken. Upon arrival the agents were advised
that the explosive device was in fact an electronic listening device. Based
upon this determination the Bureau entered the case to determine it a
violation of the Interception of Communications Statutes had occurred.
Bureau agents assisted the Metropolitan Police Department in obtaining
search warrants for two rooms in the Watergate Hotel based upon probable
cause established by the possession of the keys to these rooms by the
subjects. Located during the search of these rooms was a check imprinted
with the name E. Howard Hunt. An immediate check of WFO indices
determined that Hunt had been the subject of a special inquiry for the
White House and the file indicated he had been employed by the White
House as of July 1971. Immediately thereafter agents proceeded to H1mt's
residence in Potomac, Maryland, and attempted to interview him. But
he refused to discuss the case other than acknowledging that the check
found by the agents was in fact his.
June 1'7, 1972
G. Gordon Liddy and Powell A. Moore, an official of
CRP, contacted Attorney General Richard G. Kleindienst at the Burning
Tree Golf Club. Liddy advised Kleindienst that Mitchell had asked him
to contact Kleindienst concerning the break-in at the Democratic National
Committee Headquarters. Liddy stated that some of the persons who
were arrested might be employed by either the White House or the CRP
and wanted to see if Kleindienst could effect their release. Kleindienst
has stated that he promptly dismissed these men and immediately there-
aiter contacted Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen and instructed
that those arrested at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters
should receive no different treatment than any other person arrested in
a similar circumstance.
c
ri r
l
E@
A. TRer-? » s
June 18, 1972
Continuing investigation by WFO agents and the Metropolitan
Police Department resulted in the identification of the five arrested subjects
and determination that McCord and Barker had CIA ties.
June 19, 1972
Assistant United States Attorney Earl Silbert of the District
of Columbia advised that he was assuming prosecutive jurisdiction of this
case upon specific instructions of the Justice Department and the United
States Attorney. He advised that the Department wanted an intensive,
thorough investigation regarding the five arrested subjects and any other
persons who might be involved in view of the apparent violation of the
Interception of Communications Statutes.
June 19, 1912
Information was received that a room in the Howard Johnson
Motel immediately across the street from the Watergate Office complex
had been utilized by James lvlcCord and others. Investigation determined
that James McCord had rented a room in this motel in the name of McCord
Associates. Telephone toll calls made from this room led Bureau agents
to the identification of Alfred C. Baldwin HI and a determination that he
is a former Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Baldwin
was identified by personnel of the motel as a person they had seen fre-
quently in the room rented by McCord.
---Q
According to testimony he gave at a later date before the
Senate Watergate Committee, John W. Dean III stated that on this date
or mssihly the following day he told Attorney General Kleindienst that
"this matter could lead directly to the White House. " Assistant Attorney
General Petersen was called in and advised of the same information.
Dean further stated that he got the impression that Petersen "realized
the problems a wide open investigation of the White House might create
in an election year. "
t
a
i
1
1-'1
1
2;¢Sr
;-.
J,-'
e.x
instructed Gray to deal directly with John W. Dean III on Watergate
matter investigations concerning any White House activities or personnel.
June 222 1972
John Dean, White House Counsel, informed Acting Director
Gray that he would sit in on all FBI interviews of White House personnel.
June 22, 1972
WFO agents interview Charles Colson, Special Counsel
to the President, in the presence of John Dean. During the interview
Colson stated he believed that E. Howard Hunt had worked on the third
oor of the White House. The interviewing agents asked Mr. Dean if
they could accompany Dean to Hunt's office to determine if Hunt had left
anything there. Dean indicated that this was the first that he was aware
of this office and that the White House would provide the FBI with any
contents belonging to Hunt.
June 23 1972i...i;._..___
Acting Director Gray meets with John Dean and indicates
that he will hold off authorizing Bureau agents interviewing Manuel
Ogarrio, a Mexican attorney through whose bank account funds had been
funneled to the Barker group who took part in the Watergate burglary.
Gray states that this was done at Dean's request that the Bureau not
expose CIA sources in connection with the movement of funds connected
to the CRP through Mexican channels.
June 26! I972
A On two separate occasions during this day John Dean and
his assistant, Fred Fielding, gave WFO agents two boxes containing material
and personal effects from E. Howard Hunt's office in the White House.
June 28 1972i_....__L____
Acting Director Gray contacts John Dean and advises him
that he has scheduled a meeting with CIA Director Helms in order to
straighten out the Mexican money chamiel to determine if there is any
CIA involvement so that Bureau agents may proceed with logical investi-
gation in this area. Gray states that Ehrlichman called him that same
date and told him to cancel the meeting because it wasn't necessary.
Gray stated that he complied with this request.
Y
'5.
F
i
ll
F.
i
P
E
E
L
a
.
.
Ee
K
i ; "'-...i-1, A
- 492192 .14-ulna.
June zu, 1912
Acting Director Gray meets with John Dean and John
Ehrlichman in Ehrlichman's White House office. At this time Dean
gives to Gray two files which he states came from Howard '1'-lunts safe.
According to later testimony of Mr. Gray, Dean stated that these two
les contained "political dynamite" and "should never see the light of
day. H
June 29, 1972
On this day and the following day technically trained agents
of the FBI Laboratory completed a security survey oi the Democratic
National Committee Headquarters and the Watergate Office Building with
negative results. No additional electronic surveillance equipment was
located during the survey.
July 6, 1972
Acting Director Gray met with General Walters, Deputy
nirnnfnr nf H10 TA 9| urhinh I"-iv-nn .T:|l*l'n'r-1: rlnlivr r1 rn rn an;-I D190 Q Q f92I92 !II92"l1-1;; 92-92.;u92.:n. 92Il Ivll92d 92/IJ-I, lib IVllJ.92all l|Llll92.v II ll-l.I.v92.rl.LJ 92..¢92.-,|,;I92,; 92,92,| , ggnyauug q,1|92,|,92ll1,,|
stating that the CIA had no interest in Ogarrio or Dahlberg. Gray states
that after receiving this memorandum he ordered the interviews of
Ogarrio and Dahlberg to be conducted. Gray further states that on this
day he contacted by the President on a separate matter but took the
occasion to warn the President of his concern about the Watergate
investigation. Gray stated that he told the President that he and General
Walters felt that people on the President's staff were trying to mortally
wound the President by using the CIA and FBI and by confusing the question
of CIA interest in, or not in, people the FBI wished to interview. Gray
stated that the President advised him to continue to conduct an aggressive
and thorough investigation.
July 10, 1972 4
Alfred C. Baldwin III made a statement to Bureau agents
and Assistant U. S. Attorneys implicating himself in the monitoring of
electronically intercepted telephone conversations on the telephone of
Spencer Oliver in the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate
Building. Baldwin indicated he was working directly for James McCord
and had also had direct contact with E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy
during the course of the electronic interception and break-in at Democratic
National Committee Headquarters. Baldwin indicated that both Hunt and
»?
2.
B
i
ii
2
I
E ._.+Liddy were on the scene in the te vicinit e ore.-ik=in
on June 17, 1972, but both had escaped detection at that point.
Baldwin's statement provided the first direct proof of the involve-
ment of Hunt and Liddy in the Watergate break-in and wiretapping.
July 21, 1912
Acting Director Gray starts sending FBI file material
'l'92_.'l'! irfemrienr rennrfc I-n Tnh 'l'92 of H-92 Th-if I-Inna , L . 1"! Q13 Q, Q QJ. I-I vvn Al.» 1.71. W Pu an vu lJ92Jlll-L A."-qua an 92-any II nanny nnvuuu
without clearing the reports through the Attorney General. On the
prior day Dwight Dalbey, Assistant Director, Office of Legal Counsel,
had submitted a memorandum to Mr. Gray indicating that FBI records
_ are in the custody of the Attorney General and technically may not be
released from the Department without his consent. Dalbey stated that
the authority and obligation of the FBI are to keep the Attorney General
informed and what ever other action the Attorney General decided would
rant with h 'l'"I Q v...-. n val ..-.-..-
V
t
;
1
"n
vs
;=.
i
F
v
1
c
1
2-
I
f;=-. _~_-1'1J1: I!
