The Newest Daytime Drama

The brisk young Nixon men. The brusquely efficient cop. The precise and credible-sounding veteran of the CIA and FBI. All contented with their anonymity only a year ago, they now slipped one by one into a central seat facing seven U.S. Senators ranged along a green-felt-covered table. They braced as the red signal lights of the television cameras blinked on -- and then they be came instant principals in a fateful na tional drama in which the political survival of the President is at stake.

The Watergate story was now being dramatized under the klieg lights of the crowded Senate Caucus Room and thrust into the living rooms of America. Figuratively, the testimony represented at least half a dozen sticks of dynamite that could blow the scandal skyhigh. The fuses were lit, and the first reached flash point as Convicted Wiretapper James W. McCord Jr. directly accused Richard Nixon of participating in attempts to conceal the involvement of his closest political associates in the sordid and still-spreading affair.

New Forum. Although he had been quizzed repeatedly by Justice Department investigators and a federal grand jury in Washington, McCord, who is fighting to stave off a long prison sentence, saved his charges against the President for a new and formidable forum: the hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. McCord did not claim that he had had any direct communication with the President before or after the bugging and burglarizing of Democratic National Headquarters at the Water gate last June 17. Always, McCord's allegations of presidential concern involved word from an intermediary.

Coolly composed, the former Government agent spun out a tale of Washington intrigue sprinkled with specific details of secret meetings on a scenic outlook over the Potomac, pay-booth telephone calls from a stranger, an implied threat against his life.

The testimony was unreeled without the careful restraints of a court of law.

As members of the Senate committee headed by North Carolina Democrat Sam Ervin Jr. emphasized, the committee is not charged with determining the legal guilt of any individual. One of its purposes, declared Chairman Ervin, is to help dispel the Watergate-created "black cloud of distrust over our entire society." Most wholly in the shadow is the White House.

Even as McCord was trying to forge new links between Nixon and the conspiracy to conceal the scandal, new revelations made it increasingly difficult to believe that the President could have remained totally unaware of the cover-up attempts. They were so pervasive, involving the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department, that if he did not know about them, he was guilty of neglect bordering on incompetence--an accusation few have ever leveled at the superbly organized Chief Executive.

After contending for eight months that he had ordered his counsel, John W. Dean III, to conduct a thorough White House investigation of any high-level involvement in Watergate or its cover-up and that Dean's report cleared everyone at the White House, Nixon authorized Press Secretary Ronald Ziegler to provide some revealing modifications of the stand. Nixon never talked to Dean about the matter, Ziegler said, but sent directions through John Ehrlichman, the President's chief domestic-affairs adviser, for an investigation.

Dean's "report" came back verbally from Ehrlichman. The White House explanation followed Dean's insistence that he had never made such a report to the President (TIME, May 21) and that the limited checking he did would not warrant the original conclusion announced by Nixon.

Further, TIME has learned that former Acting FBI Director L. Patrick Gray III hid in his office safe evidence that would have more speedily revealed the identities and the CIA connections of Wiretappers G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt Jr. shortly after the Watergate burglary. A Justice Department official contends that the CIA gave Gray details of the disguises, aliases and false identification papers that it had supplied Liddy and Hunt in 1971, when they worked for the White House in the clandestine investigation of Pentagon Papers Defendant Daniel Ellsberg. After the Watergate breakin, FBI agents were tediously checking out the false names used by Hunt and Liddy--Edward Hamilton and George Leonard --although Gray already knew their real identity. The CIA documents were marked top secret, so Gray locked them up. They were found by FBI officials in Gray's safe after he resigned on April 27. Gray may be indicted by the Watergate grand jury for obstructing justice.

However damaging to the White House those developments may be, it was the testimony of James McCord before the Ervin committee that created the most controversy last week. Five of the seven men arrested in the Watergate break-in pleaded guilty and have never had to face public questioning.

