James Davey Appendix 112

am es Davey with Chief Judg Bryant – 1978 Tab 1 LI` James Davey with Chief Judge Sirica – 1974 Tab 1 James Davey with Benjamin Robinson (left) and Keith Custis (center) of USDA Inspector General’s Office – 1966 Tab 1 Tab 2 TABLE 46 18 PERSONS vrr •., *.• .. 5518.. 55111-‘ iztergate I e, 5513 et:ace 5518 a ,71r LA, • -40 74.75ron 74.75F 4575V ROOM CHEC126.. .t: CHG 1747137 9 /4 0 ga 552r 0.0 CliG COFFEE TEA OTHER FOOD / TO TBAR did I qrS TOTAL TAX ? 7 TOTAL 0. Tab 2 BAR 7 only set-upS .esn1 one (1) . bottle.cLitty Sark – • . WiNt.S . GOVERNNa0411 “Ais•191JVT 01, i LINC.I K)N; i-f.C.TE.1-1.6 .. , ‘;” /,’ i . . 1_,J.—- I 6 Ad ■ ? . ..-^ ., . . . . . Naivie of Fundion • 1)3.nn el.- —- No . ‘ — Pat. ‘anLI Day Pr idc.cy , My 26 +1972 fill.:. 8:30 FoorItoorn• Cont. lent S _ . . . . . . . A ..!1:35 ols Row:ntibi l ify of Nay -C.::$1. D;:poa ,-, • i Cr..dif Approved .. Priccr 11 ….i.-1 perscaL) f; . N. Exped.:d :10 No. Prepare for / . N:.. 0L60:Eked . . . I . . EXTRAS: Winos .. Corkage . Cigar; Cigar6-tes . 1.ettgle; – . L Flowors -Orr: h;: r.• MENU . ‘ – DIFEFET • , •. .00 ii.■ /.1v La Onyr,;7ation Amer ir t s • • 5 it? j t__.f:>,t … V32 NAffs6 of14. wev,iderpe.e. Palcx,o Kiehael Suarez /Preslacni.a.. • rhorio . . Shrirap Cocktail Filet Mignon, Medium, Baked Potato – • Sour Cream Bouguetiere Fresh Vegetables ToSSed Green Salad Frozen Parfait Cake Bread – Butter • Coffee – Tea $14.95 per porzon T T – f&fify pct rtmeni f.o.;;;;Sret:on clerk Of PIOni ❑ 7zR5 osPoLe s C..::ad soya 1 Schism ICJ Co-Os O T.f..:N•1. 101. 4 :.:^1 Gil 0 Elackbo ord li poThlor inock:o9 9 “… Moid .s ors:[ l’•oons ervon . (trams, o . rssod for ceolsolls , • RE?..jARKS. Bill Aaster Acct. in liot.c1 DETAILS. artc; REMINDERS Tab 2 ;r.,fitzez,d _ ‘ ,..der4L Tab 3 The Watergate Files – The Watergate Trial: May 1972 – June 1973 – Documents Page 2 of 4 JAMESW WCORD,JR, 7 VYTNCIER GOUNT ROCK-1L1A MARyLArirk ;F;30,50 F 1 L gr’\ MAR 1,9,t3 to jUta JAMES F.D AVEY tfr„.T. , 4 Certain questions have been posed to v:e from your honor throut,h Ole probation otCieek. , deck:Jab vita details of tha motivatfoila, Laski and eircurvitances. In endesvorinp, to respond ea these questions, Ian W . hiPsauc d in a vaei.bt Y 6E legalities. First, I may.be celled before a Serkete Committee inventiatiag this matter. Secondly, I may be involved in a civil suit, and thirrIly Chore .7ay bti a new trial at sc,,le future date. Fourthly, the probation officer %!ay be called before the Senate Committee to present testin.ony re2arding what env otherwise be a privileged cowgunicatien between dui:cndant and Jodl_e, nu understand it if Isnswered certain questions to the probation °filter, it Ja pessibJe such answers could becacae R matter ot record in the Senate and therefore a ,..ailehle for useitt th other proceedins just described. My elswers would, it ‘n1d seen: CO me, to violate my ti.eh c;:,andmeat riOts, Rad posst,b17 my 6th oxdadwent right to eaunsel asiirmusihir.ntterxntaz and •possidly other r4„hts. 9a the other band, to fail to answer yOur questions may appear to be non-cooperatitle, and 1 can therefore expett a much more severe sentenee. Tbere are further considerations which are not to t.i0itly taken. Several mek:kbers oI w> 4culi;y :kavo expressed Liar for my if I disclose knlyk4itdc or: 5vw kthe facts in this matter, either publicly far to WI’) ,oterrment represeutstive. Whexess K do not share their concerns to the same 0–,.kee, no, o urrnetens, I believe that Icatelieter; measures will bu .k.rklr.ct a y fewily, and friends -should Idiselc,so such facto. Such retaliation could destroy careers, income, and reputatioas of persons who are innocent uf any quit waacevet. Be that as it may, in thG interests 4f justice, and in the interear.; of resteriai, fair h in the triminal jciatice system, whieb faith has been severely da rznpd in this case, t 011 state the followiny to you at this time nhich I hope wLly he of help to you in meting ont justice in this case; There yes political pressure appll,ed to the defeadan 3 to plead guilty and remain saent. 2. Porja eturred dutIns the trial in ekaCtura hi_011y material to the very structare, orientation and impost cf the bive ,on,luc l a case, and to tao mativetioi: and intent of OA) defendants. 3. Others involved in the laterate operetioa wore n ,or. identifieJ durikv, the trial, when they conl4i have been by those testif, A true eopy: 4 o Narch 0, L973 http://www ,ford,utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?seetion =1&page.. . 5/28/2008 tiYi The Watergate Files – The Watergate Trial: May 1972 – June 1973 – Documents Page 3 of 4 Page 2 of 2 54 JAMOSIM.-M:aCORD.,JR. I Vi tai ntrt Gvvri.r ROCKVILLE. 9 4.11.FlYtd. KO 30Z SO 4. The Uatergate operatiOn was not a CIA operation. The Cubans may have been mislod by others into believing that it was a -CIA operation. I know Coe a Mot that IL wdS nfiti or statemnts wore unfortunaply cade by,yitaesso= which left the Court with the impression that Iheltio untruths, or withholdinz facts of A/s Mr:viz knowleke, when in fact only honest errors of memory were involved. 6. My motivations wort different than those of the others involved, but were not limited to or simply those offered in my dzienne durilv the tial. 74%s is no fault of my attorneys, but of the circumstances under whien wo had to prepare my dafenae. Followin5 sentence, I would appreeiate the opportunity to talk with you privately in chambers. Since I cannot fool confidant in talking with an FBI a4cnt, in testifying before a Grand jl,ry those U.S. Attorneys work for the Department of justice, or in talkin with other government representatives, such a discussion with you would he of assistance to ma. I ha •v not 4i cussed the above with my attorneys as• a matter of prcrtcation fox them. I give this atatemont freely and voluntarily, fully raaltzin thaC I mny be nonopned for ,riving; a false statement to a judicial Official, it the statements herein arc knowinr,ly uatrue. The statements are true and correct to the hest of my khowleilae and belief. IJA,q1’141 (.gases. W. •eCord, Jr. Tab3 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =l&page.. . 5/28/2008 Page 1 of 5 :Gerald R ticird Library & Muti The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents files Battle for the Tapes Documents Image(s) of Grand Jury subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to President Richard Nixon (View Transcript) Page 1 of 4 -Mcuirt .;MJ.1. 