Hushen, Director of Public Information at the Justice Department,
makes a public statement that the indictments have ended the investi-
gation and "we have absolutely no evidence to indicate that any others
should be charged. " It should be noted that at this time both the
WFC and the Federal Grand Jury were still working on numerous out-
standing investigative matters and there was no indication that the
Bureau's investigation was to cease at this point. !
senember 16, 19212,
Attorney General Kleindienst issues a statement setting
forth that the investigation by the FBI and USA's Office in the District
of Columbia is one of the most intensive, objective and thorough investi-
gations that has been undertaken by the Justice Department in several
years. Assistant Attorney General Petersen also issues a statement
saying that allegations that a whitewash has been involved in the investi-
gation are completely untrue. Petersen issued statistics indicating that
333 agents from 51 field offices have worked 1, 897 leads, conducted
1, 551 interviews and expended 14, 098 man hours in conducting this
investigation and in addition the Federal Grand Jury has met for a total
of 125 hours and examined 50 witnesses.
December 7, 1972
In newspaper accounts Kathleen Chenow, a White House
secretary, confirms the existence of a "Plumbers Unit" in the White
House as an internal investigative unit. She stated that its members
were David R. Young, G. Gordon Liddy, E. Howard Hunt, and Egil
Krogh. tee that the unit was investigating leaks to me news
media.
December 8, 1972
In Chicago, Illinois, a United Airlines jet crashes killing
Dorothy Hunt, the wife of E. Howard Hunt. FBI agents at the scene recover
$10,000 in one hundred dollar bills found in the pocket book of Mrs. Hunt.
January 8, 1973
P
1
i
i
0
E.
r
|.
1
E-
F»
J
I»
,
I
i
921
!
t
»? y.Th:":
January 11, 1973
Senator Sam J. Ervin D-NC! is picked to head a Senate
investigation of Watergate related matters in the Presidential election
campaign of 1972.
January 15, 1973
Four of the Watergate break-in defendants, Barker,
Gonzalez, Martinez and Sturgis, enter guilty pleas to all seven counts
of the Watergate break-in indictment. E. Howard Hunt has previously
on January 11, 1973, plead guilty to all coimts of the indictment charging
him with complicity in the Watergate break-in and wiretapping matters.
January 17, 1973
During the trial of the seven defendants in the Watergate
break-in case the court goes into closed session where Alfred Baldwin
testified that he monitored approximately 200 conversations on this wiretap
and gave daily logs to James McCord.
January 30, 1973
In the Federal trial of the remaining Watergate break-in
defendants, James McCord and G. Gordon Liddy, the jury returns a guilty
verdict on all counts. -
Febunlryi 197%
The United States Senate votes to establish a select committee
-for the investigation of the Presidential election campaign of 1972. The
committee is to be composed of four Democratics and three Republicans.
February 17, 1973
Mr. L. Patrick Gray III is nominated by President Nixon
to be permanent Director of the FBI. His nomination is sent to the Senate
Judiciary Committee for consideration.
February 28, 1973
During confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary
1
1
I
I
3,
»>
I
1
-1
F.
ii
2.
is
.'
0'
§
i
i
1.~1'-1'
1'9March 13, 1973..%-
Mr. Gray supplies the Senate Judiciary Committee with
a memorandum showing that he had met with or talked to John Dean on
33 occasions between June and September 1972 relating to the Watergate
investigation. Mr. Gray had previously, on March '7, 1973, advised
this Committee that he had provided John Dean with 82 FBI investigative
reports relating to the Watergate matter.
March 19, 1973
Judge John Sirica receives a letter from James McCord
charging that he and other Watergate defendants were under political
pressure to plead guilty and remain silent. He also intimates that perjury
was committed at the trial and that higherups were involved in the break-
in and that there is a cover up oi the entire Watergate investigation being
conducted.
March 20, 1973
Acting Director Gray informed the Senate Judiciary Committee
that he had received orders from Attorney General Kleindienst to refuse to
answer further questions regarding the FBls investigation of the Watergate
or other ongoing investigative activities.
March 22, 1973
During questioning by Senator Robert C. Byrd DW.Va. !,
Mr. Gray acknowledges that John Dean probably lied to FBI agents investi-
gating the Watergate matter when he told them on June 22, 1972, that he
did not know if Hunt had an office in the White House.
April 5, 1973
President Nixon withdraws L. Patrick Gray's nomination
to be Director of the FBI.
April 27, 1972
L. Patrick Gray resigns as Acting Director of the FBI.
Mr. Gray issues a statement indicating that certain serious allegations
concerning his actions during the ongoing Watergate investigation are now
F
a
1
1
L
Z
r
i
?
i.
F
Qma?r iv
immediate resignation as Acting Director of the FBI. There have been
previous newspaper accounts indicating that Mr. Gray had received
certain documents from the White House safe of E. Howard Hunt directly
from John Dean and that he had withheld these files and later destroyed
UIBIII.
April 2'1, 1913
William D. Ruckelshaus is appointed by President Nixon
as Acting Director of the FBI to replace Mr. Gray. Mr. Ruckelshaus
states that he does not expect to be in this position longer than two months.
Apr
President Nixon announced the resignation oi H. R. Haldeman,
White House Chief of Staff; John D. Ehrlichman, Chief Counselor for
Domestic Affairs; John W. Dean, Presidential Counsel and Attorney
General Kleindienst. At the same time the President announced the
nomination of Elliott L. Richardson as Attorney General and General
Alexander Haig as the new White House Chief of Staff. The President
indicated that the new Attorney General Richardson! would have full
charge of the Administration's Watergate investigations and would have
authority to appoint a Special Prosecutor in the case.
May 1'1, 1973
The Senate Select Committee on the Investigation of the
Presidential Election Campaign of 1972, under the Chairmanship of
Qnnqfnr Qarn Flrtr-in hncr-inc: n11h1in hnnrinaq Qnnnfnr T-Tntnnrd T-T Rabnr Ir~~........v. 92JIvIvI~4.l JJAILI-I n.I92.» LLLLJ ill-IA-A92-r l192.-0&1. rub-.-. I-I!-rlll.lv92v92Il nu"-an Ll-u 1.11-|.19292¢l- ll! RTenn. ! is the Co-Cliairinlan.
May 18, 1973
Attorney General Designate Elliott Richardson names
former Solicitor General Archibald Cox, a Harvard Professor, as Special
Prosecutor in the Justice Department to probe and prosecute the Watergate
i
g.
1
I-
I
-
1
i
é
t
i
t
c
L
L
i
I
F
!
IC
I 1
;_!
Iviay 36, 1973
John Ehrlichman, former Assistant to the President,
tells a Senate Subcommittee investigating the CIA involvement in the
Watergate case and the Pentagon papers that President Nixon was aware
of the FBI investigation into Mexican aspects of the breakin within six
days after it occurred and had instructed him Ehrlichman! and Haldeman
to have the CIA "curb the FBI probe".
June '7, 1973
Acting Director Ruckelshaus submits a document to Archibald
Cox, Special Prosecuting Attorney, U. S. Justice Department, setting
forth a precise record on the FBI's activities at the initial stages of the
Watergate investigation. This document, which was prepared by the
Inspection Division, in conjunction with the Special Watergate Matters
Unit of the General Investigative Division, former Assistant Director
Charles W. Bates and Acting Associate Director W. Mark Felt, is 26
pages in length and has six memoranda as enclosures which further specify
the exact activities which occurred at the outset of the Watergate investi-
gation.
