MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1973

U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES, Washington, D.C.

The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m. in room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chairman), presiding.

Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye,Montoya, Baker, Gurney, and Weicker.

Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten deputy chief counsel; Arthur S Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief counsels; Marc Lackritz, William T. Mayton, Ronald D. Rotunda, and Barry Schochet, assistant mejority counsels; Eugene Boyce,hearings record counsel; H William Shure and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Bruce Jacques, Jr., office of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahon, assistant to Senator Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; Ray St. Armand, assistant publications clerk.

Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order counsel will call the first witness.

Mr. Dash. Mr. E. Howard Hunt.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Hunt, will you stand up and raise your right hand? Do you swear that the evidence which you shall give to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities Shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth, so help you God?

Mr. Hunt. I do.

Senator Ervin. Let the record show that Mr. Hunt is testifying under order granting him use immunity. Counsel will proceed with the interrogation of the witness.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Hunt, are you accompanied by counsel?

Mr. Hunt. I am.

Mr. Dash. Will counsel please identify yourself for the record?

Mr. Sachs. My name is Sidney S. Sachs, I am Accompanied by my partner, Mr. Robert M. Scott and my law clerk who has been helping in this case, Mr. Henry Goldman.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Hunt, do you have a statement which you wish to read to the committee?

Mr. Hunt. I do.

Mr. Dash. Will you read it, please?

Mr. Hunt. Mr. chairman and members of the committee, my name is E. Howard Hunt. I am here today to answer questions bearing on your current investigation. I have been informed that it is permissible for me to make a preliminary statement, and I want to take advantage of that opportunity. I will describe my personal background, my relationship to the Watergate entry, and the events which have befallen me since that day.

I was born in 1918 at hamburg, N.Y. My father was a lawyerjudge;my mother was a pianist and a housewife. I was educated in the public schools of Florida and New York, and in 1940 graduated from Brown University. Six Weeks later I volunteered to serve in the Armed Forces. While a destrover officer on the North Atlantic convoy run before Pearl Harbor, I was injured and medically discharged. Later I volunteered and became an Air Force intelligence officer. In 1944. I volunteered for the office of Strategic Services, the forerunner of CIA. and was sent to China where I was engaged in partisan warfare until the end of the war.

In 1949, I joined the CIA, from which I retired on May 1, 1970, having earned two commendations for outstanding contributions to operations ordered by the National Security Council.

During the 21 vears I spent with CIA, I was engaged in intelligence, covert action, and counterintelligence operations. I was trained in the techniques of physical and electronic survellance, photography, document forgery, and surreptitious entries into guarded premises for photography and installation of electronic devices. I participated in and had the responsability for a number of such entries, and I had knowledge of many others.

To put it unmistakably, I was an intelligence officer, a spy -- for the Government of the United States.

There have been ocasions, as one might expect, when covert operations by the United States or other nations have been exposed. Such episodes have not been uncommon. when such mishaps have occurred it has been universally the practice for the operation to be disavowed and covered up. Usually, this has been done by official intervention with law enforcement authorities. In addition, the emploving governments have paid legal defense fees. Salaries and family living expenses have been continued. Former CIA Director Helms has testified before this committee in regard to some aspects of this practice.

After retiring from CIA, I was employed by a firm whose officials maintained a relationship with CIA. Some months after I joined the firm, I was approached by Charles W. Colson, special counsel to the president, to become a consultant to the Executive office of the president. Mr. Colson told me the White House had need for the kind of intelligence background which he knew I possessed. This was the basic reason for my employment, which I understood at the time was approved by John D. Ehrlichman, and now understant was approved also by H.R. Haldeman, both assistants to the President of the United States.

After retiring from CIA, I was employed by a firm whose officials From the time I began working at the White House until June 17, 1972, the day of the second Watergate entry, I engaged in essentially the same kind of work as performed for CIA. I became a member of the special investigations unit, later known as the Plumbers, which the President had created to undertake specific national security tasks for which the traditional investigative agencies were deemed by the President to be inadequate. In this connection, I was involved in tracing leaks of highly classified information.

These investigations led to an entry by the Plumbers into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, Dr. Daniel Ellsbergs psychiatrist. The entry was authorized by Mr. Egil Krogh, deputy to John Ehrlichman. It was considered necessary beacuse of the belief that Dr. Ellsberg or his associates were providing classified information to the Soviet Union. The operation was carried out wich my assistance, under the direction of G. Gordon Liddy, a lawyer, former FBI agent, and member of the Plumbers unit.

The fielding entry ocurred in September 1971. In late November, I was told by Mr. Liddy that Attorney General John N Mitchell proposed the establishment of a large-scale intelligence and counterintelligence program, with Mr. Liddy as its chief. Mr. Liddy and I designed a budget for categories of activities to be carried out in this program which came to be known as Gemstone. it was my understanding that the program had been approved by Messrs. Jeb Stuart Magruder, a former White House aide, and John W. Dean III, Counsel to the President. Later I learned that Charles W Colson, Special Counsel to the President, had approved it, too.

In April 1972, Mr. Liddy told me that we would be undertaking the Watergate operation as part of the Gemstone program. He said that he had information, the source of which I understood to be a Government agency, that the Cuban Goverment was supplying funds to the Democratic Party campaign. To investigated this report, a surreptitious entry of Democratic national headquarters at the Watergate was made on May 27, 1972, and a second entry on June 17. The second entry was accomplished by a group, two of whose members had been among those who accomplished the fielding entry. I was indicated for my part in the Watergate entry.

Following indictment and prior to my guilty plea, the court ordered the Goverment to produce all material taken from my White House safe, and other evidence. Some material was produced, but significant material was withheld or destroyet. because the Government had withheld evidence, I knew there was no chance of proving my defenses. In addition, my wife had been killed in an accident in December and I was deeply depressed and anxious to devote myself as quickly as possible to the welfare of my children. Accordingly, I had no alternative but to concede that I was legally wrong and so I pleaded guilty, hoping for merciful treatment by the court.

Instead, on March 23 of this year, I was provisionally sentenced to prision for more than 30 years. The court state that my cooperation with the grand jury and with this committee would be considered in determining my final sentence.

Since being sentenced. I have been questioned under oath on more than 25 occasions, often for many hours.

I have answered thousands of questions by innumerable investigators. prosecutors, grand jurors, and staff members of this committee I am informed that such intensive and repeated interrogation is a most extraordinary procedure and of dubious legality. Even so, urged by the court to cooperate fully, I have not contested the procedure. In fact, I have answered all questions, even those which involved confidential communications between my attorneys and myself.

After my plea, I learned of obstruction of justice by Goverment officials. I learned of williful destruction and withholding of evedence, and perjury and subornation of perjury before the Watergate grand jury. This official misconduct deprived me of evidence wich would have supported my position that, (a) my participation in the Watergate was an activity authorized within the power of the President of the United States, and (b) if my participation was not so authorized, I justifiably believed that it was.

Within the past few days, therefore, I have asked the court to permit me to withdraw my plea of wuilty and to dismiss the proceedings against me. I believe the charges should be dismissed because, based on revelations made public since py plea, evidence is now available to prove that my participation was not unlawful, and because, to quote Judge Byrne when he dismissed charges in the Ellsberg case: The totality of the circumstances of this case-offend "sense of justice" The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case.

It has been alleged that I demanded clemency and money for my family and for those who helped in the Watergate entry. I did not ask for clementcy. Mr. Liddy assured me that, in accordance with the established practice in such cases, funds would be made available. I did seeks such funds, but I made no threats.

Now I find myself confined under a sentence which may keep me in prison for the rest of my life. I have been incarcerated for 6 months. For a time I was in solitary confinement. I have been physically attacked and robed in jail. I have suffered a stroke. I have been transferred from place to place, manecled and chained, hand and foot. I am isolated from my four motherless children. the funds provided me and others who participated in the break-in have long since been exhausted. I am faced with an enormous financial burden in defending myself against criminal charges and numerous civil suits. Beyond all this, I am crushed by the failure of my Goverment to protect me and my family as in the past it has always done for its clandestine agents.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize tha at the time of the Watergate operation. I considered my participation as a duty to my country. I thought it was an unwise operation, but I viewed it as lawful. I hope the court will sustain my view, but whatever that outcome, I deeply regret that I had any part in this affair. I think it was an unfortunate use of executive power and I am sorry that I did not have the wisdom to withdraw. at the same time, I cannot escape feeling that the country I have served for my entire life and which directed me to carry out the Watergate entry is punishing me for doing the very things it trained and directed me to do.

Mr. Chairman, honorable members of the committee, I thank you for your attention and your patience. I will undertake to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Hunt, your statement has, I think, put sufficiently in the record introductory material concerning your background and your career and your present status under the of Judge Sirica; therefore, I will not go into those quetion or repeat that. In the early part of 1971, Mr. Hunt, did you discuss with Mr. Colson the possibility of your obtaining a position at the White House?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Did you have a telephone conversation with Mr. Colson, and who iniated that telephone conversation?

Mr. HUNT. I had numerous telephone conversations with Mr. Colson,

Mr. DASH. I would appreciate your being a little more specific.

Mr. DASH. Yes. On July 2, 1971-July 1, actually-did you rerceive a telephone call from Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH.Let me show you what purports to be a transcript of the conversation. Would you please look at it?

Mr. HUNT. I have examined the purported transported transcript, Mr. Dash

Mr. DASH. Does that purport to be or reflect the conversation you had with Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. It does; yes

Senator ERVIN. The document will be appropriately marked as an exhibit and received as such along with introductory memoramdum for Mr. Haldeman from Mr. Colson. [The documents referred to were marked exhibit No. 48.*]

Mr. DASH. Now, in that conversation with Mr. Colson, did Mr. Colson question you concerning your viewpoints and attitudes concerning the Pentagon Papers of Mr. Ellsberg?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. And would you look at page 2, the last line? Would you read that for the committee?

Mr. HUNT. Colson's question?

Mr. DASH. Yes.

Mr. HUNT [reading]. Let me ask you this, Howard, this question: Do you think with the right resources employed that this thing could be turned into a major public case against Ellsberg and coconspirators?

Mr. DASH. How did you respond to that on the top of the next page?

Mr. HUNT. My response was as follows: Yes, I do, but you have established a qualificatio here that I don't know whether it can be met.

Mr. DASH. Would you continue to read the next few lines?

Mr. THOMPSON. Pardon me, Mr. Dash. May we have copies?

Mr. DASH. You should have copies of that. I understand we are checking out that a full set of all these exhibits were handed out. Some of the people next to me have indicated that that particular transcript is not there.

Mr. THOMPSON. Are you making arrangements to have copies available?

Mr. DASH. Yes, they are being run off now. There should be a copy in the set that was given to every member and yourself, Mr. Thompson. *See p. 3877.

Mr. THOMPSON. Could we delay momentarily until we get copies of that, so we will be able to follow along?

Mr. DASH. I can continue the questioning whitout reference to that transcript, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right.

Mr. DASH. Did you understand, by the way, Mr. Hunt, that from that conversation, Mr. Colson was exploring the idea with you of a major effort to discredit Mr. Ellsberg in the press?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Now, did Mr. Colson eventually offer you a position in the Whit House?

Mr. HUNT. He did.

Mr. DASH. And I think you have indicated in your statement that he referred to specific qualifications. Can you repeat? What did he indicate to you were your qualifications qhick led you that particular position? What qualifications?

Mr. HUNT. The fact that that I had an investigative background of some years and also, that I had been involved in political action operations.

Mr. DASH. Now, were you interviewed by anyone besides Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Who was that?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. John D. Ehrlichman.

Mr. DASH. At whose dirextions, Mr. Hunt, did you work when you took this position? Under whose directions?

Mr. HUNT. Under Mr. Colson's direction.

Mr. DASH. Can you describe your initial assignment under

Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Colson instructed me to become the White House resident expert on the origins of the Vietnam war. At the same time, I had a collateral responsibility for determing certain leaks of highly classified information which included the leaks of the Pentagon Papers.

Mr. DASH. Now, is it true, Mr. Hunt, that from the beginning of your employment, Mr. Colson asked you to collect what could be called derogatory information about Daniel Ellsberg?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. What was to be done with this information when it was collected?

Mr. HUNT. My assumption was that it would be made available by

Mr. Colson or someone in his confidence to selected members of the media.

Mr. DASH. Did you by the way, early in your employment, collect the list of certain media representatives who might be interested in such material?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Now, following the asignment you received from Mr. Colson, how did you develop the information on Mr. Ellsberg?

Mr. HUNT. It was develop through intensive study of reports furnished by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. DASH. Were there any other materials that you used? MR. HUNT. There were certain overt materials.

Mr. DASH. I didn't hear your answer.

Mr. Hunt. There were overt materials.

Mr. DASH. What do you mean by overt materials?

Mr. HUNT. Materials publishing in the press. To be more responsive,

Mr. Dash, I have a feeling I have left something hanging here which I don't want to do. The same unit, the special investigations unit that was receiving information on a frequent basis from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was also receiving reports from other Goverment agencies such as the Department of Defense, the Department of State, National Security Agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and so on. So that as part of my reply to your question, I would include those Goverment agencies as sources of information on Dr. Ellsberg.

Mr. DASH. Now, do you recall Mr. colson asking you to interview Col. Lucien Conein?

Mr. HUNT. I do.

Mr. DASH. Who is Lucien Conein, or who was he at the time you interviewed him?

Mr. HUNT. At the time I interviewed Colonel Conein, he had just returned from the Army, I believe, and was in the process of retiring from the CIA, or had retired therefrom. He and I had trained together in the office of Strategic Service in the Far East. In fact, we had shipped out to China together and worked in China together during World Ward II. I had seen him infrequently during the intervening years, but we had maintained a friendly relationship.

Mr. DASH. Do you recall when the initial interview with Colonel Conein took place?

Mr. HUNT. It was on or about July 8, 1971.

Mr. SACHS. Excuse me, Mr. Dash, could we confer for just a moment?

Mr. DASH. Yes.

Mr. SACHS. Mr. Chairman, is it possible that the photographers who are right here, just a few feet from us and clicking their cameras, could be asked to remove themselves to some more distant place so that there would be less distraction to Mr. Hunt? There are, as you can see, Your Honor, maybe a dozen people here who are doing their jobs, undoubtedly, but it is little distracting.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Hunt, do they distract you?

Mr. HUNT. They do, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. I will have to ask the photographers to sort of get over to the side somewhere where they won't distract Mr. Hunt. [Laughter] As far as this committee is concerned, we have to receive Mr. Hunt's testimony.

Mr. HUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to the photographers involved.

Mr. DASH. All right now, Mr. Hunt, are you ready to proceed?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Will you just briefly describe what ocurred. Did you initially interview Colonel Conein?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Did you follow that interview by a telephone conversation with Colonel Conein?

Mr. HUNT. On the following day.

Mr. DASH. What were the circumstances that led you to make a telephone call after the interview?

Mr. HUNT. During my initial interview Colonel Conein on july 8, it developed that a portion of the tape recording of that conversation was inaudible. Accordingly Mr. Colson suggested that I telephone him and attempt to reconstruct the inaudible portion of the telephone-of the recorded conversation of the prior day.

Mr. Colson, at the same time, was on another extension, introduced himself to Colonel Conein as "Fred Charles" and took a minor part in the conversation that ensued between Colonel Conein and myself.

Mr. DASH. Do you have any explanation as to why Mr.---Mr. HUNT. Excuse me.

Mr. SACHS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry.

Senator ERVIN. I am going to have ask the photographers to get somewhere where Mr. Hunt cannot see them. I am going to have to ask them to desist, I hate to do that but I want the witness not to have his attention distracted.

Mr. DASH. Can you explain to the committee, Mr. Hunt, why Mr. Colson wanted to be a part of that conversation and why he chose the pseudonym "Fred Charles."

Mr. HUNT Well, you have asked me two questions, Mr. Dash.

Mr. DASH. I want you to answer the first one, why did he want to be a part of that conversation?

Mr. HUNT. He wented to be a part of the conversation so that he could interpose himself to ask a specific question, whatever specific questions might occur to him as relevant to the subject of our conversation and our prior interview, and in effect to heard for himself at firsthand Colonel Conein's reply.

Mr. DASH. Why did he use the name Fred Charles?

Mr. HUNT. To avoid being connected in Colonel Conein's mind with the White House.

Mr. DASH. Do you know what the purpose of Mr. Colson's asking you to interview Colonel Conein was?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Could you explain that?

Mr. HUNT. I would have to go back a number of years and make it a matter of record that Colonel Conein had worked for the CIA in Vietnam, I would say almost uninterruptedly since 1954. Colonel Conein had a high degree of intimacy with some senior officials of the several goverment that had held power in South Vietnam. He was also a military officer, he spoke French, he spoke Vietnamese to some extent, he was intimately familiar, too, and I believe this gets to the crux of your question, with the events leading up to the coup that resulted ultimately in the deaths of Premier Diem and also brother-inlaw.

Mr. DASH. Was the interview supposed to be directed toward that coup and the underlying causes of that coup?

Mr. HUNT. It was.

Mr. DASH. Which led to the assassination of pPremier Diem.

Mr. HUNT. It was.

Mr. DASH. Do you have, Mr. Hunt, a copy, a transcript of that telephone conversation, I think which the committee has provided you during the executive session?

Mr. HUNT. I do.

Mr. DASH. Now, would it be also fair to say that one of the purposes of the conversation was to get information from Colonek Conein which might be derogatory against Dr. Ellsberg?

Mr. HUNT. One of the purposes; yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Would you turn to page 40 Do you see that in the third paragraph from the top of page 4 referring to H, which I take it to be yours, Mr. Hunt, you say, after a reference to a Mr. Vann, that I am getting very curious about that guy and what his connections with Ellsberg would have been, and then at the bottom of page 4 you have FC and I take that is Fred Charles; is that correct?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. And that was Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. And also question---Mr. HUNT. For the record it was Mr. Colson who recorded the telephone call, not myself.

Mr. DASH. Yes, your statement for the record is that call was recorded by Mr. Colson.

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. And Fred Charles, being Mr. Colson, states: "Do you think that Ellsberg or Vann had any connections with the drug trafficking?" Would it be fair to say there was at least a query being made in an attempt to connect Mr. Ellsberg with drug trafficking?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. WILL you turn to page 6, where the transcript indicates that you were asking questions of Colonel Conein concerning certain State Department cables. Could you instruct the committee as to what the purpose of vour request of Colonel Conein was leading to?

Mr. HUNT. I would never attempt to instruct the committee, Mr. Dash, I would attempt to inform.

Mr. DASH. Would you assist the committee, inforrm them?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir. Mr. Colson and I were jointly interested in the circunstances that led up to the assassination of the President and, I believe, the premier of South Vietnam. We felt that somewhere there should be an instructive record of exchange between Washington and Saigon. We knew also that there were several channels that could have been utilized. In addition to the normal State Department communications with its Embasy to the normal CIA communication channel with its station in Saigon. There were also so-called back channel communications facilities for both organizations, there were communication cable facilities--Mr. DASH. Mr. HUNT, what I really was directing your attention to, and perhaps this question might make it clearer: Was there an effort on the part of your questioning of Colonel Conein to attempt to get some indication from him as to whether or not the kennedy administration was related in any way to the coup? 96-296 0-73-pt. 9-18

Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire what this line of questioning has to do with the presidential campaign of 1972? It is very interesting but I don't think it lies within the purview of the committee.

Mr. DASH.

Senator Gurney, I think the following questions will indicate the line of questioning which---

Senator Gurney. Will counsel simply state to the committee what he has in mind?

Mr. DASH. Yes. I think Mr. Hunt will answer a few questions that will follow the questions that I am now asking, which will show an effort by Mr. Colson to try to discredit the Kennedy administration and therefore the Democratic Party during the election and relating it to the assasssination of Premier Diem and for that purpose attempting to bring the Catholic vote away from the Democratic party, and to show that a Democratic President had a role in the assassination of a Catholic premier.

Senator Gurney. I thought this had to do with national security leaks that occurred way back in July 1971, this conversation. I can't see how that can possibly realte to the Presidential campaign of 1972.

