The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate (88 page)

The principal goal behind Colson’s memo was not to provide an honest assessment of Mitchell’s testimony—Colson made no secret of his loathing for Mitchell, and vice versa—but to sway the president against Mitchell’s advice that the White House should continue supporting Kleindienst’s nomination. Yet disclosure of the Colson memo in August 1973, during the Senate Watergate hearings, led many journalists to conclude, erroneously, that the ITT antitrust cases must have been fixed after all. “I must say, this makes the Dita Beard memorandum look a little better,” reported CBS News correspondent Neil Strawser; see
CBS Morning News
with John Hart, August 2, 1973. Brit Hume thought Colson’s memo “explosive,” and said it revealed the ITT “cover up” in the “starkest terms” see Hume,
Inside Story
, pp. 239–54.

66. WSPF transcript, Conversation No. 697–29.

67. “Impeachment: ITT and Milk,”
Washington Post
, July 20, 1974.

68. UVM, 8195.

PETTY THIEF

1. UMS, 5423.

2. Joseph Carragher, “Mitchell Opposes Jersey Casino Proposal; Speaks at Sears Testimonial,”
Newark Star-Ledger
, March 13, 1971; Audrey A. Fecht, “Mitchell Zeroes In on Crime in N.J.,”
Newark Evening News
, March 13, 1971; Charles Q. Finley, “Martha Sparkled, But Let John Speak for Himself,”
Newark Star-Ledger
, March 14, 1971; UMS, 3153–54, 3910. Asked what he’d told Mitchell about Vesco prior to this event, Sears said: “I told him…that I had been given help by a friend who had been a contributor and who had come to my rescue, both during the campaign and after, to help me on the debt…. Mr. Mitchell prior to March of 1971 would only have known Bob Vesco, if he remembered him, as a person who had helped me out” see UMS, 4093. Another attendee testified that after Mitchell’s speech, Mr. and Mrs. Vesco approached the podium with Sears. “Harry and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Vesco were talking as I was working my way across a crowded ballroom,” Laurence Richardson testified; see UMS, 4235.

3. Arthur Herzog,
Vesco
(Doubleday, 1987), pp. 7–25; UMS, 5276 (namedropper); A. L. Eisenhauer and Robin Moore with Robert J. Flood,
The Flying Carpetbagger
(Pinnacle, 1976), p. 248. Vesco once claimed he’d given $100,000 in 1968; see UMS, 2043, 3420.

4. Robert A. Hutchinson,
Vesco
(Praeger, 1974), pp. 2–8, 32 (federal regulators), 47 (offshore interest), 79 (chaotic); Herzog,
Vesco
, pp. 51–61.

5. UMS, 3176 (witch hunt), 3999 (fuse), 6958.

6. Letter to John N. Mitchell from Harry L. Sears, May 18, 1971, and letter to Harry L. Sears from John N. Mitchell, June 10, 1971, UMS, 3186, 3410–12 (no way of knowing), 7550–55 (Sears’s letters, talked to Casey), 7771 (mollify).

7. Mitchell’s office log for November 30, 1971, in WSPF Box 31; UMS, 3220–22, 8854–55. On some details, however, Mitchell’s recollection differed from Vine’s. Testifying before a federal grand jury in New York on March 20, 1973, Mitchell said Vine told him only that “they were looking into” the case, and that “when they found out, he would let me know.” Before the grand jury, and later at trial, Mitchell said nothing about Vine’s assertion that the jailing of Vesco was “warranted,” nor did Mitchell mention his own inquiry about the potential usefulness of a certain local judge.

8. UMS, 3233 (some assistance), 3417 (small change), 4637–38 (Felt testimony), 7458–63 (looking), 7558 (forgotten), 7785 (Swiss matter); and FBI memo from H. A. Boynton Jr. to Mr. E. S. Miller, 6/21/73, Subject: John N. Mitchell/Securities and Exchange Act, FBIM. For his single phone call to Mitchell, Sears received an additional $5,000 from IOS; see UMS, 4089.

9. UMS, 3234–53a (get John Mitchell, do much good); Hutchison,
Vesco
, p. 38 (occasion).

10. EN, January 18, 1972; UMS, 3272, 5493. Mitchell said he never saw Ehrlichman’s memo; see UMS, 7788–89.

11. UMS, 3286–91, 7562–65, 7813 (Mitchell denial).

12. Ibid., 5164–75, 5294, 7707–8. Mitchell’s alleged perjury before the grand jury on this point appears at UMS, 7706–7. Not until his
second
grand jury appearance did Casey recall Mitchell having told him about the SEC’s interference in Geneva.

13. UMS, 4646, 7567, 7790–91 (genesis), 8011 (misimpression); Hutchison,
Vesco
, p. 270. Felt recorded Mitchell’s request in an internal FBI document: “Attorney General contacted Bureau this date stating he wanted U.S. ambassador in Beirut to know that Attorney General and the administration have the utmost confidence in the integrity of Robert Vesco, who is in Beirut at this time. You should immediately so advise the ambassador.”