1)%1COS Ift lintteb tattl jeb ‘ur t ,,r• DiskfiNci MIME’ Court iy ■ 17 -9 3 THE UNITED STATES JOIN-I:104 r K .! .31-W TE, grAN icr r’W?fir e? r, Pr AF,Ws rto, • ri e ti tiF Irill!O1A91:1*: ,.;rand Jury +Room 3 K.’ : Jtj 0,„ C… OK. Any w..11.4rdirixtt-L2 affi tv.r., gn”.fici..,a1,. Dr avloyit oath, ccofiXca c!kf the 1trn r,–.):)jemtn h.orcriztattor ISCri4ust ad JUL 214 .6/3 JAI4E F, our k .•-. t;p v:•, ••••1,1.N11.. Ji 4 itl C4ir ii •”.!:’,’3..tra4.41,7 A. , tn:.tratify Otaht.Mit .,1::ila.$)L’i.;41.,:rISI:44414;A41+3.:14,tcrloparr,e.c..t43=1…wittroytickom-tirchoetairt;sx.:;pistex.t;Aultaxm b rf,11x: t.:11 flot-rormtrr.7-11 6:Lr objectia tigtoil Oft the 4itt4Ched gottua41…. WIT,’,”C.AN The $1,..:4;,,,,q(4:* J.02:ft j„ l’Erf J! f .rid rwr IhtY 23rAi 47-1. ee< eigiR.41414Pekt.4 scAt4o •’t N. 41:4)) of • 4104 . , • JANitS r Tab 4 http://www.forcLutexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page.. . 5/28/2008 at. .41elp …._ „ UNITED STATES tIBPOLVA FO/ TUE GRAD V. .41.)Vtl’en, *014″.. r5:71- . Dv: – xis Tab 4 ,.,; , i .•,…,…….„4.7VA..,.1.–2.-i-..-.. -, -“4.– — “.t ——— . fri..1… . C.. –\,-.,’:,…- 7. The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 2 of 5 Page 2 of 4 MARSHAL’S RETURN 7 anti Jr.ry No, „„ Subpoenaed personally di, . http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =3&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 3 of 5 Page 3 of 4 UNITN0 STATMS p1STRICT COURT 1′[s,? THEE DISTRICT OF cOLOWIA GRAND JURY UUnPORNA 1)UCE5% MOM Dat,Ad auly 23, 1973 Schedule of Documents or Objects to be Produced by or on BehAlf of Richard M. Mixon: 1. All tapes and other electronic m isc. # 47-73 Fl ✓ fi irs?a 4144,4 uAV, Clerk t..cnani and/Or 11 cal recordings or reproductions, and any memoranda, papers, transcripts or other writings, relating to: (a) Meting of June 20, 1972, in the President’s Executive Office Building (“E04”) Office involving Richard Nixon, John Ehrlichman and H. R. Haldeman from 10:30 a.m. to noon (time approximate). (b) Telephone conversation of June 20, 1972, between Richard Nixon and John. N. Mitchell from 0:00 to 6:12 p.m. (e) Meeting of June 30, 1972, in the President’s E013 Office, involving Messrs. Nixon, Haldeman and Mitchell from 12:55 to 2:10 p.m. (a) Meeting of September 15, 1972, in the President’s Oval Office’involving Mr. Nixon, Mr. Haldeman, and John W. Doan III from 6;27 to 6:17 p.m. (e) Beating of March 13, 1973, in the President’s Oval Office inmolving Messrs. Nixon, Dean and Haldeman from 12:42 to 2:00 p.m. (f) Meeting of March 21, 1973, in the President’s Oval Office involving Messrs. Nixon, Dean, and Haldeman from 10:12 to 11:55 a.m. (g) Meeting of Maroh 21, 1973, in the President’s DOB Office from 5:20 to 6:01 p.m. involving Messrs. Nixon, L. -.apuridA….mrakitAt.,,……-A4.06.1i..,14,64 Tab 4 http://w-vvvv.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =3&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 4 of 5 Zici,jler, Haldeman and Ehrlionman. (h) Meeting of March 72, 1.. 73 0in the Vresident’s mn Office from 1:57 to 343 v.m. involving Messrs. Nixon, Doan, Ehrlichman, Valdelman and Mitchall. (1) Meeting of April 15, 1973, in tho ,vrceident’s FOB Office between Mr. taxon and Mr. Dean from 9:17 to 10:12 p.m. 2. The original two paragraph memorandum from W. Richard Howard to Brace Kehrli, dated March 30, 172, concerning the torMination of Howard Hunt as a consultant and transfer to ‘1701’, signed “Dick.” with handwriting on the top and bottom of the one-page memorandum indicating that it was placed there by Kehrli. copy of this ummorandum was turned over to the Federal Bureau of Xnvestigatian on August 7, 1972, by James Rogers, Personnel Office, White Bouse.) 3. Original copiea of all “Political Matters Memoranda” and all “tabs” or “attachments” thereto from Gordon Strachan to B. R. Haldeman between November 1, 1973., and November 7, 1972, XXX Tab 4 Citation: Grand Jury subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox to President Richard Nixon http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?seetion—3&pa ge .. , 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 5 of 5 July 26, 1973, Misc. 47-73; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Records of the Di: Courts of the United States, Record Group 21, NARA, College Park, MD. Tab 4 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =3&page.. . 5/28/2008 A TRUE COPY AMES F. DAVEY, Clerks A l’IZUE Ci)11Y • r C” 17 L- I • ” j “I rte-fet/1/ Tab 5 WASH iNcras July 25, 1973 piz et) White House Counsel have received on my behalf a subpoena L i j444c . (3′ p), /3 duces tecurn issued out of the United States District Court for S p: the District of Coh to ambia on July 23rd at the request of Archibald si ii- e’y Cox. The subpoena calls on me to produce for a Grand Jury ‘ C< Of/ certain tape recordings as well as certain specified documents. With the utmost respect for the court of which you are Chief Judeg, and for the branch of government of which it is a part, 1 must decline to obey the command of that subpoena. In doing so I follow the,example of a long line of my predecessors as President of the United States who have consistently adhered to the position that the President is not subject to compulsory process from the courts, The independence a the three branches of our government is at the very heart of our Constitutional system. It would be wholly inadmissible, for the President to seek to compel some particular action by the courts. It is equally inadmissible for the courts to seek to compel some particular action from the President. That the President is not subject to compulsory process from the ,other branches of government does not mean, of course, that all information in the custody of the President must forever remain unavailable to the courts. Like all of my predecessors, I have always made relevant material available to the courts except in those rare instances when to do so would be inconsistent with the public interest. The principle that guides my actions in this regi*. was ‘V ell stated by Attorney General Speed in 1865: Upon princi-oles of public policy there are some kinds of evidence which the law excludes or dispenses Trith. * * The official transactions Dear Judge ,Sirica: u(114 between the heads of departments of the Government and their subordinate officers are, in general, treated as “privileged communications. ” The President of the