June 25, 1973
John Dean, former White House Counsel, testified concerning
his role in the cover up of the Watergate investigation and the role of several
other administration officials. Dean indicated that the President was aware
of the cover up as early as September 1972. John Dean's testimony before
the Senate Watergate Committee continued for three more days until
June 28, 1973.
June 26, 1973
The Inspection Division, in conjunction with the General
Investigative Division, the Press Services Office and the Office of Legal
Counsel, completed its analysis of the possible involvement by L. Patrick
Gray in illegal and/ or improper activities to impede or delay the FBl's
investigation of the Watergate matter. This analysis was furnished to
Acting Director Ruckelshaus. This analysis was also furnished to the
Office of the Special Prosecutor on April 10, 1974. !
5
|
r
1
I
r
F
A
s
i
'|t
i
E
i
I.[E
>
'5
.
E
i
i~
rE
§
E. 1
iiit
1- 0 n 4492|-In-92
duly B, 1t:l'l5
Mr. Clarence M. Kelley is sworn in as Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation replacing William D. Ruckelshaus. After
leaving the FBI as Acting Director, Mr. Ruckelshaus is appointed Deputy
Attorney General.
July 16, 1973
Alexander P. Butterfield, Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration and a former White House Aide, advised the
Senate Watergate Committee that all of President Nixon's conversations
in the White House and Executive Office Building were recorded beginning
in the Spring of 1971 by concealed microphones and telephone bugs.
Butterfield stated that the listening devices were installed under President
Nixon's authority for posterity's sake".
October 10, 1973
Vice President Spirio Agnew resigned after pleading nolo
contendere to a charge of Federal income tax evasion. Vice President
Agnew's resignation had no connection with the Watergate investigation.
October 19, 1973
John W. Dean IH enters a guilty plea to one count Conspiracy
to Obstruct Justice for his role in the Watergate investigation cover up.
In exchange for an agreement to further testify Special Prosecutor Cox
granted Dean immunity from prosecution for other Watergate crimes.
October 20, 1973
The White House announced that President Nixon had ordered
Attorney General Elliott L. Richardson to dismiss Special Prosecutor
Archibald Cox; that Richardson had resigned rather than comply with that
3
'2
i
~»
r
|
i
1
i
1.
i
i
i
it
II
I.
1
.
-Z
t
l
2
I. 5,
order and that Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus, who
had also refused the President's order, had been fired. The White House
stated that Solicitor General Robert H. Bork had become the Acting
Attorney General and had dismissed Special Prosecutor Cox and dissolved
the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
November 1, 1973
TI-..,nr-lip],-92-.4» RT:--1-. u92!'9292ru92r92I§ Q4-92--.1-1-k-Q T113112,--n 13 En-.v'|-92492 t92 f92'|»-.-:4-s12']. UDIUUIIL LY LFLUII. lld.l.I..I.!.7D 92JClldLU1 VV-I-.1114-lll ID. DGJRUU U1 92JlLJ.U
to be Attorney General and Leon Jaworski, a Houston attorney, as the
new Special Prosecutor.
November 5, 1973
In a hearing in U. S. District Court, Washington, D. C. ,
on a motion to withdraw guilty pleas by five of the original seven Watergate
defendants, a member of the Special Prosecutor's Office revealed that
John W. Dean, former White House Counsel, had admitted to destroying
two notebooks that had been taken from the White House safe of E. Howard
Hunt, two days after the Watergate break-in. Previously Dean had stated
that all of the material had either been furnished to FBI agents or to
Acting Director Gray. Dean also had not made an admission to retaining
and later destroying these notebooks during his testimony before the Senate
Watergate Committee. Dean had told the Special Prosecutor's Office that
he found the notebooks while goihg through White House file materials in
January 1973. Dean claimed that the notebooks contained names and
addresses of people connected with the Watergate break-in and related
crimes.
November 21, 1973
White House Special Counsel J. Fred Buzhardt advised
U. S. District Judge John Sirica that an eighteen and one-half minute
section of a White House tape recorded on June 20, 1972, of conversations
between President Nixon and his former Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman,
was blank and contained no audible tones. Judge Sirica ordered the
White House to turn the remaining portion of that tape and others that
had been subpoenaed over to the court by November 26, 1973.
December 20, 1973
i
P
I
I
54--1!
February 6, 1914
The House of Representatives, U. S. Congress, votes
approval for the House Judiciary Committee to conduct an impeachment
investigation and grant powers of subpoena and funds for this inquiry.
February 19 , 1974
The Senate Watergate Committee ended its public hearings
into the Presidential election campaign practices of 1972. Committee
Chairman Sam Ervin stated that it was now up to the House Judiciary
Committee and the courts to carry on the Watergate investigations that
his Committee had begun.
March 1, 1974
A 'I7.92._'l...._1 I"__.___.'I T_-__-- 1.. "'I'T_-.|_1_...L___ I'92 "I !__'I.' _L_J _..___A l:tllB1H.1 uranu Jury 1l'l wasliington, u. U. , liluictt-30 seve
former officials of the White House or the President's Re-Election
Committee for conspiring to impede the investigation of the Watergate
break~in at the Democratic National Headquarters. The seven indicted
include former Attorney General John Mitchell, former Presidential
Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman, former Assistant to the President for
Domestic Affairs John D. Ehrlichman, former Special Counsel to the
President Charles W. Colson, former Assistant Attorney General
Robert C. Mardian, former attorney for the Committee to Re-Elect the
President Kenneth W. Parkinson and former Assistant to H. R. Haldeman
at the White House Gordon Strachan.
April 10, 1974
The Bureau forwarded to the Special Prosecutor's Office
a letter enclosing 33 documents and/or internal Bureau memoranda dealing
1|:-H4-| nnccihln trinlqfinna nf lrnn kn fnrlr-na-n Ant"-inn '|'92§v92nn|'r921~ '|' Def-win]:VVA.92-ll kI92!hJ92J.l.LIl92.¢ ¥.L92Jl. I.92-L92J'l.I.D 92JL LQYY LIJ .l.92JL LLLC1 l'L92.1lrLll5 .'lJ.l..'l. 92v92.r92r92!.L .'LJg .1 Gl.92-L 192pI92
Gray I11. Included in the enclosures was a June 26, 1973, memorandum
from Inspector James J. O'Connor to Mr. Jacobson setting forth the
results of the Bureau's internal review regarding possible impedement
or obstruction of the Watergate investigation by former Acting Director
Gray.
April 30, 1974
President Nixon transmits to the House Judiciary Committee
and releases to the public 1,308 pages of edited transcripts from re-
cordings taken in the White House relating to Watergate matters. The
-33-
t
.¢1j,»_
W
toPresident states that these transcripts will answer all inquiries
regarding his activities in relation to the Watergate matter and will
provide the public and the House Judiciary Committee with the answer
to the basic question at issue "Whether the President personally acted
improperly in the Watergate matter?"
-39-
L
¢
i
I
1
F
1
r
rQ4..
5.3' J
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
OF
MOST SIGNIFICANT SUBJECTS
1 . BERNARD L. BARKER
One of the five subjects arrested in the Democratic Party National
Headquarters, Watergate Office Building, June 17, 1972. Barker is the
President of Barker Associates, Inc. , Miami, a real estate firm. He
was born in Havana, Cuba, March 17, 1917 of American arents. He
is orte
l Barker
was utilized to recruit other Cuban-Americans to participate in the Water-
gate burglaries and his company bank accounts were utilized as a conduit
for funds which were utilized in the activities of the Watergate burglars.
Prosecutive Action
Barker was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on September 15,
1972, on one count of Interception of Communications and one count of
Conspiracy as weil as two counts of violation of the District of Columbia
Code. On January 15, 1973, Barker plead guilty and on November 9,
1973, he was sentenced to an indefinite term of from 18 months to 6 years
in Federal custody.