14. UMS, 3346–48, 7569–70.

15. Ibid., 3353–55.

16. Schoenebaum,
Profiles of an Era
, pp. 615–18; “Sketches of Four Men Indicted in Campaign Gift Case,”
New York Times
, May 11, 1973.

17. UMS, 4264–70; Hutchison,
Vesco
, p. 237. Stans steadfastly denied he asked Vesco to make his gift in cash; UMS, 2046.

18. UMS, 4575–77 (see Mr. Vesco, sum and substance), 4625 (I stay away). Appearing before the grand jury on March 6, 1973, Hofgren testified Mitchell’s admonition was both longer and more personalized: “Dan, stay away from it. It is being taken care of” see UMS, 4618–19. At trial, Hofgren testified he told Stans about his run-in with Mitchell, and Stans replied: “Okay, we will take care of [the Vesco matter] in another way” see UMS, 4575–77. On another point—what happened in Vesco’s March 8 meeting with Stans—Hofgren initially told the grand jury he had not attended, then amended his story both to acknowledge his presence and to assert, uniquely, that when Vesco complained about the SEC, Stans spontaneously, and successfully, arranged an appointment for Vesco with John Mitchell. Even Vesco’s associate, Richardson, did not remember Stans doing this; see UMS, 4572–74, 4617, 7668.

19. UMS, 4283.

20. Ibid., 3429–31. At disbarment hearings before the Morris County Ethics Committee in April and May 1975, Sears was asked if he was unaware of the true purpose behind Vesco’s contribution: “I am not trying to paint myself here as somebody who didn’t, who was so naïve and so stupid as not to know [that] in Vesco’s mind, he hopes he gets some attention” see
In the Matter of Harry L. Sears, An Attorney at Law
, 71 N.J. 175, 364 A. 2d 777, Supreme Court of New Jersey, September 30, 1976.

21. UMS, 3435–37 (few minutes), 5189–90 (in town).

22. Ibid., 3438–48, 5192.

23. Ibid., 4673–79, 4772 (grand jury testimony).

24. Ibid., 5707 (based on a telephone conversation), 8829 (Stans grand jury testimony), 7603 (hell, rationale). John Dean claimed Mitchell first learned about the use of the initials, and confronted Stans about it, at a meeting all three attended in New York. According to Dean, Stans’s reply was, “Well, it is there and that’s just the fact.” Before the grand jury, Dean had testified he was “certain” this meeting occurred in “late September, October” at trial he testified it was November 1. Mitchell was in New York from October 25 to November 14; see UMS, 5566, 5779–97; and WSPF, Box 31.

25. UMS, 7863 (emphasis added); Ralph Blumenthal, “Mitchell-Stans Jury Expected to Be Seated Today,”
New York Times
, February 28, 1974. When they were both in the cabinet, Stans replaced a consumer protection bill that Mitchell supported with a weaker version that made it harder for consumers to collect in class-action lawsuits; see Schoenebaum,
Profiles of an Era
, p. 616. Stans denied he and Mitchell seldom spoke. “That was a mistaken impression…. We were good friends, we were on good terms…. We were mutual victims, we thought, of an ambitious local [U.S.] attorney” see Stans interview.

26. UMS, 3472–76 (deVescoization, a year, settle), 5833 (baby).

27. “Learning to Love Exile,”
Time
, February 9, 1976; John F. Berry, “New Law May Hit Famous Fugitive,”
Washington Post
, February 6, 1977; Stanley Penn, “Vesco Says He Won’t Consider Request to Leave Costa Rica Until Suits Settled,”
Wall Street Journal
, June 13, 1977; Herzog,
Vesco
, p. 199.

28. The text of the Figueres letter is reprinted in its entirety in Hutchison,
Vesco
, p. 369 (emphasis added); UMS, 3725.

29. Hutchinson,
Vesco
, photograph section; Eisenhauer,
Flying Carpetbagger
, photograph section.

30. UMS, 3612–13 (those bastards, there’s no way, ITT), 4358–59 (get hold of Mitchell, angry).

31. Ibid., 3615–17 (devastating, interested), 7603–4 (recollection, quash, postpone).

32. Ibid., 3626–27.

33. Ibid., 3628–38 (happy, relieved, grateful, going to talk to John Dean), 3643 (can’t expect), 4021 (additional), 7719–21 (grand jury, didn’t talk to John Dean).

34. Ibid., 3749 (sure relieved), 7952 (fine).

35. Sobel,
Corruption in Business
, p. 163; David L. Yermack, “After Years on Case, Those Pursuing Vesco Still Make Careers of It,”
Wall Street Journal
, September 13, 1984; Arthur Herzog, “The Vesco Myth,”
New York Times
, June 23, 1995.

36. UMS, 3836–38 (dogfight, petty thief ). Asked about Mitchell’s characterization, Vesco sounded wounded and disbelieving. “That may very well have been something that Mitchell might have said,” he told Walter Cronkite. “Whether or not John actually believed that or not, I don’t know” see
CBS Evening News
, April 1–2, 1974.