United States, the heads of the great departments of the Government, and the Governors of the several States, it has been decided, axe nqt bound to produce papers or disclose information communicated to them where, in their own judgment, the disclosure would, on public considerations, be inexpedient. These are familiar ruleS laid down by every author on the law of evidence. A similar principle has been stated by many other Attorneys General, it has been recognized by the courts, and it has been acted upon by many Presidents. In the light of that principle, I am voluntarily transmitting for the use of the Grand Jury the Memorandum from W. Richard Howard to Bruc&’Kehrli in which they are interested as well as the described memoranda from Gordon Strachan. to H. R. Haldeman: I have concluded, however, that it would be inconsistent with the public interest and with the Constitutional position of the Presidency fo make available recordings of meetings and telephone conversations in which I was a partici- . pant and must respecdully decline to do so. Sincerely, Honorabli. John J. Sirica U.S. Court House 3rd and Constitution Avenue, N. W. Room 2428 Washington, D.C. 20001 cc: Honorable Archibald Cox Special Prosecutor Enclosure: Ilcwa.rd/Kehrli rrernoranclum efftaif ‘Op Anil-nut) 03zura1 Iti ztaill-zgLart,11. Q… 2353a The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 2 of 4 TITLE 28 — JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATIM CHAPTER I — DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PART 0 — ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Order No. 546-73 ABOLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE This order abolishes the Office of Watergate Special -Prosecution Force. The functions of that Office revert to the Criminal Division. By virtue of the authority vested in me by 28 U.S.C. 509, 510 and 5 U.S.C. 301, the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force is abolished. Accordingly, Part 0 of Chapter I of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, is amended as follovs: 1. Section 0.1 of Subpart A, -which lists he organizational units of the Department, is amended by deleting “Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force.” 2. Subpart G-1 is revoked. Tab 6 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page.. . 5/28/2008 2 • Date: The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 3 of 4 Page 2 of 2 Or . 517-73 of Oay 31, 1973, Order to. 518-73 o’E Xay 3/, 1973, Oraur No. 525-73 of Zuly •8, 1973, and Order 531-73 of Jay 31, 1973, are revoked. This order is e’llIcave as oE October 21, 1973. Acv.in.2′, Attorney (era ..v Tab 6 http://www.ford.utexa s.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Battle for the Tapes: July 1973 – November 1973 – Documents Page 4 of 4 Citation: Department of Justice Order No. 546-73, “Abolishment of Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force as the Director Thereof”, October 21, 1973; Basic Documents, BSD-1 Authority and Establishment, box 1; Administration Records, Records of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, Re Group 460; NARA, College Park, MD. Tab 6 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page.. . 5/28/2008 4,94- The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 2 of 3 MAR, iithiTL6’F.ai LY, etcrk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No, ; 1.0 Violation of 18 U.S.C. 00 371, 1001, 1503, 1621, and 1623 (conspiracy, false statements to a government agency, obstruction of justice, perjury and false declarations.) V. JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY Ilk HALDEMAN, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, CHARLES W. COLSON, ROBERT C. MARDIAN, KENNETH W. PARKINSON, and GORDON STRACHAN, Detendants. INDICTMENT The Grand Jury charges: In troducti n 1. On or about June 17, 1972, Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, Eugenio R. Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr. and Frank L. Stu gis were arrested in the offices of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate office building, Washington, D. C., while attempting to photograph documents and repair a surreptitious electronic listening device which had previously been placed in those offices unlawfully. 2. At all times material herein, the United Stutes Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and tha Federal Bureau of InVestigation were parts of the Department of Justice, a department and agency of the United Statea, and the Central Intelligence Agoncy was an agency of the United States. 3. Beginning on or about June 17, 1972, and continuing up to and including the date of the filing Ot this Tab 7 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?seetion =4&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 3 of 3 Citation: Indictment in United States of America v. John Mitchell, Harry R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichr Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, Kenneth W. Parkinson and Gordon Stachan, C.R. 74-110, filed Man 1974; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Records of the District Courts of the Un States, Record Group 21, NARA, College Park, MD. Tab? http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section-4&page.. . 5/28/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 1 of 9 Trials and Tribulations > Documents Transcript of Indictment in United States of America v. John Mitchell, Harry R. Haldeman, Jo D. Ehrlichman, Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, Kenneth W. Parkinson and Gordon Stacha (View Images) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, JOHN D. ERLICHMAN, CHARLES W. COLSON, ROBERT C. MARDIAN, KENNETH W. PARKINSON, and GORDON STRACHAN, Defendants. Criminal No. 74-110 Violation of 18 U.S.0 §§ 371, 1001, 1503, 1621, and 1623 (conspiracy, false statements to a government agency, obstruction of justice, perjury and false declarations. INDICTMENT Tab 7 http://www,ford,utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergatefiles/content.php?section–4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 2 of 9 The Grand Jury charges: Introduction 1. On or about June 17, 1972, Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, Eugenio R. Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr. and Frank L. Sturgis were arrested in the offices of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate office building, Washington, D. C., while attempting to photograph documents and repair a surreptitious electronic listening device which had previously been placed in those offices unlawfully. 2. At all times material herein, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation were parts of the Department of Justice, a department and agency of t United States , and the Central Intelligence Agency was an agency of the United States . 3. Beginning on or about June 17, 1972, and continuing up to and including the date of the filing of thi indictment, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District Columbia were conducting an investigation, in conjunction with a Grand Jury of the Untied States Distr Court for the District of Columbia which had been duly empanelled and sworn on or about June 5, 972, determine whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511 and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes the United States and of the District of Columbia, had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 4. on or about September 15, 1972, in connection with the said investigation, the Grand Jury returned indictment in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia charging Bernard L. Barker, Virgilio R. Gonzalez, E. Howard Hunt, Jr., G. Gordon Libby, Eugenio R. Martinez, James W. McCord, Jr., and Frank L. Sturgis with conspiracy, burglary and unlawful endeavor intercept wire communications. 5. From in or about January 1969, to on or about March 1, 1972 , JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT was Attorney General of the United States . From on or about April 9, 1972 , to on or about June 30, 1972 , he was Campaign Director of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. 6. At all times material herein up to on or about April 30, 1973 , HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDAN was Assistant to the President of the United States . 7. At all times material herein up to on or about A 30, 1973 , JOHN D. ERLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, was Assistant for Domestic Affairs to the President the United States . 8. At all times material herein up to on or about March 10, 1973 , CHARLES W. COLSON, the DEFENDP was Special Counsel to the President of the United States . 9. At all times material herein, ROBERT C. MARDIAN, the DEFENDANT, was an official of the Committe, Re-Elect the President. 10. From on or about June 21, 1972 , and at all times material herein, KENNETH W. PARKINSON, the DEFENDANT, was an attorney representing the Committee to Re-Elect the President. 11. At all times material herein up to in or about November 1972, GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDAr was a Staff Assistant to HARRY R. HALDEMAN at the White House. Thereafter he became General Cour to the United States Information Agency. Tab 7 http://www.ford ,utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=48zpage=.. . 5/7/2008 . The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 3 of 9 -16-74-110 COUNT TWO The Grand Jury further charges: 1. From on or about June 17, 1972, up to and including the date of the filing of this indictment, in the District of Columbia, and elsewhere, JOHN N. MITCHELL, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN CHARLES W. COLSON, KENNETH W. PARKINSON and GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANTS, unlawfu willfully and knowingly did corruptly influence, obstruct and impede, and did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice in connection with an investigation be conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Distrii Columbia, in conjunction with a Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columl and in connection with the trial of Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, by making cash payments and offers of other benefits to and for the benefit of the defendants in Criminal Case No. 1827-72 in the United States District Court for the District of Column and to others, both prior to and subsequent to the return of the indictment on September 15, 1972, fo the purpose of concealing and causing to be concealed the identities of the persons who were responsi for, participated in, and had knowledge of the activities which were the subject of the investigation anc trial, and by other means. (Title 18 United States Code, Sections 1503 and 2.) – 17 – 74-110 COUNT THREE The Grand 3ury further charges: On or about July 5, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, did knowin and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents of the Fede Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, which Department was then conducting an investigatio into a matter within its jurisdiction, namely, whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Cc 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and the District of Columbia, had been committed i the District of Columbia and elsewhere in connection with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate office building on June 17, 1972, and to identify the individi or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such violations that he stated that he had no knowledge of the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters other than what he had read in newspaper accounts of that incident. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.) – 18 – 74-110 COUNT FOUR The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 1. On or about September 14, 1972, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, http://www.ford.utexas ,edu/museum/ethibits/watergate_files/content.php?section–4&page=… 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 4 of 9 having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before t June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United St District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafte set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States Distract Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statues of ti United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in Watergate office building in Washington, D. C., and related activities. -20-74-110 COUNT FIVE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about April 20, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFENDANT, havinc, duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafte set forth. 