2. DWIGHT L. CHAPIN
I Former Appointments Secretary to President Nixon, Chapin was
a close associate of I-I. R. Haideman and worked for Haldeman at the
J. Walter Thompson Advertising Agency in Los Angeles, California,
prior to coming to the White House in 1969. Chapin resigned his post
at the White House on February 28, 1973, and returned to the business
world.
i
i
v
z
E
P
>.
i
2
c
¢
:
r
I. .-.!
3. CHARLES W. COLSGN
Former Special Counsel to President Nixon from late 1969 until
February 1973, Colson was in charge of special projects and liaison with
outside groups. He is prominently mentioned in the White House tapes
as being a hard-nose trouble-shooter. Colson brought E. Howard Hunt
to the White House as a consultant. Colson was questioned several
times by Bureau agents during the immediate aftermath of the Watergate
burglary and while answering questions generally extremely guarded
in his comments and not fully cooperative.
Prosecutive Action
On March 1, 1974, Colson was indicted on one count of Conspiracy
to Obstruct Justice and one count of Obstruction of Justice in connection
with the cover up of the Watergate burglary matters. These charges
were dropped after Colson plead guilty in the Ellsherg case on June 3,
1974. Colson was indicted on March 7, 1974, on one count of Conspiracy
to violate the civil rights of Dr. Fielding, the psychiatrist to Dr. Ellsberg
This charge was also dropped on June 3, 1974, when Colson plead guilty
to another charge, that oi Obstruction of Justice in the Ellsberg investi-
gation and trial.
4. JOHN W. DEAN HI
Former Chief Counsel to the President and Deputy Associate
Attorney General of the United States, Dean, aged 35, was the President's
Coimsel from July 1970 until April 30, 1973. Dean was the liaison
representative oi the White House with the Bureau during the Watergate
investigation and received written reports from former Acting Director
L. Patrick Gray. In addition Dean sat in all interviews of White House
employees conducted by the Bureau. It was alleged and Dean has con-
firmed that he withheld certain documents from the safe of E. Howard
Hunt located in the White House and later turned over certain of these
documents to Mr. Gray for destruction. He also has acknowledged that
he himself retained certain of these documents and later destroyed them
himself. Dean has been a principal witness against President Nixon and
is to date the only individual with first hand knowledge who has accused
the President of any illegal activities. In addition to Mr. Gray, Dean
also dealt with Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen and former
Attorney General Kleindienst in matters relating to the White House
involvement in the Watergate case.
T
J
>A
92=_
92
l
P
l
l
t
l
I!
ti
4
»
i
l
92
l
l
F3
Prose-cutive Action
Dean was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on one count of
Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice. On November 30, 1973, he plead guilty
to this charge. Sentencing is being held in abeyance.
5. JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN
Ehrlichman served as Chief Counsel to the President and later
as Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs. Ehrlichman, aged 49,
was a classmate of former White House Chief of Staff, H. R. "Bob"
Haideman at UCLA in the late 1940's. Ehrlichman served in President
Nixon's unsuccessful presidential campaign in 1960 and in 1968 Ehrlichman
served as the Tour Director for the Nixon campaign. He came to the
White House immediately after the inauguration in 1969 as White House
Counsel which position he held until being made Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs. Ehrlichman established the in-house investigative
unit officially titled "The White House Special Investigations Unit," later
to be known as the "Plumbers". One of Ehrlichman's principal assistants
on the Domestic Council, Egil Krogh, Jr. , was installed by Ehrlichman
as the head of the "Plumbers Unit". Ehrlichman is alleged to have approved
the office burglary of Dr. Fielding, the psychiatrist to Daniel Ellsberg.
Ehrlichman resigned on April 30, 1973, at the same time that the President
fired John Dean and also accepted the resignation of H. R. Haldeman.
Prosecutive Action
Ehrlichman was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on March 1,
1974, on one count of Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, one count of making
a false statement to the FBI, two coimts of making false statements to
a Grand Jury and one count of Obstruction of Justice. Ehrlichrnan plead
not guilty to all counts of the indictment on March '7, 1974.
6. VIRGILIO RAMON GONZALEZ
One of the five individuals who were arrested inside the Democratic
Party National Headquarters at the Watergate Office Building on June 1'7,
1972. Gonzalez is a locksmith by trade, living and working in the Miami,
Florida, area. A native of Cuba and reportedly a former member of the
Cuban Secret Service, Gonzalez entered the United States as a permanent
resident in 1954 and was naturalized in 1972. It has been alleged that
Gonzalez was formerly associated with the CLA but this allegation has
been denied by the CIA.
I
1
,
3
1
a
5'
i
!
;
i
1
t
F<
._» -,.Prosecutive Action
Gonzalez was indicted by a Federai Grand Jury on September 15,
1972, for Conspiracy and Interception of Communications as well as
burglary and other violations of the District of Columbia Code. Gonzalez
plead guilty on January 15, 1973, and on November 9, 1973, was sentenced
to from one to six years in the custody of the Attorney General.
7. HARRY ROBBINS BOB! HALDEMAN
Former Chief of Staff at the White House and generally reported
to be the most influential oi the Presidents advisers, Haldeman was an
advanceman in the Presidents 1960 presidential campaign and Chief of
Staff in the President's 1968 campaign. He came to the White House as
Chief oi Staff immediately aiter the 1968 inaugural and remained in that
position until April 30, 1973, when he resigned simultaneous with John
Ehrlichman and Attorney General Kleindienst. Haldeman is 47 years of
age and was employed as a Vice President with the J. Walter Thompson
Advertising Agency in Los Angeles prior to assuming his duties with
President Nixon.
Prosecutive Action
Haldeman was indicted on March 1, 1974, on one cotmt of
Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice, one count of Obstruction of Justice, and
three counts of Perjury. Haldeman entered not guilty pleas to all counts
of the indictment on March 9, 1974.
8. GEORGE A. HEARING
A Tampa, Florida, accountant who was indicted by a Federal
Grand Jury in Tampa along with Donald Segretti on charges of printing
and conspiring to distribute a bogus letter during the 1972 presidential
campaign.
Prosecutive Action
Indicted by a Federal Grand Jury, Tampa, Florida, May 4, 1973,
on counts of fabricating and distributing illegal campaign literature. Plead
guilty on May 11, 1973, and sentenced on June 15, 1973, to one year in
the custody of the Attorney General. The count on conspiracy was dis-
missed at this time.
F
E
l
2
E
l
.
I
E2
t
3
s
t
i9. E. HOWARD HUNT, JR.
Born October 9, 1918, in Hamburg, New York. A former
employee of the CIA having retired from the Agency in 1970 after more
than 20 years of service, Hunt was employed en a parttirne consultant
basis with the White House through the auspices of Charles Colson, Special
Counsel to the President. Hunt's involvement with the five subjects
found inside the Watergate complex was established shortly after the
subjects were arrested. It was established that Hunt had assembled
the CubanAmerican members of the burglary team who had prior CIA
contacts with Hunt. Hunt was uncooperative with the Bureau agents when
interviewed and gave no information which assisted in the solution of
this case. Hunt's activities at the White House involved several other
very sensitive matters including the ITT affair with specific assignments
relating to Dita Beard, the Ellsberg case, and the collection of intelli-
gence information regarding Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts.
Very sensitive information regarding these activities held in Hunt's safe
in the Executive Office Building were the cause of John Dean requesting
former Acting Director Gray to assume custody of this material and
allegedly stating it should never see the light of day. Hunt is alleged to
have demanded substantial funds from the Committee to Re-Elect the
President and the White House in order to maintain silence in regard to
his activities. Hunt's wife died on December 8, 1972, in an aircraft
crash in Chicago. Bureau agents recovered $10, 000 in one hundred dollar
bills in Mrs. Hunt's purse at the time of the crash.
Prosecutive Action
On September 15, 1972, Hunt indicted by a Federal Grand
Jury in Washington, D. C. , on charges of Interception of Communications,
Conspiracy and Burglary. On January 11, 1973, Hunt plead guilty to all
counts and on November 9, 1973, received a sentence of from 30 months
to eight years in the custody of the Attorney General and a $10, 000 fine.
