ants' silence or something of that sort, and whenever he raised that point, which he did several times, I recounted my understanding from him that that was not the purpose of this money.

Mr. THOMPSON. But in your face-to-face conversations with him. did he ever raise any other point that might make you legally vulnerable to raise some appearance of impropriety?

Mr. HALDEMAN. Well, in the March period again, he did at times raise the point that another possible vulnerability on my part would be my having OK'd Kalmbach raising funds, but at other times he cited that only as John Ehrlichman's vulnerability, in other words, that he had only checked with John Ehrlichman.

In other words, that didn't always come through the same way. Sometimes it was that he had checked with John Ehrlichman and me before he asked Kalmbach to raise money and at other times he said he had only talked to John Ehrlichman.

Mr. THOMPSON. Do you recall when the last time you discussed this matter with him was the last time he mentioned your possible problems?

Mr. HALDEMAN. The last time I mentioned my possible problem. Mr. THOMPSON. Then he mentioned your possible problems to you in your Camp David conversations when he was there; I believe he went there on March 23, did he not?

Mr. HALDEMAN. March 23, came back on the 28th-no, I am sure, because we had continuing discussions on through the period up to April, I guess up to mid-April so I would guess that this question would have arisen during the course of those discussions at some point. Mr. THOMPSON. Now, of course, from his testimony before this committee and from newspaper stories that leaked out at various periods of time, there have been many other statements made concerning your activities starting back as early as June 1972. When did you first get an indication that he was going to state that you were implicated in other ways besides the two ways that you have mentioned? Mr. HALDEMAN. I guess from the newspaper stories that were reporting what he was supposedly going to tell this committee.

Mr. THOMPSON. Well, were you talking to him during the period of time when his attorney was talking to the assistant U.S. attorneys about his involvement?

Mr. HALDEMAN. Yes. Well, I was during the period during the week of April 8-April 1-during the time we were in San Clemente, and he was in Washington, and he told me that his attorneys had met with the U.S. attorneys in informal sessions, two such sessions in that during that week in April, and he told me what the nature ofgeneral nature, at least, of their discussions had been and he told me, as I said in my statement, that the U.S. attorneys had told his attorneys that they were not concerned with any post-June 17 questions and that they were only concerned with the pre-June 17 problems and that in that area they were not seeking Dean as a principal nor as a target, as apparently they put it, but were seeking him as a witness and that they had indicated to him that they probably would not be seeking me as a witness, even, and had no interest in me as a principal, or target.

Mr. THOMPSON. On April 14 Ehrlichman made his report to the President, is that correct?

Mr. HALDEMAN. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. And Petersen made his report to the President-his findings.

Mr. HALDEMAN. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. On April 17 the President made his statement about major developments having come about, no one in the White House would have immunity, something to that affect, and on April 19 Mr. Dean issued his famous scapegoat statement. What did you take that to mean at the time?

Mr. HALDEMAN. I did not know.

Mr. THOMPSON. Was this any indication

Mr. HALDEMAN. At that time there was no-I did not know why he would feel compelled to make a scapegoat or that he a statement that he would not be a scapegoat.

Mr. THOMPSON. Did he up until that time give you any indication that he was going to make any allegations against you except those two matters with regard to the money?

Mr. HALDEMAN. No, and he did not indicate those as allegations he would make to me. He indicated that he was talking with me on a very cooperative basis as to what he considered to be potential problems, and in the nature, at the time that we were talking about them, of being embarrassments rather than legal problems. But he did say that this could even get to the point of being a legal problem if it developed into a circumstantial chain of, I think he put it, a circumstantial chain of evidence leading to this.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Haldeman, let me ask you one more line of questions. You have in your statement on page 28 the following paragraph where you make some allegations yourself. You say

Moreover, the pranksterism that was envisioned would have specifically excluded such actions as the following: violent demonstrations and disruptions, heckling or shouting down of speakers, burning or bombing campaign headquarters, physical damage or trashing of headquarters and other buildings, harassment of candidates' wives and families by obscenities, disruption of the national convention by splattering dinner guests with eggs and tomatoes, indecent exposure, rock throwing, assaults on delegates, slashing bus tires, smashing windows, setting trash fires under the gas tank of a bus, knocking policemen from their motorcycles.

