Senator Howard Baker Asks John Dean a Key Question (1973)

for our own committee purposes. Now, there's one other thing I'd like to say, and it may or may not be possible to do this. And again, I'm not being critical of you as a witness, as I said just a moment ago, I think you've been a very remarkable witness. But when I used to practice law, I used to call on the trial judge from time to time to instruct the witness to first answer the question and then to explain it. So I hope I can keep my questions brief, and I hope you might preface your answers with the yes or no, if that's possible, and then whatever explanation you wish. That is not meant to be an entrapment. It is not, do you still beat your life question and answer yes or no? But it is meant to try to advance the cause of fact finding. After the hitting of what did the President know, and when did he know it, fall several subdivisions.

The first one is the break-in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters of the Water Gate complex on the morning of June 17, 1972. Do you know what the President knew of that in advance? I do not. Do you have any information that he did know of it? I only know that I learned on my return to the office that events had occurred, that indicated that calls had come from Kivas Gaines to Washington, to Mr. Strong, to destroy incriminating documents in the possession of Mr. Hallerman. The question is I hope not impossibly narrow, but your testimony touches many people. It touches Mr. Erlichman, Mr. Hallerman, Mr. Colson, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Dean, and many others. But I am trying to focus on the President. What did the President know and when did he know it?

Is it possible for you to say that based on direct knowledge or circumstantial information and you've given us an indication of circumstances, or even hearsay? Can you tell us whether or not you can shed any further light on whether the President knew or in the parlance of tort law should have known of the break-in of the Water Gate complex on June 17? Do you mean did he have prior knowledge of it? Yes. I cannot testify of any first-hand knowledge of that. I can only testify as to the fact that anything that came to Mr. Hallerman's attention of any importance was generally passed to the President by Mr. Hallerman, and if Mr. Hallerman had advanced knowledge or had received advanced indications, it would be my assumption that that had been passed along, but I do not know that for a fact.

So that would fall in category two of my organization. That is an inference that you do draw from the arrangements of the organization of the White House and your knowledge of the relationship between Mr. Hallerman and the President. That is correct, but it does not fall into category one or three, which is to say direct knowledge or hearsay information from another part. That is correct. The cover-up is the second heading. And of course the cover-up embraces and involves so many things and so many people over such a span of time that it's difficult really to place it in a single category, but I'd like to try. What did the President know and when did he know it about the cover-up? Now, you've already testified about this, Mr. Dean, and I understand I believe the burden of your testimony, the thrust of your testimony, but for the sake of clarity and

understanding and organization of this record, tell me briefly, based on your personal knowledge based on circumstantial evidence or based even on hearsay, what the President knew and when he first knew it. I would have to start back from personal knowledge, and that would be when I had a meeting on September 15th when we discussed what was very clear to me in terms of cover-up. We discussed in terms of delaying lawsuits, compliments to me on my efforts to that point, discussed timing and trials because didn't want them to occur before the election. That was direct conversation that I testified to.

Going back from September 15th, back to the June 17th time, I believe I have testified to countless occasions in which I have reported information to Mr. Holman and Mr. Erlichman, made recommendations to them regarding Mr. McGruder. I was aware of the fact that often Mr. Holman took notes, I know that Mr. Holman met daily with the President. I was quite aware of the fact that this was one of the most important and virtually the only issue that was really developing at all and given the normal reporting channels I worked through. It was my assumption without questioning that this was going into the President.