thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-28; Part 1 of 4
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
it's b is bal during this period you know in action there will
be minimal mr chairman i must have been part of the country that i think some of the comments that i've submitted specific instructions to me i'm doing well whether workers to lose this committee the discussions of executive privilege to prevent the testimony of people from the white house that quote we conclude that evidence and her intention of them in the senate of the united states to do so we engaged in by any person's acting individually or in combination with other in the presidential election of
nineteen seventy two campaign canvas or other activities related to and from washington and what brings you got to battle a videotape days hearings on the senate select committee on presidential campaign activity here zantac senior correspondent robert nickname john dean whether his fourth day as a watergate witness today and were subjected to questions submitted directed by the white house they did not shake his charge that president nixon as well as former presidential aide john erlichman and h r haldeman were fully aware of the watergate cover up the white house now maintains the dean magruder and mitchell where the violence but after denouncing whitehouse questions for more than an hour questions by members of the committee attended to elaborate or strengthen his testimony there was also a dramatic side like today when senator wyden are the connecticut republican charge that the administration had been trying to interfere with the committee
and to discredit him as a member like you said he complained of a special federal prosecutor archibald cox about several recent incidents while senator baker threatened that the committee itself would investigate any evidence of attempts to tamper with the committee but the main point of the day was that john dean remembers school and determined as he has all week after listening to john dame for four days and questioning him for more than an hour senator howard baker decided he needs more information and he thinks that information should come from or what happens after the hearing baker talked about that with impacts peter carey i think the record can be complete without someone from the white house line and promotion exactly how that's done depends on who you're talking to i asked what i was doing with john dean today was trying to establish a framework that contains the material and important elements of the crucial question that is what did the president know and when did he know it and to establish that framework
material important aspects of this festival is that we have already referenced the testimony of witnesses who've gone before witnesses who come here after all your plan however and some instances wine that mr james bogart today in december of nineteen seventy two on another said he will speak up and further examination has already referred to interstate month there are meetings when only he and the president were there only he the president wants it season eight of the canadian arctic the totality of it i don't even suggest that i would not presume to suggest how we go about receiving testimony or information from the press in the united states i think it's a fundamental tenet of the separation of powers that we came from that if you think you should not withstanding that we can't compel it we made it and i hope we can get it in it is what senator baker talked about other aspects of the committee investigation and we'll have more on that interview at the end of the hearings the senators in the force
today with being when i was a moral ground that raise new questions about the president as we've been doing each evening it is intense i asked about using a strategy to get immunity beings as i planted more stories with newsman in an effort to impress the prosecutors asked about his white house duties in the area of domestic intelligence being says that several times he restrained crazy schemes suggested by others in the second hour ed team describes mr nixon's reaction when he gave him what bean calls his cancer on the presidency a speech about the cover up and he's questioned about his role in drawing up domestic intelligence plans that would authorize surreptitious entry into homes and offices and the third out is chairman of instant question being about the white house attitude toward antiwar demonstrations yesterday intellectual fear of weight physical fear and he suggested a number of agencies were used improperly including the internal revenue service which evan says was
generous people and the fourth guy being testifies about a white house counter offensive president wanted launched against democratic losses it also blames president of a cover up could not be continued indefinitely at the level of gordon liddy and the florida senator wyden <unk> new charges he says government officials were engaged in illegal unconstitutional and activity that goes into details any category he also reveals about the series of pressures from the white house years just beginning there's another reason what was different these questions
one question the questions was where states and that i had seen in the morning that i didn't see the questions a look at some photographs and that day i hadn't discussed the contents of the time with my client and i'd like to make that statement on behalf of mr mcmanus and if you like it was under oath were both willing to be sure researcher
several people you know the whole thing is more like on my job i think a section of the mission of washington's will go for a while was very you quote the president is saying on february twenty seven principles and the watergate bottom and that therefore you could be more objective wanted to understand why this senator when he said that they were going to
be and ball and their time in dealing with watergate matters was taken away from their other duties that he also added to me that they were principals he was murdered principal mr dean as you have any evidence than on all the best ehrlichman acquire knowledge of the break you know i did not want to know her now second question yesterday the president was referring to a post june seventeen events were you not equally a quote principal unquote as you claim to have indicated to the president on september fifteen