2. At the time and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s 0 for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 2511, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of t United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed information relating to unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buildii in Washington, D. C., and related activities. -22-74-110 COUNT SIX The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museurn/exhibits/watergatefiles/content.php?section=4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 • The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 5 of 9 1. On or about July 10 and July 11, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN N. MITCHELL, the DEFEND, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to b administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state mater matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, pursu to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, of extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. -25-74-110 COUNT SEVEN The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about July 30, 1973, in the District of Columbia, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, havii duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaigr Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state mater matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the time and place alleged, the said committee was conducting an investigation and study, pursu to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, of extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. – 28 – 74-110 COUNT EIGHT The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 1. On or about July 30 and July 31, 1973, in the District of Columbia, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes C http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section =4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 6 of 9 oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath .1 material matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the times and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, purs to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, oi extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. – 32 – 74-110 COUNT NINE The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about August 1, 1973, in the District of Columbia, HARRY R. HALDEMAN, the DEFENDANT, ha’ duly taken an oath before a competent tribunal, to wit, the Select Committee on Presidential Campaigr Activities, a duly created and authorized Committee of the United States Senate conducting official hearings and inquiring into a matter in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he would testify truly, did willfully, knowingly and contrary to such oath state mater matters hereinafter set forth which he did not believe to be true. 2. At the times and place alleged, the said Committee was conducting an investigation and study, purs to the provisions of Senate Resolution 60 adopted by the United States Senate on February 7, 1973, 01 extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting either individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or in any related campaign or canvass conducted by or in behalf of any person seeking nomination or election as the candidate of any political party for the office of President of the United States in such election, for the purpose of determining whether in its judgment any occurrences which might be revealed by the investigation and study indicated the necessity or desirability of the enactment of new legislation to safeguard the electoral process by which the President of the United States is chosen. – 34 – 74-110 COUNT TEN The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 On or about July 21, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, did knowingly and willfully make false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations to agents the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice, which Department was then conducting an investigation into a matter within its jurisdiction, namely, whether violations of 18 U.S.C. 371, 2511, a 22 D.C, Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of the United States and the District of Columbia, had beE committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in connection with the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate office building on June 17, 1972, and to identify th individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, and conspired to commit such http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 . The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 7 of 9 violations, in that he stated that he had neither received nor was he in possession of any information relative to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters on June 17, 1972, other ti what he had read in the way of newspaper accounts of that incident. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001.) MEMO FOR RECORD – MARCH 9 1974 Count 10 of the indictment was amended to reflect that the offense charged in this count was committ on or about July 21, 1972 ” instead of “on or about July 21, 1973 ” per a stipulation filed in open Cour this date during arraignment proceedings. JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk By [signed] James P Capitanio Deputy Clerk -35-74-110 COUNT ELEVEN The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about May 3, and May 9, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false materiE declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the times and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s 0 for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 251, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of th United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to the unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buildil in Washington, D.C., and related activities. – 40 – 74-110 COUNT TWELVE The Grand Jury further charges: Tab 7 ht-tp://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section-4&page — … 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 8 of 9 1. On or about May 3, and May 9, 1973, in the District of Columbia, JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN, the DEFENDANT, having duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June, 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false materia declarations as hereinafter set forth. 