[Clipping: Understanding Nixon and March 21 Meeting] Part: 1 of 2
1 clipping : ill. ; 60 x 38 cm.View a full description of this clipping.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
A 8 Friday, Marches, 1974 THE WASHINGTON POST
Understanding Nixon and March 21 Meeting
Associated Press
Two Ellsberg break-in defendants, Eugenio Martinez, left, their lawyer, Dan Schultz, after pleading innocent, with
and Bernard Barker, center, leave U.S. District Court with two others, to charges stemming from the break-in.
Explanation Seen
OnNixonRemarks
By Lawrence Meyer
Washington Post-Staff Writer
On March 21, 1973, President Nixon
and White House counsel John W.
Dean III met in the President’s Oval
office for 103 minutes—from 10:12 un-
til 11:55 a.m.—according to White
House documents.
That meeting has become central to
the Watergate affair and to an exami-
nation of President Nixon’s possible
criminal involvement in the Watergate
cover-up. Accounts of that landmark
meeting and the events that followed
it, however, are a tangle of disputed
accounts and conflicting interpreta-
| tions. President Nixon’s own state-
ments about the meeting over the past
six months are in conflict with each
other.
According to Mr. Nixon, the meeting
was an eye-opener, his first introduc-
tion to the Watergate cover-up. Ac-
cording to Dean, the meeting was his
last-ditch effort, after previous subtler
attempts had failed, to persuade Presi-
dent Nixon to “get out in front” on the
Watergate affair, end the cover-up and
tell the truth about it to the American
public.
President Nixon has since said that
regardless of the interpretation that
others may put on that meeting after
listening to a tape of it, “I know what I
meant and I also know what I did.”
But if the House Judiciary Committee
does not see the same meaning in his
words and actions on March 21 and the
days that followed, Mr. Nixon could be
| the second President in United States
history to be impeached.
The March 21, 1973, meeting occur-
red in a time of turmoil for the White
House. Acting FBI Director L. Patrick
Gray III was on Capitol Hill testifying
before the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tee, which was considering his nomina-
tion to be permanent director. As
Gray’s hearings wore on, he made dam-
aging admissions about how he had
managed the original Watergate inves-
tigation and about Dean’s role in moni-
toring and perhaps limiting the inves-
tigation. Several committee members
“He told me that that was no prob-
lem,” Dean testified, “and he also
looked over at (White House chief of
staff H. R.) Haldeman and repeated
the same statement. (Dean testified ini-
tially that this discussion occurred on
March 13, but later told the Senate
committee staff that it could have oc-
curred on March 21 as Haldeman
testified.)
In his Aug. 15 statement, President
Nixon makes no mention of his telling
Dean that anything was “wrong”
or improper. That statement, however,
contends that Mr. Nixon was not told
that the money was “hush money.”
On Aug. 22, Mr. Nixon gave another
account of the conversation with Dean.
“My reaction, very briefly was this,”
he told reporters. “ T said, ‘Isn’t it
quite obvious, first, that if it is going
to have any chance to succeed, that
these individuals aren’t going to sit
there in jail for 4 years? They are go-
ing to have clemency; isn’t that cor-
rect?’
“He said, ‘Yes.’
“I said, ‘We can’t give clemency.’ He
agreed. Then, I went to another point.
1 said, ‘The second point is that isn’t it
News Analysis
By Carroll Kilpatrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
CHICAGO, March 14—Presi-
dent Nixon flew here tonight
for a question-and-answer ses-
sion Friday in which he is
expected to try to clear up
contradictory statements he
has made on a key Water-
gate issue.
After the March 6 news con-
ference in which Mr. Nixon
said that in their March 21,
1973, meeting Dean told him
money was being raised to si-
lence Watergate defendants,
White House spokesmen have
said a full explanation of the
The President’s appearance apparent contradiction would
before the Executives’ Club be made ‘all at one time.”
In a prepared statement last
will be broadcast live at 2 .
p.m. over the three major tele-Aug. 15, the. President said, "I
vision networks and over many
was only told that the money
FELIPE DE DIEGO
. . . on personal bond
radio stations.
Chicago’s Democratic Mayor
Richard J. Daley was on hand
at O’Hare International Air-
port to welcome the President
when he landed here. They
drove together to the Conrad
Hilton Hotel, where Mr. Nix-
on will remain overnight and
where the Friday luncheon
meeting will be held.