Mr. DASH. Well, the effort, and I think Mr. Hunt has already reaponded to a question put by me to him that the purpose was to get derogatory infromacion and leak it to the press during the Presidential campaign and I think if I am allowed to follow up with some questions I can show the connection.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, much of the information being covered by Mr. Dash and the point made by Mr. Gurney are involved in I believe the legal concept of whether or not the questions themselves should state a conclusion or whether they should elicit facts from which the committee may draw conclusions. In order to get the thing in some sort of order, I would suggest if there is no objection, and I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of the telephone conversation in its entirety may be entered in the record at this time.

Mr. DASH. I intended to do that.

Senator BAKER. Is there any objetion?

Senator ERVIN. Let the record show that the transcript of the entire telephone conversation is hereby made part of the record and marked appropriately as an exhibit. [The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 149.*]

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, rather than pursue the matter any further might I simply suggest that the counsel to the committee attemp to establish the factual situation and, if need be, state and thereby inform the committe what those questions are intended to serve without trying to build a statement of conclusion on the basis of each question. That after all is the factfinding mission of the committee. I don't want to hornswoggle us by making strict rules of evidence but I do think we will get along faster if we could establish the facts and deal with the conclusions a little later. *See p. 3881.

Mr. DASH. Mr. Chairman, I think my questions and the answers to the questions will establish the facts and will be quite relevant to the resolution under which this committee is operating, and I will go to another question which will clarify that.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, before we go on does counsel understand what I was saying?

Mr. DASH. Yes, I do.

Senator BAKER. Does counsel agree with it?

Mr. DASH. Well, I would like to ask a line of questions, Senator Baker, that will demostrate the facts and the conclusions that the committee can draw, but I will not draw the conclusions. The committee will draw the conclusions.

Senator BAKER. Do I understand, then, that counsel agrees with me, that the conclusionary part of this thing is a function of the committee?

Mr. DASH. Oh, yes. My statement concerning conclusions was in response to a question put by

Senator Gurney as to what the relevance of he question was to he resolution and, therefore, it was necessary for me to state the inference that was to be drawn from the questions, that it is relevant to our resolution. Otherwise, I could not have responded to

Senator Gurney's question.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I make request of counsel that we proceed as promptly as possible, stating the reasons for the questions which were asked without trying to establish a basis for a conclusion on each question. Counsel is free to accept that recommendation by the vice chairman or reject it, but I place it before counsel for consideration.

Senator GURNEY. Mr. Chairman, may I also make this observation? Actually, all this material we are talking about here and questioning about we have had before the committee in one form or another. These are amplifications of that. But I really think what we ought to do to get along with committee business is to get to something new and not to rehash something old. This is not really a trial. We are not seeking to corroborate testimony or evidence we have heard before. What we are trying to do is to get at some new facts. I would just suggest that following Mr. Baker's suggestion, possibly , we could get this by a very short explanation of the counsel, plus putting it in the record, and then get on to new business.

Mr. DASH. Mr. Chairman---

Senator ERVIN. Just a moment. The evidence we have taken thus far indicates that Mr. Hunt had much to do with the matters the committee is investigating. I think perhaps we would make a little bit more speed we just questioned the withness.

Senator BAKER. Before you proceed, Mr. DASH, Mr. Chairman, I agree with you and I hope very much that we will simply question the witness and not try to build statements of conclusion as we go along. I fully intend to draw inferences and state conclusions of my own, but that will come on or about February 28. But I hope we can sharpen up questions to elicit facts without developing hypotheses as we proceed.

Mr. DASH. That is my intention,

Senator Baker, and that is what I have been triying to do. At this early time of your employment at the White House, Mr. Hunt, did you have access to State Department cables covering the period of the Diem assassination?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Why did you have access to them?

Mr. HUNT. Because I had requested such access and it had been granted me.

Mr. DASH. Now, in the review of these cables, did you notice any irregularity of sequence?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. In what period did the gap in sequence occur?

Mr. HUNT. The period immediately leading up to the assassination of the Premier of South Vietnam.

Mr. DASH. Did you show the cables to Mr. Colson and offer an interpretation of them?

Mr. HUNT. I showed him copies of those chronological cables, yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And what interpretation, if any, did give him concerning the cables?

Mr. HUNT. I told him that the construction I placed upon the absence of certain cables was that they had been abstacted from the files maintained by the Department of State in chronological fashion and that while there was every reason to believe, on the basis of an accumulated evidence of the cable documentation, that the Kennedy administration was implicitly, if not explicitly, responsible for the assassination of Diem and his brother-in-law, that there was no hard evidence such as a cable emanating from the White House or a reply comming from Saigon, the Saigon Embassy.

Mr. DASH. What was Mr. Colson's reaction to your statement and the showing of the cable to him? Did he agree that the cables were sufficient evidence to show any relationship between the kennedy administration and the assassination of Diem?

Mr. HUNT. He did.

Mr. DASH. Did he ask you to do anything?

Mr. HUNT. He suggested that I might be able to improve upon the record. To create, to fabricate cables that could substitute for the missing chronological cables.

Mr. DASH. Did you in fact fabricate cables for the purpose of indicating the relationship of the Kennedy administration and the assassiantion of Diem?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Did you show these fabricated cables to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. What was his response to the fabricated cables?

Mr. HUNT. He indicated to me that he would be probably getting in touch with a memeber of the media, of the press, to whom he would show the cables.

Mr. DASH. And were you in fact put in touch with a memeber of the media?

Mr. HUNT. I was.

Mr. DASH, Who was that?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. William Lambert of Life magazine.

Mr. DASH. What was your instruction concernign the relationship you were to have with Mr. Lambert?

Mr. HUNT. To show Mr. Lambert the contex of the other legtimate cables that I acquired from the Department of State, to permit Mr. Lambert to hand-copy the texts of the fabricated cables, but I having warned Mr. Colson previously that the cables were not technically capable of withstanding professional scrutiny, that Mr. Lambert was not to be allowed to remove the cables for photocopying purposes.

Mr. DASH. Did Mr. Lambert use the information?

Mr. HUNT. Not to my knowledge, no.

Mr. DASH. Now, are you aware from your conversation with Mr. Colson and the use of these cables of any strategy that Mr. Colson had with regard to Catholic voters?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Could you describe that more fully?

Mr. HUNT. I believe it was desired by Mr. Colson, or at least some of his colleagues, to demonstrate that a Catholic U.S. administration had in fact conspired in the assassination of a Catholic chief of state of another country.

Mr. DASH. Did you show the fabricated cables to Colonel Conein?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Under what circunstances?

Mr. HUNT. Prior to Colonel Conein's appearance on a--I believe NBC-TV network special concerning Vietnam.

Mr. DASH. And did Colonel Conein use any of this infromation from the fabricated cables in his program?

Mr. HUNT. I would have to answer in these terms, Mr. DASH, that I had shown him the fabricated cables in the broader context of the overall cables, that he was then interrogated by a camera and interview crew and that I believe he made, if not specific reference to the cables I showed him, at least they reinforced his own belief that there had been direct complicity by the Kennedy administration in the events leading up to the assassination of the South Vietnamese Premier.

Mr. DASH. Now, as part of Mr. colson's plan to publicly discredit

Mr. Ellsberg, did you prepare a derogatory article on Mr. Leonard Boudin, Ellsberg's lawyer?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Did you show this to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. What was his suggestion when you showed it to him?

Mr. HUNT. He indicated that he would be passing the information to a member of the press, the article that I had prepared.

Mr. DASH. And, in fact, was the material that appeared in that article reflected in any news story that you were aware of?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Can you state to the committee what particular news story?

Mr. HUNT. It was an article anthored by Mr. Jerry terHorst, who represented one of the Detroit newspapers in Washington. It formed the second half of a story that Mr. terHorst was publising on Ellsberg and Ellsberg's defense.

Mr. DASH. Did you subsequently in a mamorandum to Mr. Colson suggest the manner in which additional derogatory information might be developed on Ellsberg and how a file might be constructed to destroy his public image and credibility?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Do you have a copy that the committee provided you in executive session of a memorandum from you to Mr. Colson dated July 28, 1971, entitled "Neutralization of Mr. ellsberg?"

Mr. HUNT. I do.

Mr. DASH. Now, you will notice in that memorandum, Mr. Hunt, that one item, I think No. 7, there is a reference to obtaining Ellsberg's files from a psychiatrist-annalyst. Do you see that reference as one of the items?

Mr. HUNT. I do.

Mr. DASH. Did you at the time you made that recommendation contemplate that it might be necessary to engage in a covert entry or break-in?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Also, there is a reference that a psychological assessment from the CIA be requested of Mr. Ellsberg. Is that correct?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. What was the purpose of the psychological assessment,

Mr. Hunt?

Mr. HUNT. One of the problems the administration was having with the Ellsberg indictment-I believe I am probably being presumptious in using so large a frame of reference-was that nobody really could comprehend why Ellsberg had done what he did, which was to take possession of and publicize documents with the highest classification and sensitivity. We knew that some had been made available to the Soviet Union by one means or another. Mr. Ellsberg's personally stated justification for having performed these acts was not comprehensible to any of us in the White House who were charged with determining his motivation and the manner of the leaks. I believe that it was my initial recommendation that we attempt to probe or plumb Dr. Ellsberg's mind by means of a covert psychological assessment. We had no idea what type of an animal we were dealing with.

Mr. DASH. Would it also be true, Mr. Hunt, that the information that might be obtained from either the profile or psychiatric materials from his analyst might be used to discredit Mr. Ellsberg?

Mr. HUNT. Might be used, yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. And if received, would that also be presented to the press media?

Mr. HUNT. I would have to qualify my reply, Mr. Dash, by saying that it would depend upon the nature of the items discovered.

Mr. DASH. Now, do you know whether or not your recommendation or your memorandum on the neutralization of Mr. Ellsberg was implemented?

Mr. HUNT. In terms of each item, sir?

Mr. DASH. Yes, in terms of some of these items.

Mr. HUNT. Well, I know that all overt press material on Ellsberg continued to be collected. A request was levied on the CIA for a covert psychological assessment on Dr. Ellsberg. I believe that the CIA, the FBI, and perhaps the Counter-Intelligence Corps were requested to provide the Plumbers group with their full holdings on Ellsberg. And in due course, we did enter the office of Dr. Fielding, who had been Dr. Ellsberg's psychiatrist, to determine if ther were any psychiatric notes.

Mr. DASH. Now, Mr. chairman, this particular memorandum, July 28, 1971, from Mr. Hunt to Mr. Colson, the subject, "Neutralization of Ellsberg," I would like to have identified for the record and admitted in evidence.

Senator Ervin. It will be appropriately marked as an exhibit and received in evidence as such. [The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 150.*]

Mr. DASH. Now, I think you testified in your statement, you have indicated that you did indeed engae in a break-in. Was it subsequently determined that an attempt should be made to obtain Dr. Ellsberg's medical files from the psychiatrist's office?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. You have a memorandum which the committee provided you, dated August 27, 1971, from Mr. Ehrlichman to Charles Colson, with the subject "Hunt-Liddy Special Project No.1"?

Mr. HUNT. I have such a memorandum.

Mr. DASH. That is dated August 27. I think this was previously put in the record by the committee, attached during Mr. Ehrlichman's testimony. I have just benn informed that it is exhibit No. 91 in the committee record. Do you have a copy of that memorandum?

Mr. HUNT. I beg your pardon.

Mr. DASH. Do you have a copy of that memorandum?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. DASH. Let me just read the memorandum; it is brief. This is from Mr. Ehrlichman to Mr. Colson: On the assumption that the proposed undertaking by Hunt and Liddy would be carried out and would be successful, I would appreciate receiving from you by next Wendnesday a game plan as to how and when you believe the materials should be used. This is referring to Hunt-Liddy special project No. 1.

Mr. Hunt, what from your understanding, on the date of August 27, 1971, would Hunt and Liddy's special project No. 1 be?

Mr. HUNT. I would assume it to be the fielding entry, based on the fact that Mr. Liddy and I, as of that date, would just have returned from our initial reconnaissance of Dr. Fielding's professional premises in Beverly Hills, we would have submitted a feasibility study.

Mr. DASH. And that the reference ther for Hunt and Liddy special project No.1 would refer to the proposed covert entry of Dr. Fielding's office for the psychiatric file?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Now, in fact, you and Mr. Liddy did go to Los Angeles to determine whether a covert was feasible and you did determine that it was; did you not?

Mr. HUNT. Yes. *See p. 3886.

Mr. DASH. And in fact you and Mr. Liddy and three Cuban-American characters, Mr. Baker, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. De Diego did break into Dr. Fielding's office over the Labor Day weekend in 1971; is that true?

Mr. HUNT. One limitation, that neither Mr. Liddy nor I were ever on the premises of Dr. Fielding.

Mr. DASH. And there were no files of Dr. Ellsberg found, is that true?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. DASH. You recruited Mr. Baker, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. De Diego; is that true?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir. Well, more specifically, I obtained Mr. Barker's cooperation and he obtained the cooperation of Messrs. Martinez and De Diego.

Mr. DASH. What was your prior relationship with Mr. Baker?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Barker had assisted me during the CIA's sponsored effort which came to be known as the Bay of Pigs operation.

Mr. DASH. Did you take photos of the inside of Dr. Fielding's office to show the forced open files?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. DASH. Did somebody in the group take photos?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. To whom were these photos shown?

Mr. HUNT. They were shown within room 16 to Messrs. Krogh and Young.

Mr. DASH. When you say room 16 Mr. Krogh and Mr. Young--by the time this program developed which led up to the covert of Dr. Fielding's office, you had begun to work with Mr. Krogh, Mr. Young, and Mr. Liddy; was that not so?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. How did that occur? You originally, I think, testifield that you were assigned to work for Mr. Colson. How did the transfer of relationship in assignment take place?

Mr. HUNT. Through a process resembling osmosis almost. I had discovered early in my reading of the overt materials relating to the publication fo the Pentagon Papers, mey researches into Dr. Ellsberg's background that considerably more documentation would be necessary for my purposes. I so advised or infromed Mr. Colson and he told me that these materials, that is to say classified materials, bearing on my researches were to be found in room 16 and I should check with Mr. Liddy for that purpose. I found the holdings that were in room 16 were quite extensive, and I began as a matter of course and custom to go there every day to acquaint myself with additional information as it flowed into room 16 from the various Government agencias that were making contributions. So it was that I spent less and less time in office 338 which had been assigned to me by Mr. Colson and a great deal more time in room 16 which became known as the Plumbers unit, the special investigations unit.

Mr. DASH. And by the time you had filed your memorandum on neutralization of Mr. Ellsberg, you were then working with the socalled Plumbers?

Mr. HUNT. Almost entire; yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Did you attempt to show the photographs that were taken during the Fielding break-in to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. And what occurred when you did?

Mr. HUNT. I told Mr. Colson I would like to try to put a date on this, Mr. Dash.

Mr. DASH. Do you have a date for that?

Mr. HUNT. I do. On Labor Day weekend, 1971, that is to say the 3d of September, the entry in Dr. Fielding's office was accomplished. The following Tuesday, that is to say the first working day after Labor Day, was the morning on which I attempted to show Mr. Colson the Polaroid photographs that had been taken by team members of the vilated cabinets in Dr. Feilding's premises.

Mr. DASH. How did he react to your attempting to show him the photographs?

Mr. HUNT. He declined to look at what I had in my hand, continued to stride into his office without breaking his pace and said "I don't want to hear anything about it."

Mr. DASH. Were you assigned by Mr. Colson to interveiw a Mr. Clifton De Motte of Providence--being told by Mr. Colson or anybody else that Mr. De Motte allegedly had derogratory infromation on the Kennedy family?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. When was this, approximately?

Mr. HUNT. I would say approximately July 1971.

Mr. DASH. Is it true that you underlook to have this interview with

Mr. De Motte disguised?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. How did you obtain the materials for the disguise?

Mr. HUNT. Through the CIA.

Mr. DASH. And could you just very briefly tell the committee how you were abel to obtain materials from the CIA that would permit you to disquise yourself?

Mr. HUNT. Shortly after my employment began at the White House I reported to Mr. Colson that I had been given credible information to the effect that a Mr. Clifton De Motte was believed to have information reflecting unfavorably on certain members of the kennedy political grouping. This having been based on the exprerience of an individual named "Clifton De Motte" who had been an unofficial part of the Kennedy entourage durign the, I believe, 1960 election. Mr. Colson felt that the lead ought to be followed up and asked me whether I could undertake to elicit information from him during an interview with the proviso that my connection with the White House not be revealed. I said that this would require my having some sort of alias or false documentation and perhapseven physical disguise.

Mr. Colson asked me whether or not I could provide it I said I could not and I in turn asked him whether or not such disguise--documentation might be availabel through either the Secret Service or the FBI representatives the White House indicated that the matter was too sensitive to involve either the Secret Service or the FBI and he inquired whether perhaps on the man to man, a personal basis, I might not be able to acquire documentation and disguise equipment from former associates at the CIA. I told him that this was out of the question. Mr. Colson then postulated the thought or the question rather of what would be required to obtain the cooperation of CIA. I said that it had been my past experience that a call from the White House brought almost instant response from the CIA. Mr. Colson said to me, "Very well, I will look into it and get back to you."

Mr. DASH. All right. Then when was--how were you informed, and in what way were you notified that you could then go make contact with the CIA for the disguise?

Mr. HUNT. The precise details at this point--Mr. DASH. If you could just briefly tell us that

Mr. HUNT [continuing]. Are not entirely clear. The crux of the matters is that I did receive at one point a call from a Mr. Carl Wagner who was the principal personal assistant to Gen. Robert Cushman of the Marine Corps who was then the Deputy Director of the CIA setting up an appointment for me with General Cushman at CIA headquartes.

Mr. DASH. And did you obtain disguise materials?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. And so disguised, you did interview Mr. De Motte?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Waht was the outcome of that interview, Mr. Hunt?

Mr. HUNT. It was determined by both Mr. Colson and Myself that the information was useless.

Mr. DASH. In the latter part of 1971, Mr. Hunt, did you become aware of the fact that Mr. Liddy was to become counsel for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Did Mr. Liddy recruit you to help him develop largescale covert political intelligence plans for the Committee To Re-Elect the President?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. When was this plan--Mr. SACHS. Excuse me, Mr. Dash.

Mr. HUNT [conferring with counsel]. Mr. Dash, could I trouble you to repeat the question having do with recruitment?

Mr. DASH. What, which question, the previous?

Mr. SASHS. The question that he just answered before the last question, he would like repeated, please.

Mr. DASH. Perhaps the reporter can repeat the question. [The reporter read the question]

Mr. HUNT. I would like to modify my response, if I might, Mr. Dash.

Mr. DASH. Yes.

Mr. HUNT. In late November 1971. Mr. Liddy approached me saving that the Attorney General of the United States. Mr. John Mitchell, required the establishment of a large-scale intelligence and counterintelligence program. That he, Mr. Liddy, was about to become its chief, and Mr. Liddy would like to assure himself of my cooperation.

Mr. DASH. Was this the plan that came later to be known as Gemstone?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Who did you understand from the conversation with Mr. Liddy were actual directing the development of this political intelligence plan?

Mr. HUNT. My understanding was as follows: that the plan had been proposed and or required by the Attorney General of the United States Mr. Mitchell. That messrs. John w. Dean III, the then counsel for the President of the United States, and Mr. Jeb Stuart Magruder a recent White House aide, were those who were active in its formulation.

Mr. DASH. Now, did you, in fact, help Mr. Liddy prepare the detailed plan and budget of the plan?

Mr. HUNT I did with the exception of that portion of the plan which dealt with electronics surveillance.

Mr. DASH. Mr. Hunt, the committee has already had ample testimony concerning presentation of this particular plan to former Attorney General Mitchell, Mr. Dean, and Mr. magruder by Mr. Liddy on January 27, 1972 and February 4, 1972. Now, prior to that January 27 presentation, did you have a discussion with Mr. Colson concerning that you would be giving fewer hours to the White House work because of the time that you had to spend with Mr. Liddy?

Mr. HUNT. I told Mr. Colson that because of the increased amount of time I was spending with Mr. Liddy that I would be able to give far less timeto Mr. Colson than I had done in the past.

Mr. DASH. What, if anything, did Mr. Colson say to you about that?

Mr. HUNT. He said that he understood this.