Hunt is presently free on bond appealing his sentence in this case.
10. HERBERT W. KALMBACH
F
r
1.
|
|
i
.*
l
?
1
F
F
P
i
I'T
il.5-.,- .-_.__;_'_-.-S.1 3
Kalmbach was born October 19, 1921, in Ft. Huron, Michigan,
and graduated from the University of Southern California Law School.
Kalrnbach was the Associate Finance Chairman of the 1968 Nixon
presidential campaign and worked directly for Maurice Stans. Kalmbach
also worked as a fund raiser for the President's re-election prior to
the official establishment of the Committee to Re-Elect the President.
Kalmbach's primary involvement in the Watergate affair appears to
have been obstruction of justice through the providing of money to be
used to silence the seven original defendants. He also provided money
to Donald Segretti which was used in illegal campaign activities.
Prosecutive_Actign_
An information was filed in Federal Court, District of Columbia,
on February 25 , 1974, charging violations of the Federal corrupt practices
act and a misdemeanor count of promising an Ambassadorship in return
for a campaign contribution. Kalmbach entered a guilty plea to these
counts on February 25, 1974.
11. EGIL E. KROGH, JR.
Krogh joined the White House in May 1969 as an Aide to then
Presidential Counsel John D. Ehrlichman. Krogh had previously worked
for Ehrlichman in a law firm in Seattle, Washington. Krogh also worked
on the Domestic Council of the White House and was involved in such
projects as transportation, narcotics control, corrections and legal
services. Krogh was placed in direct charge of the White House Investi-
gations Unit responsible for the investigation of the leak in the Pentagon
Papers matter and later publicly accepted full responsibility for the
burglary of Daniel El1sberg's psychiatrist's office by members of the
White House "Plumbers" group. At the time that Krogh acknowledged his
responsibility for the burglary he was employed as Under Secretary of
Transportation, a post from which he resigned on May 9, 1973.
Prosecutive Action
On November 30, 1973, Krogh entered a guilty plea to one count
of violating the civil rights of Dr. Lewis Fielding, Daniel Ellsberg's
psychiatrist, in the September 3~4, 1971, break-in at Fielding's office.
Krogh was sentenced on January 24, 1974, to serve six months of a
two to six year term in the custody of the Attorney General.
t!
12. FREDERICK C. LA RUE
A Jackson, Mississippi, businessman who came to Washington in
1969 as a Special Assistant to the President. After the formation of the
Committee to Re-Elect the President LaRue transferred to this Committee
and was an assistant to John Mitchell. In his statement before the Senate
Watergate Committee on July 18, 1973, LaRue admitted that he participated
in the Watergate cover up including helping to deliver cash intended for
the seven defendants in the Watergate burglary trial. LaRue was present
at the March 30, 1972, meeting in Key Biscayne, Florida, where John
Mitchell, Jeb Stuart Magruder, G. Gordon Liddy and LaRue discussed
intelligence plans for the Committee to Re-Elect the President, during
which time Jeb Magruder has stated Mitchell approved Liddy's plan for
electronic surveillance coverage of the Democratic National Committee
as well as other illicit campaign tactics. LaRue has also admitted that
he transferred $210, 000 of the Committee to Re-Elect the President's
money to William O. Bittman, a lawyer for E. Howard Hunt, J r. , one of
the seven original defendants. lt was La Rue's understanding that Bittman
would disburse the money to various defendants in the Watergate case
and their lawyers. Bittman stated that the money was distributed according
to directions he received from John Dean.
Prosecutive Action
r92__ ~r__._.. an 1' ...1-1--.. _.1._,..:| ..._-:'|.L-.. 1.... ..._.. ...-.......|. ...: r1..._.-,...:..,,-...--uu aunt: 4 I , , Llanue p1¬'d.Ll guilty LU um: uuuuu. ul. L.-Ull.bpl.1¢C_y
to Obstruct Justice. ntencing on this plea has been deferred.
13 . GEORGE GORDON LIDDY
A former FBI agent from September 1957 to September 1962 who
was also employed as an Assistant District Attorney in New York State
and as a Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury for Law
Enforcement Matters. He served from July to December 1971 as a
Special Assistant on the Domestic Council in the White House. Liddy
left the White House in December 1971 to go to the Committee to Re-
Elect the President in which he served as Legal Counsel and later as
Legal Counsel to the Finance Committee. Liddy was the prime mover in
the scheme to electronically monitor the Democratic National Committee
Headquarters at the Watergate. He devised the original plans and to-
gether with E. Howard Hunt assembled the team which eventually carried
out the Watergate burglary and wiretapping. L-iddy personally presented
his intelligence schemes to former Attorney General John Mitchell who
is alleged by John Dean to have approved Liddy's operations including
-95-
F
s 9 !
I
>
é
1
I.
f;?,;the wiretapping of the Democratic National Committee. Mitchell denies
authorizing the Liddy plan but does not deny that it was discussed with
him. Throughout the entire course of the Watergate investigations and
trials Liddy has refused to cooperate not only with the FBI but with the
Special Prosecutor, the courts, and Congressional Committees.
Prosecutive Action
In the Watergate burglary and wiretapping matter, Liddy was
indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on September 15, 1972, on four counts
including Interception of Communications, Conspiracy and Burglary.
Liddy was found guilty on all counts at a trial which concluded on
January 30, 1973. On March 23, 1973, he was sentenced to serve from
six years eight months to no more than twenty years and a $40, 000 fine.
In regard to the Daniel Ellsberg case, Liddy was indicted on March 7,
1974, on one count of conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Dr. Fielding.
Liddy plead innocent on March 14, 1974, and is currently awaiting trial
on these charges. In addition Liddy has been charged with refusing to
testify before a House Committee. He was convicted on this charge on
May 10, 1974, and given a suspended six month sentence.
14. JEB STUART MAGRUDER
A former assistant to I-I. R. Haldeman and White House
Communications Director Herbert G. Klein from 1969 to 1971 at which
time he was appointed Acting Director of the Committee to Re-Elect the
President and later was made Deputy Director serving under John
Mitchell. Magruder, a graduate of Williams College and the University
of Chicago Business School, worked in advertising and management in
Santa Monica, California, prior to joining the Nixon administration.
He has previously worked as a volunteer in election campaigns of
President Nixon, Senator Barry Goldwater, and former Representative
Donald Bumsield. At the time of his indictment Magruder was employed
as Planning Director for the Department of Commerce.
Prosecutive Action
On August 16, 1973, Magruder plead guilty to a one count indict-
ment charging Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice. On May 21, 1974, Magruder
was sentenced to from ten months to four years in Federal custody.
_97_
Fr
Fl
X.
i
1
Y
a
F
3C
~':; 'v'r¬t
.-
L, ..!
15 . ROBERT C. MARDIAN
Former Assistant Attorney General, Internal Security Division,
Department of Justice. Mardian resigned from his position as Assistant
Attorney General in April of 1972 to join the Committee for the Re-Election
of the President. His position at the Committee was that of Campaign
Coordinator and Political Consultant. Jeb Magruder has testified that
Mardian was present in a meeting in John Mitchell's apartment on June 19,
1972, during which time the destruction of illegal wiretap logs was dis-
cussed. Mardian has testified that four days after the Watergate break-
in G. Gordon Liddy briefed him and Fred LaRue about the Watergate
break-in, the Ellsberg psychiatrist break-in and other matters pertaining
to the "Plumbers" operations. Mardian now resides in Phoenix, Arizona,
where he is President of the Mardian Construction Company. In a state-
ment to FBI agents Mardian acknowledged receiving custody of logs from
FBI wiretaps of White House aides and newspaper reporters which were
undertaken upon White House instructions in an effort to discover the
source of news leaks of highly classified information. Mardian stated
that he turned the logs of these wiretaps over to the White House where they
were located last May as a result of an FBI inquiry instituted by former
Acting Director Ruckelshaus. These logs were found in a safe belonging
to former presidential Domestic Comisel John D. Ehrlichman.
