thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-08-01; Part 1 of 7
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
the piece but dana dane owner and want to reiterate my pride in having served as assistant to president nixon for the first four years that he served his nation as president of the united states it is and i know that it will be the high point of my life and i want to express appreciation to all the people with whom i served in that white house during those four years you have given so much to meet the standards that we need set to close by the
president and by ourselves and i expressed my deep regret and sorrow that in a few instances there was a failure in that regard i'm not sure where that there was here and i don't think this committee is your work there wasn't i don't think the people are sure where that only ones i hope that that will be determined because only when it is it will also be known whether failure wasn't the one thing i am absolutely certain of from the bottom of my heart is that that there wasn't on the part of the vast majority of fine men and women who have served and are serving with president nixon and his efforts to lead this mission listen to the united states
it's true do you painting a jar of alderman ended his three days of testimony before the watergate committee today reaffirming his own innocence and that of president nixon but final questions by the committee brought further detail corroboration from all the length of the testimony of john dean in particular mr haldeman confirmed that on march twenty first dean did tell mr nixon that there was a cancer on the presidency asked about many discrepancies between his testimony and that of other witnesses oliver lead stress on differences of interpretation
rather than the fact the session also revealed goldman's role in a number of other campaign activities some of them involving an attempt to get the press to connect violent demonstrations during the seventy two campaign with senator mcgovern and the democratic party the session ended with two disputes and one the committee refused to let john wilson attorney for alderman an eloquent make a motion criticizing senator in norway recalling john ehrlichman a liar last week and the other senator bernie protested against the decision of the majority democrats not to call charles colson to testify before adjournment and that was the trigger for all the squabble among committee members which took up partisan rome developed this way first an executive session early today the committee voted to put all the appearance of the former white house special counsel or until the committee returns in september the vote was four to run straight party lines with senator weicker republic i'm abstaining then like the acrimony you will say she
counsels and i started questioning hr all my mama calls a memo alderman regarding the itt controversy this upset senator bernie and he renewed an earlier play that apparently in private to go ahead with calls and now the upshot of the unsigned public discussion between senators guardian is that the committee will probably be asked to vote on the coals in question and then the thing that started it all cautions it came a mild made its own mission bigger carriers report on its contents and background the memo came late in the day and it immediately revive memories of the first in the series of scandals that have become known as watergate the itt case the key question of course in the moment and another memo dated june thirtieth nineteen seventy one written by her klein former white house communications director of parliament in the memo plan outlined a four hundred thousand dollar contribution which it tea was to make to the republican national convention to be held in san diego last year the significance of this isn't a copy of this climate law when two attorney
general john mitchell and a time the justice department is considering a lawsuit when it he would be asked to divest itself of hartford insurance company mitchell said he never knew about san diego convention and if this memo is true that he was not telling the truth costs and realizes and then they said that this particular mammal could be more damaging remarks made by california's governor and likely republicans of that time consider that pretty damaging robert president nixon's former chief of staff spent almost six hours at the witness table today to sort out his testimony years and that hour by hour viewing guide and our number one h r haldeman says the white house involvement in our midst of internal revenue service insisted only are passing on information received from friends regarding votes september fifteen meeting with the president but not for covering up water get it was for his hard work on the investigation in the second hour haldeman is questioned about a memo dealing with excluding demonstrators from a billy graham rally in north
carolina also in that i am alderman says the fbi agents in certain individuals did not imply there was any allegation of wrongdoing and a lot and the third element faces another memo michel allegedly allegedly as john dean about the storytelling peace demonstrators in on monday to george mcgovern does not have a measurement and the fourth hour haldeman says to his knowledge there were never any anti nixon demonstrators paid to create sympathy for the president also in that i he says he's not in a position to justify whether or not campaign fund should have been used to pay legal fees for watergate defendants it's in our number five haldeman says he hopes the urban than anyone investigate to see if any communist money was used to read the campaign of george mcgovern also a night out a memo indicating potential dangers because of white house awareness of financial offers from it at in the final hour haldeman says the watergate
investigation was not a serious is the problem of monumental leaks of the critical proportion that followed the publication of the pentagon papers now to the hearings senator evan brings are committed to how adam made a victim at this moment it was decided to commit to call call the problem witnesses mr helms well this system was a walmart or why the outbreak and then now of reasons the oil as ben philpott briefly
thank you gentlemen vacation committee witnesses but there is concern in white house what it will only end to end of the spectrum you call me and one that i can only comment and extend the senator that there have been over there had been over the time that i was in the white house a number of inquiries made or more piece of information brought to the attention of various