Mr. DASH. Did he indicate by words or statement that he understodd the plan that you were working with Mr. Liddy on?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Could you give us a little fuller explanation?

Mr. HUNT. On one occasion, and it must have been in conjunction with this particular interview, Mr. Colson told me that he had, in fact, supplied Mr. mitchell with my bona fides. He further indicated that he was aware of the overall intelligence plan and his only problem with it was that he would much prefer me--see me heading it rather than Mr. Liddy. I told him that the situation was fine as far as I was concerned, that I had cooperated with Mr. Liddy before, we got along well. I had already a full-time job with a public relations firm and was not seeking full-time employment such as Mr. Liddy had.

Mr. DASH. Is it true that this conversation took place in January prior to the January 27 meeting with former Attorny General Mitchell?

Mr. HUNT. Whose meeting?

Mr. DASH. Your meeting with Mr. Colson, when did this take place?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, but who met with Mr. Mitchell?

Mr. DASH. No, I say did this meeting you had with Mr. Colson take place in January prior to the january 27 presentation by Mr. Liddy of the plan Attorney General Mitchell?

Mr. HUNT. To the best of my recollection, it did.

Mr. DASH. Do you know where the converstion with Mr. Colson took place?

Mr. HUNT. Between myself and Mr. Colson?

Mr. DASH. Yes.

Mr. HUNT. In Mr. Colson's office.

Mr. DASH. Now, did you tell Mr. Colson at that time that you planned to recruit and use members of the same Cuban-American community that had worked with you in the Ellsberg break-in?

Mr. HUNT. Either on that or another occasion, Mr. DASH.

Mr. DASH. Mr. Colson was aware, was he not, of the role you and

Mr. Liddy played in the break-in of Dr. Fielding'a office?

Mr. HUNT. I was not so aware at the time. I have come to understand that subsequently.

Mr. DASH. At the time that Mr. Colson was indicating to you that he was aware of an intelligence plan that Mr. Liddy was working on, was there any other intelligence plan besides the Gemstone plan that

Mr. Liddy was working on?

Mr. HUNT. No.

Mr. DASH. Was it your impression, therefore, that Mr. Colson was speaking of the so-called Gemstone plan?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Mr. Hunt, Mr. Colson has submitted to this committee an affidavit. Do you have a copy of that? I think the committee has given you a copy. The affidavit is signed by you dated April 5, 1973, and I think it is brief enough to read. It is: I, E Howard Hunt, having been duly sworn do hereby depose and state as follows: 1. I understand that allegations and statements have been made to the effect that Charles Colson, former Counsel to the President, had prior knoledge or in some way was involved in, or participated in, the break-in at the Democra tic National Committee Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel on June 17, 1972. 2. I never at any time discussed with Mr. Colson any plans with respect to this incident. 3. I have no knowledge whatever, personal or otherwise, that Mr. Colson had any prior knowledge whatever of this incident. To my knoledge, no one else ever disucssed this matter with him prior to June 17, 1972. Did you sign this affidavit?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. What were the circumstances which led you to sign this affidavit?

Mr. HUNT. This affidavit was passed to me in the Federal courthouse by my attorney, my then-attorney, Mr. William O. Bittman prior to an appearance of mine before the Federal grand jury. To the best of my recollection Mr. Bittman indicated to me that he had received the affidavit in draft form Mr. Colson's office, and wondered if there would be any problem on my part about signing it. I indicated that I had no divviculty with it whatever, and did, in fact, sign the affidavit.

Mr. DASH. All right, now, Mr. Hunt, does this affidavit that you signed negate the testimony that vou have just given, that Mr. Colson did inform you in January 1972 that he was aware of what had come to be konwn as the Gemstone plan?

Mr. HUNT. Does it negate it?

Mr. DASH. Does in negate it?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. DASH. Can you ezplain why it does not?

Mr. HUNT. Because the information that Mr. Colson possessed in January, that I possessed in January, referred only to an overall intelligence program. It had nothing to do with a specific break-in at the Democratic national headquarters.

Mr. DASH. And this particular affidavit deals only about Mr. Colson's knowledge of the specific break-in of the Watergate?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter or have the affidavit identified as an exhibit of the committee and admitted in evidence.

Senator ERVIN. The affidavit will be appropriately numbered and received in evidence as an exhibit. [The affidavit referred to was marked exhibit No.151.*]

Mr. DASH. Now, Mr. Hunt, is it not true that you only recently told the staff of this committee in executive session, specifically within the last week or two, of the fact of Mr. Colson's knowledge of the so-called Gemstone plan in January 1972?

Mr. HUNT. May I consult with counsel? [Conferring with counsel.]

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Dash, I would appreciate having the stenographer read the question back. [The reporter read the question.]

Mr. HUNT. In the interest of accurady, Mr. Dash, let me say or repeat the testimony I have given in the executive session to the effect that on an occasion when I introduced Mr. Liddy and Mr. Colson for the first time, following that particular meeting, Mr. liddy said to me, as we left Mr. Colson's office, "I believe we may have done us some good," which was indicative to me that they had been discussing the Gemstone plan. However, only recently--and I have said that from the beginning of the interrogations--I have, within recent weeks, let us say, added to my testimony to state, in effect, to enabel me to provide a positive response to the question you have just posed me.

Mr. DASH. Is it not true, Mr. Hunt, that on May 14, 1973, on page 323 of the transcript, that in specific questions that I put to you whether or not any other person than the persons who had been in volved in the discussion with Mr. Liddy, and you named persons such as Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder, knew about the overall intelligence plan? Let me just quote your statement on page 323 and my question: During that time, did you ever indicate in the presence of Mr. Mccord that these plans would have, that you were in tuouch with other persons yourself in the White House, Mr. Colson or anybody else concerning these plans?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir. I would not have done that, because it was true to the best of my knowledge that Mr. Colson had no specific knowledge. He had no knowledge of my dealings with mr. Liddy from me. Now, if Mr. Colson had col lateral knowledge or awareness, he did not confide in me. What I am asking, Mr. Hunt, is : Is not true that on May 14, 1973, your statement was that Mr. Colson did not to your knowledge have any awareness of an overall intelligence plan? *see p. 3887.

Mr. SACHS. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I detect a little bit of confusion. If I could just have 1 minute to talk to Mr. Hunt, I think it might expedite this.

Senator Ervin. Certainly.

Mr. SACHS. Mr. Dash, if the committee will--I think I have a notion,

Mr. Dash, as to the line of questioning you are about to pursue in order to refresh Mr. Hunt's recollection as to he the testimony he recently gave in executive session. It was clear to me before you undertook this last question that he did not quite clearly understand what you were driving at and he and I have now discussed that briefly. I think perhaps if you will ask your first question, or perhaps I could ask it, he could quickly answer it and we can go on to something else. I think what you are asking him is whether in the past few weeks, he had added to his explanation of his conversations with Mr. Colson the fact that in January of 1972 there was a conversation between him and Mr. Colson which indicated that Mr. Colson had knowledge of the Gemstone program.

Mr. DASH. Yes.

Mr. SACHS. I think he can answer that quickly

Mr. DASH. Well, the question that I put to you is: Is not this the first time that you have told the committee that?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Prior to telling the committee that, have you informed any other investigative body, including the grand jury that is presently sitting, about that information?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. DASH. Can you explain to the committee, Mr. Hunt, what appears to be contradictory testimony in the executive session and now before this committee as to Mr. Colson's prior knowledge of this general plan?

Mr. HUNT. I can attempt to, Mr. Dash.

Mr. DASH. Would you please do that?

Mr. HUNT. Yes It derived as a result of repeated questioning by the committee staff concerning events which transpired on the occasion of my having introduced Mr. Liddy and Mr. Colson for the first time. A theory of Mr. Colson's perceptions of the meetings was entered into and developed which brought back to my mind for the first time the prior conversation that I had held in January with Mr. Colson.

Mr. SACHS. Mr. Dash, mav I ask that the recording clear that there is no contradiction between Mr. Hunt's testimony on this point today as against his testimony in the executive session? I think that might have been inferred from your question.

Mr. DASH. I think the record is clear on that. I again made it very clear that Mr. Hunt is testifving today consistently with what he has told the committee in executive session in the last week or tow. I was pointing out in the interest of fairness that Mr. Hunt had not given us this testimony on earlier occasions and Mr. Hunt has just given us an explanation of why he had not. I would like to follow that up, Mr. Hunt, and ask you whether or not your motion that is now pending in the court for the removal of your plea of guilty, or the withdrawal of vour plea of guilty, in which you indicated in the motion that you believed that Mr. Colson approved the overall plan, has any relevance to your recent testimony before the executive session or before this committee?

Mr. SACHS. I am a little troubled, Mr. Dash, by your use of the word "relevance."

Mr. DASH. Why?

Mr. SACHS. You might want ot ask me that

Mr. DASH. I will put the question more direclty, Mr. Hunt. Are you now giving us your best recollection of what truthfully transpired in January as opposed to what you were telling us earlier during the period of interrogation?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I am not clear. I got lost about 10 minutes ago.

Is the burden of the query that Mr. Hunt is now giving us information for the first time and only recently gave it to us in executive session as distinguished from his earlier appearances in executive session by reason of or connected with the fact that he is attempting to change his plea from guilty to not guilty?

Mr. DASH. Yes.

Senator BAKER. Is there any implication in sounsel's question that the two are not inconsistent, but rather that this is additional information that may have bearing on the application of Mr. Hunt to change his plea?

Mr. DASH. The last question I put to Mr. Hunt and perhaps he can answer it is: Is there any motivation on your part to give us this more recent testimony concerning Mr. Colson's awareness of the plan connected in any way to your motion to withdraw your plea of guilty?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir; and if I may consult with counsel, there is another point I would like to make pertinent to this. I would like to add. Mr. Dash, that my legal position vis-a-vis the motion does not depend upon Mr. Colson's knowledge or nonknowledge at taht time.

Mr. DASH. All right. Now, Mr. Hunt, after the February 4 meeting that Mr. Liddy had with the former Attorney General in which there was another turndown on the so-called Liddy plan, did Mr. Liddy ask you to introduce him to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. He did.

Mr. DASH. What reasons did he give you for this?

Mr. HUNT. He indicated to me that, first of all, he admired Chuck Colson as a man who got things done. he expressed his own desire for a substantial position in the forthcoming administation. He indicated to me that inasmuch as John Mitchell would be leaving the administration and he, Liddy, was known and identified as a Mitchel man. that Mr. Liddy would like to touch base with Mr. Colson, who would be staying on in the administration at least through the election and so have another power base, as it were, on which he could depend at such time as--Mr. DASH. Did you arrange such a meeting?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. And do you know that, approximately, took place?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. DASH. But do you recall it was the month of February?

Mr. HUNT. May I consult my notes Mr. Dash? I would relate it to the phone call concerning which Mr. Magruder has already given testimony.

Mr. DASH. All right, now, did you introduce Mr. Liddy to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. After you did, what did you to?

Mr. HUNT. I withdrew to the back of the room and sat, smoked my pipe, leafed through a magazine while Mr. Liddy conversed with Mr. Colson.

Mr. DASH. Why did you withdraw to the back of the room?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Liddy having given me the preamble, the reasons for his desire to meet Mr. Colson. I felt that it was a personal matter and did not want to involve myself or interpose myself in any way.

Mr. DASH. How long did the meeting take place?

Mr. HUNT. Approsimately 10 or 12 minutes.

Mr. DASH. Did you observe Mr. Colson use the telephone during that meeting?

Mr. HUNT. On several occasions.

Mr. DASH. After the meeting, did you have a conversation with Mr. Liddy?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. What did Mr. Liddy tell you?

Mr. HUNT. He said, "I think I may have done su some good."

Mr. DASH. At that time what was your interpretation of that message?

Mr. HUNT. I realized that he had been speaking with Mr. Colson about the Gemstone operation.

Mr. DASH. Why did you draw that interpretaion from the statement, "I think I have done us some good"?

Mr. HUNT. Because that was the only common subject concerning which he could have done us any good.

Mr. DASH. All right. Now, the committee has already heard testimony from Mr. Magruder that while you were in Mr. Colson's office Mr. Colson telephoned

Mr. Magruder and urged him,"to get off the stick and get the budget approved for Mr. Liddy's plans." Now what plans of Mr. Liddy could Mr. Colson have been referring to at that time?

Mr. HUNT. It could only have been the Gemstone concept.

Mr. DASH. Why do you say that?

Mr. HUNT. That was the only one that was under consideration.

Mr. DASH. During part of this period, Mr. Hunk, when you were working for Mr. Liddy between December 1971 and March 1972, did you receive any other assignmnets from Mr. Liddy for political espionage against Democratic candidates for the Presidency? Specifically did you have a dealing with a person known to you as Fat Jack?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. Could you describe how these dealings took place and what the assignmant was?

Mr. HUNT. There came a time when Mr. Liddy asked me as an accommodation to meet with a gentleman who was handling an agent inside Muskie hadquarters. He described the gentleman's physical appearance. We arranged a meeting point in front of the Roger Smith Hotel and I gather that Mr. Liddy also described my appearance to the other gentleman so that at the appointed time we had no difficulty in recognizing each other.

Mr. DASH. What was the purpose of these meetings?

Mr. HUNT. So that I could pick up material that derived from Muskie headquarters from this penetration agent.

Mr. DASH. What kind of materials were these?

Mr. HUNT. They were in photographic form.

Mr. DASH. Could you describe the nature of the photographs

Mr. HUNT. On only one occasion did I have--did I look into the envelope. I saw there were advance schedules, perhaps some policy statements, material of medium value, I would say.

Mr. DASH. Was the person you knew as Fat Jack paid for this work?

Mr. HUNT. I have no way of knowing.

Mr. DASH. Did you at any time in any envelope that you delivered see any money?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. Was that given to him?

Mr. HUNT. It was. My understanding, to amplify that point, Mr. Dash--Mr. DASH. Yes.

Mr. HUNT [continuing]. Was that the money was to go to pay for the photographic services that had been rendered to Fat Jack.

Mr. DASH. Did you know who he was in touch with?

Mr. HUNT. No.

Mr. DASH. Did you have any knowledge at that time or to this date of the real identity of the person you knew as Fat Jack?

Mr. HUNT. No.

Mr. DASH. Did you youself recruit a person to infiltrate the campaign of a Democratic Presidential candidate?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Could you tell us who and in what campaign?

Mr. HUNT. His name was Thomas Gregory. He was a student whom I recruited to pose as a volunteer to work inside Muskie headquarters.

Mr. DASH. What was his assignment?

Mr. HUNT. His assignment was to acquire for us policy papers, working papers, advance schedules of the Muskie party, list of contributions of contributors, bank statements, that sort of thing that would normally flow out of political campaign headquarters.

Mr. DASH. Did there come a time when you tranferred Mr. Gregory to the McGovern campaign?

Mr. HUNT. There did.

Mr. DASH. What was his assignment there?

Mr. HUNT. It was the same with one addition.

Mr. DASH. What was the addition?

Mr. HUNT. The addition was to prepare for an electronic surveillance or electronic penetration of McGovern headquarters.

Mr. DASH. How was he to prepare for that?

Mr. HUNT. He prepared for it initially by providing me with a floor diagram of McGovern's office building. I introduced Mr. Gregory and

Mr. McCord who in April met for the first time. Mr. McCord then told Mr. Gregory what would be required to satisfy his own particular technical intersets. Mr. Gregory took Mr. McCord through the McGovern headquarters. They continued as it were, doing business between themselves in connection with the electronic surveillance attempt.

Mr. DASH. Was ther, in effect, an attempt to break into the McGovern headquarters?

Mr. HUNT. There was an attempt to enter it, yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. What happened?

Mr. HUNT. It was unsuccessful.

Mr. DASH. Now, was this activity part of the overall Gemstone plan?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. During this same period and prior to the Watergate break-in, Mr. Hunt, did you and Mr. Liddy work on a political espionage plan invilving a target in Las Vegas?

Mr. HUNT. Apart from Gemstone?

Mr. DASH. Yes.

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. What was the target and how did you learn about it?

Mr. HUNT. Excuse me.[Conferring with counsel.] I take it, Mr. Dash, you have no objetion to my reciting this chronologically.

Mr. Dash. I have no objection to responding to my question the best way you can.

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir. There came a time when my employer, Mr. Robert Bennett, informed me that he had hear a rumer around Las Vegas to the effect that a publisher named Hank Greenspun had information which would "blow Muskie out of the water" in case Muskie became a candidate. I reported by very meno this information to Mr. Linddy. Mr. Liddy responded enthusiastically seeing it initially an opprtunity for to travel at company expense as it were, to Las Vegas and have an enjoyable time. Very shortly after his initial reaction Mr. Liddy informed me that he, in effet, had been able to confirm the rumor or at that he had hear from another source this rumor, and that there was a dipocition on the part of his principals to pursue it. I reported this matter back to Mr. Bennett and within a short period of time Mr. Bennet introduced me to a Mr. Ralph Winte who was then the head of security for either the Hughes Tool Co. or one of its many subsidiaries. At our initial discussion Mr. Bennett, Mr Winte, and I discussed Las Vegas, the Nevada political situacion, the litrigation them in prgress between Robert Maheu and Mr. Hughes, the position politically speaking vis-a-vis Mr. Greenspun and Hughes, the allegation that

Mr. Greenspun or other had bribed had or bought certain judges in Nevada and so on. This came to- this discussion reached the point where Mr. Bennett suggested that was a commonality of interet between the Hughes Tool Co. Mr. Liddy and miself.

Mr. Winte and I withdrew to my office where he indicated that he was disposed to cooperate with me ion the matter. Ihad no prior ex`perience in Las Vegas, and he would attempt to produce a floor diagram of the Grenspun office, and I asked him whether his firm, with its multitudinous interests in Las Vegas, coul provide us with sopport facilities such as hotel rooms, automobiles, and so forth. He indicated that there would be no problem.

Mr. Dash. Now, in other you are saying is that your comversation with Mr. Winte indicated that the Hughes Tool Co. also was intereted in gaining information that may be in the possession of

Mr. Greenspun that was related to their that were pending, is that true?

Mr. Hunt. Yes,sir.

Mr. Dash. And that you asking for assistance from them with regard to their resources out in Las Vegas?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. that include an airplane or plane should that be necessary?

Mr. Hunt. That came later, Mr. Dash.

Mr. Dash. I am just trying to abbleviate your response.

Mr. Hunt. The answer is "Yes";it did .

Mr. Dash.Did you go out to Los angeles and further communicate with Mr. Winte?

Mr. Hunt. Idid.

Mr.Dash. Was that for the purpose of determining whether or not you could agree on a plan to make entry and locate a safe in the Greenspun office?

Mr. Hunt. I would have to answer in this form, Mr. Dash, that there came a time approximate 2 weeks later following my first meeting with Mr. Winte that Mr.Liddy and Ihad ather reasons to go to the west coas, and I informed Mr. Winte that we wuold be at the Beberky Wilshire Hotel on a particular date at that time Mr. Winte joined us and I introduced him to Mr. Liddy I believe under a pseudonym for the firs time. During the course of that comversation the question of an aircraft was aired for the first time.

Mr. Dash. Was it part of the plan- should it follow through and should there be a safe, that there wuold be an entry that the contents of the safe wuold be emptied and a different place you would divvy up what belonged to Hughes and what belonged to your inteest?

Mr. Hunth. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. What happenned to that plan? Was it fruitful?

Mr. Hunt. Mr. Winte had indicated to me and to Mr. Liddy also that he could provide the on- the- ground support facilities which would be requiered for an entry operation if such an entry operation were devised but that with regard to the aircraft, he would, have to refer to his superiors for authorization. It so happened that the following, the meeting among Mr. Winte, Mr. Liddy, and myself, the Muskie candidacy was rapidly losing impetus, and no one was particuraly interested in the information that Mr. Greenspun might have possessed if fact he ever did, concening Mr. Muskie.

Mr. Dash. So the plan was dropped?

Mr. Hunt. The plan was dropped and either Mr. Bennet or Mr. Winte told me at later date that in any event the availability of the aircraft had been declined.

Mr. Dash. All ring now, Mr. Hunt, with regard to the Democrat Convetion in Miami, did you give any asignments to Mr. Baker?

Mr. Hunt. Idid.