Prosecutive Action
On March 1, 1974, Mardian was indicted on one count of Conspiracy
to Obstruct Justice. On March 9, 1974, he plead not guilty to this charge.
A tentative trial date of September 9, 1974, has been set.
16. EUGENIO ROLANDO MARTINEZ
One of the five subjects apprehended in the Watergate complex on
artinez June 17, 1972. M
from Cuba in
received an im
in 59 and was naturalized in 1970. His naturalization
petition was signed by Bernard L. Barker, also one of the subjects
arrested at the Watergate. Prior to the Watergate break-in Martinez
was employed by the real estate firm of Bernard Barker in Miami,
Florida.
I
,
§
i
E
t
5
I
|
.
E
i
P .1 t t
J- L.!
Prosecutive Action
On September 15, 1972, Martinez was indicted on fo1n~ counts charging
Interception of Communications, Conspiracy and Burglary. On January 15,
1973, Martinez plead guilty to the charges and on November 9, 1973, was
sentenced to from one to six years in the custody of the Attorney General.
On March 7, 1974, Martinez was indicted for conspiracy to violate the
civil rights of Dr. Lewis J. Fielding, a psychiatrist of Daniel Ellsberg
by burglarizing his office. The Grand Jury indictment charged that the
burglary was carried out by Bernard L. Barker, Felipe DeDiego and
Eugenio Martinez, under the supervision of G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard
HLLIL Trial for this hidictment was set for Jane 17, 1974.
17. JAMES WALTER MC CORD, JR.
A former FBI agent from October 1948 to February 1951 and
official with the CIA from 1951 to which time he retired. At
the time of his
cCord was one of the five
National Committee Headquarters
in the Watergate complex on June 17, 1972. At the time of his arrest
McCord was head of McCord Associates in Rockville, Maryland, a company
specializing in security work. McCord was employed at the time of his
arrest and had been so employed since January 1972 as Security Chief
for the Committee to ReElect the President. On March 23, 1973, Judge
John J. Sirica produced in open court a letter that McCord had written
charging that there had been a cover up in the Watergate case and that
perjury had been committed during the trial. On March 30, 1973,
Judge Sirica deferred sentencing of McCord until McCord testified before
the Federal Grand Jury and the Senate Watergate Committee. On May 18,
1973, McCord in testimony before the Watergate Committee implicated
by hearsay information that President Nixon himself was involved in
alleged offers of Executive Clemency in return for guilty pleas by
McCord and the other Watergate defendants. McCord also outlined a
series of payments he had received in a covert manner from John J.
Caulfield, a former presidential staff assistant who worked in the office
of John W. Dean III. Caulfield was at that time employed as a Special
Assistant to the Secretary of Treasury for Law Enforcement. McCord
has been critical of the FBI's investigation into the Watergate matter
stating that if an all out investigation had been conducted the Bureau
would have uncovered the whole story. McCord states he believes the
actions of L. Patrick Gray, former Acting Director of the FBI, thwarted
Bureau agents in fully discharging their investigative duties and thereby
adequately resolving the entire Watergate matter.
-99-
L
>
i
!
t
.
.
2
t
4,~r92.
4, .-.!'_<."
jj. j!
Prosecutive Action
On September 15, 1972, McCord was indicted by a Federal
Grand Jury on four counts charging Interception of Communications,
Conspiracy and Burglary in connection with the Watergate burglary
incident. McCord plead not guilty and at a trial ending January 30,
1973, was found guilty on all counts. On November 9, 1973, he was
sentenced to from one to five years in the custody of the Attorney
General. McCord is presently free on bond pending appeal.
18. JOHN N. MITCHELL
Former Attorney General of the United States from 1969 to 1972,
he left the Attorney Generals post on March 1, 1972, to become Director
of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. Mitchell resigned
this post on July 1, 1972, citing personal family reasons for leaving the
campaign post. Mitchell was a partner with President Nixon in the
New York law firm of Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander and Mitchell.
He is 60 years of age having been born on September 5, 1913, in Detroit,
Michigan, and is a graduate of Fordham University Law School. Testi-
mony received in the Senate Watergate Hearings indicated that Mitchell
while still Attorney General was involved in several meetings where
plans for a broad scale campaign of espionage and illicit campaign tactics
against the Democratic Party and its nominee were discussed which
plans were said to have included the electronic surveillance of the
Democratic National Committee Headquarters in the Watergate Complex.
Jeb Stuart Magruder, former Deputy Campaign Manager under John
Mitchell, testified before the Senate Watergate Committee that Mitchell
approved the electronic surveillance project on March 30, 1972, while
in Key Biscayne, Florida.
Prosecutive Action
On March 1, 1974, Mitchell was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury
on seven counts including conspiracy to obstruct justice, two counts of
making false statements to a Federal Grand Jury, one count of perjury,
one count of making false statements to FBI agents and one count of
obstruction of justice. Mitchell plead innocent on March 9, 1974, and a
tentative trial date has been set for September 9, 1974. On April 28,
1974, Mitchell along with former Secretary of Commerce Maurice H.
Stans were acquitted on charges of obstruction of justice in connection
with the Robert Vesco case wherein it was charged that they Mitchell
and Stans! attempted to influence the Securities and Exchange Commission
to take favorable action for Vesco in litigation that the Securities and
Exchange Commission had undertaken.
-100-
Fi
92
I
1
i
1
k
I
r
|
:
F
E
1
1C]
I 52;"?
.. O9'!
19. KENNETH W. PARKINSON
A prominent Washington attorney who has been active in civic and
legal affairs in the District of Columbia for several years. He is a
past President of the Junior Chamber of Commerce and has served as
an officer of the District of Columbia Bar Association and President
of the Legal Aid Society. Parkinson was retained by the Committee for
the Re-Election of the President immediately following the Watergate
break-in arrests. Parkinson represented the Re-Election Committee
in several suits brought by Democratic Party officials. Parkinson also
sat in on FBI interviews with Re-Election Committee employees and it
was alleged that at least on one occasion Parkinson confronted an
employee and accused her of talkhg to the FBI without his authority.
Prosecutive Action
On March 1, 1974, Parkinson was indicted by a Federal Grand
Jury on one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and one count of
obstruction of justice. Parkinson plead not guilty on March 9, 1974.
A trial date of September 9, 1974, was set.
20. HERBERT L. PORTER
Former Scheduling Director, Committee for the Re-Election of
the President, Porter testified before the Senate Watergate Committee
on June 7, 1973. Porter advised the Committee that Jeb Magruder,
former Deputy Director of the Nixon campaign asked him Porter! to
tell a fabricated story about what happened to $100, 000 in cash given to
convicted Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy. Porter also admitted
that he had related the false account of how the funds were used to the
FBI and to the Watergate Federal Grand Jury.
Prosecutive Action
On January 28, 1974, Porter plead guilty to a one count
information charging false statements to FBI agents. He was sentenced
on April 11, 1974, to serve 30 days of a five to fifteen month sentence.
Porter was released from custody on May 20, 1974.
?
;
I
1
I
v
R
1
E
E
It
L
it
.
92.
r
F
F
|:
u
1i
i
I|
S.