A White House spokesman
said that Mr. Nixon may use
the occasion to explain why
he said last August that for-
mer White House counsel
John W. Dean III told him
money was paid to Watergate
defendants for attorneys’ fees
and family support but this
month said he was told the
payments were “for the pur-
pose of keeping them (the
defendants) quiet.”
Mr. Nixon appeared to be
embarked on a major cam-
paign to win public support.
In addition to the Chicago
appearance, he will fly to
Nashville Saturday to attend
the Grand Ol’ Opry and to
Houston Tuesday for a ques-
tion-and-answer session with
the National Association of
Broadcasters.
had been used for attorneys’
fees and family support, not
that it had been paid to pro-
cure silence from the recipi-
ents.” /
In an interview with ABC’s
Tom Jarriel, presidential coun-
sel James D. St. Clair said
Wednesday the President may
have misspoken in the press
conference.
St. Clair said that simply be-
cause information has been
Reservation Fire
Kills 4 Persons
FORT TOTTEN, N.D.,
March 14 (AP)—Four persons
have died in a fire at a home
on the Fort Totten Indian Res-
ervation, authorities reported.
given “does not constitute
proof of the fact.” .
“Even an indictment of a
grand jury alleging any such
payments, for example, clearly
is not proof of that fact. This
has to await a trial where the
defendants have a right to call
witnesses and cross-examine
witnesses and the like.”
St. Clair argued that “to
presume the existence of a
fact at this stage seems to me
to be premature. It has not yet
been established, beyond mere
allegation, what those pay-
ments were or the nature of
them.”
When Jarriel asked if the
President misspoke in the
news conference, St. Clair
replied: “To the extent that it
apparently has been so con-
strued, I would say probably
he did.”
St. Clair also said in his in-
terview with Jarriel that sec-
tions have been cut out or de-
leted from some papers in a
White House file.
A few documents in a par-
ticular file, which he did not
identify, “were found to be
very obviously cut,” St. Clair
said.
The deletions were immedi-
ately brought to Watergate
Special Prosecutor Leon Ja-
worski’s attention. Copies
were found of at least one of
the documents in other files
and presented to Jaworski, St.
Clair said.
“We are still looking for
other copies, if they exist, of
some of these other docu-
ments,” St. Clair said.
“Whatever was done and
whoever did it had done it
some time prior to May of last
year,” St. Clair said, explain-
ing that since then all docu-
ments have been “under strict
surveillance of the . . . Secret
Service.”
Asked if it were not logical
to assume that since some pa-
pers were doctored, the presi-
dential tapes also were doc-
tored, St. Clair replied:
“Well, that is a, I think, re-
ally unfair comparison. Any-
thing is possible, of course.
But these papers were not doc-
tored in any surreptitious
way; they were simply sec-
tions of them cut out.”
The President plans to re-
turn to Washington following
his meeting at the Executives’
Club. He will leave Washing-
ton again Saturday afternoon
to fly to Nashville for the per-
formance of the Grand Ol’
Opry..
Mrs. Nixon, who has at-
tended presidential inaugural
ceremonies this week in Vene-
zuela and Brazil, will meet the
President in Nashville and re-
turn to Washington with him
late Saturday.
TV TAT 7 were insisting that Dean be called th
Four Plead testify. called to
. - The Senate select Watergate com-
InnconT in mittee also was gearing up for hear-
ITVEOCCTU - ings that posed a political, if not a le-
— i′ gal, threat to the White House.
Pron k-Tn Plo - Chief U.S. District Judge John J.
Sirica was scheduled to sentence the
I seven original Watergate burglary con-
PLUMBERS, From A1 i spirators on March 23. The seven men
" who had been receiving secret Nixon
ate the rights of Ellsberg’s re-election campaign cash, had up to
psychiatrist, Dr. Lewis that time maintained a stoic silence
Fielding, about their role in the Watergate af-
At the time of the Sep- air-
tember, 1971, burglary, the , soon as Sirica pronounced sen-
men were working for a spe-T nice on them, however, the way
( cial investigative unit set up- would be clear legally for the prosecu-
by President Nixon that) to ring the seven men before the
came to be known as the te eral grand jury and compel their
White House “plumbers. 1 resumony about where their orders
The purpose of the break-inn ao come from and why the break-in
was to acquire information Was conducted. .