Mr. Dash. And what, if any, assignment did you give Mr. Barker?

Mr. Hunt. We speaking now only of the Democratic Convetion.

Mr. Dash. Democratic.

Mr. Hunt. Mr. Barker's principal assigment was to develop a network of information along the Miami Beach hotel complex who could report to us concerning campaign developments, comvetion development, policies of individual Democratic candidates.

Mr. Dash. Did he also have an assignment to procure a house boat as a base for electronic surveillance?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dash. And did he also have assigment to recruit some persons who mihht be disreputable looking young men, hippies, to pose as McGovern sopporters?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dash. What were they supposed to do?

Mr. Hunt. They were supposed to demonstrate in front of the Doral Hotel some evening and behave outrageously to bring discredit upon the bulk of the useful McGovern sopporters.

Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Hunt,I think you, in did participate in the brak-in of the Democratic National Committe headquarters at the Watergate on or about May 27, 1972, is not true?

Mr. Hunt. I do not kwow if the word "particiapate" embraces it-Mr. Dash. You did not make an entry yourself?

Mr. Hunt. No, sir. I participated in it.

Mr. Dash. And is it not true that oyu recruited Mr. Barker to bring up the team of Cuban-Americans to assist in this plan?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And is ti true that it was his job to engage in photograph ing Democratic Party document?

Mr. Hunt. Yes,sir.

Mr. Dash. Now,it is true, is, it not, that you also aprticipated in the second break- in, ising the "participating" as you indicated before that you definitely did not break in the Democratic National Committee headquarters on June 18, 1972?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Where were you situated when the entry team was arrested?

Mr. Hunt. In room 214 of the Watergate Htoel, which is another building.

Mr. Dash. What did you do immediately after you were made aware that an arrest had taken place?

Mr. Hunt. I closed up Mr. McCord's briefcase, which contained electronic equipment, and with Mr.Liddy, we left the premises.I drove to the White House, where I inserted the briefcase beloging to Mr. McCord, into my two-drawer safe. I went-I believe I called Mr. Dougals Caddy's apartment, he being an attorney.

Mr.Dash. Who is Mr. Caddy?

Mr. Hunt. Mr. Douglas Caddy an attorney and former employee of the Mullen Co., and sked him he coul recieve me at that early hour of the mornig.

Mr. Dash. Did you take any money out of the safe?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir,I did.

Mr. Dash. How much?

Mr. Hunt. I took out $10,000.

Mr. Dash. Where did you get that money?

Mr. Hunt. That was contingency money that had been provided me by Mr. Liddy.

Mr. Dash. Contingency just in case there was this kind of trouble?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir; in case there was a mishap.

Mr. Dash. What did you do with that money?

Mr. Hunt. I took it during the course of the early morning to Mr. Caddy's apartament and gave it to him on behalf of the five men who had been arrested.

Mr. Dash. Did you make an analysis or review of the contents of your safe at that time or a later time

Mr. Hunt. No, sir; not at that time.

Mr. Dash When did you, if you did?

Mr. Hunt. Excuse me.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Hunt, this might help you Do you recall returning to you office at the EOB and looking through the contents of your safe?

Mr. Hunt. Yes sir.

Mr. Dash. And do you recall that was on or about June 19, 1972?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Just very briefly, can you describe the contents of your safe at that time, what you had in there in there?

Mr. Hunt. Well, there was a great deal of material, Mr.Dash.

Mr. Dash. Just by category.

Mr. Hunt. There were the fabricanted Vietnamese cables that I had shown to Mr. Colson, Mr. Conein, and Mr. Lambert. There was material relating to Gemstone; there were transcripts of my comversations with Mr. Clifton De Motte, for exaple. Thare was a very subtancial amount of material, part of which was shown me at the times of discovery by the U.S. attorney-perhaps I am not being responsive.

Mr. Dash. Yes, you are being responsive. Did it also include the briefcase which include Mr. McCord's electronic aquipment?

Mr. Hunt. Oh, yes; that was there.

Mr. Dash. Now, did you inform anyone on that day of the contents of your safe?

Mr. Hunt. Idid.

Mr. Dash. Who was that?

Mr. Hunt. Mr. Colson's secretary.

Mr. Dash. What is her name?

Mr. Hunt. Her name was Mrs. Joan Hall.

Mr. Dash. Did you characterize or say anything aboout the contents?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. Dash. What did you say?

Mr. Hunt. Befire I lef the White House for the times, I stopped by Mr. Colson's office, not to see but simply to infor Mrs. Hall, whom I khew held the combination to my safe that it contained sensitive material. I simply to her I just you to know that that safe is loaded".

Mr. Dash. Now, did you hear from Mr. Liddy during this period of time?

Mr. Hunt. What period of time?

Mr. Dash. Shortly after, around June 19 or around that time?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir I did.

Mr. Dash. What, if anything, did he tell you?

Mr. Hunt. Toward midday on the 19th, I got a telephone call from him my Mullen Co. office saving that he needed urgently to meet me. We met at the corner of the USIA building, which I believe is at 17th and Pennsylvania Ave. We met, walled around the block During the course of the coversation, he told me that it was necessary for me to get out town, that"they" wanted me to get out of town.

Mr. Dash. did he indicate who " they" were?

Mr. Hunt. Not at that time.

Mr. Dash. Then, was it a fact that that particular order was rescinced?

Mr. Hunt. He told me that is was.

Mr. Dash. Now, in fact, you did leave Washington, did not?

Mr. Hunt. I did.

Mr. Dash. And did you ultimatel go to California?

Mr. Hunt. I did.

Mr. Dash. At that time, did you make arrangements to obtain Counsel?

Mr. Hunt. I obtained local counsel in California, but not Washington counsel.

Mr. Dash. Well, in California, who did you meet, what California counsel?

Mr. Hunt. I was staving at the home of an attorney, an old friend named Morton B. Jackson. Liddy appeared out there unannounced on June 21. I reiterated my request to him that he or somebody obtain counsel for me in the Washington area. Mr. Liddy gave me $1,000 and said, this will help with Jackson. I thereupon gave the $1,000 in cash to Mr. Jackson, retaining him as my counsel on the west coast.

Mr. Dash. And did Mr. Jackson refer you to any Washington lawyer?

Mr. Hunt. In due course, he did.

Mr. Dash. Yes, and what lawyer was that?

Mr. Hunt. He referred me some time later to two attorneys, neither of whom were known to, I believe, either Mr. Jackson or myself. Simply throung an alphabetical process, I decided to retain to inquire of

Mr. Bittman whether or not he wuold be interested in represeting me

Mr. Dash. And did you retain Mr. William Bittman?

Mr. Hunt. I did.

Mr. Dash. And when did you first meet Mr. Bittman in Washington?

Mr. Hunt. On the ning of July 3.

Mr. Dash. What was your understanding, Mr. Hunt concerning legal fees and support of your family that you wuold receive? What generalunderstading did you have?

Mr. Hunt. At time Mr. Liddy appeared at the home of Mr. Jackson on June 21, raised the question with him, as I had with several other people since I had left Washington, concerning councel, and furthermore, how councel fees, living expenses, and so foth, are going to be taken care of. Mr. Liddy said, don't worry about that, it's all going to be taken care of just like the company, or the Agency. To me, that meant in the traditional CIA or clandestine servises fashion. He then prduced $1,000, which was pretty hard evidence that there was money available for this sort of thing.

Mr. Dash. All ringt, now, later-Mr. Hunt Mignt I just continue with my thought?

Mr. Dash. Yes.

Mr. Hunt. I said to him, by now the paralysis that gripped the Write House, the CREP, in the wale of the arrest must have ebbed to some extent. Please tell me, who is the action officer now? And he said, it is Mardian, or at least it was as of the time I left this morning. And I found that encouraging news.

Mr. Dash. Now, when you returned to Washington and retained

Mr. Bittman, did there come a time when Mrs. Hunt, your wife, had a contact with Mr. O'Brien, Paul O'Brien, at the Committee To Re-Elect the president?

Mr. Hunt. I believe she had that contact with Mr. O'Brien before I returned to the east coast.

Mr. Dash. And what the purpuse of that contact?

Mr. Hunt To continue to seek counsel and make sure that the arrested men and those pf us who were still out wuold be taken care of in customary fahion.

Mr. Dash. To your knoweledge, was assured by Mr.O'Brien that support money for counsel and for the family wuold be forthcoming?

Mr. Hunt. I do not believe that she received that sort of assurance from Mr. O'Brien. As I recall her relating the incident to me, Mr. O'Brien was horrifield by the revelations, but said he wuold look into them.

Mr. Dash. When you say horrifield by the revelations, what revelations?

Mr. Hunt. The revelations that my wife had given him.

Mr. Dash. Do you know what revelations your wife had given Mr. O'Brien?

Mr. Hunt. I understand, and again this is only hearsay from my late wife, she had hold him that we had been acting on behalf of the attorney General of the United Stated and the Cousel to the President of the United Stated, that we had appreheded, men were in jail, that bond money, bail money, counsel fees, all that sort of thing, were needed and neededimmediately, My understading is that this all was news to Mr. O;Brien at that time. He did say, however, that he would look into the matter immediately.

Mr. Dash. Now, there did come a time, did there not, after the retainment of Bittman, that you received a call or Mrs. Hunt received a call from Mr. River?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dash And what did Mr. Rivers have to say, to your knowledge?

Mr. Hunt. My late wife reported to me that- and we are skipping now over the authemtication of Mr. Rivers. In event, when Mrs. Hunt responded to the getleman whose operational alias we knew as river and knew him to be an appropriate person for to deal with--Mr. Dash. You say that we are skipping over authetication?

Mr. Hunt. We are skipping over his authentication.

Mr.Dash Yes. Was a call first made by Mr. Rivers to Mr. Bittman?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dash. What was Mr. Bittman's reaction to that call?

Mr. Hunt. He rejection it, declined to speak to Mr. River.

Mr. Dash. Then, what did he do thereafter?

Mr. Hunt. Within a day or so he had occasion to be in conference with Mr. Paul O'Brien and possibly Mr. Parkinson and mentioned this call as curious matter. I believe at that point he was assured that Mr. Rivers was an appropitate person for Mrs. Hunt to be in touch with.

Mr. Dash. Then again, is that when Mr. Bittman called you or Mrs. Hunt?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dash. And what arrangemement were made at that time?

Mr. Hunt. That Mrs. Hunt--excuse me.

Mr. Sachs. Do you mean arrangements with regard to further contact with Mr. Rivers?

Mr. Dash. Yes.

Mr. Hunt. That by means of the usage of public telephones, Mrs. Hunt and Mr. River would speack with each other, which in fact, they did.

Mr. Dash. Were you aware that payment were in fact made by

Mr. Rivers to Mrs. Hunt?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dash. I think that the record will show that we have already had testimony as to the identify of Mr. Rivers Mr. Tony Ulasewicz. Did you know, by the way, at the time that Mr. Rivers was Mr. Tony Ulasewicz?

Mr. Hunt. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. Did you have occasion to see a series of accounts or a couple of accounts that Mrs. Hunt made to Mr. Bottman concerning payments she received from Mr. Rivers?

Mr. Hunt. Only recently.

Mr. Dash. Was that by this committee?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir. I would like to say have been shown them by-- I have been shown copies by the committee. I have been shown purported to be originals by Mr. Bitman, who I believe was submitting them to the grand jury.

Mr. Dash. And did they indicate to you that payments were made covering Mr. McCord, Mr. Barked; and the other persons who had been arrested?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dash Did there come a time, Mr. Hunt, when you went to your attorney, Mr. Bittman, to tell him you wanted to plead guilty?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dsash. After your wife's death did you receive a call from Mr. Bittman concernig funds that he that he for you?

Mr. Hunt I did.

Mr. Dash. did you receive those funds?

Mr. Hunt. I did.

Mr. Dash Do you how much that was?

Mr. Hunt On the firt occasion?

Mr. Dash. Yes.

Mr. Hunt Or do you want the seriatim?

Mr. Dash Do you them in seriatin and perpharp we can expedite them by just giving us a very brief statement of the foend that

Mr. Hunt. I had made up my mind, following my-- in fact during my retur flight from Chicago after the death of my wife--that was pn December 10. My wife was killed in a plane crash at Midway Airport on December8.

Mr. Dash. And in fact you did enter a plea of guilty?

Mr. Hunt. I did.

Mr. Dash. After your wife's death did you receive a call from Mr. Bttman concerning funds that he for you?

Mr. Hunt. I did.Mr. Dash. Do you recall how much that was?

Mr. Hunt. On the firs occasion?

Mr. Dash. Yes.

Mr. Hunt. Our do you want the seriatim?

Mr. Dash. Do you them in seriatim and perhaps we can expedite them by just giving us a very brief statement of the fund that you did receive through Mr. Bittman.

Mr. Hunt. [conferring with counsel ]. On July 3,1972, I retained

Mr. Bittman with a $1,000 cash payment. Some later Mr. Bittman reported to me a lette and also verbally that he has received the sum of $25,000 as further retainer. He indicated the money had come to him anonymoulsy and it had been delivered to his office, that it was to be used in my behalf and concidered as a retainer. Later on, perhaps in the month of October, I nave no date for this, I was informed by Mr. Bittman that an envelope had been dlivered to his office for me. I opened the envelope in his precence and counted out $20,000 which I turned over to him. Early in January or late December of 1972-- no, January of 1973 or late December of 1972, Mr. Bittman telephoned me to inform me that he had received an envelope at this house. He told me that this had been left in this his mailbox Prenious telephonic intructions were to the affect that it was an anvelope for me. I received the envelope unopened from his hands, took it to my home and found that it contained $15,000.I gave $12,000 of those fund to Dr. Manuel Artime to assist in the defense funds of the four men Miami, that having been my prior understanding from the comversation with my wife that a committee was being former in Miami for the defense of the four Miami men, and then I subtracted $3,000 which she had told me she had placed at the disposition of other defendants from our own fund and there fore or thereby reimbursed myself to the extent of $3,000 the rest went to Miami.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Hunt, I think expedite matters if you could provide the committee with a record of those payments, and let me just ask you if you have the total figure that you paid Mr. Bittman by way of fees that you received through these means.

Mr. Hunt. That I receiver how, sir?

Mr. Dash. That you received through the support money that was coming in either throung Mr.Rivers or through any other source.

Mr. Sachs. I am not sure I understand it

Mr. Dash. I am asking for the total amount of money that you paid

Mr. Bittman legal fees.

Mr. Sachs. That Mr. Bittman was paid.

Mr. Dash. Yes, or that Mr. Bittman was paid.

Mr. Hunt. $156,000.

Mr. Dash. Would you submit to us a atatement of the details that you were giving us a moment ago? I think it would help us expedite the questioning.

Mr. Sachs. We will be glad to.*

Mr. Dash. Yes. Now, did you ever call Mr. Colson to complain about the problems of the payment of fees?

Mr. Hunt. I did.

Mr. Dash. Do you recall when you made that call?

Mr. Hunt. On November 24 last.

Mr. Dash. Now, do you have a copy of the transcript that Mr. Colson made of the telephone call?

Mr. Hunt. I do.

Mr. Dash. During that call wath, in effect, were you telling Mr. Colson, why did you make that call?

Mr. Hunt. I made the call, Mr. Dash because my wife had indicated to me because she had been placed in a very false and difficult position vis-a-vis the Cubans and the other people who were or had become her "client," she was unwilliing to continue in the role taht she had agreed to accept at the urging of Mr. Rivers, that is say to be the go-between. She felt also that perhaps because she was a woman, her words her urgings, her representation were receiving insufficient weight or were not being seriously enough received by whoever the sponsors were, and it was in that spirit that she asked me to communicate with Mr. Colson, which I did.

Mr. Dash. All ringt. now, on page 3 of that trascript, did you say the following: all ring, now we've set a deadline now for close of busonnes on the 25th of November-And I take it it is a deadline to receive fundsfor the resolutuion on the liquidation of everything that is outstanding. and this- they're now talking about promises from July and August. it just has been anapparent uncocern. Of cource, we can understaing some hesitancy pr ior to the election, but there doesn't seem to be any of that now. Of course, we are wellaware of upcoming problems of the Senate. Did you amke that statement during that call?Does this trancript, by the way, reflect, to your recollection the conversation you had with

Mr.Colson? You will recall we showed you transcript diring the executive session.

Mr. Hunt. Ido. Mr. Dash.

Mr. Dash. You have had a change to read it?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. What is your answer to my question whether that statement was made as it appears in the transcript?

Mr. Hunt. [conferring with counsel]. I have no specific recollection of making the statement. Mr. Dash. However, inasmuch as it appears in a transcript I accept it in good faid and will say under those circumstances that I made the statemen.

Mr. Dash. Now, let me just make one further reference on page 5 if you will look at the top where you say-well, that is fine for we are protecting the guys who are really responsible but now that that's and of course that is a continuing requirement, but at the same time this a two-way atreet and as I said before, we think that now is the time when a move should be made and surely the cheapest commodity available is money. Do you see that statement ?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Would you adopt that as somethind you would have said during that converaation?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Senator Baker. Mr.Chairman, just 1 minute. Iam nost sure I understand. The question is that one you would have said or did say--Mr. Dash. He did say in the transcript.

Mr. Hunt. I will accept that as a statemet that I made.

Mr. Dash. Now, after stopped receiving fund from various supporting sources did Mr. Bittman ask for more foun from you?

Mr. Hunt. Mr.Bittman informed me of the current state of my deficit balance with him, yes.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to have this conversation with Howard Hunt oflate November 1972, wich was recorder by

Mr. Colson, identified as an exhibit and entered in evidence.

Senator Ervin. It will be recenved in evidence as an axhibit and appropriately numbered as such. [The document referred to was marked No. 152.*]

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, could I ask question about it just very briefly Mr. Hunt, were you aware that this conversation was being recorded?

Mr. Hunt. No, sir.

Senator Baker. Did you--how did you come to know of its exitence?

Mr. Hunt. I can't recall whether I learned about it through the grand jurors or through this committee.

Senator Baker. Could I ask counsel how received it?

Mr. Dash. We received this from Mr. Colson.

Senator Baker. From Mr. Colson? MR. Dash. Yes, from Mr.Colson.

Senator Bker. Thank you.

Mr. Hunt. I might say that I feel, in retrosped, I was set up on this one.

Senator Baker. I am sorry, I didn't hear you.

Mr. Hunt. That I was sep up, it were I had requested an opportunity to speak with Mr. Colson and the message I got back was that if would call him a phone boot at a particular time, on a particular day, he would me. Obviously, he had his recording equipment running at that time.

Senator Baker. Do you have reason to suspect that any part of the transcript is not correct?

Mr. Hunt. No sir.

Senator Baker. thank you.

Mr. Dash. But it is true. in following up on your statement, that you may have been set up, having had a chance to read this transcript, is it not true that throughout the transcript Mr. Colson repeatedly says to you, you wist to give any him any facts, he doesn't want to hear anything about the facts, not to tell him anything?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. And that goes through the entire transcript?

Mr. Hunt. It certainly does.

Mr. Dash. I think I asked you, did Mr. Bittman ask you for any additional funds after the support money had stopped? I don't know whether you had answered it.

Mr. Hunt. I thugt I had rplied to that question, Mr. Dash.

Mr. Dash I didn't hear your answer.

Mr. Hutn. Mr. Bittman kept me informed from time to time with the state of my deficit balence with his firm I did not interpret that as a demand for but rather he was keeping me informed of how much money was owed. At that juncture I was not considering debts owed to Hogan and Hartson as being personal debts of mine although I came later to accept them in that spirit. I felt they should be pid by the people or group who had sponsored the Gemstone program. And I encouraged Mr. Bittman to turn other for the payment of his fees rather than myself. Me. Dash. Now there came a time where in Mr. Bittman was required to withdraw as your counsel, did there not?

Mr. Hunt. Yes.

Mr. Dash. And you retained---Mr. Sachs. Excuse me just a minute.

Mr. Hunt [conferring with counsel] Mr. Dash, I don't know that I can say of own knoweledge that he was requiered to withdraw as my counsel.

Mr. Dash. I meat requiered by hios own action. He did withdraw as your counsel, did he not?

Mr.Dash. That was not your action?

