THE HEARINGS: Counterattack and Counterpoint

The White House counterattack on the Watergate hearings was under way. At a state dinner honoring Japan's Premier Kakuei Tanaka, without directly mentioning the scandal, President Nixon declared: "Let others spend their time dealing with the murky, small, unimportant, vicious little things. We have spent our time and will spend our time in building a better world." Moments later, he deplored again "the petty little indecent things that seem to obsess us."

It was an extraordinary and almost unbelievable reflection of the President's state of mind and sense of values: dismissing as small and unimportant acts of perjury, burglary, bribery, abuse of campaign funds and attempts to misuse and interfere with elections, courts, prosecutors, the FBI and CIA—all admitted and committed or condoned by at least some high officials or presidential aides. There was also a sense of detachment to the point of unreality about the statement, as if the "murky, vicious" things had been committed far away from the White House in some obscure corner of the land and the investigators, rather than doing their obvious duty, were perversely dragging them into public view.

Shaky Memory. A counterattack was also under way in the hearings as the White House presented its most effective defender so far: a polite, low-keyed and occasionally apologetic H.R. Haldeman. The much feared former White House chief of staff, so often described as the President's dour and whip-cracking office guardian, answered questions with a seeming directness, patience and on occasion with an engaging grin. The performance was in contrast to the defiant, cleverly evasive witness who had preceded him: John Ehrlichman. Yet before the week's hearings were over, both Ehrlichman and Haldeman had been challenged by the testimony of four CIA or FBI officials.

For a man whose mastery of detail terrified any subordinate who overlooked the most minute assignment, Haldeman had a shaky memory. He treated many of the charges against him as though they were too insignificant to be remembered. Among them:

Was it true, as John Dean, the President's fired counsel, testified, that Dean had reported to him about Convicted Wiretapper G. Gordon Liddy's bizarre political espionage plans as early as February 1972? Haldeman: "I don't have a recollection." Had he seen a memo prepared for him by his assistant Gordon Strachan indicating former Attorney General John Mitchell's approval of a $300,000 budget for Liddy's "sophisticated intelligence-gathering plan"? "I don't recall." Did he recall reading a "talking paper" about this plan given him by Strachan for a meeting with Mitchell? "No, I do not."

After the arrests at the Watergate, was it true, as Strachan testified, that Haldeman ordered him to "clean the files"? "I don't recall the conversation." Did Strachan, again as he testified, report to Haldeman that he had destroyed Watergate-related files? "No, sir, I don't recall a report from him."