On Maich 20, Watergate conspirator
James W. McCord Jr. delivered a let-
ter to Judge Sirica’s chambers alleging
perjury and political pressure during
the trial. When Sirica read the letter'
in the privacy of his chambers, his face
flushed. When he read the letter in
public three days later, it created an
uproar that has not ended.
Dean later testified that shortly be-
fore March 21 he learned that Water-
gate conspirator E. Howard Hunt Jr
wanted $122,000 and that if he did not
receive it, “he would reconsider his op-
tions and have a lot to say about the
seamy things” he had done while at
the White House.
about Pentagon Papers co-
defendant Ellsberg through
his psychiatrist’s files.
Barker is free on bond
pending appeal of his at-
■ tempt to change his plea in
the original Watergate case
from guilty to innocent,
Martinez has served one
year in jail and is on parole,
and De Diego was placed on
personal bond in this case,
the first in which he has
been charged.
Most of the 45-minute ar-
raignment was taken up by
maneuvering among lawyer
in the setting of dates to file
motions in the burglary
case. Judge Gesell set May 1
for the filing of pretrial
motions, and said he would
set a trial date after then.
Gesell asked the lawyers
to file papers within 10 days
on whether they feel the
conspiracy count against all
six defendants should be
tried separately from four
other counts against Ehrl-
ichman. He is charged in
those counts with making
false statements to a grand
jury and'to the FBI.
Before Judge Pratt, Liddy
again stood at attention and
boomed out “not guil.ty” to
the contempt charges. He is
charged with refusing to be
sworn and refusing to testi-
fy before a House sub-
commitee investigating con-
nections between the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency and
the Watergate break-in.
Pratt set a further hear-
ing on the contempt case for
April 19,
Among the “seamy things” that
Hunt could reveal was the Ellsberg
break-in and the fabrication of cables
attempting to link President Kennedy
to the assassination of South Vietnam-
ese President Ngo Dinh Diem.
“I felt that I had to lay the facts out
for the President as well as the impli-
cation of those facts,” Dean later testi-
fied. At 7:29 p.m. on March 20, accord-
ing to the records or logs of Presiden-
| tial meetings and phone calls main-
tained by the White House, Mr. Nixon
called Dean.
They spoke for 14 minutes. Dean
said he told Mr. Nixon that they
should talk about the Watergate affair.
An appointment was made for 10 a.m.
the following day.
“On that occasion,” President Nixon
said in his press conference last March
6, “soon after his arrival, (Dean) said
that he wanted to tell me some things
that he had not told me about the
Watergate matter.
“And for the first time on March 21
he told me that payments had been
made to defendants for the purpose of
keeping them quiet, not simply for
their defense.
Ex-Aide Denies ‘Bag Man’ Role
MITCHELL, From Al
today that, when he accom-
panied Vesco a month earli-
er to Stans’ office when the
money was pledged, Vesco
had not told him before-
hand that the money was
for a fix.
He had thought, he insist-
ed, that “it was Vesco’s in-
tention to go down there
and talk about a large con-
tribution.”
Wednesday, he described
how Stans not only talked
about his proposal to give
a half-million dollars, but
about the SEC’s year-long
investigation of him and his
companies.
Richardson said today that
afterward he told Vesco
that Vesco was clever “to
ask for help without asking
for help.”
Further questioning of
Richardson did not clarify
the apparent inconsistency
between his insistence that
he was not a “bag man” and
the fact that he delivered
Vesco’s money,and a mes-
sage to Stans.
Attempts by Bonner and
Peter E. Fleming Jr., one
of Mitchell’s attorneys, to
“crack” Richardson’s testi-
mony were mostly fended
off by Richardson, a 51-year-
old former Navy pilot who
had obviously been well pre-
pared by the prosecution.
Richardson, whose appear-
ance in the U.S. Attorney’s
office here on Feb. 4, 1972,
started this case, told Flem-
ing that he had made 65 ap-
pearances at the courthouse
prior to today, before two
grand juries and the prose-
cutors.
As Bonner and Fleming
tried to trip Richardson on
the testimony he had given
for the prosecution, Rich-
ardson coolly smiled and re-
sponded in level tones. At
one point, he stopped Flem-
ing and asked to have the
record of his testimony read
back to him before he re-
sponded to a question.