Mr. Hunt. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. You did not-- this was his own volitional action?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. To your knowledge then, you retained-- is Mr. Sachs the counsel you retained immediately thereafter?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Did there come a time, Mr. Hunt, when you wrote to Mr. Colson concerning the problems that you were having-- you wrote a letter to him?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. What was the ocassion of that letter?

Mr. Hunt. I believe the letter--Mr. Dash. Do you have a copy of a letter date December 31, 1972?

Mr. Hunt. December 31?

Mr. Dash. Yes.

Mr. Hunt. Yes sir I beliene the letter is self-explanatory.

Mr. Dash. Yes sir; and this followed the death of your wife?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dash. Was it a letter in whitch you were again askingh for assistanse from Mr. Colson?

Mr. Hunt [conferring with counsel]. In effect yes sir.

Mr. Dash. Now, did you get any response from Mr. Colson after writing letter?

Mr. Hunt. Indirectly.

Mr. Dash How indiretly, what kind of response, who contated you?

Mr. Hunt. Throungh counsel.

Mr. Dash. What did he tell you?

Mr. Hunt. That Mr. Colson would be meeting with him on, I be lieve, the 3d or 4th of January.

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Bittman and Mr. Consel meet?

Mr. Hunt. I understand that they did.

Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Bittman give you the results of that meeting?

Mr. Hunt. He did.

Mr. Dash. What, if anything, did Mr. Bittman tell you about the meeting he had with Mr. Consol?

Mr. Hunt. First of all, that Mr. Consol was a great and friend of mine, that he so considered himself to be,and I was a fine patriotic fellow, and if worse came to worse he would take my childrem in to his own home, that he was very sorry that I had ever become involver in this entire sheme. The other two matther-- I ought to say oparenthetinally that I had asked Mr. Bittman-- well, first of all, the rationale for meeting. To understand Mr. Colson's responde I really should go back a little Mr. Dash. I had asked Mr. Colson to receive Mr. Bittman for the following reason: One,I wanted Mr. Colson to be very sure about the reasons for my plea of guilty, I wanted him understand all of the circumstances of the fact with had weighed on me making my plea or the plea I was about to make. Second, there were two CIA matters which were unresolved and in which I felt White Hoese intervetion could be, to say the least, very useful. Third, there was an active motion on the part of my counsel for the suppression of certain evidence obtanied from my White House safe throung the unauthorized drilling and seizure procedures that had been employed by Mr. Dean and company and I wanted all of these matter discussed with Mr. Colson at that time. What Mr. Bittman reported back to me, I have already indicated to you. I got no information from him concrning Mr. Colson's assistance with the CIA matter which had to do with my annuity and the changes of survivorship benefits for my annuity, other that tro say that Mr. Colsaon would always be delighted to help me to the extent that Mr. Colson would always be delighted to help me to the extent that he could, whether as a private citizen or in the White House, but purely as a personal matter. The sappression motion I do not think was reported-- was reported back to me untyl the following day, when, after Mr. Bittman and Mr. Consol had met a second time.

Mr. Dash. Did you ask Mr. Bittman to tranmit any message to you about plea-of-gulty decision, concerning the length of sentence you might obtain or any clemency or concideration that the Government ming give you, if you planed guilty?

Mr. Hunt. No, sir.

Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, the letter of Decmber 31, which precipitated the meeting between Mr. Bittman and Mr. Colson, I would like that identified as an exhibit and entered into evidence.

Senator Ervin. The letter will be received in evidence as an exhibit and appropiately numbered as such. [ The letter referred to was marked exhibit No. 153.* ]

Mr. Sachs. Excuse me, Mr. Dasch. May Iask when the committee plans to recess?

Senator Ervin. At 12;30

Senator Weicker.Mr. Charmain, Iwould like to just pose a question to the witness, since he has been relatig conversations between him and Mr. Bittman. Do I understand that the witnees is waiving the attorney-client privilege in this particular instance? I an a little confused. I want to make sure that I understand and the witnnes understand his--

Senator Ervin. He read a statement in which he said he was waiving that.

Mr. Sach. No, I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. there be some confucion. I am glad you asked that question, Senator. The attorney-client privilege as to Mr. Bittman and as to me, is not being waived.

Mr. Dash. Councel, Mr. Sach, and Mr. Hunt made that statement also,

Senator Weicker, in executine seccion and agreed to answer certain question concerning conversations with Mr. Bittman reserving the right not to waive all of his relationship in terms of his attorneyclient relationship.

Senator Weicker. Well, I think it is important to point this out, because obviously, the chairman and myself are laboring under the same misapprehension that possibly there might be a waiver here. I am glad to have counsel state it.

Mr. Sachs. I think I should supplement what I have said by saying that, as the committee knows,Judge that his cooperation with this committee and with the grand juries would be waiver by him in the ultimate sentence which he imposes.Under the force of thatstatement of Judge Sirica,we have advised Mr. Hunt to answer fully all the questions, but we believe that that does not constitute a waiver, as it would in more voluntary circumtances.

Senator Ernin.I made the statement I had on the basis of this statement on page 5 of this prepared statement.He said:"in fact, I have answered all question, even those which involve confidential communications between my attorney myself".

Mr. Sachs. Senator, you have corrected our statement. Our statement was ambiguous. We did mean all attorneys. There were, the privilige has been waived, as I understand it, with Mr. Jackson and-excuse me.

Senator Ervin. Mr. Sachs, would you to have or would your client like to like to have a recess now insteand of waiting?

Mr. Sachs. I do think, Senator, that my client would appreciate a respite. But just to finish that question, we were a little inaccurate in that statement. I am sorry. He has waived one privilege, that with

Mr. Jackson.

Senator Ervin. Well, ask you to indicate to the committee if any question are asked on point that you think he has not waived his ringt, you will just state it?

Mr. Sachs. He is answering all questions, Senator, but he is stating that by doing that, he is not waiving his privileges.

Senator Baker. Mr.Chairman, may I make sure I understand the situation in just one brief moment? Attorney-client privilege is a personal privilege to the client and not the attorney, and it would apply to each question that is asked. If this witness choses to exercise the privilege, he will claim that privilege before answering a specific question. Is that correct, sir? If there is any further concern of an attorney-client prinilege, we will lnow it at the time the question is asked?

Mr. Sachs. YeS, Senator, but I am afraid that to me, at least, your question reflects a littla confusion. He is not refusing to answer question as to conversations between him and his counsel, which he normally would do if I were claming the privilege. At the same time, he is not waiving the privilege.

Senator Baker. I am not confused. I do not understand that, but I am not sure that that is a discernible distinyion in the body of the law. Either you claim privilege or you do not claim privilege.

Mr.Sachs. Well, he answering the question. I think the issue as to whether his answers constitute a waiver may come up one day if an effort is made to question Mr. Bittman. But this witness is under Judge Sirica's admonition that if the does not answer the question, he is going to be in trouble. So he is answering all question. He is not claming privilage as to his answer to question, but he is not releasing Mr. Bittman.

Senator Baker. At some point, Judge Sirica or some ather judge will have to pass on the legal effect of thouse answers.

Mr. Sachs. Taht is my undertanding.

Senator Baker. But my question is to you for the purpose of this committee's deliberation, we are cofronted with an attorney-client privilege, we will be notified of it at the of the question, I presume, by your client.

Mr. Sachs. Itake that to mean that if there comes a point in these hearings when Mr. Hunt wants to refuse to answer question by the committee on the ground of privilege, you would likes to be notifield.

Senator Baker. That is correct.

Mr. Sachs. The answer to that is yes, will be notifield.

Senator Baker. Thank you much.

Senator Ervin. the committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clok. [Whereupon, at 12;22 p.m., the hearnig was recssed, to reconvence at 2 p.m., this same day.] Afternoon Session, Monday, September 24, 1973

Senator Ernvin. The committee will come to order. You may proceed.

Mr. Dachs. Mr. Sachs, did you want to amplify your remarks concerning the attorney-client privilege?

Mr. Sachs. Mr. Chairman, when we recessed shortly after noon I was under the impression that the queation of Mr. Hunt's waiver-o l privilege was absolutely clear but I am told by those with whom I am association, that it was not absolutely clear, so I would very brielfly like to try to make it clear. Our position, Mr. Hunt's position, with regard to the privilege which existed between, and exists between him and Mr.Bittman is that Mr. Hunt under the pressure of Judge Sirica's admonition has answered and will continue to answer all question regarding conversations between him Mr. Bittman which because of the privilege he would not, in my opinion, have to anwer. He is going to answer those questions. But, at the same times, our position is that answering these question he is not waiving the prinilege insofar as any statements or testimony by Mr. Bittman might be concerned. Now, this did come up,as we said, in the executive committee session, and I have during the recess found the page at which a more lengthy discussion appears, and it is page 452 of the September 20 session.

Senator Ervin. Yes position is very clear. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sachs. Thank you.

Senator Baker Mr. Chairman, I am terribly sorry to say not quite to me still.

Is this a fair restatement of your position then, that as far as the doctreine of attorney-client is concerned, to the extent that Mr. Hunt, for whatever reason, chooses to answer questions that othrwise might be protected by that doctrine, he has waived that doctrine as to himself and the answesn he thinks he may make but he has not waived it so far as any other statement by Mr. Bittman might be concerned on other sibject matter or on that subject matter beyond his statement?

Mr. Sachs.

Senator Baker. I would prefer, if you would permit me, not to take the position at this times that by Mr. Hunt's answering question he has waiver the privilege as to himself. I would prefer to phrase it that he has answered the queastions without taking the next step and stating as his position the legal conclusion that one might want to argue from that. I do not think the net effect is any different between us.

Senator Baker. It is not important for the purposes of the committee to resolve that question. As I said earlier, I suppose if the issue ever erises that a court wuold have to decide that, we not. But the point that keep sticking in my mind and I want to be clear on is that we are not precluded from discussing these matters with Mr. Bittman, at leat insofar as Mr. Hunt has alluded to.

Mr. Sachs. Well, our position is that oyu are precluded ,that is what we are not waiving. We are not waiving Mr. Hunt's right to maintain the confidentiallity of his communications his insofar as that lawyer's testimony might be concerned. You may argue, Senator Baker,as you have suggested, or one may argue, that by answering question as he has, by operation as Mr. Hunt has, by operation of law that privilege has been lost, we recognize that that point may be argued. We will take the opposite position, because ha has not voluntarily answered the question concerning his confidentian communications wuth Mr. Bittman. Now,I think since we have gotten into it this far,I really then must make one other point which does appear in the executive committee record,and that is that our office has been in this case a very short time. We were retained sometime during the month of August, and since we were retained we have had other matters of urgency which have prevented us from devoting full time to this case. We have devoted, quite a number of people in our office have devoted, a great deal of time to the case but though we certainly under these circumstances, do not feel-are not as acquainted or are not as familiar with the terribly complicated factual situations that surround this case,not sufficiently acquainted with them to be able to advise Mr. Hunt intelligently as to what consequences, if any, might flow from his waiving that privilege. Therefore, our reasoning is, that if in that state of inadequate knowledge, we were to advise him to waive the privilege it really would not be competent advice and, therefore, feeling unable so to advise him we have on the contrary advised him not to waive it, and he is following our advice.

Senator Baker.Mr. chairman, I think I will conclude our colloquy on legal principles and doctrine here by simply saying that the underlying reason and rationale for pressing you on that point is to make it clear that as we proceed there may be other questious of Mr. Hunt visa-vis relationship to Mr. Bittman. There may be questions of Mr. Bittman. But I think the very best way to handle this now is to deal with each question, one at a time, and see how the doctrine might apply if at all. Thank you,Mr. Chairman.

Senator Weicker. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ervin.

Senator Weicker.

Senator Weicker. Speaking for myself, and the committee would have to make up its own mind to this particular opinion, I would not want this committee to engage in any activity which, in effect, would force your client, Mr. Sachs to give up any of his civil liberties or his rights or his privileges, whether those are granted law or by usage. I want to make that point clear, Now, it is quite one thing for the committee to vote immunity, and handle the question and answer process within certain guidelines which have been well established by the law. It is quite something else to sit here and imply that the committee is being forced to do something that I don't think any committee or court anyone else in this land has the right to do, which is to take an individual and, in effect, force him to give up his civil liberties or his rights or his privileges, as I say, whether those matters were granted by law or usage. MR. DASH. MR. Chairman, I think the record should also show that when this issue came up in executive session that I made it very clear to counsel, just as

Senator Weicker has mentioned, that this committee did not want counsel either advise Mr. Hunt to waive client-attorney privilege of for Mr. Hunt to waive any right that he has solely because he is under a sentencing procedure which might call upon the committee to make that report to Judge Sirica all we wanted was his own statement of the facts based on what he wished to give us, recognizing that there was a fact in history that he is under such a sentencing procedure. But I emphasized and over again to Mr. Hunt that he should not make any judgment with regard to this committee based on any concept of coercion but should make the decision voluntarily and based on the advice of his own counsel.

Mr. SACHS. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I must-I would like to reply to what

Senator Weicker and Mr. Dash have said.I don't think any useful purpose would he served at this time in trying to reenact the many conversations or recount the many conversations which have taken place between members of the staff and counsel for Mr. Hunt, regardless of whether those conversations have included statements from which we might have been entitled to believe that if Mr. Hunt did not waive his privilege he would receive a bad report to Judge Sirica, regardless of the-of how this factual matter might be resolved. The fact is,and I don't think anyone can dispute this, that at the moment that Mr. Hunt was sentenced by Judge Sirica for a period of more than 30 years, under a provision of the law which gives Judge Sirica the right to amend that sentence, to change the sentence after receiving reports from prison authorities, Judge Sirica in a lengthy statement included a very clear statement that be would weigh-that was the word he used-the cooperation that Mr. Hunt gave to grand juries and this committee in his final sentence. Now, we think that we have no alternative but to read that as a warning that if Mr. Hunt does not answer all questions, and if he does not waive this privilege, Judge Sirica may say, "Well, you did not waive your privilege, you did not cooperate. Your sentence must be more severe." Now, it is possible, of course, that Judge Sirica not take that position. But there is very definitely a likelihood, if indeed not a probability, that he will based on what he has said. So, whatever this committee does with regard to articulating the notion that Mr. Hunt should or should not waive privilege, Mr. Hunt is testifying, and has been, under that threat.

Senator ERVIN. Also Mr. Hunt is testifying in a sense involuntarily because he is testifying, pursuant to an order of immunity, under a statute which says the testimony he gives before this committee cannot be used against him elsewhere and if that statute means what it apparently says, his testimony before this committee cannot be used for any purpose even to establish an alleged waiver of a privilege. it would seem to me, logically and justly.

Mr. SACHS. With great pleasure, I agree with you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Weicker. I want to make one thing clear, speaking for myself in my own questions on this matter. that outside of the grant of immunity, if there is any question that I pose to your client, which question you consider under normal conditions to be violative of your client's rights, but you are permitting-this is outside of the grant of immunity-but vou are permitting your client to respond because you feel you are under pressure, I want you to advise me, counsellor, be cause I don't want the answer.

Mr. SACHS. Senator, I appreciate your-the expression you have just made, but I am not really sure that it is possible for me to advise

Mr. Hunt within those-within that suggestion. We are talking to Judge Sirica as well as to this committee. We are talking to the judge who is sentencing Mr. Hunt, and I really, with all deference, would suggest that you gentlemen really can't help yourselves but exercisebut carry out, by your questioning, but carry out the warning that or the-well, in a way, you can't keep yourselves from holding the sword that Judge Sirica is holding over his head.

Senator WEICKER. I think it is perfectly possible for your client to go ahead and respond to questions within the grant of immunity, if you will without going afield and being in the position of violating other rights which he has, and the attorney-client privilege is that type of situation.

Mr. SACHS. Let me add,please,that by what I have said, I do not mean to suggest that Mr. Hunt is not motivated also to some extent by a desire to do what now appears to be the thing that his country requires. He respects the authority of this committee and its purposes and he does desire to tell the truth. He is not-well, I think that makes the point. The only other thing I would have to say is that I think we have to hear his 6-or 8-inch pile of transcripts reflecting the questions and answer that have already been made to him and given by him and it is, of course, possible that questions will be asked today that have not been asked but it is fairly unlikely that anything new will be touched on, so while, Senator, you may ask a question and be willing that we not answer it on that basis, the great likelihood is that it will already have been asked and answered.

Mr. DASH. I just have a couple more questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNT, shortly before your sentencing on March 23, 1973, did you meet with Mr. Paul O'Brien in Mr. Bittman's office?

Mr. HUNT. Imet with Mr. Paul O'Brien in the law office of Hogan and Hartson, not specifically in the premises assigned to Mr. Bittman.

Mr. DASH. And can you just very briefly tell us what you told Mr. O'Brien and what Mr. O'Bbrien told you at that meeting?

Mr. HUNT. I will be glad to. I believe Mr. Dash, you are referring to the second meeting I had with Mr. O'Brien?

Mr. DASH. Yes, just prior to the sentence.

Mr. HUNT. I had requested that Mr. Bittman arrange a meeting between myself and Mr. O'Brien, inasmuch as Mr. Bittman had kept me apprised of the extent of my legal indebtedness to the firm of Hogan and Hartson. Mr. O'Brien, I knew, was the current contact that

Mr. Bittman had on the committee, not only for matters relating to the various civil suits that had been filed, but also and more relevantly in connection with the payment of legal fees for Mr. Bittman's services in my behalf. Mr. Bittman indicated to me that his representations for the payment of legal fees had been ineffective and I suggested to

Mr. Bittman that be permit me to speak with Mr. O'Brien about that matter. That is the background of the meeting itself. When Mr.O'Brien came to the offices, we were shown into a private interview room and I spoke to Mr. O'Brien at some length about the size and nature of the legal bills. I think at that time, they amounted to approximately $60.000. I told him at the same time that I was very much concerned about the future of my family, that I would very much like to have the equivalent of 2 years subsistence available to them before I was incarcerated, that incarceration being due in a very short period of time. And I put it to Mr. O'Brien that I had engaged as he might or might not know, in other activities, which I believe I described as seamy activities, for the White House. I do not believe that I specified them. However, I did make reference to them. The context of such reference was that it anyone was to receive benefits at that time, in view of my long and loyal service, if not hazardous seryice for the White House, that certainly I should receive priority consideration.

Mr. DASH. Would Mr. O'Brien be able to at least draw an inference on his part that because of the so-called seamy activities that you said you engaged in in behalf of the White House, that if you were not paid thissum of money, these may become public?

Mr. HUNT. I will answer in just one moment.

Mr. SACHS. Excuse us, please.

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Dash, in answer to your question, I would have to say that Mr. O'Brien might have assumed any number of things from our colloguy. However, I would with a great deal of deference, and begging the pardon in advance of the chairman of the committee, quote from certain testimony given in the early sessions of this committee, the first green bound volume, page 325, when Mr. Alch was being questioned.

Senator Ervin, said, and I quote: Well, where two men communicate with each other by word of mouth, isn't there a two-fold hazard in that communication, in, first, that the man who speaks may not express himself clearly, may not say exactly what is in his mind? And if he does, the man who hears it may put a different interpretation n the words than the man who spoke them?

Mr. DASH. Well,Mr. Hunt, there has been considerable testimony which we will not get into now before the committee which indicated that both Mr. Dean and Mr. Mitchell and a number of others believed that there was considerable pressure being placed by you at that time for money and that the danger of not paying you was that there might be some public exposure of the seamy matters. In fact, Mr. Ehrlichman testified that there was a blackmail threat. So the question put to you was did you intend by telling Mr. O'Brien that one the $60,000 had to be paid, and, two, you had engaged in certain other seamy matters on behalf of the White House, Did you intend to create that threat, that unless that money was paid, you would make public the acts that you had engaged in on behalf of the White House?

Mr. HUNT.No sir.

Mr. DASH. Now, how did Mr. O'Brien respond to you when you asked for this money?

Mr. HUNT. Well, it was more than simply a question of asking for money. Mr. Dash, it was really my first opportunity to catalog the many difficulties we had had-that is to say, my late wife principally and, to some extent, myself-in finding the means to defend ourselves that had been promised us as long ago as the previous June 21. I told-Mr. O'Brien told me, I should say-that he was finding himself increasingly ineffective as a go-between. I don't recall whether he used the word "impotent" or "impotence" but he felt that his position was a very difficult one. He recognized that assurances had been given, that to some extent, they had in the past been carried out, but felt that he was becoming less and less effective as an intermediary.

