Mr. LENZNER. With your permission, Senator, we will furnish for the record and for Mr. St. Clair a statement of pertinency and relevency as to each of these questions for further consideration of the committee, if that is agreeable to you. Senator WEICKER. Yes. Mr. ST. CLAIR. It is agreeable to me. Mr. LENZNER. Have you on occasion, as part of your duties as chief of staff at the White House, discussed with other individuals, criminal activities involving individuals? Mr. ST. CLAIR. The witness is instructed not to answer. Mr. LENZNER. I request the direction that the witness answer. Senator WEICKER. I would request the witness to respond to the question as being a proper question. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Respectfully, Senator, the witness is instructed not to respond. Mr. LENZNER. Did you on or about October 18, 1973, telephonically contact Attorney General Richardson and speak to him with regard to an ongoing criminal investigation by the Internal Revenue Service of $100,000 that Charles G. Rebozo had received from the Hughes Tool Co.? Mr. ST. CLAIR. The witness is instructed not to respond. Mr. LENZNER. I request the direction that the witness answer that question. Senator WEICKER. I direct the witness to respond to the question as being a proper question and being within the mandate and purview of this committee. Mr. ST. CLAIR. In the light of the directions of the President, he will not respond. Mr. LENZNER. One last question: As chief of staff since May of 1973, General Haig, have you had occasion to discuss the $100,000 in cash that was furnished Mr. Charles G. Rebozo by the Hughes Tool Co., with Mr. William Frates, Mr. James O'Connor, Mr. Robert Abplanalp, Mr. John Ehrlichman, Mr. H. R. Haldeman, Mr. Herbert Kalmbach, Mr. Frank DeMarco, Mr. Richard Danner, Mr. William Griffin, Mr. Kenneth Gemmill, Miss Rose Mary Woods, Mr. F. Donald Nixon, Mr. Edward Nixon, Mr. John Wilson, Mr. Frank Strickler, Mr. Charles Colson, Mr. David Shapiro, or Mr. Charles G. Rebozo himself? Mr. ST. CLAIR. The witness is instructed not to answer. Mr. LENZNER. Senator, I request that the witness be directed to answer that question. Senator WEICKER. I direct the witness to respond to the question as being a proper question and within the mandate and purview of the committee. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Respectfully, sir, in light of the instructions of the President, we decline to answer. Senator WEICKER. Now, as I understand it, counsel has further questions to ask of the witness. I also understand from counsel for the witness that he would continue to instruct his client not to respond pursuant to the request of the President in his letter of May 1, 1974. Mr. ST. CLAIR. That is correct. Senator WEICKER. I want to indicate to counsel it will be my duty to take the matter before the full committee for whatever determination they can make. Mr. LENZNER. With your permission and Mr. St. Clair's permission, I would like to furnish both the committee and Mr. St. Clair a statement of relevancy of these questions, but also other questions we would have propounded, and a statement of relevancy relating to them. Mr. ST. CLAIR. I will be pleased to receive such a statement. Mr. ST. CLAIR. That is correct. Mr. LENZNER. May I ask you, Mr. St. Clair, are you representing General Haig as counsel? Mr. ST. CLAIR. I am representing the President of the United States as special counsel and this witness in his capacity of chief of staff. Mr. LENZNER. It is my understanding that on May 22 President Nixon issued a statement which indicated: I specifically stated that executive privilege will not be invoked as to any testimony concerning possible criminal conduct or discussions of possible criminal conduct in the matters under investigation. Is it your position or the White House's position that the letter to General Haig of May 1, 1974, amends the President's prior statement relating to executive privilege that I just read? Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, I don't know that I need respond to interrogation, but I have no hesitancy Senator WEICKER. I don't think counsel does have to respond. He has made his position clear. I don't think counsel has to respond. Mr. LENZNER. We will furnish those additional materials for the record. Thank you. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Thank you very much. [Whereupon at 11:30 a.m., the hearing adjourned.] SUNDAY, MAY 5, 1974 U.S. SENATE, SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES, Washington, D.C. The Select Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 5:40 p.m. in suite 300, 900 17th Street NW., Washington, D.C. Present: Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel; Scott Armstrong and Mary DeOreo, investigators. Mr. LENZNER. This is a continuation of previous executive sessions. Mr. Kalmbach has been sworn and continues to testify under oath. Do you understand that, Mr. Kalmbach? Mr. KALMBACH. I do. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Kalmbach, do you have any recollection or can you give us your best recollection regarding any requests for information that Mr. Rebozo may have made of Mr. Jack Gleason with regards to accepting the contribution from a contributor living abroad? TESTIMONY OF HERBERT W. KALMBACH, ACCOMPANIED BY EDWARD P. MORGAN, COUNSEL Mr. KALMBACH. I have a faint recollection, perhaps more of an impression, that I was asked about this inquiry of Mr. Gleason by Mr. Rebozo, and that perhaps I was advised more than asked, of this inquiry. But I have no certainty in my mind as to this inquiry. It is just a faint recollection. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Could you tell us your best recollection as to who asked you about it, or who advised you about it? Mr. KALMBACH. Well, it seems to me that I was talked to by Mr. Gleason, who advised me that Mr. Rebozo had called him and that Mr. Rebozo had asked Mr. Gleason to tell him whether or not it was permissible for foreigners-that is, foreign nationals to make political contributions; and I have the impression-and I have no certainty in this area-but I have the impression that Mr. Gleason's response was that he was not certain himself as to the answer to that, and that is about the extent of my memory of that conversation with Mr. Gleason. But again, I want to underscore it for the record, that I do not have a clear memory on this, and it is just a faint impression. Mr. ARMSTRONG. Can you recall a rough time period when this would have occurred? Mr. KALMBACH. I don't know, but it could be in the 1970, 1971 or the 1970, probably in the 1970 period, although it could have gone into 1971, but more in 1970, or perhaps I don't know. Perhaps this was sometime in 1968. My memory of this is so poor that I just do not have any sort of a precise fix on-gee, even the approximate date of such a conversation. (10855) 31-889 O 74 Bk. 239 Mr. ARMSTRONG. Do you have any recollection regarding the identity, or any of the characteristics of the foreign national that was or about whom, the request had been made? Mr. KALMBACH. No. I don't. I think that Mr. Rebozo, at another time, talked to me again, this is the same quality of an impressiontalked to me about a foreign national making contributions, and he was talking to me about, I think, someone in Europe, a man of affairs in Europe, who perhaps represented people of wealth in Europe. I did not and still do not have a clear memory, or a clear understanding, as to the man's identity, or even the man's nationality, but it was someone that I think he was alluding to, but he was talking to me in a very general way, and I was just noting his comments. But other than that very general impression, I cannot be more responsive. [Discussion off the record.] Mr. LENZNER. Now, Mr. Kalmbach, after you were interviewed by members of the Senate Select Committee staff with regard to a conversation you had with Mr. Rebozo, was communication made to Mr. Rebozo to advise him that the subject of the April 30 meeting had come up? Mr. KALMBACH. Yes, there was a communication to Mr. Rebozo to that effect. Mr. LENZNER. And was a similar communication made to Mr. Rebozo prior to the interview you had with the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, advising Mr. Rebozo that the subject might come up also with them, the subject of the April 30 meeting? Mr. KALMBACH. Yes. The feeling was that the subject might come up. Mr. LENZNER. And to clarify my prior question, as I understand it, Mr. O'Connor called Mr. Rebozo after your interview in October with Mr. Armstrong and myself, basically to advise Mr. Rebozo that the attorney-client privilege did not have to be invoked during the October interview? Mr. KALMBACH. Yes. The purpose of that call was to advise Mr. Rebozo that Mr. Lenzner had requested information relevant to the President's personal bank accounts, and thereby posing a possible attorney-client problem that Mr. Rebozo-and through Mr. Rebozo, the President should be aware of. And also the second purpose of that call was to advise Mr. Rebozo that the attorney-client matter relative to Mr. Rebozo and Mr. Kalmbach had not been raised. Mr. LENZNER. And as I also understand it, the times you did call Mr. Rebozo, prior to your meeting with the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York on the Vesco matter, was also related to your prior interview with the Senate Select Committee and the Special Prosecutor's Office. Is that correct? Mr. KALMBACH. Excuse me, will you restate your question? Mr. LENZNER. Yes. The phone contact that you had with Mr. Rebozo on the April 30 matter that we already asked you about, also related to possible interviews with the Special Prosecutor's Office and with the Watergate Senate Committee. Mr. KALMBACH. That is correct. |