In his direct testimony,
Richardson added to his de-
scription of Vesco’s attempts
to stop the SEC investiga-
tion.
Richardson said he had
tried to see Stans after the
contribution had been deliv-
ered, at Vesco’s request, but
Stans refused.
Stans’ secretary, said Rich-
ardson, told him that “she
had talked to Mr. Stans and
. . . had been given a mes-
sage for me which was that
Mr. Vesco ought to take up
his problems with Mr. Mitch-
ell directly and that he
didn’t want to see me. . . .”
Richardson was president
of International Controls
Corp., at a salary of $75,000
a year, while Vesco was its
chairman.
At one point, said Richard-
son, New Jersey poli-
tician and Vesco associate
Harry L. Sears told him and
Vesco that “there was no
sense of talking to (SEC
Chairman William J. Casey)
anymore, that he was com-
pletely lined up with the
SEC staff and convinced
that Vesco was a bad guy and
that there was little hope to
get any sympathy or any op-
portunity for a settlement
with the SEC at any level.”
Richardson said that Vesco
also attempted to influence
the case through presiden-
tial aides John D. Ehrlich-
also quite obvious, as far as this is con-
cerned, that while we could raise the
money, . . . the problem was, how do •
you get the money to them, and also
how do you get around the problem of
clemency, because they are not going
to stay in jail simply because their
families are being taken care of. And
so, that was why I concluded, as Mr.
Haldeman recalls perhaps, and did
testify very effectively, one, when I
said, ‘John, it is wrong, it won’t work.
We can’t give clemency and we have to
get this story out.’ ”
On March 6, 1974, Mr. Nixon gave
another version of his conversation
with Dean: “I examined at great
length, we examined all of the options
at great length during our discussion.
And we considered them on a tentative
basis, every option, as to what the de-
fendants would do, as to who in the
White House might be involved and
other information that up to that time
had not been disclosed to me by Mr.
Dean.
“Then we came to what I con-
sidered to be the bottom line. I
pointed out that raising the money,'
paying the money was something that
could be done. But I pointed out that
was linked to clemency, that no indi-
vidual is simply going to stay in jail
because people are taking care of his
family or his counsel, as the case
might be, and that unless a promise of
clemency was made that the objective
of so-called hush money would not be
achieved. I am paraphrasing what was
a relatively long conversation.
“I then said that to pay clemency
(sic) was wrong. In fact, Ithink I can
quote it directly. I said, ‘It is wrong,
that’s for sure.’ Mr. Haldeman was
present when I said that. Mr. Dean
was present. Both agreed with my con-
clusion.”
Mr. Nixon did not explain on March
6 what he meant by “we examined all
the options,” and whether the decision
was made on moral, legal or pragmatic
grounds
Haldeman had testified last summer
before the Senate Watergate commit-
tee, as President Nixon noted, that Mr.
Nixon had told Dean on March 21 that
it would be no problem raising $1 mil-
lion, “but it would be wrong.”
Haldeman was asked by Sen. How-
ard H. Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.) vice chair-
man of the committee, if he was sure
that a tape recording of the meeting,
to which Haldeman said he had lis-
tened, shows Mr. Nixon saying “but it
would be wrong.”
“I am absolutely positive that the
tapes .. ” Haldeman began to reply.
“Did you hear it with your own
voice?” Baker interrupted.
“With my own ears, yes,” Haldeman
replied.
The federal grand jury investigating
the Waterate affair was given access to
the March 21 tape. One of the counts it
included in the Watergate cover-up in-
dictment returned last March 1
charges that Haldeman perjured him-
self when he said the tape shows Mr.
Nixon saying “but it would be wrong.”
President Nixon commented indirect-
ly on the perjury charge against Halde-
man during the March 6 press confer-
ence. “Now,” Mr. Nixon said, “when in-
dividuals read the entire transcript of
the 21st meeting or hear the entire
tape where we discuss all these op-
tions, they may reach different inter-
pretations. But I know what I meant
and I know also what I did. I meant
the whole transaction was wrong.”
Nevertheless, the indictment re-
John D. Ehrlichman to discuss “the
best way to get the ' story out” concern-
ing the Watergate affair.