people within the white house from time to time that there were fourteen show questions are to be investigated regarding business or individuals and there was a feeling and then during that time of course and subsequently even during the time of that as investors who came into office there had been considerably more seals shown by jay allison and in looking into a pencil questions of those of who were supporters of this administration then ceo sheldon looking into anbar is that were directed everybody knows where
nolan vocal opponents of the administration in these these factors would be brought to the attention of various people at the white house from time to time with the koreas to why there wasn't some kind of an investigation into the billions of some particular person with regard this on some matter and those would be referred to the irs that would be the context in which i recall the question being raped that they've is a parking lot that you've used sectarian war has sectarian be a director of the irs diplomacy here in two key areas and politically i think it is this onto the president
while there if you were to read my immediately go says no that would be an open and down from the virus they should be the first war cooperation do you just open very pricey at least a short period accurate that's doesn't indicate by what was perverting was directed a review doesn't refer to a
major asia dulles secretary i don't recall seeing in the view of the head some of the items and discussions were referred to in here it doesn't seem to be dated either is or any further identification of his papers and that was one of the left the team placed in the record i think that in order to be a bottle label mute news and discussion for the sake of trade got like the euro in revenues threats morris living why now so that comment i'm sure that you would not aesthetic question which is in your mind and again the time scientists within the
resolution of the charitable sad thing and i mean and to get up on within the purview of it relates to that thanks for doing it if you have a paper relating to find like the internal revenue service more politically responsive to the senate will be in the resolution back in nineteen sixty nine you have to be here good morning you ever having conversations in a time when the sec tried to
anyone a lot like an internal revenue service more politically respond only be i don't recall any specific conversations with secretary of treasury i if i had any or if i was a participant in any such conversations they would have been in the context that i referred to earlier senator which was the question of our laws has to be indicated that the irs bureaucracy at the lower levels was very strongly stacked with the parties that was the feeling it was i don't know anything about it because i first and i have made no investigation as this was the allegation with that people whose positions were due to previous administrations and visitors were in the off season and austria previous administrations and that the villages with which they pursue cases that had been referred to them relating to vote until those killings by opponents of this administration were not
pursued with the diligence that they were pursuing matters relating to supporters of this administration or disability when they were out of office and continue to be the case even after we had been in office for several years and that there was discussion of that question and that in that context i mean i know i've been in discussions where that kind of feeling was was under it was under discussion i have not i don't believe i've ever met any commissioner the irs over mr cullum who was commissioner before we came in who's now the attorney for the democratic national committee in a lawsuit and took the position you all anyone your knowledge within the white house request the irs like political bloc make of that and the sense of oh reporting information
that come to our attention are more information that appeared to indicate that the reason for it is quite possible that that that was not a recall the specific search requests now a day before he took the administration our friends at the administration these were being inquiries or information from the administration regarding those those who are considered to be no i don't know that there was considerable do you have any money x ray to quash another
couple more properly investigate know i do recall as i say that the concern for the balance between the zeal that was applied to inquiries into supporters as i'm president we're easier than you think that matters feeling the new album from and white house perhaps the issues and it was a listener finds that the administration and the local sad to think that was the contention that was raised us let me say this just haul around the second time in roman senate finance committee and albert fiction is internal revenue service among others is you know we've only really objective that i think i certainly hope we can continue to keep that ensures her that you you are tempted to do so i'm hoping to have been successful and my
panic buying them in the midst of all along now can you tell us what made in fuel out of this very loose although you at all about the thing in the meeting and it was july nineteen ninety you sir anybody that's right a portion of the
conversation you're welcome yes sir whoa whoa whoa yeah well who was there are still no excuse i don't believe that's correct it's my understanding he was my understanding at the white house
i'm not aware of his disability and on the head of a consultant to the white house and on you when you learned about the regular mail or not adventures here why it was the responsible for
more aware of the fact that the earlier actions allegations of withdrew all remaining mr ali i don't know who are you really yes it was and it was you're now a petition that is the reality reality you're welcome
all three of the people and i don't want my kid with a committed relationship and as though you'll need lesser and that you'd read a newspaper article indicated that able or unable out in campaign funds had been radical left unchecked through the gang accountable mr benson lowell bergman i'm sure the years and you know about the same time that the vision that no what about that region and contributed to the newly elected president will also