Do you have any basis for these allegations?

Mr. HALDEMAN. These have all, as I understand it, been documented as specific events and this is not an attempt to make a complete list. It says "such as," and there were a number of others

Mr. THOMPSON. Did you personally

Mr. HALDEMAN. Including one I would have loved to put in here but my lawyers made me take it out for the tender mercies of the television audience, but all of these I have been told are documented incidents that took place. Some of them are incidents which I personally observed so

Mr. THOMPSON. Go down the list, if you will and tell us about the ones of which you have personal knowledge.

Mr. HALDEMAN. Well, the violent demonstrations and disruption I have substantial knowledge of because there was a fairly extensive program of violent demonstration and disruption during President Nixon's campaign at a number of campaign stops. That one of the

more notable examples was in San Francisco at a luncheon appearance at the Palace Hotel, I believe it was, where the violence and activity was such that the entire block in which the Palace Hotel is situated had had to be cordoned off by police and with mounted police. It was in a state of complete siege with men with guns and I believe bayonets, and mounted policemen wearing gas masks. It was quite a scene. I had been widely reported as a movie fan and I took some movies of that because it was sort of a remarkable situation.

During that time there was a considerable amount-I understand a considerable amount of property damage by the demonstrators, breaking windows and that sort of thing, in the general area of the hotel, and I believe that was the time that one of them stabbed a policeman with a knife.

There was almost invariably heckling or shouting down of speakers and specifically the President of the United States, at virtually every public campaign rally during the campaign. There was also an organized group of demonstrators with very unpleasant signs and very vocal lungs that would try to shout down the President as he spoke. A prime example of that, there was sort of, I felt, a tragedy. That was one that took place on the grounds of the Statue of Liberty. This was not a campaign appearance. It was a dedication of an immigration museum on that island where the Statue of Liberty is located and there were demonstrators that had situated themselves, obviously for the benefit of television, right in front of the President and between the President and the television cameras, and they attempted to shout him down and did so quite effectively because they were so close to the microphones that the same microphones he was speaking into, were picking up their shouts and you might remember the newscast of that event because the President, one of the rare times that he did so, directly referred to the demonstrators and made the point that he hoped that the television cameras would include the thousands of people that had gathered there for this ceremony who were there for a constructive purpose instead of just focusing on this small group of people who were trying to disrupt it.

The burning and bombing of campaign headquarters, I have no personal knowledge of, in that I have never been in one that was burned or bombed but there have been a number of news reports and I think official investigations of those and I do not think there is any question of the fact that Nixon headquarters, one of them in Arizona, I believe in Phoenix, was burned down and one in Hollywood on Fairfax Avenue was blown up by a bomb. As a matter of fact, I think that is one where one of the people who brought the bomb in was killed in the explosion.

Physical damage, trashing of headquarters and other buildings, there was a considerable amount of that.

The harassment of candidates' wives and families by obscenities. Mrs. Nixon and Tricia and Julia were subjected to such harassment in very crude form in a number of their public appearances. As you know, they traveled on independent schedules, campaigning on behalf of the President's reelection, and all of these incidents have been, I understand, put together in a documented form and this questionI referred to some of these things at the time I met with the committee staff the first time and I was asked at that time, by the staff, to provide

more information than the general comments that I had to make, and I indicated that I would do so. I requested that this be done and I assume that it has and that the committee-I trust that the staff has received some documentation.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Haldeman, I think we have what we need available. I wanted to know what you knew from personal knowledge and recollection and you are one witness who can address this subject matter. Obviously it is relevant.

Mr. HALDEMAN. I didn't cover the national convention things but I can testify to that, too, as can any of the people who were at the Republican Convention and remember the problems that delegates had in getting to the convention hall because of the slashing of bus tires, threats of violence to delegates, the trash fires under-these were mostly covered, most of them covered on television, so I don't think they are events that are unfamiliar with the American people.