Mr. DASH. Did he mention Mr. Colson to you?

Mr. HUNT. For that reason. Mr. O'Brien suggested that I originate and send to Mr. Colson what he termed a strongly worded memorandum, or a tough or a hard memorandum to Mr. Colson.

Mr. DASH. And what did you do after that? Did you write such a memorandum to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. I did not write the memorandum to Mr Colson, but in response to Mr. O'Brien's suggestion. I believe that orally I expressed surprise that he would have brought Mr. Colson's name into the dealings at this late stage of the game. I asked him why he wanted me to send the memorandum to Colson and Mr. O'Brien said, to the best of my recollection, well there are some of us who feel that Chuck staved out of this too long, that it is time he got his feet wet along with the rest of us,words to that effect. My response was equivocal. I did noy indicate to Mr. O'Brien whether I would or would not address such a memorandum, but I was distrubed by his suggestion.

Mr. DASH. Now, after that meeting with Mr. O'Brien, did you take steps to aither try to have a meeting with Mr. Colson or to write to

Mr. Colson? What efforts did you make to follow up on Mr. O'Brien's suggestion?

Mr. HUNT. Excuse me. I reviewed at once for Mr. Bittman, upon Mr. O'Brien's departure, the substance and thrust of Mr. O'Brien's conversation. I told Mr. Bittman that I had no intention of writing the recommended memorandum, but I thought that I should get in touch with Mr. Colson so that I could explain the situation to him, notify him of the suggestion that had been made by O'Brien, whom I classified, politically speaking, as a Mitchell man. We haven't gotten into this in testimony so far before this committee, but there appeared to be a definite division withim the White House itself, at least in the lower levels, between the so-called Mitchell men and the so-called Colson men. Accordingly, I found it rather bizarre that Mr. O'Brien, a Mitchell man, would suggest that I seek help from Colson, inasmuch as Mr. Mitchell had been the progenitor of the Gemstone plan and was, at least in theory, responsible for seeing that the assurances that were implicit and explicit in Gemstone were carried out.

Mr. Bittman, to my knowledge, did get in touch with the office of the-the law offices, for by then Mr. Colson was in private practicewith the law offices of Colson and Shapiro, and made the representations in my behalf; that is, that I desired a meeting with Mr. Colson. A day or so later, I was informed by Mr. Bittman that although Mr. Colson would not see me, his partner, David Shapiro, would see me. He would see mee the following Friday, I believe February 16,early in the afternoon.

Mr. DASH. And did you have that meeting with Mr. Shapiro?

Mr. HUNY. I did.

Mr. DASH. And did you tell Mr. Shapiro substantially the same things that you told Mr. O'Brien?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. DASH. Including the other activies that you engaged in on behalf of the White House?

Mr. HUNT. I did not specify them. I referred ot them. I might add that the context of our meeting was entirely different. Whereas Mr. O'Brien had approached me, I might say, almost apologetically,

Mr. Shapiro apporoached me rather aggressively and subjected me to a lengthy monolog which I considered to be highly selfserving. My response was that I had expected actually to see Colson, although I could understand that for purposes of record, they might want it ot appear that I had met only with Shapiro rather than with Colson. I had not really expected to be served a Colson surrogate.

Mr. DASH. Now, did you make it clear to Mr. Shapiro and Mr. O'Brien that you needed to get the money prior to the date of sentence?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr.DASH. Why was that?

Mr. HUNT. That if it was to be of any assistance to me in terms of making prudent distribution of that among the members of my family, my dependents, taking care of insurance premiums and that sort of thing, that it would have to be delivered to me before I was in jail. This was not only implicit but explicit as well, Mr. Dash.

Mr. DASH. Now what did Mr. Shapiro say to you when you made those representations to him?

Mr. HUNT. He indicated to me that he would use his own discretion as regards such portions of my conversation as he chose to convey to

Mr. Colson. I responded rather angrily that I felt that he should convey all of what I had say to Mr. Colson.

Mr. DASH. But despite what you consider to be an unsatisfactory reception by Mr.O'Brien and Mr. Shapiro, you in fact did receive a large sum of money prior to being sentenced:is that not true?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. DASH. How much did you receive?

Mr. HUNT. $75,000.

Mr. DASH. And do you remember when you received that? Would it refresh your recollection if the record would show that you received it on March 20?

Mr. HUNT. I would have said 20th or 21st. If the record shows the 20th, that isperfectly satisfactory.

Mr. DASH. Just a few, a couple of days before the sentencing?

Mr. HUNT. Yes,sir.

Mr. DASH. And what did you do with that money, Mr. Hunt?

Mr. HUNT. I put it in a safe deposit box eventually.

Mr. DASH. Did you eventually pay Mr. Bittman some of that money?

Mr. HUNT. No

Mr. DASH Did you pav Mr. Bittman any money out of that sum?

Mr. HUNT. I paid Mr. Bittman $80,000 that derived from the proceeds of my late wife's insurance policies.

Mr. DASH. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SACHS. May I have the indulgence of the committee for just 1 second?

Mr. HUNT [conferring with counsel]. Mr. Sachs has suggested to me that I have myself spoken a moment or so ago, in which case I want the record to reflect, that I did in fact inform Mr. O'brien of the fact that I had taken part in other seamy activities in behalf of the White House. I hope the record is clear in this. I do not believe that I specified to Mr. O'Brien what they were. However, I made a generic reference to them. Is there any question on this?

Mr. DASH. I think the response was clear. By the way, that $75,000 you received just before you were sentenced, in what manner did it come? Do you know how you received it?

Mr. Hunt. Yes, sir, it came in an unopened envelope that was handed me by Mr. William Bittman.

Mr. DASH. Did he indicate to you how he received it?

Mr. HUNT. Yes; he did.

Mr. DASH. Will you tell us what he said?

Mr. HUNT. I received a telephone call from him at my residence indicating that he had received telephonic notification that an envelope would be left in his mailbox for me at a certain time. He inspected his mailbox following that particular time and found that envelope there and telephoned me, I then went to his home, which is a short distance from my own residence, and received the envelope from him.

Mr.DASH. I have no further questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. Mr. Thompson.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes,sir.

Mr. Hunt,you state in your opening statement that in your opinion, the Watergate break-in was an unfortunate use of executive power. What executive power are you referring to?

Mr. HUNT. Iam referring to power delegated to the Attorney General of the United States by the President of the United States.

Mr. THOMPSON. Who involved in the Watergate break-in or the planning of the break-in had that power, in your opinion?

Mr. HUNT. Well, are you referring to the Watergate break-in solely?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. Your statement refers to the Watergate break-in solely, I believe.

Mr. HUNT. Yes,sir. The Watergate break-in was a part of the Gemstone operation, an integral part of the Gemstone operation. It was financed out of Gemstone funds, Gemstone personnel accomplished it. The concept, as I understood it from Mr. Liddy, and again I must be very clear that this is hearsay information, that the project, program, if you will, had been conceived, proposed, and engendered by the Attorney General of the United States with the assistance of the counsel to the President, Mr. John W. Dean III, and with a former and very recent White House aide, Mr. Jeb Stuart Magruder. The proposal han been put to me at the time by Mr. Gordon Liddy, who was a full-time White House employee and with whom I had worked in the field and other operations.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you consider the Watergate break-in then, a legitimate Government operation?

Mr. HUNT. Excuse me. [Conferring with counsel.]

Mr. HUNT. In the context in which the break-in requirement was levied on me I did,yes,sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. What context was that?

Mr. HUNT. It was that foreign monevs were reported to be-to have been sent or received by the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. THOMPSON. And when was that information related to you?

Mr. HUNT. In April of 1972.

Mr. THOMPSON. April of 1972?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Had the Watergate plans, to your satisfaction, been approved prior or subsequent to that time?

Mr. HUNT. The actual Watergate break-in was not approved. That aspect of the Gemstone program was not approved until the time coincident with my receipt of the information concerning the report having to do with the receipt by the Democratic National Committee or the probable receipt of foreign moneys.

Mr. THOMPSON. But the discussion about the Gemstone plan had been taking place prior to that time, had it not, according to your information?

Mr. HUNT. Beginning in November of the prior year.

Mr. THOMPSON. In your mind, when did you agree to become part of that plan?

Mr. SACHS. Could you specify what plan? Do you mean the Gemstone or Watergate?

Mr. THOMPSON. I am talking about the Gemstone plan.

Mr. HUNT. Almost as soon as Mr. Liddy made the proposal to me. H e having invoked the names of the Attorney General and Mr. Dean at that juneture.

Mr. THOMPSON. That would have been in December of 19--Mr. HUNT. Late November.

Mr. THOMPSON. 1971?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Late November?

Mr. HUNT. I had no hesitation in associating myself in the operation.

Mr. THOMPSON. I see. When did it first come to your attention that the Democratic National Committee headquarters was going to be broken into?

Mr. HUNT. Not until April the following year.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was this before or after you were informed that foreign money was coming into the DNC?

Mr. HUNT. Not until--perhaps I misunderstood you, Senator, the Watergate---Mr. THOMPSON. I am not a Senator, I appreciate it anyway.

Mr. HUNT. I beg your pardo, Mr. Thompson, excuse me,sir. We did not begin to formulate plans for the Watergate break-in until after reception of the report to the effect that foreign moneys were being received by the Democratic National Committee

Mr. THOMPSON. But a plan was underway which included the possibility of surreptitious entry before that time.

Mr. HUNT. Yes,sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. And in your mind you associated with that plan the authority of the Attorney General, although you did not know the specifics at that particular time as to why he was authorized to set such a plan in motion. What I am getting at, Mr. Hunt, is, I wonder what was in your mind at that time as to wha the Attorney General could do and could not do. Surely anything that be decided to do would not necessarily be a legitimate activity, whether or not the President went along with it. I am wondering what justification you had in your mind for subscribing to a plan which was designed toward an opposition party in an lection year.

Mr. HUNT. I can really say only this, Mr. Thompson. Having spent 21 years in the CIA following orders without question and a piror 5 years with the armed services following orders without question, it never occurred to me to question the, if you will, the legality, the propriety, of anything that might be ordered by the Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. THOMPSON. And you took Mr. Liddys word for that?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. THOMPSON. The other activities you were engaging in durint the time that you worked at the White House, I believe you mentioned the entire Ellsberg situation, which I believe you said was a matter of national security at that time, and the Greenspun situation; information that you understood he might have on

Senator Muskie. I believe the overail Gemstone plan also indluded, perhaps, an airplane surveillance of opposition planes or something of that nature.

Mr. HUNT. It did at one point, yes, sir. May I specify that anything having to do with electronics was drawn up by Mr. Liddy in conjunction with a specialist whom I later came to know as Mr. Mccord. I had nothing to do with that budget.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. Also your activities included the convention situation that you referred to, getting people up, rooting people, down there in a political context. I was just wondering if the foreign money situation was the only thing outside of a political context that came to your attention as the justification for the Gemstone operation.

Mr. HUNT. I was never given any other.

Mr. THOMPSON. Who told you--Mr. SACHS. Will you excuse me for just a minute.

Mr. THOMPSON. Who told you that foreign money was coming into the DCN?

Mr. HUNT. Mr Liddy.

Mr. THOMPSON. Where did he get his information?

Mr. HUNT. I believe that he was receiving it from a Government agency

Mr. THOMPSON. From a Government agency?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir. MR. THOMPSON. Did he specify which agency?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you have an opinion as to which agency?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. What was your opinion?

Mr. HUNT. My opinion was that it came from the FBI.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you have any independent corroboration of that assertion?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you make any inquiry?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you believe you remember whether or not he told you the particular agency or you just concluded that in your own mind? Did he tell you that it was an agency or did you conclude that in your own mind?

Mr. HUNT. I would go back to our mutual experience in the Plumbers organization at which time we were receiving daily reports from most of the investigative agencias of the Government with relation to the Ellsberg case. Mr. Liddy had on the basis of prior associations with the FBI a private channel, a person or persons who would telephone or send him memorandums from time to time, providing him with information which was not distributed generally within the White House, that is to say there were really two channels of reporting from the FBI into the White House. There was the J. Edgar Hoover channel to, let us say,Mr.Ehrlichman and Mr. Krogh, who would see copies of those memorandums. There were also materials that were coming to

Mr. Liddy from Mr. Mardian in the Justice Department, and I believe telephonic information that came to Mr. Liddy from close and oldtime associates of his at the FBI. So I had every reason to believe that he was still well plugged into the Bureau.

Mr. Thompson.Did he tell you precisely the source of these foreign moneys, the country?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. And the individual, what did he tell you?

Mr. HUNT. Cuba.

Mr. THOMPSON. Wat would be the normal procedure with regard to investigating a matter like that, if any organization in this country was receiving money from a foreign country, especially a Communist country?

Mr. HUNT. The practice normally would be to lay a requirement on the CIA abroad and the FBI at home. However, the President had established the Plumbers unit because certain traditional agencies of the Government had been deemed inadequate in the performance of their duties.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was the Plumbers unit in any way operative in April of 1972?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, Indeed.

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know whether or not they were looking into this matter?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. You don't know whether or not they were?

Mr. HUNT. I am quite sure they were not.

Mr. THOMPSON. No, sir.

Mr. THOMSON. With regard to the actual scene , who was in charge of the varions operations on the night of the break-in, the early morning hours of June 17, 1972?

Mr. HUNT. The responsibilities were the same as they were during the prior break-in on May 27, and that is to say I was in overall charge of the entry operation. I planned it, and with Mr. McCord's help surveved the groundwork, developed the operational plan. Mr. McCord had certain electronic responsibilities, the precise nature of which I was unaware. My team, that is to say, the four men from Miami, were charged with photographing documents that would bear on the object of our search white Mr. McCord went about his electronic busines.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you tell any of the Cuban-Americans about the foreign money information that you had?

Mr. HUNT. I did.

Mr. THOMPSON. Who did you tell?

Mr. HUNT. I told Mr. Barker, and this was the basis on which I secured his cooperation initially.

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know whether or not he related this to the people he enlisted to assist him in the operation?

Mr. HUNT. I believe he may have. If can amplify a bit, Mr. Thompson, when I approached Mr. Barker with the requirement for and entry into Democratic national headquarters I told him that we wanted to verify a report to the effect that Castro money was reaching the Democratic National Committee coffers, and Mr. Barker's immediate response was "there are rumors all over Miami, I have heard all about it, you don't need to tell me anything more."

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you tell him anything more about it?

Mr. HUNT. I knew nothing more about it.

Mr. THOMPSON. He operated then on your information?

Mr. HUNT. He did.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was there any financial reward in any way for Mr. Barker or any of the other Cuban-Americans out of the Watergate break-in?

Mr. HUNT. There was compensation for them for time lost from their normal businesses, yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was there anything additional to that?

Mr. HUNT. Not that I know of; no, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. What abont the break-in of Dr. Fielding's office, was there any pecuniary benefit coming out of that for them other than just expenses, time, or money for time lost from work, that sort of thing?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir, that was all.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was was told the Cubans with regard to that operation, with regard to the reason and necessity for the break-in in Dr. Fielding's office.

Mr. HUNT. I told Mr. Barker originally in Miami that a break-in would be necessary; an entry operation would be necessary on the west coast as we had information to the effect that a man whom I believe I described as a traitor to the United States was passing classified information to a foreign power.

Mr. THOMPSON. Were you the one who enlisted Mr. Barker's aid to come to Washington during Mr. Hoover's funeral?

Mr. HUNT. I was.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did he in turn enlist the aid of other Cuban-Americans to come with him?

Mr. HUNT. He did.

Mr. THOMPSON. What was the reason for your arrangements for them to come to Washington?

Mr. HUNT. This was in response to an urgent requirement by Mr. Liddy who indicated to me that he had information, and again I assume in to from a U.S. Government agency-to the effect that in conjunction with a peacenik demonstration on Capitol Hill premises, that an effort would probably be made to desecrate the catefalque of J. Edgar Hoover who was the lying in state here in the rotunda of the Capitol. It was desired that perhaps as many as 10 or 12 men be brought up from Miami so that they could circulate through the crowd, sense their temper, and if a surge was made from the focus of the demonstration then in progress that these men could post themselves around the casket of J. Edgar Hoover and prevent its descration.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did they further-Mr. HUNT. If a Vietcong flag was unfurled by the demonstrators, who included such notables as messrs. Kunstler and Ellsberg, Jane Fonda, Sutherland, and so forth, that that flag be obtained, taken from them and turned over to Mr. Liddy.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did they come?

Mr. HUNT. They did.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did they subsequently engage in fisticuffs with some of the demonstrators?

Mr. HUNT. I have heard that alleged.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did they receive any financial award or benefit out of that operation except for their expenses coming and going?

Mr. HUNT. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. THOMPSON. With regard to the break-in of the DNC, as far as you know their motivation was, first of all, that they were doing something to expose a traitor and, second, that they were trying to uncover or verify reports that Castro money was comming into the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. So far as you know that is the sole basis for their action?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir, although there was speculation that hanoi money might be coming in as well.

Mr. THOMPSON. What?

Mr. HUNT. There was some speculation among us that money from Hanoi was also coming in as well. This was not part of the corpus of

Mr. Liddy's representations to me.

Mr. THOMPSON. Who told that?

Mr. HUNT. Nobody told it to me, Mr. Thompson.

Senator Mcgovern, though, for some time had been saying that he would effect crawl to Hanoi if it meant the release of our prisoners, and we felt that if Castro money might be coming into the Democratic National Committee coffers that money might also be coming from Hanoi as well.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you tell Mr. Barker to look for any particular kind of documents when he entered the DNC that night?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. What did you tell him to look for?

Mr. HUNT. Financial documents, ledgers, account books, that sort of thing.

Mr. THOMPSON. Would Mr. Barker know if he came across significant documents in this regard, do you think? Did he have any background in political campaigns of finances?

Mr. HUNT. My presumption or our operational presumption was,

Mr. THompson, that during the course of his search Mr. Barker would come across ledgers and account books of some kind, all political parties being required to keep them. His instructions were to photograph in effect any page with a figure on it. Later on a determination would be made as to the significance and validity of those figures, the sources of the funds and contributions.

Mr. THOMPSON. We have beard testimony about how the entry was carried out that night. Will you correct me if I misstate it? I believe

Mr. McCord first taped the locks on the door, resturned, found the tape had been removed. Then there was a discussion among the people there as to whether or not entry would be made after finding that situation there. Do you recall such a discussion among yourself and Mr. Liddy,

Mr. McCord, and the Cubans?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Relate to us that discussion as best you can remember.

Mr. HUNT. Mr. McCord came up to room 214, where we were waiting--I am speaking now of the Watergate Hotel--and said that he had previously taped the locks on the entry door of the basement of the Watergate office building. He said that on returning just prior to our, to the meeting that was then in progress, he had noticed that the tape had been removed and he had retaped the door. I asked him why he had done that and he said that he had noticed a large pile of mail sacks in the vicinity and he felt that the mailman, on exiting the Watergate office building premises, had taken off the tape.

Mr. THOMPSON. He told you that he had already retaped the door?

Mr. HUNT. He had retaped the door; yes. At that point, I said, let us junk it, meaning let us scratch the operation.

Mr. Liddy and Mr. McCord talked between themselves and the decision was made to go.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you hear the conversation between Liddy and McCord?

Mr. HUNT. I walked away. As I recall, I walked over to the window. I thought that it was very foolhardy to procced on that basis. I might add that I had argued for 3 days in advance ineffectively with Mr. Liddy prior to June 17 against the second entry of the Watergate.

Mr. THOMPSON. Why?

Mr. HUNT. Because it had been known to me through reports Mr. McCord had made that Mr. O'Brien was no longer in residence there, that there was evidently a large-scale movement of books, files, call it what you will, from the Watergate office to the convention headquarters of the Democrats in Miami. I felt that in effect, the bird had flown.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you hear any of the conversation as to who made the final decision or who was for or against reentry?

Mr. HUNT. I think it was a mutual decision, a common decision between

Mr. Liddy and Mr. McCord.