2. At the times and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s C for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 251, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of th United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to the unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buil& in Washington, D.C., and related activities. – 44 – 74-110 COUNT THIRTEEN The Grand Jury further charges: 1. On or about April 11, 1973, in the District of Columbia, GORDON STRACHAN, the DEFENDANT, havir duly taken an oath that he would testify truthfully, and while testifying in a proceeding before the June 1972 Grand Jury, a Grand Jury of the United States, duly empanelled and sworn in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, did knowingly make false material declarations as hereinafte set forth. 2. At the times and place alleged, the June, 1972 Grand Jury of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was conducting an investigation in conjunction with the United States Attorney’s 0 for the District of Columbia and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371, 251, and 22 D.C. Code 1801(b), and of other statutes of th United States and of the District of Columbia had been committed in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and to identify the individual or individuals who had committed, caused the commission of, conspired to commit such violations. 3. It was material to the said investigation that the said Grand Jury ascertain the identity and motives the individual or individuals who were responsible for, participated in, and had knowledge of efforts to conceal, and to cause to be concealed, information relating to the unlawful entries into, and electronic surveillance of, the offices of the Democratic National Committee located in the Watergate office buildir in Washington, D.C., and related activities. Tab 7 Citation: Indictment in United States of America v. John Mitchell, Harry R. Haldeman, John D. Ehrlichr Charles Colson, Robert C. Mardian, Kenneth W. Parkinson and Gordon Stachan, C.R. 74-110, filed Marc http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 The Watergate Files – Trials and Tribulations: February 1974 – April 1974 – Documents Page 9 of 9 1974; United States District Court for the District of Columbia; Records of the District Courts of the Un States, Record Group 21, NARA, College Park, MD. Tab 7 http://www.for d.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=4&page=.. . 5/7/2008 WATERGATE FUNNIES SEPT 27 3 DAYS BEEORE JURY SELECTION STARTS. MITCHELL’S ATTORNEY (HUNDLEY) AND I ARE GOING OVER SEATING ARRANGEMENTS IN COURTROOM AND HE SAYS “I’D BETTER GET BACK TO THE OFFICE AND GET TO WORK THINKING UP SOME SORT OF !DEFENSE”. JURY SELECTION PROCESS JUROR WITH 9 KIDS WHO WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM THEM FOR AWHILE JUROR WHOSE HUSBAND WOULDN’T MISS HER UNLESS SHE WAS GONE MORE THAN 4 MONTHS NERVOUS JUROR WHO HUNDIEY OFFERED SOME TRANQUILIZERS TO SAYING “YOU THINK YOU’RE NERVOUS!” JUROR WHO ONLY WATCHED WARNER WOLF JUROR WHO RETIRED AFTER 20 YEARS AS A COP BECAUSE HE FIGURED HE HAD ABOUT USED UP HIS. GOOD LUCK AND STILL HAD HIS HEALTH., JUDGE SIRICA GETTING ANGRY WITH ME BECAUSE; – RELEASING STATISTICS TO PRESS RE JURORS QUESTIONED AND EXCUSED – TELLING HOTEL TO RENT ROOMS TO SOMEONE rI’ sw CWER A WEEKEND – aiEWING GUM OCT 8 BEN VENISTE OFFERING JOHN WIISON AN EMPTY CHAIR AT PROSECUTORS TABLE WHEN WILSON UNEXPECTEDLY AGREED WITH THE PROSECUTOR WHO WAS ARGUING A POINT WITH MITCHELL’S ATTORNEY DOONESBURY CARTOON IN WHINGION POST OFFERED AS EXHIBIT BY EHRLICHMAN. PROSECUTOR NEAL SAID NIXON WAS RIGHT WHEN HE SAID IN FEW MEWS hATERGATE WILL BE RELEGATED TO FUNNY PAPERS OCT 9 SKETCHERS SKETCHING CLEANING WOMEN AND GUARDS EHRLICHMAN SKETCHING EVERYONE NARDIAN ASKING IF I WAS GOING TO CONDUCT A TRAINING SESSION WHEN I AUGHT FIJPCHART INTO DEWEEDANT’S ROOM OCT 14 EHRLICHMAN CHARGING ME 254 FOR COFFEE OCT 15 MITCHELL’S CHAUFFEUR CAUGHT PARKING IN JUDGE HAZELON’S SPACE OCT 16 HAIR AN TO DAVEY – “THEY CAN SCREEN NE OUT OF THIS CASE ANYTIME” HUNDLEY TO DAVEY RE PICTURE IN MORNING POST OF STRICELER IDENTIFIED AS PARKINSON “STEIN HAS DONE BEST JOB OF ALL DEFEEDANIS’ COUNSEL – THEY (THE PRESS) DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO HIS CLIENT IS FLIPCHART IN DEFENDANTS’ ROOM WITH CARTOONS ABOUT BIASED JURY OCT 17 FIRST TAPE PLAYED – 9/15/72 MEETING WITH DEAN AND PRESIDENT. SIRICA PUT EARPHONES ON AND COULDN’T HEAR BEN VENISTE TRYING TO MARE A POINT (HAIDEMAN STARING DCWN DEAN) JOHN WILSON TO JUDGE mac& “THAT’S ANOTHER ONE TO PUT IN MY ERROR BAG.” Tab 8 comaGATE FUNNIES (Page 2) NOV 11 JOHNNY CASH AND WIFE ATTENDED – SIRICA’S STAFF MIFFED BECAUSE CASH DIDN’T STOP IN TO SEE JUDGE SIRICA. PLAYED TAPE 6/23/72 THAT LED TO NIXON ‘ S RESIGNATION AND EVERYONE WAS SKETCHING CASH NOV 21 VIDEOTAPE OF HALDEMAN’S TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATOR ERWIN’S COMMITTEE. CONTRASTING HAIRCUTS – CROMIADVERSUS LONG HAIR. JUDGE LET PRESS SIT IN JURY BOX ’10 VIEW VIDEOTAPE. JOHN WILSON – “I CHALLENGE THE ARRAY OF JURORS.” HUNDLEY “I LIKE THE OTHER JURY BETTER – THIS CNE LOOM TOO SMART.” DEC 10 DAY AFTER EHRLICHMAN LAID BLAME ON MITCHELL I WAS ASKED BY MITCHELL’S ATTORNEYS TO BREAK INTO pocnip FILE CABINET LABELED EHRLICBMAN TURNED DOWN SENATOR HUGH SCOTT’S BEQUEST FOR 2 WATERGATE TICKETS FOR PRESIDENT OF GETTYSBURG COLLEGE. FOUND OUT LATER JUDGE SIR1CA’S DAMES/ISOM TO GUITYSBURG. DEC 19 NEAL’S CLOSING ARGUMENT – MARDIAN AND MITCHELL COMPLAIN IT’S TOO HOT IN CCU OM. HWIICTURNTNG ON AIR CONDITIONING – NEAL “THE CC11EHUP IS CONTINUING.” DEC 4 EHRLICHMAN TO DAVEY “NEVER BELIEVED IN LETIERS TO THE EDITOR BEFORE.” (RE SEATS FOR THOSE TATTING IN LINE) DEC 6 DAUGHTER LYNN’S wets TO HALDEMAN, EHRLICHMAN AND MITCHELL AND THEIR REpLivs t ,„,-, 4.1—-,es.1)….0’ ■:,—– _,_….6e ,2 ,( ,.,” ,.CF-et -….–.5_ . ‘ ..) 