Mr. THOMPSON. You make the statement on page 29, "So far there has been no investigation of these activities and very little publicizing of them." You are in error on the first part. They are being investigated. Mr. HALDEMAN. I am happy to hear that I am in error and welcome being corrected.

Mr. THOMPSON. You say some of these instances took place with the clear knowledge and consent of the opposing candidates in the last election. Do you have any basis for that statement?

Mr. HALDEMAN. I understand there is some in the documentation. The one specific that comes immediately to mind on that is the occasion of a trip to Los Angeles to the Century Plaza Hotel at which there was a very large demonstration staged out in front. The handbills to notify people of this demonstration, of this planned demonstration, where to be, at what time, and that sort of thing, were handed out by the McGovern headquarters and I understand there was a phone call program set up in the McGovern headquarters there for calling people to urge them to come and attend this demonstration.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Haldeman, thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I will reserve any further questions I have until after members of the committee have questioned the witness. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. Were you at the McGovern headquarters?

Mr. HALDEMAN. Pardon me, sir?

Senator ERVIN. Were you at the McGovern headquarters at that time?

Mr. HALDEMAN. No, I was not. This was reported in the newspapers and the manager or one of the officials of the McGovern headquarters issued an apology, an acknowledgment and an apology for that having been done.

Senator ERVIN. Did he acknowledge that he had instigated it?
Mr. HALDEMAN. The manager had?

Senator ERVIN. Yes.

Mr. HALDEMAN. I don't know that he had.

Senator ERVIN. That is the thing. You know, we have had a little demonstration or so here but I haven't consciously staged it.

Now, when did you last see this tape?

Mr. HALDEMAN. Which tape, sir?

Senator ERVIN. Which one was it you saw in July?

Mr. HALDEMAN. The tape of the September 15 meeting.
Senator ERVIN. And when did you see the other one?

Mr. HALDEMAN. I saw the other one or listened to the other one in April, the latter part of April.

Senator ERVIN. Now, the President consented for you to put in your interpretation of these tapes in your statement.

Mr. HALDEMAN. The President authorized me to testify as to my recollection of meetings in which I was present.

Senator ERVIN. Did the President give you consent to put your interpretation of these two tapes in your statement? That is my question.

Mr. HALDEMAN. No sir, not-he specifically gave-authorized me to give my recollection, obviously aided by having listened to the tapes. Senator ERVIN. Wasn't there a little bit of collaboration between you and attorneys for the White House in the preparation of this statement?

Mr. HALDEMAN. I don't know what you mean, Mr. Chairman.

Senator ERVIN. Collaboration. Don't you know what the word collaboration means?

Mr. HALDEMAN. Yes, sir, but I don't know what you mean by collaboration between me

Senator ERVIN. Didn't the attorneys for the President know what was in your statement?

Mr. HALDEMAN. No, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Well, will you please tell me why they put this third paragraph in this letter of July 30, 1973, that, if asked to testify as to facts which he learned about meetings or portions of meetings which he did not attend, but of which he learned solely by listening to a tape recording of such meeting, the President has requested that you inform the committee that Mr. Haldeman has been instructed by the President to decline to testify to such matters, and that the President, in so instructing Mr. Haldeman, is doing so pursuant to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman

Senator ERVIN. Wait a minute. I am asking your witness a question, Mr. Wilson. This is no question of law.

I am asking you why the attorneys for the President wrote such a letter as this and gave it to your lawyer instead of this committee.

Mr. HALDEMAN. I don't know how they knew it. I represented to my attorneys my concern that in preparing my statement I was obviously. of necessity, dealing with matters that covered events, the knowledge of which I had as a result of listening to the tapes, and I asked my attorneys to ascertain for me what requirements I would be under in terms of separation of powers restrictions as to my testimony in that regard.

Senator ERVIN. Isn't the inference irresistible that the attorneys for the White House knew that you had in your statement references to your interpretation of these tapes?

Mr. HALDEMAN. At the time I raised the question I did not have them in my statement, Mr. Chairman. I was trying to determine what to put in my statement and on the other hand what not to put in.

Senator ERVIN. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Haldeman, that you had no communication in any fashion with attorneys for the White House