On March 22, these men met twice—
first without Mr. Nixon and then later,
with him. Dean later testified that the
meeting with Mr. Nixon “did not ac-
complish anything,” that it “was al-
most exclusively on the subject of
how the White House should posture
itself vis-a-vis the (Watergate) com-
mittee hearings” and “there was abso-
lutely no indication of any changed
attitude ..."
All of the participants in the meet-
ing on March 22 have agreed in their
public testimony that the discussion
was not about the facts of the cover-up
but rather on where the story should
be told—the grand jury, the Senate
committee or some other forum-and
how it should be presented.
Yet during his televised speech on
the Watergate affair on April 30 1973
Mr. Nixon said, “On March 21 I per-
sonally assumed the responsibility for
coordinating intensive new inquiries
into the matter and I personally or-
dered those conducting the investiga-
tions to get all the facts and to report
them directly to me, right here in this ,
office.”
Nothing in the public record indi-
cates that any “intensive- new inquir-
ies” were undertaken, however. None
of the persons who were responsible
for handling the Watergate investiga-
tion-Attorney General Richard G.
Kleindienst, Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral Henry E. Petersen and acting FBI
director Gray — recalled any order
from Mr. Nixon “personally” to report
to him “directly.”
Indeed, none of those officials testi-
fied—nor has Mr. Nixon claimed—that
he ever told them what he learned on
March 21. President Nixon comments
at his March 6, 1974 press conference
make clear that he understood the le-
gal implications of paying money to
keep the defendants silent. Why did he
fail to tell Justice Department offi-
cials of the hush money?
“I felt it was my responsibility,” Mr.
Nixon said during his March 6 press
conference, “to conduct my own inves-
tigation with all of the assistance I
could get from those who could pro-
vide information before moving to
what would be a proper way of getting
this story out to the country.”
That statement does not explain Mr.
Nixon’s failure to communicate to the
Justice Department what Dean had
told him, but it does reiterate his as-
sertion that he saw the need to get “all
of the assistance I could get from
those who could provide informa-
tion . . ."
In searching the public record, three
examples can be found of Mr. Nixon
seeking outside assistance for his in-
vestigation.
Mr. Nixon said during his Aug. 22
press conference that he communi-
cated to Kleindienst, through Ehrlich-
man (not “personally” as Mr. Nixon
said earlier) “to report to me directly
anything that he found in this particu-
lar area.” He said the contact was
made March 27 — six days after the
meeting with Dean.
Mr. Nixon said during the same Aug.
22 press conference that on March 29,
1973, he told Ehrlichman to “continue
the investigation that Dean was unable
to conclude.” Ehrlichman, while testif-
^ying before the Senate committee, de-
elined to call his effort an investiga-
tion, saying that it was merely an
“inquiry.”
The third example Mr. Nixon has -
cited of an investigation was his re-
newal of a request to Dean to com-
plete a report on the Watergate affair.
Dean testified that Mr. Nixon sug-
gested on March 23 that Dean go to
Camp David to relax. When he arrived
there, Dean said, Haldeman called him
to tell him to write a report on
“everything I knew about Watergate.”
Haldeman, however, testified that
Dean was told during the March 22
meeting to write the report in order to
avoid a “piecemeal” release of infor-
mation. It was decided, Haldeman said,
“there should first be a complete re-
port put out by the White House pre-
pared by Dean covering all of the
facts, so that what all of us would say
would already be known in one place
rather than having bits and pieces out
over a period of time.”
Dean was told, Haldeman said, “to
prepare a full written report for public
release regarding the facts as they
were known to him and as they in any
way involved anyone in the White
House.”
Dean testified that he returned from
Camp David on March 28, at Halde-
man’s insistence, to meet with Mitchell
and with former deputy Nixon cam-
paign manager Jeb Stuart Magruder.
Dean returned from Camp David with
a draft report, but avoided turning it
over to Haldeman, Ehrlichman or Pres-
ident Nixon.
“When I came down from Camp
David,” he testified, “there was no
doubt in my mind that I wasn’t going
to give them any further information
with which they could play the cover-
up game.”
Mr. Nixon has failed to explain why
on March 29 he selected Ehrlichman —
whom Dean had included as one of the
White House aides who could be in-
dicted — to conduce what he called
the “investigation.
Ehrlichman testified that he con-
cluded his “inquiry” and gave Mr.