11- .: A-z) e_944.X; ck..4(c (..;”` ) to-0 v..6-0c-.44 ‘$- WWIERGATE FUNNIES SEPT 27 3 DAYS BEFORE .URY SELECTION STARTS. MITORFLL’S ATTORNEY (DUNDELY) AND I ARE GOING OVER SEATING ARRANGEMENTS IN COURTROOM AND HE SAYS “I’D BETTER GET BACK TO THE OFFICE AND GET TO WORK THINKING UP SOME SORT OF DEFENSE”. JURY SELECTION PROCESS JUROR WITH 9 KIDS WHO 1 ,2,NTED TO GET AWAY FROM THEM FOR AWHILE JUROR WHOSE HUSBAND WOULDN’T MISS HER UNLESS SHE WAS GONE MORE THAN 4 MONTHS NERVOUS JUROR WHO HUNDLEY OFFERED SOME TRANQUILIZERS TO SAYING “YOU THINK YOU’RE NERVOUS!” JUROR WHO ONLY WATCHED WAINER WOLF JUROR WHO RETIRED AFTER 20 YEARS AS A COP BECAUSE HE FIGURED HE HAD ABOUT USED UP HIS GOOD LUCK AND STILL HAD HIS HEALTH JUDGE SIRICA GETTING ANGRY WITH ME BECAUSE: RELEASING STATISTICS TO PRESS RE JURORS QUESTIONED AND EXCUSED TELLING HOTEL TO RENT ROOMS TO SOMEONE ELSE CATER A W1 ND GUN OCT 8 BEN VENISTE OFFERING JOHN WILSON AN EMPTY CHAIR AT PROSECUTORS TABLE WHEN WILSON UNENRECTEDLY AGREED WITH THE PROSECJIORWHO WAS ARGUING A POINT WITH mawmu’s ATTORNEY DOONESBURY CARTOON IN WASHINGTON POST OFFERED AS EXHIBIT BY EHRLICHMAN. PROSECUTOR NEAL SAID NIXON WAS RIGHT WHEN HE SAID IN FEW MONTHS WATERGATE WILL BE RELEGATED TO FUNNY PAPERS OCT 9 SKETCHERS SKETCHING CLEANING WOMEN AND GUARDS EHRLICHMAN SKETCHING EVERYONE MARDIAN ASKING IF I WAS GOING TO CONDUCT A TRAINING SESSION WHEN I BROUGHT FLIPCHART INTO DEFENDANT’S ROOM OCT 14 EHRLICHMAN CHARGING ME 250 FOR COFFEE OCT 15 MITCHELL’S CHAUFFEUR CAUGHT PARKING IN JUDGE BAZELON’S SPACE OCT 16 HALDEMAN TO DAVEY – “THEY CAN SCREEN ME OUT OF THIS CASE ANYTIME” HUNDLEY TO DAVEY RE PICTURE IN MORNING POST OF STRICKLER IDENTIFIED AS PARKINSON “STEIN HAS DONE BST JOB OF ALL DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL – THEY (THE PRESS) DON’T EVEN KNOW WHO HIS CLIENT IS.” FLIPOBART IN DEFENDANTS’ ROOM WITH CARTOONS ABOUT BIASED JURY OCT 17 FIRST TAPE PLAYED – 9/15/72 MEETING WITH DEAN AND PRESIDENT. SIRICA PUT EARPHONES ON AND COULDN’T HEAR BEN VENISTE TRYING TO MAKE A POINT (HALDEMAN STARING DOWN DEAN) JOHN WILSON TO JUDGE SIRICA “THAT’S ANOTHER ONE TO PUT IN MY ERROR BAG.” Tab 8 WATERGNIE FUNW IRS (Page 2) ‘DEC DEC 10 DAY AFTER ERRLICHMAN LAID BLAME ON MTWILm7J, I HAS ASKED BY MITCHELL’S ATTORNEYS TO BREAK INTO LOCKED FILE CABINET LABELED EHRLICHMAN 11 JOHNNY CASH AND WIFE ATTENDED – SIRICA’S STAFF MIFFED BECAUSE CASH DIDN’T STOP IN TO SEE JUDGE SIRICA. PLAYED TAPE 6/23/72 THAT LED TO NIKON’S RESIGNATION AND EVERYONE WAS SKETCHING CASH 21 VIDEOTAPE OF HALDINEVE TESTIMONY BEFORE SENATOR. ERWIN’S commrprh. CONTRASTING HAIRCUTS – CREWCUT VERSUS LONG HAIR. JUDGE LET PRESS SIT IN JURY BOX TO VIEWVIDEOTAPE. JOHN WILSON– “I CHALLENGE THE ARRAY OF JURORS.” HUNDLEY “I LIKE THE OTHER JURY BETTER – THIS CNE LOOKS TOO SMART.” V I’ DEC 19 TURNED DOWN SENATOR HUGH SCOIT’S REQUEST FOR 2 WATERGATE TICRETS FOR PRESIDENT OF GETTYSBURG COLLEGE. FOUND OUT LATER JUDGE SIRICA’S DAUGHTER GOES TO GETTYSBURG. NEAL’S CLOSING ARGUMENT – MARDIAN AND MITCHELL COMPLAIN IT’S TOO DOT IN COURTROOM. BANGING TURNING ON AIR CONDITIONING – NEAL “THE COVERUP IS CONTINUING.” DEC 4 EHRLICHMAN ’10 DAVEY “NEVER BELIEVED IN :LETTERS TO THE EDITOR BEFORE.” (RE SEATS FOR THOSE WAITING IN LINE) DEC 6 DAUGHTER LYNN’S NOTES TO HALDEMAN, IIIRLICIEvAN AND MITCHELL AND THEIR REPLIES t_ Y–;” I”, n. A c, C‘2 Tab 8 .13Lmt– 18sto-A) ,24a Lxs, .4,-2, ,L.,-t4a4L /4.112 . * ..04r,…t., v .. 6\)•: :U)C_.,\c-., \.: ‘0)E.-.Z._\?A . -t.. StArt. il . 8‘.:.’::-C?;:f.;’,….:1.t.;*”.- .•-• ..: “, . .,.., ‘,..;…-i.:„.:-…w…..t…. …-:::;-.; 0 ‘N.- .’ -•,,.‘; ‘ .„.,..: __L…., ..t…,,,i….s.,.,..,4;:a.v.,,ii..:,.’_’.L………..,…… ……_„……………..,.,.., Tab 9 Tab 9 i3 Tet ‘6:;-,a .1 )trIrl w, t gv:idc tA3eafi- Wkjk \Auz caApe..) Was (“uN ytA) iL Cex,”,1/4. tseco- t)(■rI lk OCCILC Cc-2.LO_ .eX4.st-K ou4A AtLe ‘..■km- ukk vit.( iecit \A00-3e. vvk t.)eV5 74esbvob._ co140.4.. /airAr-ro-CIAAA, kr-c:?* irce-Ym-cL aC Vua. \ adv,A,N /d-Ca_Cc 0.Act. 6.J3 1 vt.cz alotk aCrfru‘ Weividt.nr%, V\cri>4-__ V4-…C4e (Aux. atmiAialAkekA. ‘:(15 Lkrak LA R4″1-4-4V-e r-a4ake :”7-1 e)%”- ‘64.”-‘ k*.kax- CoLuNTro-eskv, OK. . Tab 9 WAtS0.1,)a XJ M t-.1.%% C.> c –vt4Z V Lo.R,L1 k …,›‘,.,-,,,,..k i.L.i……—…th.. ry … A CO”..IL – k’:6.1.1.4%-p ..8-24t5A4-D-4- t3.10.),1 ►-D-A- 044 A-L–^1,4)Ak a. N.’ 1-1 – Pi IS IA_ Tab 10 (1 0 44,1+,•-ekAA– L.& \+.4)-0,-L 44-:491 C44. –,.0ameza6v,:t – va-41,4S2a, CArtti (24),,A.„.Q 0 LL Y4:41 Lj .31%,41 CA,'”-CO LVe4LA.A,’1,.,/ e? I, Jr rULQ LA÷ )2,1 b1,3,14422,, .-tts’6?. • L. .34 A.,,),..,24) -1,-12LE) (44, J22 i 4Ai r’ c,ttsx-613412Lel ,ar–ue-ca LA”L‘j” CIS-6-05-6′ V-11 (1-1,1,s2,0 iLLi2 — AZ, va,,,L4—eL L.Z.’V’-(4,1Le? Ct. 11#1’*A. 1 ” Lraf t.1,. L)C7-1- -4 • , • •-44-0 /3′ 9- t-G1J4+ ” J2-4-‘4-44NALO- C44)–‘) ‘444 ••\– AM-tkitca-” Tab 10 2 .; C. A GCS• 12/’,”[ .1(B’;, WI1 • sTATES OF A 7′.’.:,!:FCA No. 74-110 V. jOHN N. MITC7r”. Y., -1,, et al J Id.c:hard IA. Nixon, .::11(.2 White Xkrase, Washington, D. C. , or any or cF.21u2ce cuctody or conof,f ccscribcd on the schedu:!,. -Vol ore to rnp.7ar :n 1’r Unitcd f.; n1,0.; Court for the Distric.f. of Columbia the Y).;.E..t.rict of on the Coltl’abia 1 2.1 Etc case of UnitM States v. f.z. t Constitntion E John in the cit3rof day of 10 74 nt ten o’clock A. M. John N. Mitchell, ot al and bring with you the Cocuments or obj r2cts listee on the attached schedule. subpoena is issued upon application of the. 1United States . AD3:7.1-1- 19 7 41_. 1ft..7,4-izr the United States 1425 St. Washingt:on, D.C. JA7-75 7. DAVEY • Dairttp CIL rk. 1 1,1,,t.”1„Tnited States,” or “defendant” as the case may he. RETURN vd this subpoena at nd on at • nn. the within named it a copy to Is and tendering to h i by law.2 ): 19 on the !ea for one day’s attendance and the miteSi3rince3 …… to Vic 1′,”;t.. ,” anon Lurvic .2O l;a1hrrourrb. riffitfthh,m, r.7.z. .1.! JAMES F. DAVEY, Clerk, Tab 11 1 L:chAle of Documents 01.)7to to 12oC.ucc.d Ly or or r-)7 • tans p.nd ot3= (.,t!1ec ; : t3nic ani1/.Dr mechan.1(;a1 nc=i;:: or , aYd .,:elating to: • 1 . Neticr on im 20, 1. 72, tho l’I-Llent End C!olscn 220 3::10 p.(r.t. in 0.ff.103 teafter. c1:5nver.:1Ln iand , 4 the ECYA); anf, .(c) J7).7!tT.7-. and t-)n . t71AD.1 . Y.), n72, to 12:05 a.m. o :.1 June 2J., 1912 (lacod •..orion of the 2. Tiree metjrgs on jun,2 27:1, 1972, br1Lwen the President H. .1. :.1v:1(-2 .To an t-) .:Vi to .f.:13 p .m., ape. 1 2:20 o 2:45 K.).% q . PcooCIrg to 7X-tit(„! Honse, L* . 1 f.;.rst cetincjo.nrr .?.(1 j- L-.71 3 (; —al t.h,! third, in ▪ rOD, d :5_E-(1.(Ir in b) ::1 1 casos ices-.Ent 13-Irt of 1″,-Ac: ti . A..r..(lot/’tng to Zr. Ifalde,nan’s logs, th second x.eltiny occlrrnd :.n 1:110 Oval Office. 3. 2:oeting on the mo l:n ing ,r):1 Nc7aff-)er 15, 1972, among or •rietween N.!5srs. JcLn Elmlicl, mn, and John W. Dean, III in the P:cisjdent’s office at Camp David. 