follow an impossible with elections that problem chen i can't confirm all those facts that you're quoting from newspapers at the time i'm sure i read those in the newspapers at the time and many are just like trump securities on their way when the meeting with bill maher as they appeared
we're in the mental or had been a mentor to all the finance committee to re elect bright and lovely then that they had a n roll out the committed to relate to them and then they're in your mind i'm a reasonable suspicion absolutely there was no question there was something wrong was who was wrong in a general sense yes and
mid atlantic the problem and have a conversation in brazil and he was called up and told him about it meaning you know that was all he said i don't have the biggest testimony before mr chairman william about that only a mentally ill yes or you can regulate mention wanted
not not only did not because i certainly did not make the statement was the big city made and he did not open the meeting by congratulating him and then only as i indicated at a later point in the meeting the president to give him about that because it's a question of how important for what purpose he's at a later point in the meeting not a building as <unk> been advocated a political meeting they did a fine job and working hard on the domain of like the big point of european eating it had been a freelance rainbow parrot witnesses
and there was a really good one in addition to that he has a sudden is on the new report and it is intended affidavit of the judiciary committee have any volunteers then consistently called upon to respond or more provide information regarding each of these various newspaper stories some of which you just referred to that came up from time to time as to what the facts were he was maintaining a very closely is on with the justice department the assistant attorney general of the us attorneys and was spending an enormous amount of time and a lot of effort at that time i'm going to be a very complex case because he was trying to determine the ability of various charges that were made well you obviously didn't report and
everything you have now i believe you did that right at the time i thought he was reporting for any details to be just below that remains real presidents that memo interviewing eyewitnesses up the habitat as they have as the people the people were just making a political no sir i don't know that it's my understanding that that's not an unusual procedure and that in fact be a council for the democratic national committee set in all of the fbi interviews with the members of the democratic base and i think that was the procedure that was being thank you
you're right it wasn't on how to the volunteers that they really got into the april fifteenth march seventeen nineteen seventy meeting between being evergreen testimony that you were in their uninsured and that you didn't hear any discussion but there were serious allegations maybe one that's been in his recount of this meeting with the canadian i want to ask a specific question you a present in that
meeting there any discussion between the demand president about executive clemency i don't really so i don't have any recollection of any of that conversation on the march thirteenth media not as a so that's what the conversation was there's a discussion about the money he also stated that he was working on and that's because i was sick outs do you recall any conversation like that when the president asked
of the us right now and if i could make a comment that regard be on the thirty yesterday's testimony as i recall aren't you know by this was that the meeting was possibly thirty meeting with possibly for another purpose i believe regarding executive privilege euro oh i think that was the day the judiciary committee at the request of the us to be here to testify before the committee and this man and i believe his previous testimony was that the principal that are under discussion with the president in the march thirtieth meeting was that question of the team's appearance before the judiciary committee of course the executive privilege and lawyer client privilege questions arose from that he testified as i recall that occupy the major portion of the meeting but that toward the end of the meeting the discussion turned to discuss this matter of
watergate and specifically the questions of fantasy and the money game there is now a lot chose senator but i was in the meeting during the first wall and suddenly not be in the airport at the discussion as mr diaz testify turned these matters at the end of the meeting this would indicate to turn those matters at a time i was not intervened therefore i cannot i can't confirm or deny what was going on its contention is that i was in a meeting at the time this was said that must have been said at the beginning of the meeting which is unlikely since the purpose of the meeting was with something else or an i would rather substantiate mind believe that those matters on cnn money demands were not discussed that the march thirtieth meeting because they were in fact distrust of the march twenty first meeting in such a way as not to seem at least that they have been discussed earlier they seem to be
coming out of the first time you also mentioned he also mention that apple march thirtieth meeting was the time that we made some illusion to make the process of handling this money and say that you learn things that you'd never know the next time around even more knowledge and what she was saying in the way of the way and which i was i can't imagine that i would oppose a job a week later that is what you're saying as they may have been confused about the bit of meetings that these mothers and i think that's right and i just want to more specific question for months you said that and that he had also discuss the calls to the recall any such discussion on you the march thirty they ignored any other time that
these of course are the highly critical not they haven't heard them will you run for president would have them please as of that day knowledgeable a cover up was going on the possible serious criminal activities not correct yes it would be a question as it would be a pretty unlikely that you would forget those lines if indeed you have been present evidence i think that's that's correct although i have to say though sen that this was a period when the president was starting to acquire information and consequently it it's getting information that have not met before and once we get up to march twenty first time into the time after that i do find it difficult to recall what it means