1
L -
.171-.;;-'{_ .¢-»
' c1» A 1»
21 DONALD H.
A California attorney born in San Marino, California, in 1941 and
educated at the University of Southern California. At the University of
Southern California Segretti became acquainted with Dwight Chapin,
former Appointments Secretary to President Nixon. Segretti served in
a legal position with the Treasury Department in Washington, D. C. ,
and later joined the U. S. Army where he served as an attorney in
the Judge Advocateis General Corps. Herbert Kalmbach, former
personal attorney to President Nixon has advised Bureau agents that
Segretti was brought to his attention by Dwight Chapin and that he met
with Segretti on Chapin's instructions in August or September 1971 as
Segretti was leaving the Army. Chapin instructed Kalmbach to pay
Segretti $16, 000 per year and expenses out of campaign contributions
collected before the April 7, 1972, law requiring campaign contribution
disclosure became effective. Segretti in testimony before the Senate
Watergate Committee on October 3, 1973, confirmed that he had been
hired in the Summer of 1971 by two former University of Southern
California classmates, Dwight Chapin and Gordon Strachan, who were
both then employed by the White House. Segretti advised he was instructed
to perform certain political functions for the re-election of the President.
Segretti stated he considered these functions to be "similar to college
pranks which had occurred at the University of Southern California and
that there was nothing improper or illegal in such traditional activities. "
He was later instructed by Chapin that his duties would consist of various
activities tending to foster a split between the various Democratic hopefuls
and to prevent the Democratic Party from uniting on one candidate.
Segretti stated he had received $45, 000 in expense money from Herbert W.
Kalmbach during the period September 1971 to March 1972 and bi~weekly
salary payments of $667 during the same period.
Prosecutive Action
On September 27, 1973, Segretti was indicted by a Federal Grand
Jury in Washington, D. C. , on charges of the illegal distribution of false
campaign literature. Segretti plead guilty on October 1, 1973, was sen-
tenced to one year on each count, suspended with six months in the custody
of the Attorney General and probation for three years. Segretti was
released from Federal custody on March 25, 1974.
F
é
t
t
Ei
r
I
Bn
{ ;'§_ 1'4;"* 9 __a
22. GORDON C. STRACHAN
Graduate of the University of Southern California who received his
law degree from the University of California. Strachan worked for
President Nixon's former law firm in New York for two years before
joining the White House Staff in August 1970 as an Assistant to White
House Chief of Staff H. R. Bob! Haldeman. Strachan worked for
Haldeman until December 1972 when he became General Counsel for
the United States Information Agency. He assumed that position in
January of 1973 and resigned on April 30, 1973, the same day that
Haldeman resigned his position as White House Chief of Staff. Strachan
served as the liaison representative between Haideman and the Committee
to Re-Elect the President during 1972 campaign. Jeb Stuart Magruder,
former Deputy Director of the Nixon campaign testified that Strachan was
kept informed of plans to develop a covert intelligence gathering operation
involving break-ins and illegal wiretapping being carried out by the
Re-Election Committee. Magruder also stated that Strachan had been
informed that the operation had been approved and that Strachan was
furnished with copies of "Gemstone" materials for transmittal to his
White House superiors. Strachan has testified that Haldeman had told
him on June 29, 19?2, three days after the Watergate break-in to "make
sure our les are clean". Strachan testified that he destroyed documents
that had been received in the White House from the Re-Election Committee
as a result of that order from Haldeman. Strachan has also stated that he
returned to Frederick C. LaRue, an official of the Re-Election Committee,
$350, 000 in cash being kept in the White House. LaRue has testified that
this money was given to the Watergate defendants as part of the "cover up.
Frosecutive Action
On March 1, 1974, Strachan was indicted by a Federal Grand
Jury, Washington, D. C. , on counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice,
obstruction of justice and making false statements to a Federal Grand
Jury. Strachan plead innocent on March 9, 1974, and a tentative trial date
has been set for September 9, 1974.
-103-
E
at
I.
l
E
P
£
I
a
::Z
1
3 ;,
u_4"'3
23 . FRANK ANTHONY ST URGIS
Sturgis, who was born Frank Anthony Fiorini, later changed
his name to Sturgis, was one of the five defendants arrested during the
Watergate burglary on June 17, 1972. Sturgis is a Miami resident and
the operator of the Hampton Roads Salvage Company in Miami. He is
a long time associate of fellow Watergate defendants Bernard L. Barker
and Eugenio Martinez. Sturgis lost his U. S. citizenship in 1960 when
he enlisted in the armed forces of a foreign nation the Cuban Army!.
He has been involved with the
other
e Watergate matters.
Prosecutive Action
Sturgis was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury on September 15,
1972, on counts of Interception of Communications, Conspiracy and
Burglary. He plead guilty on January 15, 1973, and was sentenced on
November 9, 1973, to serve to from one to four years. Sturgis was
freed pending an appeal on January 18, 1974.
F
|
t
1.
>
.4
¥
>
.
Q
b. 92 1
13; tr,.gI
APPENDLX C
EXPLANATORY NOTES AND DOCUMENTATION
1. Airtel from Acting Director FBI, to SACs Washington Field,
Atlanta, Alexandria, Baltimore, Boston, Kansas City, New York, and
Philadelphia; captioned "James Walter McCord, Jr. ; Bernard L.
Barker, et al. , Burglary of Democratic Party National Headquarters,
6/ 17/'72, Interception of Communications - Conspiracy, " Bureau file
No. 139-4089.
2. "Plumbers" is a name given the White House Special Investigations
Unit. The Unit was under the direction of Egil Krogh.
3. General Investigative Division Inspection; Inspector W. M. Mooney,
Report dated 8/10/73, Pages 69-'77.
4. W. M. Felt to Walters memorandum, dated 5/22/'73, captioned
"Watergate. "
5. L. M. Walters to Felt memorandum, dated 5/23/'73, captioned
"Watergate. "
6. Memorandum to Mr. Archibald Cox, Special Prosecuting Attorney,
from Acting Director FBI, dated 6/ 7/ '73, captioned "Watergate - Events
at Initial Stage of Case. "
7. Inspector James Joseph O'Connor to Mr. Jacobson memorandum,
dated 6/ 26/ '73, captioned "Watergate - Analysis of Possible Involvement
by L. Patrick Gray."
8. Letter to Special Prosecutor's Office, from Director, FBI, dated
4/10/'74, captioned "Confirmation Hearings of L. Patrick Gray III. "
9. For comments and/or criticisms in this general area see Transcript
of White House Tapes, pages 258-259, 821-822; Transcript of Silbert
Confirmatio_n Hearings, pages 38-39, 97-99; Report of*Sen*ate Watergate
Ijimiaringst, pages 940-941, 944-945, 3478-3482; A Piecetotf Tzipe-,***Tlj_§ Z
Watergate Story: Fact or Fiction by James W. lVIcCord,Wpage s 66] 236-237,
3112-313, 324; Allfhe President's Men by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward
pages 172, 232} Watergate: The'Fu;ll Inside Story by Lewis Chester, Et Al,
pages 182, 186; L. Patrick Gray III, Senate Confirmation Hearings,
pages 45-46, s7,"304, 331-332,i33i;339, 345, 347, 353, 361, 375, 619,
653, 692-693.
-1057
V
E
[
i
I
1
i1
1
BC:'.-- :13
10. See Silbert Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 81-82, 84, 154-161; Senate
Watergate Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 3485, 3848-3849; McCord, Op. cit.,
pages 39, 43, 65-66; Bernstein and Woodward, Op. cit. , pages 41, 67,
172; Gray Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 334-336, 345.
11. See White House Transcript, Op. cit. , pages 270-271; Silbert
Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 37-43; Senate Watergate Hearings, Op. cit. ,
page 3467; Bernstein and Woodward, Op. cit. , page 232; Chester, Op. cit.
page 183; Gray Confirmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 328, 350-354,
676, 692; "The Judge Who Tried Harder" by George V. Higgins in "The
Atlantic Magazine", April 1974, page 103.
12. See White House Transcripts, Op. cit. , pages 185-186; Silbert
Confirmation Hearings, Op. cit. , page 32; Senate Watergate Hearings,
Op. cit., pages 963, 3485-3486, 3554-3555, 3582, 3790; McCord, Op.
cit. , page 39.