4.Uaeting and Le1s. p11,ne cnrveration on Janiaa ‘ 7 5, 1972, hetween t1n Pr-3s13 =..cit arc”, Mr. Colson fron 12:02 to 1:02 -p .m. in the no73 an’. f.from 70 to 7:53 p.m. (placed from camp Davie.) r,-,c)::11.72ly. J. Meeting or telphofte cOnvation in or abollt late January 1973 between the President and. Mr. Colson in which E. Loward Hunt, Jr. was dissed… 6. Leetings between the President and Hr. Colson in the Oval Office onPohy ual– 13, 1973, from 9: 0 2 to 10.52 a.m. 16 on February 14, 1973, fr e)A /0:13 to 10:49 a. , n. 2eFreo-i_vely. Tab 11 Anita *vats *strict court ,Ifor the ,ilistrict of golunthin Wirt at Ike Cork 3rb wet Constitution jkfterult, pkim_ nohington, (6_ Min Inuits ff. be August 27, 1974 erit RE HISTORIC SUBPCIENAS ISSUED TO PRESIDENT NIXON DIRECTING HIM 10 GIVE TESTIMONY AND PRODUCE DCMIENTS AND OTHER PE CCaDS (INCLUDING TAPES) FOR USE IN ACRIMINAL PROSECOTDCW As everyone knows, the breakin of the Democratie National Cczmittee Headquarters at the “Watergate” on June 17, 1972 eventually led to President Nixon’s resignation on August 8, 1974, During this period a massive amount of Watergate related civil and criminal litigation was brought in the U. S. District Court for the District of Colannia. Over 30 criminal cases and over 25 civil cases) The Clerk’s Office was, of course, directly involved in processing the litigation. Asunuary of that “involvement” is contained in a separate document. Fran a historic standpoint, perhaps the most significant actions we took were to issue three subpoenas commanding President Nixon to produce documents, tapes and other records and to give testimony in connection with criminal proceedings pending in our Court. The first subpoena was issued on July 23, 1973 at the request of Special Prosecutor cox for use by the Grand Jury which was investigating the Watergate breakin and subsequent coverup. (Only once before in our Nation’s history had the judicial Branch issued a subpoena to a President. That was in 1807 when Chief Justice Marshall, performing Tab 12 -this collateral role as a district court judge in Richmond, was trying Aaron Burr for treason. Burr wanted President Jefferson to produce letters written to him by one of the prosecution witnesses. Jefferson denied the court had a right to subpoena his papers but went ahead and produced the letters anyhow. Thus, the issue was never forced to a final test.) The President refused to produce the subpoenaed tapes and, subsequently, on August 29, 1973, Judge Sirica ordered then produced for his in camera inspection. (Purpose of in camera inspection was to screen out irrelevant and/or privileged material and forward only relevant and material portions to the Special Prosecutor.) The President appealed. On October 12, 1973 the U. S. Court of Appeals upheld Judge Sirica and ordered the President to produce the tapes for Judge Sirida’s inspection. President Nixon tried to work out a compromise that would net involve giving Judge Sirica the original tapes. When Special Prosecutor Cox refused to accept the compromise, the famed “Saturday Night Massacre” occurred in which Cox was fired and Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus resigned rather than fire Cox. The firing of Cox on October 20, 1973 created a “fire storm” of public reaction and one result was for the House Judiciary Cdmmittee to begin impeachment proceedings. Another result was that the President eventually turned over the tapes to Judge Striae. One of these tapes – ofaa meeting the President had with his principal advisors, Ehrlichtan and Haldeman, on June 20, 1972, just three days after the breakin – became famous because an lah minute portion of it (the only portion of the tape that dealt with Watergate) was deliberately erased. (As of August 1974 a Grand Jury was Tab 12 -3- still investigating this incident in an attempt to fix responsibility for the erasure.) The second subpoena was issued in April 1974 at the request of Special Prosecutor Jaworski for 64 tapes and other documents required for the Watergate Coverup trial, U. S. v. John Mitchell at al Oat 74-110), scheduled ,to begin September 30, 1974 before Judge Sirica. The President_ . moved to quash the subpoena. In May 1974 Judge Sirica ordered the materials produced for his in camera inspection. The President appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals. On the same day the Special Prosecutor, seeking a speedy resolution of the issue, applied to the U. S. Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari. This Writ was subsequently granted. After hearing oral arguments on July 8, the Supreme Court on July 24, 1974 handed down its historic and unanimous 8-0 decision (Justice Rehnquist did not participate) ordering the President to damply with Judge Sirica’s order by turning the tapes over to Judge Sirica for his in camera inspection. The Supreme Court held that a President’s general claim of “Executive Privilege” must yield to the demonstrated, bpecific need for evidenCe in a pending criminal trial. One of the subpoenaed tapes was of a conversation President Nixon had with Mr. Hallman on JUne 23, 1972, one week after the Watergate breakin. On August 5, 1974 the President revealed that this tape showed that he had personally directed a coverup of the facts of Watergate six days after the breakin, contrary to all his previous public declarations over the past two years that he knew nothing about the “Watergate Oovarup” until advised by John Dean on March 21, 1973. Disclosure of this fact almost completely eroded any remaining Congressional support for the President. (All. the Tab 12 -4- Republiminenteis of the House JUdiciary Committee who previously voted against I eachxt announced that based on this direct evidence of the President’s involvement in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, which constituted an impeachable offense, they would switch and vote for impeachment when the matter came to a vote before the full House of Representatives.) Rather theockris==irt and which appeared almost certain, the President.cesignelApn August 0, 1.974 41.” 1124.44….-4-4-faxe-fku-sa- 016’°00″Ig1′ The third subpoena was issued an August 15, 1974 to former President Nixon at the request of Ehrlich man’s attorney commmidim Nixon to appear in our Court on September 9, 1974 to give testimony an Ehrlichmen’s behalf in the Watergate covestiral (CR 74-110). The ehree sUbpaeneS a attached. w-cmgh -21C(bAlsuh Fi%ismt