Mr. THOMPSON. And Mr. McCord gave what reason in his mind for the tape having been removed, as to who removed it?

Mr. HUNT. That he had seen immediately adjacent to that door a pile of large mail sacks, which he felt had been collected by the mailman and on exiting the building, the mailman must have noticed that the lock was taped and had removed the tape. Mr. McCord was convinced, he told us, that it was just happenstance. He thereupon retaped the lock, came up to our room, and said, in effect, I am ready to go, let's go.

Mr. THOMPSON. How did he get the door back open to retape it?

Mr. HUNT. I do not know.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was there any discussion about buying off the guard, perhaps?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir, but there was money available for that.

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know why that was not carried out?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir. I do not believe that it--it had not been necessary in our first entry. We did not even attempt it the second time around.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you know at the time thst some of the people who were going to make the entry were carrying $100 bills in numerical sequence that could be traced?

Mr. HUNT. I do not think I knew that they were carrying sequential bills on them, no, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was any check made of things of that nature-what was on the persons of the people making entry and what would be done or what could happen?

Mr. HUNT. They were told to take their personal wallets, billfolds and so forth, and put them or leave them behind in room 214, whick I believe they did. They were then provided, a couple of them were provided with false documentation which I had received from the CIA. We felt the false documentation plus the money that they had on them would be sufficient to get them out of a local guard-type situation.

Mr. THOMPSON. After the break-in, did you have occasion to call

Mr. McCord and talk to him about Mr. Baldwin, about hiring Mr. Baldwin?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir, I did.

Mr. THOMPSON. Would you relate that conversation?

Mr. HUNT. At about the time that Mr. Baldwin began telling his story to the Los Angeles Times--Mr. THOMPSON. When was that? How long after the break-in would you say?

Mr. HUNT. May I consult my notes?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. HUNT. It should be a matter of record.

Mr. Thompson, I would have to place it as a guess at some time toward mid-July, or even late July, at a time when Mr. McCord was no longer in the district of Columbia jail and the time when Mr. Baldwin had begun, so to speak, to sing.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. Would you relate the conversation?

Mr. HUNT. I was quite disturbed by the relations that Mr. Baldwin was making. I telephoned Mr. McCord and asked him to explain, in effect, the circumstances surrounding this apparent disloyalty on the part of a man he had hired. Mr. McCord said that he, himself, Mr. McCord, was short on funds. I suggested that he sell the van which

Mr. Baldwin had, for some reason, driven to Mr. McCord's home in the wake of the operation against my instructions to take it elsewhere.

Mr. THOMPSON. Pardon me. You sayagainst your instructions?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, Following the break-in--and I probably should go back to clarify the record. In a very minor way, I had been asked before the lunch break to recount my own movements following the Watergate, the arrest of the men. I did not go directly on the White House. I went over to the Howard Johnson Motel and spoke with a man whom I had not previously seen or met, but whom I knew to be an employee of Mr. McCord's, and told him to load all of his equipment into the van that McCord had and to drive away, get away from the premises. He said; "Where shall I go, shall I take it to Mr. McCord's home?' I said: "No, any place but that, I do not care where you take it. Drive it into the river, I do not care." In any event, it developed that Mr. McCord--Mr. Baldwin took the van to Mr. McCord's house and left it there.

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you know how far his house was from the Howard Johnson's Motel? Was it close by?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. McCord's home?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. HUNT. No, it was a substantial drive. I would guess 15 or 16 miles.

Mr. THOMPSON. Go ahead. You were talking about your conversation--that is all you have to relate on that?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Pick up your conversation now with Mr. McCord about that.

Mr. Hunt. I was rather critical with Mr. McCord about the performance of his employee and Mr. McCord, on his part, was rather defensive. He indicated to me that in the wake of the arrests, Baldwin had felt himself abandoned and had gone directly to the Committes for the Re-Election of the President to seek instructions and/or financial assistence and he had been rebuffed. Feeling himself thus abandoned and cast upon his own resources-I am again quoting Mr. McCord to the best of my recollection--Mr. Baldwin sought counsel in connecticut and retained two attorneys, who, in whose hands he subsequently remained. It was on the basis of their advice that he began giving interviews, the first of which was, I believe, with the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was that the only conversation you had with Mr. McCord about Baldwin?

Mr. HUNT. To the best of my recollection; yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. You didn't know Baldwin except through Mccord, I take it?

Mr. HUNT. I saw him at 2;30-odd hours on the morning of June 17 in the darkened room. I would naver have been able to identify him except through a photograph I saw in the newspaper.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Hunt, you have been asked this morning about what, in your opinion, Mr. Colson knew about an overall plan, or a Gemstone plan. I am not sure that I have that staight in my mind. You referred, first of all, to the conversation you had with Mr. Colson in January of 1972, I believe, when you told him that you were, in effect, going to the committee To Re-Elect. Then we referred to a conversation you had with Mr. Liddy after the meeting that you had with Liddy and Colson in Colson's office, when Mr. Liddy said that he thought Colson would help. Just what, in your opinion, did Mr. Colson know?

Mr. HUNT. I beg your pardon?

Mr. THOMPSON. Just what, in your opinion, did Mr. Colson know about the Gemstone operation and what is the basis of that opinion?

Mr. HUNT. Would you excuse me a moment?

Mr. SACHS. Excuse us, please, just a moment.

Mr. HUNT. To address myself to your question. Mr. Thompson, and I am reading through some notes that I have compiled--is that permissible?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, sir. When did you compile them?

Mr. HUNT. Within the past 10 days.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was it before or after the grand jury session when you first related to the staff the fact that in your opinion, Mr. Colson did know about the Gemstone operation?

Mr. HUNT. It was in connection with that.

Mr. SACHS. Mr. Thompson, that was not a grand jury session.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am sorry. I meant the executive session of the staff. Do you recall whether it was before of after that session?

Mr. HUNT. It was at the same time.

Mr. THOMPSON. It could not have been exactly the same time.

Mr. HUNT. In order to make my presentation to the committee in executive session, I prepared the notes that I have now requested permission before you made these notes?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right, go ahead.

Mr. HUNT. In late January 1972 I told Colson that as a result of my increasing involvement with Gordon Liddy, I would be unable to give anything like as much time to colson as I had in the past, colson said, that is all right, you can be a lot more useful over there; that is, working for Liddy.

I remarked that he was probably aware of the large-scale intelligence program that had been conceived and which Mr. Liddy was heading. Colson said, I had much that he had already provided bona fides on my part to Mr. Mitchell.

I replied that I liked the arrangement with Liddy, that I had worked with and had full confidence in Liddy. At the same time, I had a like to be able to be available to him, Colson, within the limits of my physical capacities and said that I assumed that I would maintain my White House office and safe.

Colson said that was no problem.

This is the background for Colson's perceptions when I called on him with Liddy about a month later. Colson Knew that I had been engaged in covert activities with Liddy. He in fact, I have been given to understand, actually financed the Fielding entry.

Mr. THOMPSON. When did you learn that?

Mr. HUNT. I learned that in conjunction with an appearance I made before the Watergate grand jury.

Mr. THOMPSON. You were told at that time?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. About financing the fielding entry. Could you be a little more specific as to what he actually told you he did?

Mr. HUNT. He provided the moneys which were used by Mr. Liddy for that purpose.

Mr. THOMPSON. Were you told who he gave the money to?

Mr. HUNT. I am sorry, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Were you told who he gave the money directly to?

Mr. HUNT. Who is "he"?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Colson.

Mr. HUNT. I have testified that I saw Mr. Krogh give money to

Mr. Liddy, but it was not until recently that I learned that Mr. Krogh received the money apparently from the hands of Mr. Colson.

Mr. THOMPSON. And you don't know anything about the circumstances of his giving money to Krogh other than--Mr. HUNT. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right, sir. Go ahead.

Mr. HUNT. Colson also acknowledged that he was aware of a plan conceived by the Attorney General to secure intelligence on radical groups and democratic candidates, that being the general tone program, and that I was working on this with Liddy as a covert collaborator.

Mr. THOMPSON. This was in January, the January meeting?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir, the January meeting.

Mr. THOMPSON. So he actually said, he used the word Gemstone?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Would you read that last portion again?

Mr. HUNT. I was not reading, I was interpolating.

Mr. THOMPSON. I see. What, exactly, did he say in response to your inquiry as to whether or not he was aware of a large scale intelligence plan other than what you have already related?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir; this is my summation of the conversation. I had said earlier, I remarked to Mr. Colson that he was probably aware of the large-scale intelligence program that had been conceived and which

Mr. Liddy was heading. He said that he was and in fact, that he had checked my bona fides in behalf of the Attorney General.

Mr. THOMPSON. When did you conclude in your own mind that he was in fact aware of it? as soon as he said in at that meeting?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right, what about the meeting in february, after you left? I believe you had a conversation with Mr. Liddy. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe in excecutive session you said something to the effect that was the first time that you really became aware or that you concluded in your own mind that Colson must have been aware of exactly what was going on regarding the Gemstone plan--

Mr. HUNT. I said that, Mr. Thompson, at an earlier executive session. However, subsequently, to a different line of questioning by counsel to this committee, I was able to reconstruct events that had not at that point been fresh in my mind.

Mr. THOMPSON. Let's see if this is the line that you are referring to, I am referring to the transcript of September 20, 1973, Thursday. I will start reading at line 11: "It was in late January"--

Mr. SACHS. What page, Mr. Thompson?

Mr. THOMPSON. i'm sorry, page 467. I will start reading about line 11 and I will be skipping some. If you want to take the time to read the parts in between, of course that is perfectly all right. In lalate January, 1972, I told Charles Colson that as a result of my increas ing involvement with Gordon Liddy I would be unable to give anything like as much time to Colson as I had in the past. Colson said, "That is right You can be a lot more useful over there." That is to say working for, or with Liddy. I remarked they, Colson, was probably aware of the large scale intelligence program that had been conceived and which Mr. Liddy was heading. Colson said. "I would have much preferred that you head it." I replied that I liked the arrangement. I had worked with and had confidence in Liddy, Besides, I had fu ll time work with Mul-len and Company. I told Colson I would continue to be available to him within the limits of my time and assumed I would continue to be abailable to him within the limits of my time and assumed I would maintain my White House office and safe. Colson said that was no problem. Then, if may, I would like to move over to page 471.

Senator ERVIN. That is a vote signal, so we will have to take a temporary recess to go over there and vote.

[Recess.]

Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. THOMPSON. Nr. Hunt, without reading it, let me see if I can summarize the situation, and you correct me if I am wrong. I got the impression from reading the transcript that the question was posed to you as to how it could be that such a conversation could come about between Mr. Liddy and Mr. Colson; what would be a plausible explanation for that; and also your being there; what kind of an explanation would be plausible concluded that the only plausible explanation must have been that Mr. Colson had known about it beforehand. Would that be a fair summary of what you stated in executive session?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, if that is the case, then that would indicate that it was after the February meeting that you concluded, in your own mind anyway, that Mr. Colson was aware of the Gemstone plan and not before that time.

I got the impression that you Saying that the first time you realized in your own mind that Mr. Colson must have been aware of the overall plan, was after the February meeting.

Mr. HUNT. At that time, yes, sir. This is the background for Colson's perceptions when I called on him with Liddy about a later. Colson knew that I had been engaged in covert actually financed the Fielding entry.

Mr. THOMPSON. When did you learn that?

Mr. HUNT. I learned that in conjunction with an appearance I made before the Watergate grand jury.

Mr. THOMPSON. You were told at that time?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. About financing the Fielding entry. Could you be a little more specific as to what he actually told you he did?

Mr. HUNT. He provided the moneys which were used by Mr. Liddy for that purpose.

Mr. THOMPSON. Were you told who he gave the money to?

Mr. HUNT. I am sorry, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Were you told who he gave the money directly to?

Mr. HUNT. I have testified that I saw Mr. Krogh give money to

Mr. Liddy, but it was not until recently that I learned that Mr. Krogh received the money apparently from the hands of Mr. colson.

Mr. THOMPSON. And you don't know anything about the circumstances of his giving money to Krogh other than--Mr. HUNT. No, sir; I do not.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right, sir. Go ahead.

Mr. HUNT. Colson also acknowledged to secure intelligence on radical groups and democratic candidates, that being the general tone program, and that I was wortking on this with Liddy as a covert collaborator.

Mr. THOMPSON. This was in January, the January meeting?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir, the January meeting.

Mr. THOMPSON. So he actually said, he used the word Gemstone?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Would you read that last portion again?

Mr. HUNT. I was not reading, I was interpolating.

Mr. THOMPSON. I see. What, exactly, did he say in response to your inquiry as to whether or not he was aware of a large scale intelligence plan other than what you have already related?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir; this is my summation of the conversation. I had said earlier, I remarked to Mr. Colson that had been conceived and which

Mr. Liddy was heading. He said that he was and in fact, that he had checked my bona fides in behalf of the Attorney General.

Mr. THOMPSON. When did you conclude in your own mind that he was in fact aware of it? As soon as he said it at that meeting?

Mr. HUNT. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right, what about the meeting in February, after you left? I believe you had a conversation with Mr. Liddy. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe in executive session you said

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, when you had the January meeting with Mr. Colson did you discuss the reason for going to the Committee To ReElect? I assume you did not come a way from that discussion with the feeling that he had an awareness of the overall Gemstone war.

Mr. SACHS. I am sorry, Mr. Thompson, I am sorry I do not know whether you say awareness or unawareness so I missed that.

Mr. THOMPSON. Awareness.

Mr. HUNT. I believe I believe I am having difficulty now in discriminating between questions, Mr. Thompson, I am terribly sorry. I am not trying to be obstructive, I want to be responsive. Could you restate the question as it stands?

Mr. THOMPSON. Let me put the question to you just the way it was put in executive session then, Mr. Hunt. I have already related where you stated that you had a conversation in January with Mr. Colson about the overall intelligence plan. Mr. Dash asked you: Other than the particular intelligence plan that you were working with Mr. Liddy on, wich Mr. liddy was getting approval from Mr. Mitchell which is known, as we know now, as the gemstone plan, was there any other plan in effect?

Mr. HUNT. No,sir .

Mr. DASH. So in retating it the Gemstone plan was the only large-scakle intel gence plan which was in existence at that time, so Mr. Colson's statement to thath he was a ware fo thir plan could only further the Gemstone plan.

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. DASH. And that is what led you to believe that when you, in February, introduced Mr. Liddy to Mr. Colson that Mr. Liddy on his own whille you were there in the rear of the room urged Colson's assistance on this plan that Mr son was already aware of the Gemstone plan and did not need any further infor mation provided but he personally, he would entrust, and this was the basis o whirch he made the telephone call to Mr. Magruder.

Mr. SACHS. Mr Thompson, I am sorry we do not have the page, and we are not following, and it is going a little too fast. If you would direct us to the page.

Mr. THOMPSON. I am reading from pages 471 and 472.

Mr. SACHS. I think our problem is that Mr. HUNT does not quite know what the question is.

Mr. THOMPSON. When did you first become aware in your own mind, that Mr. Colson knew about the Gemstone plan?

Mr. HUNT. In January.

Mr. THOMPSON. In January?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMSON. Now, Mr. Dash has referred t an executive session on May 14, 1973. Would it be fair to say that at this executive sessions the statemnt which he referred to, where he questioned you as follows:

Mr. DASH. Actually, when did you first learn from Mr. Liddy that the sign was OK, the go sign, referring to the approval by the Attorney General.

Mr. HUNT. Well, I would put it very late in March, very late in February,if not in early March.

Mr. DASH. And it was aroung that time when you met with Mr. McCord in March.

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCord that these plans would have that you were in touch with other persons yourself the white house, Mr. Colson or anybody else concernin these plans.

Mr. HUNT. No, sir. I would not have done this because it was true to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Colson had no specific knowledge. he had no knowledge of my dealings with

Mr. liddy from me. Now, if Mr. Colson had collateral knowledge or awareness he did not confide in me.

Mr. DASH. Beside these people who were meeting, that would be Mr. Mitchell,

Mr. DEAN, Magruder and yourself and the cubbans who came up for that, who els to your knowledfe, was aware of this activuty?

Mr. HUNT. Of the overall project? Sr.DASH. Yes.

Mr.HUNT. I have no personal knowledge of anyone. Would you say that is inconsistent with your present testimony?

Mr.HUNT.Yes,sir, Mr. Thompson, and let me try to reconcile this as best I can,as believe I have in subsequent testimony. That until a matter of some 2 weeks ago and perhaps less it had been my firm conviction that there had been no substantive knowledge on the part of Mr. Colson concerning the Gemstone,with the overall intelligence plan.

However,following a line of questioning embarked upon by Mr. Dash,a train of thouh was parked which led to my recollection of the January meeting with Mr.Colson which then beacame significant to me. On that,the basic of my-of my reconstrucyion of our January meeting I was able to postulated what Mr.Colson's perceptions might have been during his meeting with Liddy and myself in February,and it is to that that I gave,have given my most recent testimony.

Mr.THOMPSON.So you,in effect,did not remember up until the time

Mr.Dash embarked upon that line of question

Mr. HUNT. That is correct.

Mr.THOMPSON [continuing].That you had discussed this matter in January with Mr.Colson and he indicated that he was aware of it?

Mr.HUNT.That is correct.

Mr.THOMPSON.Would you not consider that a significant piece of information?

Mr.HUNT. I consider it to be a piece of significant information now; yes,sir.

Mr.THOMPSON.WellMr.HUNT.In January I was not acutely conscious of in thems of significance.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well,did you realiuze the significance of it on May 14 when you stated that so far as you knew,Mr.Colson and no one else had knowledge of the plan?

Mr.HUNT.May 14,I did not recollect it,Mr.Thompson.

Mr.THOMPSON. Since your testimony here and the testimony in executive session when this was brought out,you have filed a motion to set your plea of guilty aside,I believe;have you not?

Mr.HUNT.Yes,sir.

Mr.THOMPSON.And if I understand it,that motion is based in part upon what you might say,is some kind of executive approval of the plan,wich would justify the plan at leat in your mind at that time, and you mentioned Mr.Dean,Mr.Magruder,Mr.Mitchell,Ibelieve, and also Mr.Colson in your pleadings with regard yo your motion that you filedf to set your plea aside,is that correct?

Mr. HUNT.Yes,sir.With all deference,Mr. Thompson,let me point out that MR. Dash had previously asked me in effect the same question and I responded,I believe,the record will show,that my plea is not based substantively upon Mr.Colson's involvement or noninvolvement. MR.THOMPSON. My failure to understand it is based upon what I responce to Mr.Dash,this additional information,was not inconsistent.Now I understand you to say it is inconsistent but it is based upon your failure to previously remember. I also would like to ask you concerning a letter which you wrote to

Mr.Colson on August 9,wich I would like to furnish you a cooy of at the present time if you don't have it.This is an exhibit,a part of the record and was furnished to us by Mr. Colson,I believe.It is a letter to Colson dated August 9, 1972. I won't go into the first part of it unless you care to-it has to do with the fact that you were removed from Mullen's HEW account.Now in the last paragraph you say: Let me say I profoundly regret your being dragged into the case through association with me, superficial and occasional though the association was. What small satisfaction I can dredge up at the moment is the knowledge that I was not responsible for the affair or its outcome.All this pales,of course,beside the overwhelming inportance of re-electing the President,and you may be confident that I will do all that is required of me toward that end. Was it your opinion at that time that Mr.Colson was being dragged into the case solely because of his prior friendship with you or do you now feel that he was possibly being dragged in because he knew of the plan from the very inception?

Mr.HUNT. Because of this what with me,sir?

Mr.THOMPSON. Because he knew of the Gemstone plan and somewhat particpated in that.

Mr.HUNT. He was being dragged into the Watergate case by the press beacause he had been my sponsor in the White House,and because my,one of my alternate telephone extensions was out of his office.That was how the connection had iniatially been established. I regretted that.

Mr.THOMPSON.So that was the sole basis,in your mind at that time, for feeling that he was being dragged into the case. Would that be a fair statement?

Mr.HUNT.We are talking Watergate case now,yes,sir.

Mr.THOMPSON.All right. With regard to the telephone conversation that was recorded by

Mr.Colson in late November of 1972,if I can refer to page 6 of that; I believe in restrospect you probably feel you were being set up with regard to that and,of course,Mr. Colson's statement could have been self-serving.Do you have that before you? I believe that was furnished a moment ago.