Liddy, the epitome of the silent secret agent, pleaded innocent but resisted all efforts to get him to talk fully about the operation. Convicted along with Liddy, McCord also said nothing at first.

After Judge John J. Sirica sentenced Liddy to up to 20 years and the others to even stiffer terms, but with the promise that he would review the penalties if they spoke up, Liddy remained mum and received an additional sentence for contempt of court. McCord took the suggestion to heart, and he wrote Sirica, charging that higher authorities had been involved in a coverup. With that, the whole attempt at concealment began to collapse.

Almost from the time of his arrest, McCord testified last week, certain authorities within the White House waged a campaign of pressure, promises and threats to shut him up. This, testified McCord, was the chronology:

P: July 1972. An unstamped note was slipped into the mailbox at McCord's house in Rockville, Md. It was signed "Jack," and came from John Caulfield, a former White House staff assistant who had worked under John Ehrlichman, mainly as a liaison with law enforcement agencies. The note suggested three times at which McCord could go to a pay phone "on Route 355 near the Blue Fountain Inn" and expect a call from Caulfield. McCord went to the booth, got a call from a man with a "New York accent" who said: "Jack will want to talk with you shortly. He will be in touch with you soon." McCord returned home and later got a call from the intermediary telling him to return to the phone booth. Caulfield called McCord there, said that he was going overseas but if McCord had "any problems," he should call Caulfield's home and "ask for Mr. Watson." Caulfield would return the call from overseas. But McCord never saw a need to call.

P: Jan. 8, 1973. McCord received word from his attorney, Gerald Alch, that "a friend" McCord had known at the White House would call that night.

Shortly after midnight, McCord was called by "an unidentified individual" who directed him to the same phone booth. When he arrived at the booth, the stranger read him this message:

"Plead guilty. One year is a long time #91;but#93; you will get Executive clemency.

Your family will be taken care of and when you get out you will be rehabilitated and a job will be found for you.

Don't take immunity when called before the grand jury.quot; McCord's only response was that he--the expert who had bugged the Watergate phones--would not talk about the case over the telephone.

P: Jan. 12. On telephoned instructions from the same stranger, McCord met Caulfield quot;at the second overlookquot; on the George Washington Memorial Parkway along the Potomac. They talked in Caulfield's car. This was after McCord's Watergate trial had got under way. Caulfield said he had an offer to grant Executive clemency to McCord if he would change his plea to guilty and remain silent. The offer, said Caulfield, was quot;from the very highest levels of the White House.quot; He added that Nixon had been told of Caulfield's impending meeting with McCord and would be immediately informed of the outcome. Then Caulfield put in the zinger: quot;I may have a message to you at our next meeting from the President himself.quot; McCord said that he would not consider either a guilty plea or any offer of clemency.

P: Jan. 14. The two met again on the Potomac overlook, and Caulfield warned: quot;The President's ability to govern is at stake. Another Teapot Dome scandal is possible, and the Government may fall. Everybody else is on track but you. You are not following the game plan. You seem to be pursuing your own course of action. Do not talk if called before the grand jury; keep silent and do the same if called before a congressional committee.quot; But McCord reiterated that he would not make any deal.

P: Jan. 25. McCord and Caulfield met and drove toward Warrenton, Va., in Caulfield's car. Caulfield again offered Executive clemency, financial support for McCord's family while he served what would be a short prison term, and a job when he got out. McCord said that he would not keep quiet and planned to talk publicly about the case "when I was ready." Warned Caulfield: "You know that if the Administration gets its back to the wall, it will have to take steps to defend itself." Testified McCord: "I took that as a personal threat, and I told him that I had had a good life, that my will was made out, and that I had thought through the risks and would take them when I was ready."

Dirty Business. Caulfield, a former New York City police detective who joined Nixon's 1968 presidential campaign staff as chief of security, is now a $31,200-a-year Treasury Department official in charge of enforcing laws regulating firearms, alcohol and tobacco. He issued a press statement saying that McCord had tried "fully and fairly" to recall their conversations, but that he disagreed with the testimony in some unspecified respects. Still, he conceded, "it is true that I met with Mr. McCord on three occasions in January and conveyed to him certain messages from a high White House official."