13. See Silbert Confirmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 57-58, 104,
179-183; Chester, Op. cit. , page 186; Bernstein and Woodward, Op. cit. ,
pages 29-31, 35.
14. See Silbert Confirmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 15-16, 32;
Senate Watergate Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 3521, 3848-3849; McCord,
Op. cit. , pages 37-38, 40; Bernstein and Woodward, Op. cit. , page 173.
15. See Silbert Confirmation Hearings, Op. cit. , page 64; Bernstein
and Woodward, Op. cit. , page 200.
16. See White House Transcripts, Op. cit. , page 56-57; Silbert Con-
firmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 99-101; Senate Watergate Hearings,
Op. cit., pages 3548, 3595-3596, 3651-3652; McCord, Op. cit. , pages
25-26 McCord states that he installed two electronic devices on the
telephones in the Democratic National Committee Headquarters, Watergate
Office Building, that were not detected or removed by the FBI; the first
was removed in December 1972 from the telephone of Spencer Oliver and
the second was not removed until April 1973. !
17. See White House Transcripts, Op. cit. , page 381; Silbert Con-
firmation Hearings, Op. cit., 109-110, 116-119, 122-124, 126-127, 132,
135-136; Senate Watergate Hearings, Op. cit., pages 3551-3552, 3620-
3621; Bernstein and Woodward, op. cit. , pages 18, 29-31, 35, 107, 166;
Chester, Op. cit. , pages 183-184, 188; Gray Confirmation Hearings, Op.
cit., pages 44, 57-60, 77, 144, 147-148, 1'77, 214-219, 224, 305-307,
347, 391, 599, 625, 664-665, 691.
-106-
l.
ll
F
i
:
i
E
i
*.
é
F
Ir
5
ir
C
:61
- .1_ : .2.¢~¢.,,'AIQ 4- CDCQ Q: Q _w-1 4 1 1-. -1 4n; An Jl92P 4I92A92
18. bee white HOUSE lranscripts, up. cit. , pages 131-152, 185-186,
821-822, 865, 1218; Silbert Confirmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 43-44,
124-125; Senate Watergate Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 3450-3467 re CIA
connection!, 3467-3472 re John Dean and Hunt files!, 3624-3625; McCord,
Op. cit. , pages XI, 40, 228-229, 237, 319; Bernstein and Woodward,
Op. cit., pages 107, 146, 166, 230; Chester, Op. cit., 189, 204;
Higgins, Op. cit. , 102-103; also see pages listed in Footnote 17, supra,
re Gray Confirmation Hearings regarding Donald Segretti matter.
19. See White House Transcripts, Op. cit. , page 88; Senate Confirmation
Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 124-126; Bernstein and Woodward, Op. cit. ,
pages 66, 146, 165, 270.
20. See White House Transcripts, Op. cit. , pages 185-186; Silbert Con-
firmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 135-136; Senate Watergate Hearings,
Op. cit. , pages 940-941, 3532; Bernstein and Woodward, Op. cit. ,
pages 153, 157; Gray Conrmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 227
21. See White House Transcripts, Op. cit. , pages 185-186; Silbert Con-
firmation Hearings, Op. cit., pages 11-12, 23, 25, 29, 35-37, 51-53,
65, 73-74, 110-115, 127, 132, 171, 1'73, 175, 186, 188; Senate Watergate
Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 3560-3567, 3620-3625; McCord, Op. cit. ,
pages XI, XV, 35, 39, 234-235, 237-238, 315-316, 319, 325-327;
Bernstein and Woodward, Op. cit. , pages 127; Chester, pages 166-167.
22. See Silbert Confirmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 63-72; Senate
Watergate Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 3403-3449, 3815, 3450-3467, 3648,
3821-3822; McCord, Op. cit. , pages 49-51; Bernstein and Woodward,
Op. cit. , pages 73, 318; Chester, Op. cit., 186-192, 214, 225, 226-227.
23. See White House Transcripts, Op. cit. , pages 128-129 This is a
conversation between the President and White House Counsel John Dean in
which they are discussing the supposed political use oi the FBI by the
Johnson Administration. During this conversation the President states
"How bad would it hurt the country, John, to have the FBI so terribly
damaged?" Dean replies, "Do you mind if I take this back and kick it
around with Dick Moore? These other questions. I think it would
be damaging to the FBI, but may be it is time to shake the FBI and re-
build it. I am not so sure that the FBI is everything it is cracked up to
be. I am convinced that the FBI isn't everything the public thinks it is. "!
Pages 185-186 In this conversation between the President and John Dean
they are discussing the adequacy of the investigation and the performance
of Assistant Attorney General Henry Petersen. The President states to
P
t
é
3
I
ii
,|
H
I
|
I
2
¥ IH
'!
Dean "Do you honestly feel that he did an adequate job?" Dean replied,
"They ran that investigation out to the fullest extend they could follow
a lead and that was it. " The President then asked "But the way point is,
where I suppose he could be criticized for not doing an adequate job.
Why didn't he call Haldeman? Why didnt he get a statement from Colson?
Oh, they did get Colson! Dean then stated, Thats right. But as based
on their FBI interviews, there was no reason to follow up. There were
no leads there. Colson said, I have no knowledge of this to the FBI.
Strachan said, I have no knowledge. They didn't ask Strachan any
questions about Watergate. They asked him about Segretti. They said,
what is your connection with Liddy?' Strachan just said, Well, I met
him over there. ' They never really pressed him. Strachan appeared,
as a result of some coaching, to be the dumbest paper pusher in the
bowels of the White House. " Pages 2'70-271 In this conversation between
the President, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Dean and Mr. Mitchell
on March 22, 1973, they discussed the testimony of L. Patrick Gray III
during his Senate confirmation hearing indicating that John Dean probably
lied to FBI agents about whether or not Howard Hunt had an office in the
White House. Dean states to the President that he had indicated that he
would check it out and that the agent had asked ii he could see the office
and that Dean had told him that he would have to check it out. Dean is
complaining that the headlines will state "Gray says Dean lies. " And
the President indicates that Mr. Gray probably misunderstood the question
and Mitchell states Another factor -- those agents may not have reported
it exactly."! Pages 338, 566-567 In this conversation between the President,
Haldeman and Ehrlichman on April 14, 1973, the adequacy of Ehrlichman's
inquiry into the Watergate cover up is being discussed. Haldeman states
"Did you review the FBI files?" Ehrlichman "No. " Haldeman, "Why not?
That's the original source you said was the most extensive investigation
in history. Why the hell didn't you look at it?" Ehrlichman, "I didn't look
at because I didn't need to look at it. I got a summary." Later in this
conversation Ehrlichman indicates that the summary he reviewed was a
Justice Department summary and that he did not attempt to duplicate the
inquiry that had been conducted by the U. S. Attorney, the Federal Grand
Jury or the Justice Department. ! Pages 1216-1220. These pages reflect
the transcript of a conversation between the President and two attorneys
for Haldeman and Ehrlichman, a Mr. Wilson and a Mr. Striekler. Luring
this conversation Mr. Wilson relates to the President, Ehrlichmans
version of what happened when John Dean turned over certain materials
from Howard Hunt's White House safe to Mr. Gray in the presence of
John Ehrlichman!; Silbert Confirmation Hearings, Op. cit. , pages 106,
92
3
r
i
>
L;4"?-_.->.
!
Deputy Director of the CIA, John Dean, Henry Petersen, John Ehrlichman
and H. R. Haldeman before the Senate Watergate Committee in relationship
to attempted White House interference during the initial stages of the FBI's
Watergate investigation.
24. W. W. Bradley to Mr. Conrad memorandum, dated April 12, 1973,
captioned "James W. McCord, et a1, IOC - Democratic National Committee
Headquarters DNCH!, " file No. 139-4089, serial 2001.
25. Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate on
Nomination of William D. Ruckelshaus To Be Deputy Attorney General,
page 49.
26. Ibid. , page 61
~109-