i think so and i do not write notes on the march thirtieth meeting that that would indicate incidentally that there was no discussion while i was in the march thirtieth meeting that was a sufficient importance that i would you know the president has the president have a discussion with you at some later their march thirteenth that he had was not as we've been talking about we've been on marketing those are but now let's turn to the march twenty first meeting this discrepancy in the testimony there too much twenty thirty different level dean testified that he said at that meeting that could be linked to recover a ripple of the period of
the meetings at which i was not a in his review of of all of her as potential problems relating to the watergate matter is records too late people in my situation and a problem that i have with regard to the matter of the tree and fifty thousand though i don't recall any direct statement that all of these problems you said you were going to write a statement being that it was his opinion the whole team were invited those are in connection was if you recall anything in that meeting about the president to stating that his reference to a million dollars on
march thirteen it was a joke but it really didn't mean what he's not the recall is fashion by being there about rumors false testimony before and here there was a reference to his feeling it had known about the watergate break in and he was aware of what i thought that one day i don't believe it was any reference to the rancher you know probably reading excerpts of being an intruder and further testimony before i knew it he's having
me for questioning very sneaky thank you i think it was in december of this year there were not
but the point is no mustaches my question was was the dean testified he did give a written report any the november december of nineteen seventy two because that is the force that was my recollection my recollection is he said he did copies to the poll numbers you gave them were actually discussed include overweight can you give us any recollection i'm really not like you're
not very clear and not say is that that there were discussions at various points of time of the effort to try to get a fork put together and went out as to what happened and this i can only surmise might be a draft of such an effort which was served up or discussed in and reject percent i believe there were other such efforts either they read perhaps they were certainly discussions stage at several points in the river the one at the convention and was hoping that we could get the story fully where there were back in november or december and do you recall a written guarantee you are shown to you by the watergate i have no specific recollection of that do you
have any recollection of a discussion about time discussions from time to time on this yes sir i'm not sure that a senator would have been some time prior to his departure from the white house in the record is that was just the one that was i'm not sure it was a lot of this year april made
you you are those certainly not in june or july that was in april what's your point i don't know fb lists i know very very controversial do it
ms bacon in the seventies being the pittsburgh it's been the
pittsburgh yeah after souter why the violent up to indicate the relevancy of these documents which is dated january twenty nineteen seventy like what if i can figure out the end of the month jeff
bezos be i need someone else you'll recall that i relate to my critical comments while he works and commenting on the site and once again the public will record partly because some of you with more political process that i will probably won't review them out of private next monday press conference and the first general is no doubt about the costa explained what he must be given very low marks and loyalty and i crawled low is the name of the game was this the fall what are giving him and i'm still in the dark
relevancy or there's an investigation now there's witnesses and i think that witnesses his invocation i've got a lot of things you know
i would not say that either of those was the case i would say that loyalty was important i would say that the truth is this overriding metaphor and the recommendations of the interview was human activities a lot of strikes we should let him believe one or wild things are a number of intervening recommendations or two of relief center i'm not accusing him of anything for someone who is senator i don't know any of the ins and outs of the pits is that
fitzgerald faced and that mr butterfield was the retired air force officer who obviously had strong personal views and had strong lines of communication with others the facts in the case i can only say that an answer to your question as to attitude of this what does that loyalty that not overrun truth on wednesday eel goes on this direction responsible for the murder which also it became so this mosque and humphrey on behalf of everyone associated with the nixon liked to have to apologize to both of these men the government workers leaving also
absolutely not sen jackson was also the pain in that letter i know i would very much want for my omission as being intentional and to extend my apology very definitely do include senator max baucus one of the riot because this man was going on that i appreciate that it was not intentionally so and nine i appreciate it on base a lot of the opening statement you won't let them look to me as his basic ration i maintain communication with john mitchell and that we've got until he was seventy then went public mr waldman which is evident had been on television about one racing of the spending of such fun walking while high priority and consideration
by consideration of those with one reason victims of important it's important in a campaign it was not an important factor in miami consideration of the campaign then they'll contact with mr mitchell of mr mcgregor will be aware of video the policy i had a general awareness of a campaign budget over all and that one or two points in the campaign i i was lester stands it was functioning as the finance chairman with an expression of concern that too much money was being allocated in some areas then would it in assuming that at the end of the year nineteen seventy two you are aware that the campaign videos are possible three million dollars i was aware that i was hit by the end of nineteen seventy two at