Nixon an oral report on April 14. The
next day, Attorney General Klein-
dienst and Assistant Attorney General
Petersen briefed Mr. Nixon on new ev-
idence that the Watergate prosecutors
had gathered indicating a massive
cover-up. -
Kleindienst told the Senate Water-
gate committee that Mr. Nixon, when
he heard the news, “was just very up-
set about it and he was very concerned
about it and he was very hurt by it and
he was very troubled by it.”
According to Kleindienst, Mr. Nixon
gave no indication that Dean or any-
one else had told him before what
Kleindienst and Petersen were report-
ing.
It is the events of March 21 and the
days immediately preceding and fol-
lowing it as much anything, that the
House Judiciary Committee will ex-
amine and weigh carefully in the
course of determining whether Presi-
dent Nixon should be impeached.
“If it had been simply for their de- turned March 1 charges that after the
fense, that would have been proper, I meeting, at about 12:30 p.m. on March
understand, but if it was for the pur- 21, Haldeman talked by telephone with
pose of keeping them quiet—you de- former Attorney General John N.
scribe it as hush money—that of Mitchell and that Mitchell .then had
I course would have been an obstruction a phone conversation with Frederick
of justice.” C. LaRue, an official of the Nixon re-
That description of what he learned election committee. That same eve-
i March 21, 1973 is at variance with ning, the indictment states, LaRue
B other statements President Nixon had arranged for the delivery of $75,00u
made earlier about the meeting. . in cash” to Hunt’s lawyer.
LaRue testified before the Senate
committee: “I got a phone call from
Mr. Dean. Mr. Dean stated that he had
—I think he had had a conversation
with Mr. O’Brien (Paul O’Brien, a law-
yer for the Nixon re-election
committee) in which Mr. O’Brien had
told him that there was a need for $75,-
000 asserted that by Mr. Bittman
(William 0. Bittman, Hunt’s lawyer)
for attorney’s fees. I asked Mr. Dean if
I should indeed make a delivery of
this money. He said that he was out
of the money business, that he was ho
longer going to be involved in it and
that he would not, you know, I would
whether to make the payment or not.”
have to use my own judgment as to
How was the payment ordered? Did
President Nixon give any explicit or-
ders to Haldeman concerning payment
or nonpayment of funds to Hunt on
March 21? What did Haldeman discuss
with Mitchell?
Some of these questions may be an-
swered when Haldeman, Mitchell and
the five other accused Watergate
cover-up conspirators are tried.
President Nixon said at his March 6
press conference that he ordered a
meeting of Dean, Mitchell, Haldeman
and top presidential domestic adviser
In a prepared statement released on
Aug. 15, 1973, President Nixon said of
the March 21 meeting: “I was told then
that funds had been raised for pay-
ments to the defendants, with the
knowledge and approval of persons on
the White House staff and at the
(Nixon) re-election committee.
“But I was only told that the money
man and the late Murray
Chotiner. He did not specify had been used for attorneys’ fees and
how or whether successful family support, not that it had been
contracts were made.
At another point, said
Richardson, Vesco was sub-
paid to procure silence from the recipi-
ents.”
A week later, during a press confer-
poenaed by the SEC and "ence on Aug. 22, President Nixon gave
- was “completely agitated another version of what he learned:
and emotional.” Vesco told 1 “Basically, what Mr. Dean was con-
Sears, he said, that “Sears cerned about on March 21 was not so
much the raising of money for the de-
fendants, but the raising of money for
the purpose of keeping them still—in
other words, so-called hush money.”
Dean’s account of the March 21
meeting gives no indication that Mr
Nixon said anything was “wrong” or
improper about paying the money.
Dean said he told President Nixon
“that there were money demands be-
ing made by the seven convicted de-
fendants.” Dean said he told Mr. Nixon
that it might take as much as $1 mil-
lion to meet the demands.
had better get hold of Mit-
chell 'or anybody else he
could and tell him to have -
that thing quashed and if
they didn’t to tell them that
he was going to blow the'
lid off the whole thing.”
He said the whole thing
“meant the $200,000 contri-
bution matter.”
Friday, two campaign
aides to Stans are expected
to testify—Daniel Hofgren
and Hugh W. Sloan.
Upcoming Parts
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This clipping can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this part or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current part of this Clipping.
Meyer, Lawrence. [Clipping: Understanding Nixon and March 21 Meeting], clipping, March 15, 1974; Washington, D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1661360/m1/1/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Texas Southern University.