There are, however, significant differences between McCord's testimony before the Ervin committee and what Caulfield has in the past told the Watergate grand jury. Caulfield testified that he conveyed an offer from Counsel John Dean to McCord under which McCord might be given clemency after a short prison term, as well as an amount of money, if he remained quiet. But this was only done, Caulfield insisted, because McCord had asked for such help from the White House and had threatened to tell all he knew if it were not given. If true, Caulfield's version does not make the White House offers any more proper, but it confuses the matter of who first suggested dealing in this dirty business.

Reversing a declaration that the White House would have no comment on the various daily allegations made at the Senate hearings, Presidential Press Secretary Ronald Ziegler issued a flat denial of Nixon's involvement: "Mr. Nixon did not participate in any way or have any knowledge regarding the cover-up and at no time authorized anyone to represent him in offering Executive clemency."

Beyond his attempts to implicate the President in the coverup, the assured and incisive McCord repeatedly asserted that former Attorney General John Mitchell had helped plan, approve and supervise a threefold campaign of political intrigue: electronic bugging, clandestine photography and political espionage. Again McCord's information came from others, mainly Hunt and Liddy, and thus was hearsay.

Quoting Liddy, McCord claimed that Mitchell had received the fruits of the burglarizing team's first foray into the Watergate, last May 27. The haul included photographs of Democratic documents as well as illegally intercepted telephone conversations. Liddy told him, McCord testified, that Mitchell "liked the 'takes' [photos]" of documents and wanted more of them made. The burglars returned to the Watergate on June 17 to repair one telephone tap that was not working properly and also because "Mr. Mitchell wanted a room bug installed in Mr. O'Brien's office in order to transmit not only telephone conversations but conversations out of the room itself." Lawrence O'Brien was then chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

There will be much more drama ahead in the Senate Caucus Room as other witnesses face Sam Ervin's panel. In the first two days of hearings, the committee performed impressively. The seven Senators and two staff counsel displayed a commendable capacity to be both considerate of the witnesses and tough on vague answers. Lawyers all and unrestricted by courtroom rules of evidence, the interrogators constitute a fearsome array of antagonists for any witness who might try to sustain any lies. Equally merciless are the TV cameras, which reveal the slightest hesitation in answering or telltale signs of discomfort and deceit.

Senate Styles. As the hearings continue, the distinctive styles of the Senators will become as familiar as those of celebrated TV performers. After stumbling over a difficult word ("incredulity") in a written statement, Sam Ervin at times seemed like a drawling humbler, but he also proved to be a shrewd chairman capable of suddenly shifting into the most penetrating questions.

Easily the most relaxed and polished interrogator was the committee's vice chairman, Tennessee Republican Howard H. Baker Jr. He grinned readily at unexpected or tight-hearted answers, but bore in effectively to clarify testimony. Florida Republican Edward J. Gurney, senatorially handsome, used a deep and resonant voice to pose well-reasoned and sequential follow-up questions. Hawaii Democrat Daniel K. Inouye, almost as melodious but terser, intoned crisp, relevant queries. Readiest with information of his own was Connecticut Republican Lowell P. Weicker Jr., who may turn out to be the roughest and most combative of the commit tee members. Georgia Democrat Herman E. Talmadge scowled frequently but talked the least, while New Mexico Democrat Joseph M. Montoya seemingly had not always heard previous answers. Minority Counsel Fred D. Thompson was grimly aggressive and quick thinking.

Chief Counsel Samuel Dash seemed well-organized and fully competent. An expert on wiretapping (he wrote a scholarly study called The Eavesdroppers), he has supervised the interrogation of more than 100 prospective witnesses to prepare for the TV testimony.

