Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973
[00.23.32] Senator INOUYE. It is your testimony that you were not, aware of the nature of the Gemstone file? Mr. REISNER. With this exception. That I had a circumstantial understanding of who it came from. Senator INOUYE. And You were not aware-- Mr. REISNER. Mr. Liddy. And therefore I had some general awareness. Senator INOUYE. You were not, aware that the information gathered for the Gemstone file had been gathered illegally? Mr. REISNER. NO, Sir. Senator INOUYE. Beside Mr. Magruder have You met with any other person Who might have attempted to influence you in your presentation here or before. Any investigating group? Mr. REISNER. No, Sir; I had not met with Mr. Magruder and as I also indicated, I think he took back his--if that was intended--influence I think he apologized for it, Senator INOUYE. Did any other person call you? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir; I have received phone, calls from other individual,; who have business before this committee. Mr. Strachan called me, He did not -ask me, he did not try to influence me in any way. He just indicated he would like to get together and through counsel I declined. I was also called by Mr. Porter and he did -not, attempt to influence me. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Porter was a, full-time employee of the committee wasn't he? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. Senator INOUYE. Was he on the payroll of some other organization? Mr. REISNER. Mr. Porter? Senator INOUYE. Yes. Mr. REISNER. Not to my knowledge. Senator INOUYE. Did you not testify that someone, I thought it Was Mr. Porter, was on a company payroll? Mr. REISNER. No, sir, Mr. Magruder had a conversation with 'Mr. Porter standing in front of me early in the year in which Mr. Magruder said something to the effect that we found a company where we can have individual who was working for Mr. Porter work for that company. Senator INOUYE. Was this common practice in the committee? Mr. REISNER. No, sir. Senator INOUYE. Now,, You discussed the so-called demonstrations and Hoover funeral. What was the nature of the, demonstrations? Mr. REISNER. At the demonstrations at the Hoover funeral. I do not know I know from reading newspaper accounts and I can fill it in, can fill in my own understanding of what took place. I think the significance of that phone call is one that is derived, it did not seem that significant at the time, Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Senator BAKER [now presiding], Mr. REISNER. it is possible the points I am going to raise have been raised in my absence. As you know, the committee had a rollcall vote to attend and part Of US left and part stayed in an effort to expedite the proceedings and hope fully to finish with your testimony today, so if the points I raise are repetitious, bear with me and we will move through them as fast as we can. It is my understanding that you met with staff of this committee on three separate occasions. Mr. REISNER. Four, sir. Senator BAKER. Four occasions. Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And in any event, the last occasion was at your request. Mr. REISNER. The third occasion was, yes. I met yesterday with the committee just to go through the notebook and to try to clarify some issues. Senator BAKER. But the third occasion then, was at your request? Mr. REISNER. As a matter of fact, Senator, it was directly in' response to a statement I think you had made at Friday's hearings. I think you described the nature of witnesses that you wanted to see and indicated that you did not know the questions to ask sometimes. There were also, as Senator WEICKER. has indicated, some conflicts" which I did not feel were material conflicts but they were issues I thought, I should discuss with the staff. Senator BAKER. We appreciate that and we appreciate your coming forward of your own volition to give additional testimony. The information I have from the staff memorandum here is that you had indicated, in fact, that you thought there were certain discrepancies that, you would like to clarify based on your understanding, of the facts and the facts as described by Mr. Odle. Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And that is the point I wanted to reach. Would you describe for me then the points where you thought additional clarification was required vis-a-vis the testimony of Mr. Odle? Mr. REISNER. Well, there may very well be points in your summary that I do not remember raising. It seen-is to me there were a few points of question in time. Who had the key to open the, desk? I had the key to open the desk. I worked for Mr. Magruder. Who left the room? Did Mr. Odle leave the room? It, seems to me he did but after the phone call. When did the phone call take place? I placed it shortly after 6 because when I arrived the news was on. What was discussed in the conversation? We reviewed that, but, I thought it was worth going over it again, Senator BAKER. So in effect, your tenor of testimony as evidence in your request for a third meeting with the staff was to supplement the testimony of Mr. Odle rather than to contradict the testimony. Mr. REISNER. Absolutely. I do not think there are any significant conflicts. Senator BAKER. I think you are to be commended for coming forward with that information. I appreciate your clarifying that point, Mr. Reisner. I understand that you did not interview with Porter or Mr. Magruder or Mr. O'Brien? Is that the burden of your testimony? Mr. REISNER. That I did not interview? Senator BAKER. Yes. Mr. REISNER. You mean-- Senator BAKER. Subsequent to the June 17 entry into the Watergate Complex, to discuss the nature of the situation, your role In the investigation, or any other aspect material to this inquiry. Mr. RIESNER. Not, precisely, testified that I had several conversations With Magruder subsequent, to June 17 in which this subject came up. [00.29.48]