some point where i was not aware that there was a very substantial services to conserve lead raising the funds fully want independence to be legal moral obligation call humanitarian one of tuesday's campaign so plausible three million all first of all senator i didn't consider it either could be any of those things for the opposite of any of those things i did not want to end and it's a context of legality mortality or necessity i simply accepted what i was told which was that that these funds were being raised for the purpose of legal fees for the defendants as to the question of why i didn't use those funds i didn't have the control of those fines for the the position to use those five you have the president's representative the chief of staff of the white house
suggestions i could have suggested that yes when you decided not to do it didn't occur to me that was a special one is unnecessary because of the use of the money was a review not to my knowledge it was i want the people to understand why are available three million dollars that this novel by the end of march that what you want before summer the walker goes into questions about what us strategy toward anti nixon demonstrators were going to take a bike public television's coverage of the senate hearings on watergate we'll continue after a pause for a station identification on a bridge to coverage of these hearings is
provided as a public service of the member stations of pbs public broadcasting service it's been fb
and
pike continues its coverage of hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities here again correspondent robert macneil as we go back to the hearing senator weicker is about to begin his questioning of the job of the fallen your opening statement that section would you lay low and what bothered me was the fact that one of the pilots of writing that you listed various insomniacs illegal immigrants and then lefty information
that these that belonged to senator mcgovern democratic party for nine eleven exactly the way it read if you read it very clear that that is the impression that's given the impression of the river bottom was the impression that even now in your statement you're trying to give the same image and it's my contention which i intend to broker this morning that you tried to give during the course of the campaign specifically lists of the opposition party and the opposition candidate or soft on communism so you say in your opening statement when he read more the pranksters and it was investors were specifically excluded such acts to follow
a violent demonstrations and disruption heckling of shouting down speakers berninger bombing campaign headquarters physical damage are trashing the national convention indecent exposure of rock throwing assault on delegate slashing tires smashing windows setting trash fires in the gas tank of a plus knocking policeman from their motorcycle i know this committee and most americans would agree that such activities can be tolerated in a political campaign will point out a question for these activities how to effectively that you listed are clearly illegal and not a question of whether we agree on and not be in most cases very specific laws that are meant to be enforced against this type of activity which important courses in the hands of various local state and federal officials but unfortunately activities i was placing seventy two against the campaign of the present on stage by his opponents by his opponents that
you mean by that were opponents in your statement at that point your statement democratic party mr mcgovern so to that question would be answered shouldn't the rise in anyone's mind at that point in that statement the following sentence says political scientist meredith reads some of them took place with the clear knowledge and consent of agents of the opposing candidate in the last election question answer your question at that point in your state where you list all these activities with the way you phrased that night in brazen against the campaign of presidents that by his opponents and then i immediately went on to say and i quote from the next following sentence in my statement some of them took place with the clear knowledge and consent of agents of the opposing candidate in the last election others were acts of people who were clearly unsympathetic to the president but
may not have had direct orders from the opposing team in the following when i referred to the fact that there had been no investigation little publicizing it again characterize the two different possibilities by saying either those which were directly attributable to our opponents or those which certainly serve our opponents interest but did not have his sanctions clearly recognizing senator the precise point that you're making here and i do recognize the precise point that i'm making is i watched it clearly tell me exactly which of these actual of an engine co mingling the two and giving an impression fb it's been
This record is featured in ““Gavel-to-Gavel”: The Watergate Scandal and Public Television.”
Series
1973 Watergate Hearings
Episode
1973-08-01
Segment
Part 1 of 7
Producing Organization
WETA-TV
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/512-2n4zg6gr7x
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/512-2n4zg6gr7x).
Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 33 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, H.R. Haldeman testifies.
Broadcast
1973-08-01
Asset type
Segment
Genres
Event Coverage
Topics
Politics and Government
Subjects
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Anchor: MacNeil, Robert
Anchor: Lehrer, James
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2341984-1-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color

Identifier: cpb-aacip-512-2n4zg6gr7x__2341984-4-1.mp4.mp4 (mediainfo)
Format: video/mp4
Generation: Proxy
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-08-01; Part 1 of 7,” 1973-08-01, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed May 24, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-2n4zg6gr7x.
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-08-01; Part 1 of 7.” 1973-08-01. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. May 24, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-2n4zg6gr7x>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-08-01; Part 1 of 7. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-2n4zg6gr7x