as i just mentioned and answering a last question when the president raised just stuck in my mind and i return the next day and thinking about what you said and told him that i could understand that and he actually said you're too wonderful it but they statement is remarkable for the retailer which is it becomes events and conversations of colonel a period of many months it is particularly remarkable until the pike that you indicated that it was pre med without benefit of notes or daily diary which you describe what documents were available to you in addition to those which i've been identified as a
state and a newspaper clipping you would be right it was by going through it goes away i'm thinking that had with others in relationship to these activities many times things were in response to press activities that story's other activities i had a good memory of most of the highlights of things that have occurred and it was through this process and been
extremely careful in my recollection that we have a meeting with the president before i believe the white house why i was initially i was denied access to the last recall the man who was in charge of keeping along with and ask him if he could give me a list of all my meetings with the president he does before you information and a formal confirmation of the band midnight and that information wasn't just in the testimony was primarily based on house of cards i used the best accounts as one of the marines to my recollection of what occurred in the time that you have great faith family
they were sequentially many times white house activities related to this activity i did not have a benefit that statement might even be more details on that would benefit only years later briefings were funny question specifically and press briefings given events that time didn't have the benefit of those what other sources the fossil reconstruction it is needed
information information i think it is is that the idea that you can go through my from my daily profiles which i had an agreement in the committee and families question have you always have a facility recorded details of conversations with the placement months ago i didn't it always had a facility for
recalling the details of conversations with the place many months ago well i like to start with the united states it was not a regular activity from you and the president for most americans it's not a regular activity doing this for the president for most of that it's not a daily activity out when you meet with the president united states it is a momentous occasion and you tend to remember what the president lights with her neighbors because humans are it was
seeking information on the joke that's the sort of thing that a person's mind because of the nature of the sensitivity information being sought that's it i'd like another example i remember i referred in my mind after he admits that ray had made the statement about that he had preceded with the investigation that investigation rob lemon mr gray insane it's insane it was absurd
even remember an expert in one's mind again but you're not able to recall precisely because of the meeting of september the fifteenth very likely the most important meaning and in nineteen seventy two at that meeting with most of your response was i have an impression well we were talking about their first meeting after another conversation at trial is the sat down and the president said he'd done a good job and then i can say that i couldn't take responsibility for this alone myself remember this
sequence of events in conversation ending up with something when we were discussing the book we discussed it is it your testimony that you cannot recall precisely what the president said to you and he receives and in those meetings of the september fifteenth meeting has no certain i didn't take notice of other meetings specific reason or more saying to me john having a lot of meetings with the president and it will be recording it's some of things that were being discussed in these meetings i didn't want to record there
was a prominent in the united states germans were sort of information i didn't information video that uses a meeting with anyone at that time or any time since i couldn't believe what i was feeling
mr greene did not my activities this time like million jobs that i've been doing the specifics of the fact that you have an entity in your testimony that you are certain after the september fifteen meeting of the president was fully aware of the cover up not the senate and you for that testified that you believe that you had one real spurs and having to cover up by february twenty seven when you were told by the president that he would report them directly is that right i don't think that was it
if that was the case why did you feel it necessary on february twenty seven to tell the president that you have been disappearing at a cover up and therefore might be charitable with obstruction of justice because of the receding day he had indicated to me lynn ann and so i wanted him to be if the president was aware on september the fifteenth of your cover of was real whether you were implicated also i would think so but i didn't know i didn't understand his remarks at the time and what wasn't necessary on for the twenty seventeen advise him that you were guilty of obstruction of justice you mentioned
i didn't understand it i didn't want anything from the president that any time and thought that any information that you see in the work a lot of the conversation if you are not clear whether the president clearly understood are you suggesting that on september the fifteenth you did not clearly understand what was happening i know i have thought that i one of the reasons i saw a meeting on the president's fully understood the implications people have been involved in obstruction of justice and i want to make it very clear to him that this was my interpretation of the situation and at