Much of the early testimony was devoted to demonstrating that the Committee for the Re-Election of the President was heavily staffed with former White House aides and continually supervised by the White House. The lead-off witness, Robert C. Odle Jr., the committee's former director of administration, testified that key decisions were made at the White House by Haldeman, who kept in touch with the committee's activities through an assistant, Gordon Strachan. Equally influential in directing the committee, Odle said, was Mitchell, who was receiving all major decision memos long before he left the Attorney General's office to head the committee. The Senators were establishing the point that any improper activities by the Nixon committee could have been authorized by the Attorney General or White House officials.

The questioning of Odle concentrated on the temporary removal of some files from the office of Jeb Stuart Magruder, deputy director of the Nixon committee, just hours after the Watergate arrests. Odle conceded that he and a Magruder assistant, Robert Reisner, jointly talked by telephone to Magruder in California on that day. Although Odle's memory of details was vague, he said Magruder had asked that the files be removed over the weekend for safekeeping. Reisner gave Odle one file, which Odle claimed he never examined.

Senator Baker suggested that this file might have been labeled "Gemstone," and contained typed summaries of the wiretapped conversations of Democrats at the Watergate. (Gemstone was the code word for these summaries.) Odle said that he did not know if this was a Gemstone file, but admitted that it probably contained "things which have no place in a political campaign." If it was a Watergate wiretap record, of course, that would further confirm that Jeb Magruder had had advance knowledge of the illegal operation. He has admitted lying to the grand jury in denying that he knew in advance about the Watergate bugging and helped to plan it, but he has also claimed that Mitchell asked him to perjure himself in the coverup.

Odle was needled by a typical Ervin question when he tried to explain that his office had a number of paper shredders, mainly to dispose of potentially revealing scraps of paper. Asked Ervin: "Was he [Liddy] the man ordinarily charged with the duty of disposing of wastepaper?" As the crowded Senate Caucus Room filled with more laughter, Odle conceded that it now appears that Liddy was in charge of intelligence operations for the Nixon committee and that Liddy had shredded documents related to intelligence activities a few hours after the Watergate burglary was discovered.

What the Ervin committee hones to develop is a chain of evidence in which witnesses--generally following the ascending order of official authority--will corroborate the charges of those who testified before them. Thus much of McCord's hearsay testimony may be verified by the next witness, Caulfield.

Further verification may come from E. Howard Hunt, the mystery-writing novelist and former CIA agent who is scheduled to be an early witness. McCord said that Hunt also passed the word from on high that the convicted men would get payoffs and Executive clemency in return for clamming up.

Liddy, who is McCord's chief source of information that the Watergate bugging was plotted by Administration high-ups, will probably remain silent, as he has since the start. That could cost Liddy still another contempt sentence, this one from the Ervin committee.

Fall Guy. If Nixon had knowledge of the coverup, this probably could be verified by John Mitchell, whose career has been shattered by his work for the President. If faced with the possibility of a jail term, Mitchell could conceivably lose interest in protecting Nixon.

Mitchell adopted one of his wife Martha's habits last week by getting on a telephone to U.P.I.'s Helen Thomas. He indicated that he was not referring to the President, but he declared: "Somebody is trying to make me the fall guy, but it is not going to work."

Martha, meanwhile, again held an impromptu press conference on the streets of Manhattan. "John Mitchell was the honest one in the whole lousy bunch," she said in a tense drawl. "And whom do you think he has been protecting? Mr. President he has been protecting--under no uncertain circumstances. They tried to make my husband the fall guy, but he's the good guy."

Martha had undergone medical treatment the week before (TIME, May 21).

She spent one night at a friend's house in the suburbs, then went to what other friends call "a resort-type place" for at least six days, and made a return to Manhattan on Mother's Day.

The men who know most about Nixon's possible involvement are Ehrlichman and Haldeman, the two aides whom the President praised lavishly even as he told them that they must resign. They undoubtedly will deny that Nixon knew anything about any coverup, but how they will explain many of their own activities is a mystery.

New disclosures reflected adversely on both of them last week. Ehrlichman's White House office safe was found to contain the missing FBI wiretap records of an intercepted telephone conversation of Daniel Ellsberg that contributed to the dismissal of all charges against him in the Pentagon papers case. Fed eral Judge William Matthew Byrne Jr. had repeatedly demanded the record, to determine if the evidence against Ellsberg was "tainted," but the Administration -- for still unknown reasons -- refused to turn it over.

Ehrlichman's safe, according to the Washington Post, also contained cop ies of hospital records of Democratic Senator Thomas Eagleton's treatment for mental illness. The Post reported that the papers had been there before Eagleton's shock treatments were publicly reported, leading to his withdrawal as George McGovern's vice-presidential running mate. Did the White House do anything to plant the first stories? It seems unlikely, but it is typical of the climate created by Watergate that the question was being raised last week.

According to the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, Haldeman tried to get North Carolina Republicans to "dig up" any information that might discredit Senator Ervin before his committee investigating Watergate opened its hearings. Haldeman's approach, as confirmed by TIME, was made in phone calls to Harry Dent, a former Special Counsel to the President. Dent passed the Haldeman suggestion on to Frank Rouse, North Carolina's Republican chairman. Both Dent and Rouse considered Ervin's integrity unassailable. They gave Haldeman no help.

Ehrlichman and Haldeman were also cited last week by Deputy CIA Director Lieut. General Vernon Walters. He said that they invoked the President's name in urging the CIA last June to tell the FBI not to try tracing Nixon committee funds that had been channeled into Mexico in order to hide the identity of the donors. The money was later used to help finance the Watergate political espionage. In CIA memos given to two Senate committees, Walters claimed that the two White House aides told him that Nixon wanted the FBI to understand that such an investigation might hamper CIA operations in Mexico. After some hesitation, Walters and then CIA Director Richard Helms decided that a Mexican probe would not compromise the CIA, and so advised the FBI.

Another White House effort to get CIA help in covering up the Watergate involvement was attributed by General Walters to Counsel Dean. The CIA official said that Dean asked him to authorize CIA funds to pay the arrested wiretappers to keep them quiet. Walters said he would resign and protest to Nixon before doing any such thing.

In addition to the Senate investigations, the federal grand jury in Washington probing Watergate is also focusing on Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Dean. Justice Department officials now believe that they have an airtight case against the three for obstructing justice in the various Watergate investigations.

"It's a beautiful case--it gets better every day," a Justice Department official told TIME.

Many of the Watergate cover-up activities of Ehrlichman and Haldeman will most likely be related by Dean, who apparently handled many of their covert errands.

Tell the Truth. Last week Dean met secretly with Sam Dash, the Ervin committee's chief counsel. Afterward, the committee voted unanimously to guarantee Dean a limited immunity against prosecution for whatever he might tell in the televised hearings. The Justice Department can--and intends to--delay that request for 30 days, but Judge John Sirica will have to approve it at the end of that period.

Sirica last week ruled that his court will take custody of nine documents that Dean had removed from his White House office and placed in a bank vault before he was fired. Though the White House demanded the return of the papers--whose nature has not been disclosed--Sirica said that he would keep them. Both the Ervin committee and federal prosecutors will be given copies.

In a television interview, Dean refused last week to give CBS's Walter Cronkite any details of what he intends to tell in his testimony. But he said plainly that he believed officials above him at the White House--clearly referring to Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Nixon --decided to make him "the scapegoat."

Ominously, he added: "I'm prepared to let my whole case ride on the truth. And my ability to tell the truth. And to document the truth. That's why I don't feel particularly uncomfortable being alone at this hour."

As the multiple investigations continue and the multitude of witnesses keeps growing, the possibility narrows that anyone can successfully hide behind deceit or lies. The truth increasingly seems to be the only safe course in this showdown over the credibility of the President.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.