37. UMS, 9001 (nervous).

38. UMS, 7388–91 (Sprizzo).

39. UMS, 5456 (what the hell), 5480 (bastards, runaway, Kleindienst); WHT, 150. Mitchell denied telling Dean these things. Asked if he thought Wing and Rayhill had behaved like “little bastards,” Mitchell deadpanned: “Quite the contrary. They were very polite and seductive.” After Wing objected, provoking laughter from the courtroom, Judge Gagliardi—smiling—struck the word “seductive” from the record. “It doesn’t call for any humor,” he told Mitchell. “Your Honor, I am not smiling,” replied Mitchell’s attorney, Peter Fleming; see UMS, 7694–98; and D. J. Saunders and Theo Wilson, “Mitchell Claims Talks With the SEC Wasn’t Improper,”
Daily News
, April 16, 1974. Dean, meanwhile, admitted that while discussing these subjects with Nixon, he neither mentioned Mitchell’s supposed request that Kleindienst be asked to intervene, nor ascribed the words “runaway grand jury” to Mitchell. Asked how Dean could have come to regard the grand jury as “runaway” other than by hearing as much from Mitchell, the former attorney general snapped: “I imagine he has a great imagination” see UMS, 5606–7, 8030.

40. Author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Colson, Conversation No. 40-95, White House Telephone, June 13, 1971, 10:32 to 10:39 p.m. (didn’t make, prosecuting); author’s transcript, NT, Nixon-Connally, Conversation No. 948-12, Oval Office, July 11, 1973. 3:03 to 4:22 p.m. (crook, never met).

41.
CBS Evening News
, April 24, 1973.

42. Clare Crawford, “A Fiery Martha Mitchell Gives Her Side of the Split-Up with John,”
People
, March 11, 1974.

43. “And the Mess Goes On,”
Newsweek
, May 21, 1973; Will R. Wilson Sr.,
A Fool for a Client: Richard Nixon’s Free Fall Toward Impeachment
(Eakin Press, 2000), p. 112.

44. “A Connection Named Vesco,”
Newsweek
, May 21, 1973;
CBS Midday News
, May 10, 1973;
CBS Evening News
, May 10, 1973;
CBS Evening News
, May 21, 1973.

45. One week later, the trial was moved to Courtroom 110, where atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried; see Martin Arnold, “Mitchell and Stans Are Acquitted on All Counts After 48-Day Trial,”
New York Times
, April 29, 1974.

46. Arnold H. Lubasch, “Mitchell, Stans Go on Trial Here,”
New York Times
, February 20, 1974; UMS, 120–21.

47.
CBS Evening News
, September 11, 1973; Hans Zeisel and Shari Seidman Diamond, “The Jury Selection in the Mitchell-Stans Conspiracy Trial,”
American Bar Foundation Research Journal
(1976: 151).

48. UMS, 1923–24.

49. Ibid., 1932 (heart), 1975 (crass).

50. Ibid., 1980–2003 (emphasis added). When Wing repeated the offense, during redirect examination of John Dean, it drew defense objections, but no mistrial motions; see UMS, 5681. Later, Gagliardi reprimanded Wing for similar remarks. “The government did not commit the crime that John Mitchell is charged with,” Wing said during arguments in Gagliardi’s robing room. “
Nobody
has committed those crimes,” Gagliardi shot back. “[Mitchell] is presumed to be innocent. You, above all people, ought to be saying that” see UMS, 7007.

51. Joseph M. Treen, “For Defense, They Chose Democrats,”
Newsday
, March 17, 1974 (cracks);
CBS Morning News
, March 25, 1974; Daniel Wise, “Fleming, Master Litigator, to Seek Leaks,”
New York Law Journal
, December 16, 1991; Fleming interviews.

52. UMS, 2007–19.

53.
CBS Morning News
, March 14, 1974.

54. “Casey at the Bat,”
Time
, April 1, 1974. Two decades later, Wing argued Casey had been “less than candid under oath” in the Mitchell-Stans trial. “Many people have written many things about Mr. Casey since that time,” said Wing, alluding to the Iran-Contra scandal, “that might support the fact that perhaps he wasn’t always a truth-teller” see John Wing, interview with author, September 27, 1997.

55. CI, August 9, 1988.

56. Dean,
Blind Ambition
, p. 354; Maurice Stans,
The Terrors of Justice: The Untold Story of Watergate
(Everest, 1978), p. 346.

57.
CBS Evening News
, October 19, 1973; UMS, 118; Wing interview; James Rayhill, interview with author, December 11, 1997.

58. UMS, 5455.

59. Joseph M. Treen, “Defense Tries to Discredit Dean With Use of Tape Transcripts,”
Newsday
, March 27, 1974.

60. UMS, 5674 (Dean himself), 5264–65, 5738 (inconsistent), 5761–75 (razor’s-edge questions). On the Nixon-Dean talk, see also WHT, 150.