that time i didn't have access to that and the night before i did raise it and going and telling the implications of this entire matter if you felt that the president of the united states that not fully understand implications on february twenty seven how did you expect the president on the standard depictions of september the fifteenth of the prior year congratulations every time we went on to discuss other aspects of the effort to prevent the entire matter from coming out before the election we talked about when the civil suit would perceive we talk about when the criminals would be tried the discussion at that time that you know the
questions i was being very short answers i might also add that i was very amused that i was extremely nervous when i was before i mean this is the first time i've ever really had a one on one session with them the other meetings have been entered in many other members of the staff meetings that second report did you and you know console develop a strategy for containing immunity from prosecution it was a question yesterday what happened
again what they want to do it and determination i mean the situation and he said you know and i think
a question with no question register a common objection to the last question since they're so heavily on the issue of credibility like note on the record that what we can usually a gentleman who took away our fifth amendment right by virtue of their use in the early which was confirmed by judge her record your message you have not taken away or sixth amendment right and we have no future i will go one last question that your strategy who deliberately piece of information to the media on what we're told investigators and what you might be prepared to testify about in the future testimonials i go directly with
the appropriate investigative form idea was conceived no strategy to leave my testimony or anything of that nature that any comments on the us public records and i think that most of the reviews on countless occasions to give testimony what i consider testimony letters oh no i did not my my who represented the individual members of the press
i can't there were setbacks mr van where any of the stories you'll also you also supposed to you know accurate it's the work it's so one of many steps as you've taken to correct these dollars in a delicate position i know i don't know
i did see a newsweek nice for example when i said that you have attributed to me some story about a panamanian assassination on have no idea what they're talking about but none of all the next question was doing this rather lengthy letter one point of this tension usually in your testimony puzzles make you have testified that you had received them wasted no safe of some of the fifteen thousand two hundred dollars which you've never traveled to anyone because you don't want once you have handled really useful payments to the watergate defendants you also testified that you call mr stands and has been for twenty two thousand dollars to make that three hundred fifty thousand dollars on all and that you had your depth in the field in just as is obvious pick up the money
and later delivered directly to mr strollo knowing that point to two thousand dollars will probably be useful payments to the watergate defendants oh you mean to imply there was some all bases for the suspension or were you just being cautious to protect yourself technically from committing a criminal justice at the expense of the beginning of that meeting mr stanton's if you really really know what he was thinking i was quite surprised i didn't have to
when he was making the trip don't worry about it visit jamie have testified as to a close working relationship to have evidence the feeling it was you or you sent to pick up the twenty two thousand dollars from the stands you help us all the documents from ponce secretary and as the field in all that you were involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice perjury testimony and eight defendants for their silence i have no idea what this really knew i didn't discuss these things with him when he had to the best of my knowledge his involvement really was
dealing with you know going through the material and three and stayed with me and then dealing with mr chen now and one and women get her to retire and he also insisted in reaching mr crowe and he also made me when mr auerbach when he joined me in preparing now and so for me it has a related matters with the feeling of a company with some analogy and also captivated young who was it in the plumber have it so he was and more knowledgeable i was that's the extent that moment mr deane if your gut minister putin who worked so closely with you and look at us on the mission's connected with the conspiracy and absolutely no knowledge of the cover up conspiracy how do you solve likely assume that
others on the white house staff and even that wasn't my guest there is an operation i were countless occasions <unk> complaining to me that i was leading them out explaining what i was doing and we had to have a very close working relationship thank you david it's big the question was if i didn't read it again
they feel that the game is the fueling who work so closely with you and look at how some of the omissions connected with the conspiracy had absolutely no knowledge of the cover up conspiracy how do you solve likely assume that others on the white house cabinet in the president didn't know all the conspiracy i don't know how many other people in the white house that you have a conspiracy to not my conspiracy but the general conspiracy i certainly know that i was getting instructions from mr haldeman ehrlichman and i know my conversation with i know there were the regulations ms nadine began late
managing those areas of newspaper stars reporting with what you at all those investigative as quotas sources close to us to what he said a number of these news reports for example a page one story in the washington post of june third a list that you began your private meetings with the president either earlier that year was in the case of this particular story beginning on january the first according to testimony your first private meeting with the president in nineteen seventy three was not until february twenty seven diggs you or did you not tell investigators an old friends that you began meeting with the president personally either the first of the year will begin again or the first and where the story is an attempt to exaggerate the length of time which you had been dealing directly with the president and by implication and fatah gunmen are alarming
i don't have any idea investigators it is exactly what i knew i don't know any exaggeration anytime anyplace for my knowledge of this murder and i don't know is it your testimony that the first private meeting with the president of the united states in the year nineteen seventy three was on the road one seven that is correct mr dean of the allegations against the president of the us goal was that as a private meetings
at the inauguration hour or the church first encounter with a moment where he actually stopped me in the reception line up as a result of an incident that occurred during the inauguration may be relevant and the discusses the committee was just me and my recollection of the need for the president this may be well robin tony nomination that night and apparently i don't think anybody
humans man it was a there's no evidence of anything like that maybe i have to work he's here
there was an occasion ms dena muscles are is contending allegations against the president didn't directly or indirectly through the last four or five weeks at the most numerous do you deny that these stories were planted in a calculated attempt to influence federal prosecutors to meet you at such important testimony that they should give you signs actual immunity from the crimes which are committed in return for testimony against others i gave my testimony directly to the prosecutors i kind of those stories are we were making the decision i know
mr deanna may fourteen nineteen seventy three edition of newsweek and a long article about you and your perspective testimony and the zydeco you reported a number of times and in many instances the quotes in that article were were identical to the testimony you're given this week and before the most was newsweek article was a very accurate preview summary of the lengthy statement which you detail because of it there are however several very noticeable difference is wonderful as as an omission from the testimony you gave hear you tell this committee that when the president discussed them out of your investigation a watergate you did not tell him he made no such an investigation usually got a low level reports that in your meeting with the president of lost my first and i quote will be you also poor down houghton sat
on the fact that there had never been any state clinton white house that does this debate nixon replied that he and anecdotal reports of these were at the consulate says that quote don't want nobody asked me for reporters to present inquiry said quote i did not go around asking people questions and their offices there was more important than war at this point sources quoted him as saying that oh the president came up with chen pulled into the into a hacker out of astonishment and shop in the news we cover story was being the president's reaction was most inconsistent with that would you have testified before this committee did you wanted to mark heller president that you have never conducted an investigation and have you made a statement previously that quo because
of his job never seen it the interview and in that interview mr mccants was with me and the realtors that i would enter into know what i considered a testimonial areas at all i was no anything i say
again this time are coming under increasing assassination that people said sit down and take if you were mr deane if i recall correctly you testified to this committee but it was not your idea from the green his diary can be altered the way you were before mr mcgrew to testify before the grand jury last september that mr mcgrew that would justify the first meeting in his diary the second meeting and discuss immigration laws on whether these points your testimony is in direct conflict with this one testimony of
mr mcgrew are we to believe that mr mcgrew the line after these details concerning you and if that is your position what could mr mcgrew this moment for lying about the details of the matter and with mr mcgrew his poetry was conceived well senator i'm i'll spend a lot of money and not on the conclusions drawn in the question that has been propounded by minute request the white house has to being most immigrant also testified that mr liddy told him that you know one of those that indicated to him that he would have a million dollars for its plans which she had been working on before he even came to the committee you testified on the other hand that he was surprised when mr levine reveals many
mr mitchell in your presence to what do you attribute this committee's report that mr mcgrew that you knew about his expensive plan before you saw them and mr mitchell's office senator wyden the agreement made this statement to him my response at that time mr mitchell was that i had no recollection of all are making such a statement mr levy and i can't conceive of the statement he made for this reason i was not aware of the fact that they are different or an operation sandwich that had a suggestion anything to do with
the campaign mr dill just right or take in this politically made mr mcgrew in early december nineteen seventy one because you understood libya not have a meeting with mystical crow and as you were not at that time promised the lady he would have one million dollars for intelligence gathering at the committee and i don't know demonstrators this is my question is a lot of recollection or did it actually happened well and i'm very much impressed by your part recollection well i remember that well the meeting with mr crow to me was the time i was describing
two mystery the festival has written a job was about that he would be the general counsel the reelection committee i said one of the responsibility would have would be for dealing with the potential problems of demonstrators i don't report that time any extensive discussion and all as to you know how this plan would operate what it would involve are new songs i am that's
right and what else questions yesterday to testify that in march nineteen seventy two was the libyan threatened to kill wisdom that most immigrant made a decision to terminate mr levinson one in this collection that we received a call from you to get in the way almost the latest project did you unlock and proceed with mr mcgrew thomas alluded to happen and so since yesterday as soon as the ladies intelligence project but i had actually never ate what was the project was the lady that you grew to get priority over as principal animosities i did not mislead an answer that question and i think that
this trial yesterday yesterday yes ma'am what happened is i was aware of the fact that the strained relationship between lily and mature sources there's no problem for the reelection committee and a lawyer that i suggested mr martin you about something worth making a mr mitchell is the dean mr mcgrew to testify on the role of private is august sixteen grand jury appearance at a meeting in office you have the worst happen while ever they would be taken care are even executive clemency and all does you make such a promise of executive clemency for most immigrant as he
testified and that's all there is you have a party from anyone else to mix it makes such an awful or was in a new initiative yesterday was sixteen years mr jt three was that stopped the case with that that's why i made the decision to keep mr mcgrew at the reelection committee and my recommendation the tv remote remember this as
i'm sure you will executive clemency the your testimony you answer to the question does you know it from anyone else to make such an office now that has occurred and it was that on your own initiative the answer is yes yes mr david i understand you just fire earlier that you have lived nasa called you believe you are assisting them in updating approval and funding what he called operations and words but that in fact you live operations and west diana it
was mrs jones i did rejected it out again in an effort to save a man's feelings it's been a great deal of time in a number of other major positions and had taken time off to work on the project rather than come back and let me say even shot out of the water and what happened is a group i realize an interim period of time we realized the plan is going nowhere and it didn't matter i called attention to exhibit in an exhibit number eleven which is a memorandum for the attorney general from john being dated january twelve nineteen seventy two and i called attention to the first sentence of the second paragraph which says oh operation santa was will be
in need of re funding at the end of this month so time is quite appropriate for such a review and quote less again if you let operation sandwich guy and that's why they just take them is to make sure that it would be in need of re funding of the end of january was like let's do this committee after november twenty fourteen mr mitchell he continued to do various investigative simon's he was an investigator simon mr mitchell was interested in that he continued to narrow one of the systems you like that
this is the result of that label looked a little understood all of operations and i think he had a misimpression that the dating back to somewhere in nineteen sixty nine i think mr mitchell assume that everything had been called operation sandwich at least these in my conversations with him that's the way we referred to them go into a lengthy explanation i was communicating with him on this matter either inequality operation sandwich mr dia have depicted all others in the white house as excessively preoccupied with political intelligence use of court mother's insecurity and yourself as a restraining influence on these preoccupations yet healed back our responsibilities at the justice department seems to suggest that your experience in these varied types of activities by their competitor you're being
invited to join the white house that law precisely where your duties in connection with demonstrations while you were at the justice department well like being a restraining influence i do believe i was a restraining influence of the white house or many wild and crazy schemes i've testified some of them some of them lie i have not to testify to that many the memorandum that came into my office i became a joke in fact some of the things are being suggested and i think we would be political enemies many of those things
so i didn't feel i had some restraining influence i didn't have a disposition a lycra this type of activity that my responsibilities and outs demonstrators situation there was a demonstration leaders i guess i can call that the first time that i was at any knowledge police department
i wanted him to see mm hmm the demonstrators they're mixed with demonstration leaders i was offered the fbi information on all the demonstration leaders that i was negotiating i said i don't want to have that information now on appeal as one man looking another man's oh i know that man for the reaction i get from people i don't know what i want to do in all of this life for a lie
i mean i'm disappointed i think that the decision making processes for various intelligence that would relate to political figures and associations with the demonstrations and always i was hearing complaints that the white house that was unhappy about the quality of his intelligence but maya was merely a conduit from the demonstration leaders back to a major committee that would make decisions and talk about what i want the demonstrators
on this issue i know i didn't and therefore we're going to take a break from senator and always questioning and we like to remind you that you will not be missing any of the testimony or simply stopping the videotape to give you a brief rest and local stations a chance to identify themselves so public television's coverage of the senate hearings will continue in a moment on average coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service of the member stations of pbs the public broadcasting service the
the
point terry and pike continues its coverage of
hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities here again correspondent robert mcneil as we go back to that hearing senator in norway is asking john dean about his relationship with john charles houston and the whitehouse surveillance plans to do immediately after you were appointed counsel to the president is you're not take over the responsibilities of mr tom houston and connection with intelligence activities i know you're not us
i have no idea is that at that point he was the liaison receipt fbi information regarding radical groups and he would even distributed throughout the white house and he put me on a distribution list of dysentery it was not even be worth reading because i wasn't interested in lesser was a demonstration so i herded mr houston and i am a man you know i think a little differently when he proposed a rather strong and blunt memorandum was typically turn it down or understood very minor
request something and yet the memorandum with in my mail stacked i'd rather quickly and didn't think much about a sign the mail and two days later i had a call from the findings and he said you know what those findings i apologize for the memorandum at that it was a rather strong in and meat isn't anybody you testified that you're not used to being a political intelligence was robert to you in the white house activities to
embarrass people i think that turnover in exhibits five six seven and eight a fierce champion of the sort of things that the committee would like to go through those at some point i like to explain that most of those ended up in my file with no action i do mr dean i believe that you are the author of a memorandum to the attorney general which led to the establishment of intelligence evaluation committee as you roll the first meeting of that committee and your office where you're not want to worry about the one on the white house staff who live it requirements on and received a report from the intelligence evaluation committee that is correct well i didn't ask them to suggest areas they would like to go into this would get into a couple areas that they want to get into that directly relates to national security and the ruling of the chair
so unhappy different from those that they would often suggest areas they would like to be into and i would we would receive regular calories from them and i would have a man on my staff initially mr david wilson who decided there was a demonstration of the main base on the regular they would send to us was this at a demonstration that we would need intelligence on and i when i see reports and entered agency meetings to plan for handling demonstrations were you not the white house representative
from the time i went to the white house i was yes with some exceptions there were some types of demonstrations that i did not the particular nature that i had no expertise and i am thinking particularly of the wounded knee situation i did go over the i really wasn't like me the attorney general and those in finding out what the government was going to do because i was asked and expected to report in my some ways speak to the president had a great interest in those to work what was going to be the government's response in dealing with situations mr lippman
frequently year maintain a continuing interest in this in fact hurt i cannot go another member lasalle saying that this was a demonstration goes mr erlichman was like a dalmatian of the firing his can stay away from the many he liked to know what was happening in the st louis post dispatch of may fourteen nineteen seventy three as a report that you attempted to recruit a department of interior employee mr kevin chapman undercover work at the democratic convention as you attempt to recruit mr tappan or any others want to come to work and what prior experience that you have in recruiting for undercover work well i can recall recruiting anybody for undercover work other than i did have a discussion with his pickup in some context mr tappan had been with the department of interior for a number of years he and i have worked very closely with the
demonstrators he was with me during most of the negotiations we had the major demonstrations thirteen ways to report mini these people also have a low with the police officials and me not least when i was having no relationships at this point in time as we went down towards the convention i wonder what the reelection committee was going to do but i knew that there's going to be a need i suggested it i would be able to have a surprise new town as somebody who i thought could assess a circumstance somebody who's unfamiliar with a demonstration and a lot of people react demonstrations the group was coming down the street
so i thought with that one would serve as an excellent source of information for me and i told him i'm going down there and i said you can't be on a white house it was a question and as you attempt to recruit businesses and understanding sixty eight convention and i didn't know that
the police and what are probably going to be in the light this is a big question you have testified concerning your conversations on three different occasions the general burden walters the deputy director of the cia beginning of the twenty sixth of june general lawlessness at a memorandum for the record of each of these conversations with you and general officer memorandum for record for them we were meeting with them on twenty six june you were reported to have asked general ward was whether that was not some way that the central intelligence agency could pay bail for the watergate defendants at the men went to present the cia find some way to pay their salaries while they were in jail on the covert action funds and your testimony you made no mention of asking general wald is whether the
cia could pay the watergate defendants bales salaries while they were in prison was this an intangible notion on your pocketbook interests of saving them or do you deny that you may be specific requests all general walsh as i recall i didn't make those requests and as i say the mission was not intentional i had never really read in full mr bergen the waters depositions and here is the fact that a column that was discussed and it was not intentional on your mission was not intentional and i decided i didn't want to read them six want your favorite you called this
tomorrow is the attorney for mr liddy and asked for statement by mr liddy that you had no prior knowledge of the watergate break in is that correct now you also testified that you're not that it was on march twenty eight but mr haldeman called to meet with mr mitchell and mr mcgrew there and that it was at that time you became convinced you have to look up for yourself isn't that that is my interpretation i decided well i was at camp david and back before i went to camp david didn't watch out for myself and i realized they're usually and told him because of the la times that mccain at that point how much more than i would like to talk to him and i got that and suggested the immediate thing about a criminal lawyer on march twenty six after you recorded
your testimony had admitted to making payments to watergate defendants to obstruct justice offering clemency to defenders to obstruct justice sensible and perjury you are still actively trying to build a defense against having prior knowledge of the break in on march one on mars one of six doesn't this demonstrated throughout this affair your motivation was to protect yourself as a criminal charge of authorizing and directing the watergate break in the reason i saw a statement from mr liddy i think i was kind of a defensive action mr
demerit mentioned that and my conversation with this debate you say to us tomorrow is called live like on the twenty nine march and told you you could not get you the statement you want from disability if you recall you know these telephone conversations you had witnessed a marvelous yes i do before oh my mr chairman that was the last question from the white house however the white house has also submitted a short statement i presume this is the closing statements are statements give you which is i think a central credibility question is what prompted these tactics in
march in april nineteen seventy three the desire to have a truthful all the effort to achieve school which one is this is a statement that the best shape for us is also wrote and this is that one of his conclusions about what the evidence is that why you this was delivered to me yesterday on the cover letter signed by mr jay for the puzzle a central credibility question is what prompted these tactics in march in april nineteen seventy three the desire to have the truth told effort to achieve immunity from prosecution the following sequence of events is in all these admitted a connection with the awful civil
court in january most of those isn't that a personal connection with the us demand for more money on march nineteenth on rime to be he's meeting with the president on march twenty first twenty seconds on any version of this meeting it was an effort to get the president to take action on what was becoming a personal problem or de i mean the true when it ended the cover up and it was after that that morning when i saw that it was not michael thank you and i began
to think and at that point records ltd just so ago moscow and this was the crucial break in the cover up he learned to recall from abroad on lost one of the first comments directly led being with knowledge of the watergate break in the qualities of criminal rule is on lost twenty seven to get a statement that we did not breaking a rule is called i lost twenty nine it couldn't get a mistake and that statement might have been played on march twenty eight and was twenty nine he's a list of names of criminal kelso on mars it is it retains its shape
he wasn't fully involved he's not as laws to the us attorney on monday april second album not as negotiations for humanity as the germans and the state these questions have taken every opportunity through the questions and answers with the
president mr the president calls i received word that the fact that i was even offered a one summer transfers should be given or could be given all it is for twenty thirteen and explained repeatedly with my oh me and my disappointment when i had access to my and so that
was that there was hearsay that he had if anyone want to perpetuate the couple at that point is true for the country i'm sure they could because he had no hard evidence this was revealed in a conversation which i submitted to the committee in a conversation i had with her who was not concerned about this factor the court would prove nothing he gets a lot to prove nothing but reason again i was seeking to get the comment mr libby was
in a sense to follow the next morning when the story with them and he said that based on conversations he had with me which in fact he had not had other conversations with mr haldeman and mr ziegler vote and formed the mouth and two that would be necessary for it it would be a statement from his company and that was the reason i approach to roasts tv that reason that mr rose could not get the statement because he was concerned about his
client's fifth amendment rights so there are points that make them out to the whole place and putting these questions the request of the white house counsel also tension with his duty as dean you think like at this point is to give john dean a chance to rest his words would associate us or ford center of a chance to get his questions ready for the witness it's now the germans during a meeting of all of my interrogator with
no obligation to have this be in the i want to fly with thank you this week it has been i remember you
i don't believe you you're going to play i know
that mr hughes was the representatives of the intelligence agencies and the president at that point in time i have stated that mr used to be in charge of the white house now security now and the thing is information with
that i did according to develop recommendations as bill will be
This record is featured in ““Gavel-to-Gavel”: The Watergate Scandal and Public Television.”
Series
1973 Watergate Hearings
Episode
1973-06-28
Segment
Part 1 of 4
Producing Organization
WETA-TV
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/512-b27pn8z46m
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-b27pn8z46m).
Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 15 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, John Dean testifies.
Broadcast
1973-06-28
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: 2341666-1-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color

Identifier: cpb-aacip-512-b27pn8z46m__2341666-4-1.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; 1973-06-28; Part 1 of 4,” 1973-06-28, 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-b27pn8z46m.
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-28; Part 1 of 4.” 1973-06-28. 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-b27pn8z46m>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-28; Part 1 of 4. 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-b27pn8z46m