Mr.SACHS.We will in 1 second.

Mr.THOMPSON.Page 6,about the sixth sentence down,Mr.Colson states and I will leave out some of the language here,he said: If I ever had known it was coming I would have said to you as a friend, if some asshole wants to do this,fine,but don't you get involved,I mean,if you and I,if we'd ever had a conversation like that Iwould have said,my God*** but the point I've made is that you're a smart***among many other qualities,you are a brillant operator and brilliant operators just don't get into this kind of a thing,so I've held and I was asked***and this is why I don't want to know any different, this is why I was asked by the Bureau, well, what about Hunt? And I could honestly say, look, I've known this guy a long time, he's a very smart fellow and I can't for the life of me conceive that the would ever get himsef into this kind of situation, so I want to be able to stay in that position. That's why I don't want you to tell me anything beyond that. Give my love to Dorothy, will you? And you responded:"All right, I will." Of course here, Mr. Hunt, he not only presumbly would be denying any knowledge about any such operations or plans himself but he is denying knowledge of your participation in such plans. Why did you nor respond at that time and refer to some of the previous conversations you had with Mr. Colson if he knew about the Gemstone plan and you knew of your participation in the Gemstone plan?

Mr. HUNT. I believe that our conversation was focused on Watergate, on the Watergate entry that failed.

Mr. THOMPSON. So your testimony is that, as far as you know, although he was aware of the overall Gemstone plan, he was not aware of the Watergate break-in?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Senator Ervin. Now, who were the members of the Plumbers?

Mr. HUNT. The unit was directed by Mr. Egil Krogh, Jr. His deputy was Mr. David Young. Mr. G. Gordon Liddy was a full-time member of the unit. The stenographer-typist was Miss Kathleen Chenow, and I was a part-time consultant.

Senator Ervin. Did the Plumbers have a secretary named Miss or Mrs. Chenile?

Mr. HUNT. I am not aware of anybody by that name.

Senator Ervin. Chenow, C-h-e-n-o-w?

Mr. HUNT. Yes. I just gate her name, Miss Kathleen Chenow, C-h-e-n-o-w.

Senator Ervin. Now, the telephone that the plumbers used was listed in her name and at her home in Alexandria, wasn't it?

Mr. HUNT. So I understand.

Senator ERVIN. Yet it was in the offices which the Plumbers occupied in the Executive Office Building?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. That is where the phone was but it was listed in Alexandria. Why was that?

Mr. HUNT. That was the inadequate response by the communications unit at the White House to my request for a sterile telephone.

Senator ERVIN. A sterile telephone is one that can't be found readily or traced, isn't it?

Mr. HUNT. It can't be found at all.

Senator ERVIN. So you used that telephone to have conversations. receive long distance calls, and make long distance calls to Bernard Barker, didn't you?

Mr. HUNT. Among others, yes, sir Senator.

Senator ERVIN. And you made arrangements with Bernard Baker and Martinez and Sturgis and Gonzales to participate in the entry of the Watergate, didn't you?

Mr. HUNT. To be precise, Mr. Chairman, I made arrangements with

Mr. Barker. Mr. Barker made subsequent arrangements with the other gentlemen.

Senator ERVIN. No, we have evidence before this committee to the effect that the four Miami residents had in their possession, either in their pockets or in their hotel rooms in Watergate, 53 $100 bills at the time they were apprehended at the Watergate. Do you know where that money came from?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Where did it come from?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Gordon Liddy.

Senator ERVIN. Do you know how-we have testimony here also to the effect that this money was part of a deposit that was temporarily made in Mr. Barker's bank account or his firm's bank account in Miami, Fla., consisting of four Mexican checks totaling $89,000 and one from Kenneth Dahlberg in the amount of $25,000. Do you know how that money happened to be deposited in Mr. Barker's bank account or his firm's bank account in Miami?

Mr. HUNT. In this way, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Barker was performing a service for Mr. Liddy in negotiating checks, that is to say, passing them through a bank account and delivering the proceeds to

Mr. Liddy.

Senator ERVIN. How long had Mr. Liddy known Mr. Barker, to your knowledge?

Mr. HUNT. Since December or January-December 1971, January of 1972. No. I beg your pardon. I would have to go back to the Ellsberg entry. He knew through the summer, the summer months of 1971.

Senator ERVIN. Now, you worked under Mr. Colson in the White House, didn't you?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And when you were operating the Plumbers there, you made reports to Mr. Colson, did you not, of what you were doing, what you recommended?

Mr. HUNT. Occasionally; yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Well, I have in my hand here what purports to be a copy of a report from you to Charles Colson dated July 28, 1971, in which you recommend to him-well, I will hand this to the witness. You have a copy of that?

Mr. SACHS. Yes, we have a copy of that July 28 memo.

Senator ERVIN. Can you identify that as being a copy of a report you made to Mr. Colson?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. And in that report, you recommend among other things to Mr. Colson that he should obtain Mr. Ellsberg's files from his psychiatric analyst, did you not, among other recommendations?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And you knew that there was no way in which you could obtain that report except by surreptitious entry, did you not? Other than what you knew, it was privileged under the law of California?

Mr. HUNT. Senator, I was not limitimg my options at that point simply to a surreptitious entry. What I had described here was a desirable product. The means of obtaining it had not yet clarified themselves and were not to, for, in fact, a month.

Senator ERVIN. Well, now, you thought it was desirable to get his files from his phychiatric analyst in order that the CIA might use them to carry out your second recommendation in that letter, to perform a covert psychological assessment evaluation on Ellsberg.

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And the objective of the surreptitious entry into the office of Dr. Fielding, Ellsberg's psychiatrist, was for the purpose of getting at his records concerning Ellsberg?

Mr. HUNT. Photographing them; yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Photographing them. Do you have a copy of the memo from Bud Krogh-is that the nickname of Egil Krogh?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And David Young to Charles Colson in which they were also joining in the recommendation for a complete psychological assesment and evaluation of Ellsberg by the CIA?

Mr. HUNT. Under what date, Mr. chairman?

Senator ERVIN. August 3, 1971.

Mr. HUNT. I have such a memorandum.

Senator ERVIN. So Mr. Colson did know about the operations being carried on by the Plumbers, did he not, back in July and August 1971?

Mr. HUNT. I would not, on the basis of this memoramdum alone, Mr. Chairman, want to presume that Mr. Colson had comprehensive knowledge of everything the Plumbers were either doing or contemplating as of that date.

Senator ERVIN. Well, you did know as early as July 28 that you thought that they ought to have the files-obtain the files of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, Dr. Fielding?

Mr. HUNT. Obtain access to them.

Senator ERVIN. Did you ever talk to Colson about this matter?

Mr. HUNT. I recall no further conversation with Mr. Colson other than the memorandum of suggestion to him which was responsive to a suggestion which he made to me.

Senator ERVIN. Now, did you make a report to John Ehrlichman about the surreptitious entry into the psychiatrist's office?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Senator ERVIN. He testified before this committee that after it was done, you made a report.

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Chairman, if I may clarify.

Senator ERVIN. I wish you would. It is confusing.

Mr. HUNT. Following the surreptitious entry into Dr. Fielding's office, Mr. Liddy and I compiled a very brief report which we presented to Mr. Krogh. Whether it went to Mr. Ehrlichman is another matter.

Senator ERVIN. You do not know about it?

Mr. HUNT. I have no personal knowledge of that.

Senator ERVIN. Now, you spoke about Mr. Bittman telling you that he had received telephonic communication which was followed by the deposit of $75,000 in an envelope for you, I believe at his home. Did he tell you who he received the telephone call from?

Mr. HUNT. Are you referring to Mr. Bittman, sir?

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Mr. HUNT. No, he did not.

Senator ERVIN. Did you have any knowledge of the source of that $75,000?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Senator ERVIN. I understood you to state that you had been promised on or about June 21, 1972, that you would have money furnished to you for your support and also for counsel fees, that you were given assurances to that effect at that time; is that correct?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Who gave those assurances?

Mr. HUNT. Mr. Gorgon Liddy.

Senator ERVIN. My 10 minutes are up.

Senator Baker.

Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am sure I can finish the line of questioning I have in mind in about 10 minutes and we will be able to procees to finish possibly this afternoon's inquiry fairly early today. I understand that is the wish of the counsel and of the witness.

Mr. HUNT. you have already testified about how you were employed as a White House consultant and I won't extend our conversation about that much further except to say that you were employed first by Mr. Colson. I believe you and Mr. Colson had been associated in or had been together in the Alumni Association of Brown University, that you were both alumnae of Brown?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. And that Mr. Colson was aware of your previous history and background with the CIA and its prodecessor?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Would you briefly tell us of your CIA and intelligence background, or if you want me to, I can briefly read the resume the staff has supplied me and you correct me. Would you prefer that I do it that way?

Mr. HUNT. I prefer that you do it, sir.

Senator BAKER. The information we have is that you graduated from Brown in 1940 and entered the Navy. You were discharged after being injured in an accident at sea. In 1942-1943, you were an editor for the March of Time and a war correspondent for Life magazine. From 1943 to 1946, you worked with the Office of Strategic Services, using the Army Air Force as a cover. You trained people in clandestine intelligence work in Orlando, Fla. Then you were assigned to work with Chinese guerilla bands behind the Japanese lines. You were based for a while in Kunming in southern China and your OSS unit won a Presidential citation.

In 1946, vou obtained a Guggenheim fellowhsip and spent a year in Mexico reading, learning Spanish and writing, and for 2 years, you were a movie scriptwriter.

The CIA was created in 1947 and in early 1949, you joined that agency. After a short period at Washington headquarters, you were sent to Paris as an attache at the American Embassy.

During 1949 and 1950, you were in Vienna, Austria. From 1950 to 1953, you were in Mexico City and from 1953 to 1956, your cover position was that of political adviser to the Defense Department in Latin American, Japan, Spain, and several European countries. During this period, you were actively involved in the overthrow of the Guatemalan regime.

From 1957 to 1960, you were CIA station chief in Montevideo, where your cover was first secretary at the American consul. When the CIA sought to reassing you from that position, there was a good bit of dispute over whether you should or should not be reassigned and there were rumors that President Benito Nardone, the President of Uruguay, was asked to intervene in your behalf to keep the station there. At any point of this summary, which is a staff summary, if you have any reason to disagree, feel free to do so.

Your cover was as consultant for Department of Defense from 1960-65. In April 1960, you were ordered back to Washington from Uruguay to participate in preparations for the Cuban invasion. You resigned from the Foreign Service in 1960 for purposes of obtaining a more effective cover, moved to Mexico, and then to Miami, posing as a writer who suddenly comes into an inheritance.

For the next 19 months, your alias was Edwardo; you acted as the CIA's representative to the Cuban Revolutionary Council, the prospective post-Castro government in whose name the invasion brigade was being trained in Guatemala. You resigned your job when certain disputes arose after you were assigned with certain people to the Provisional Government of Cuba and went to Miami to serve with the Cuban Council.

After the invasion of Cuba failed, you served as personal assistant to CIA Director, Allen W. Dulles. Your subsequent activities are not entirely known.

In 1963, the American Ambassador in Madrid refused to accept you as deputy chief of the local CIA station. However, you were in Madrid on unknown business from 1965 to 1966. According to information staff supplies, the 1966 to 1967 edition of Who's Who listed you as a retired Government official living in Madrid.

You returned to Washington in 1968, purchased a home in Potomac, Md., and retired from the CIA on April 30, 1970.

From 1970 to 1971, you were vice president of the Robert R. Mullen & Co., where you continued to work until you became a White House consultant in July 1971 until your dismissal on July 2, 1972. Is that a fair sketch of your activities or your career?

Mr. HUNT. Reasonably fair, yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Was Colson aware of this rather extensive intelligence-OSS, Bay of Pigs and CIA involvement?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Did you discuss that as a precondition of your employment?

Mr. HUNT. I had discussed it with him over a period of years.

Senator BAKER. At the time you went to work Mullen & Co., were you aware of or is it a fact that Mullen & Co. had ever been cooperative with or had any connection with the CIA?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Were you aware of that?

Mr. hUNT. yES, SIR.

Senator BAKER. After you became a consultant at the White House, did you contact the CIA about your new position?

Mr. HUNT. I certainly let former associates know of my new White House connections; yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Who? Did you talk to General Cushman?

Mr. HUNT. General Cushman in a different context, sir.

Senator BAKER. Had you served with General Cushman in the OSS or CIA? For instance, did you ever share an office with him?

Mr. HUNT. We had back in the fifties at the CIA headquarters in Washington.

Senator BAKER. Did you talk on a number of occasions to CIA officials about your duties and responsibilities to the White House during your tenure as a consultant there?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Senator BAKER. On more than one occasion?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. On how many occasions?

Mr. HUNT. Well, including the staff people, I would say half a dozen.

Senator BAKER. Could you name them?

Mr. HUNT. I would say a half dozen occasions.

Senator BAKER. All right. Could you name the people you talked to?

Mr. HUNT. Dr. Bernard Molloy of the Medical Office.

Senator BAKER. Was that in cojunction with the Ellsberg profile?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Go ahead.

Mr. HUNT. I may have spoken in the same connection with Mr. Howard Osborne, Director of Security.

Senator BAKER. What was that in connection with?

Mr. HUNT. Also the Ellsberg profile. I spoke to Mr. John Caswell in connection with a refreshment of my memory concerning the French leak scandal that seemed to be a parallel with the Ellsberg affair. I spoke with Director Helms' secretary about--

Senator BAKER. What was that about?

Mr. HUNT. Simply notifyving her and asking her to pass along to

Mr. Helms the fact that I now held a consultancy at the White House.

Senator BAKER. What support did you receive from the CIA? Let me ask you this to being with. Did you ever seek or were you ever given or have access to CIA personnel records for the sake of achieving your assignment at the White House?

Mr. HUNT. Not in the broader sense, Senator. I had asked the placement service to provide me with resumes of retirees who possessed certain limited qualifications.

Senator BAKER. What were those qualifications?

Mr. HUNT. They had to do with photography and surreptitious entry.

Senator BAKER. Did the agency from their employment office provide you with that information?

Mr. HUNT. Some information; yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Did you use that as a basis for recruiting?

Mr. HUNT. As a basis for atempted recruiting.

Senator BAKER. But it was used for the purposes it was sought for, to get people who might be useful in this purpose?

Mr. HUNT. Exactly.

Senator BAKER. Did they also supply you with such things as wigs, with false identification papers, with cameras, with tape recroding devices, with photographic processing and printing? Were these things all supplied you by the agency?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Did anyone ever rpotest that the agency ought not to be involved in this?

Mr. HUNT. Not in my hearing.

Senator BAKER. Did you ever discuss it with Director Cushman or Dr. Helms?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Senator BAKER. Did any of those--

Mr. HUNT. I am sorry, I drew a false inference from your prior question.

Senator BAKER. Let me break it into two parts. Did you ever discuss with Director Helms your request for personnel information or logistical and technical support?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Senator BAKER. Ever?

Mr. HUNT. Never.

Senator BAKER. Or with his secretary?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Senator BAKER. Did you ever discuss it with General Cushman?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Why did you not discuss it with Helms? He was the Director.

Mr. HUNT. I was directed to consult with General Cushman.

Senator BAKER. You were what?

Mr. HUNT. I was directed to colsult with General Cushman.

Senator BAKER. By whom?

Mr. HUNT. This requires a little bit of telling,

Senator Baker.

Senator BAKER. What, sir?

Mr. HUNT. I am sorry, Senator. This requires a little bit of telling, of explanation.

Senator BAKER. Oh, I see. Go ahead. How much telling? How much time do I have left? I have 3 minutes. Why not save that? I have a few other things I would like to get to. There was a tape made of your conversation with General Cushman on one occasion and we have had a transcript of it. Have you seen that transcript?

Mr. HUNT. I have, sir.

Senator BAKER. You will notice, I am sure, from a reading of it that there are substantial protions of the transcript which are imcomplete. Some of them are assigned to interference from aircraft noise. Can you help supply some of those omissions? Can you tell us what you talked about?

Mr. HUNT. No,sir.

Senator BAKER. Why can't you?

Mr. HUNT. I am unable to.

Senator BAKER. You are unable to because you don't know or unable to for some other reason?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir; unable to because I don't know.

Senator BAKER. And have no recollection?

Mr. HUNT. And have no recollection now.

Senator BAKER. You don't recall who told you to see Cushman instead of Helms?

Mr. HUNT. I received a call from General Cushman's personal assistant or his principal administrative assistant, Mr. Carl Wagner, on one occasion, shortly after I had had a conversation with Mr. Colson relevant to the acquisition of certain technical material. It was Mr. Wagner who told me that I should meet with General Cushman. I assumed this to be responsive to a call which General Cushman had received from some member of the White House staff.

Senator BAKER. But you don't know who?

Mr. HUNT. At the time, I did not know.

Senator baker. Do you know now?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. Who?

Mr. HUNT. John Ehrlichman.

Senator BAKER. Can you give us the date and the circumstances of that call?

Mr. HUNT. I don't belive I can, no, sir.

Senator BAKER. Have you seen the xeroxed copies of the photographs taken in Dr. Fielding's office that were supplied for this record?

Mr. HUNT. Taken in his office, sir?

Senator BAKER. Yes, sir, they were xeroxed copies of photographic prints that were taken in Dr. Fielding's office.

Mr. HUNT. I believe I have only xeroxed copies of photographs taken externally.

Senator BAKER. Have you seen any copies of photographs taken inside?

Mr. HUNT. I may have, sir, but I do not recall. I will be very happy ot identify them.

Senator BAKER. This is what I want to find out. You delivered photographic film, or somebody delivered it for you, to CIA to be processed and printed, is that correct, sir?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. And they did process it and print it and gave you the prints and the negatives, I understand.

Mr. HUNT. They certainly gave me the prints. As to the negatives, I am not sure.

Senator BAKER. Do you know whether the CIA still has copies of those prints or the negatives?

Mr. HUNT. I have no idea.

Senator BAKER. Mr. Hunt, I am dealing now in language that I am not totally familiar with, but I am given to believe they are works of art or phrases of art in the intelligence community. Did you have a letter of instructions or its equivalent with respect to your general operations in the intelligence field and with the Watergate and Fielding's situations particularly?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Senator BAKER. Do you understand what I am speaking about?

Mr. HUNT. Yes, sir.

Senator BAKER. A letter of instructions means what in your terms?

Mr. HUNT. It is a brief.

Senator BAKER. It is instructions in writing on the general description of the job you are about to undertake?

Mr. HUNT. And an authorization.

Senator BAKER.And an authorization. Does it also include what to do in case you get caught?

Mr. HUNT. No, sir.

Senator BAKER. There was a conversation by General Cushman, I believe, about certain paraphernalia that was given to you and not used in the Ellsberg situation and we have had material described, which I will describe to you--diffecrent items of identificatio, tape recroder, cameras, and the like. I f they were not used in Ellsberg what were they used for?

Mr. HUNT. I believe everything was used with the exeption of the tape recorder. senator BAKER. Where was the tape recorder used?

Mr. HUNT. The tape recorder was used for the transcription of overt interviews.

Senator BAKER. Overt interviews of whom?

Mr. HUNT. In one case with Mr. Clifton De motte.

Senator BAKER. Who is that?

Mr. HUNT. He is a Government employee, former Government employee, at least, who was a contact and former employee of Mr. Robert Bennett, my one-time employer.

Senator BAKER. Do you know anything about the Dahlberg checks and the Mexican money?

Mr. HUNT. May I inquire, sir?

Senator BAKER. Let me just ask you a specific question. Do you know whether or not, from your experience with the CIA or other operations, Mr. Dahlberg was ever considered as a CIA contact?

Mr. HUNT. I have no knowledge of that; no, sir.

Senator BAKER. I am told, Mr. Chairman, that my time has expired. I thank you, Mr. Hunt.

Senator ERVIN. I have been requested by the witness and his counsel to recess at this time. Bafore we do, however, I would like to put in the record the memorandum of August 3,1971,for Charles Colson from Bud Krogh and David Young.That will be appropriately numered as an exhibit.

Senator Ervin.The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow.