thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-11-13; Part 3 of 3
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 been maybe for corporate reasons of their own maybe for bookkeeping purposes and traveling they chose a method and to involve the people to have a man who makes sixteen thousand dollars a year then get a three thousand dollar contribution typical campaign one of the celebrity mechanism to handle twenty five thousand dollars and seventy five thousand dollars penalty and very quickly but chairman chief executive action comes out so i can answer that question i think it just it may suggest to as the laxity of that time in that atmosphere if they've got it done by april six it didn't really matter how they did it and i think that's the thinking that went on at that time the only thing in addition to the elaborate mechanism that impressed me about today's testimony was it was a classic case of quid pro quo this company want to get the benefit or the cost overrun benefit directly from the federal government
and apparently thought that by contributing they could get which incidentally naked and now the question of course is how typical is this is a quid pro quo a big reason for giving campaign well i think it's easy to think so peter listening to testimony today and listening and reading the newspapers the revelations have come out and the whole watergate period i don't think it is a very common the current politics of a specific quid pro quo people give money for various reasons political campaigns and nine george gallup says only seven percent of people in the country actually contribute to any political campaign but that that seven percent was enough to get about four hundred million dollars or so intruded nineteen seventy two at all levels and i dare say that a very small portion of proportion of that wood be the specific quid pro quo i will give you so much if you will do this and government favors with today's testimony obviously at least was an implied
that pressure started with a mr steinbrenner was translated right down the line to steinbrenner for a minute who i understand it's also been a major contributor to the democratic party and the former vice president humphrey is a man most watched her during the campaign and many people died last year because also indications many big money contributors play both sides of the political street has it been your experience that's been true in our summer campaigns i've been in before is not nicer to say it's always at a sinister worry about it but you know it is pretty simple well i think because you're a cynical and no business and kind of the candidate is and i think it's a tempered by not maybe a quid pro quo exchange but good faith goodwill access to the governor and congressman center whoever it might be and so many corporations and many individual contributors shortage of that the labels
at the beginning of the program we heard jane wyman who had been one of the most successful democratic fundraisers say that he had hoped to be federal legislation to put him out of business but the only real equity would be some sort of a tax write off by the public you think such a thing as reasonable to expect either disappeared it i think more more we were coming round of that now last year of course there was a possibility of having an abduction from europe or income taxes being used to contribute campaign except they've made it so administratively impossible by having a separate form that the many people that know about the contributions were very well i think next year there will be on the front page of the ten forty form opportunity to check off a dollar or whatever exactly right the legislation we have the day that has been passed in the senate and a session is
you know it seems to me is only one side the point it makes it very tough on only honest candidates are running and i think public financing something that type of that come on the other side and we're like wow and i eventually ease of convenience and now making it possible that given the light of watergate and the view that people must have for politicians nowadays you think people are really going to want a big down their pockets and contribute to political campaigns in today's climate i don't know that's a that's a tough question i hope so i hope watergate hasn't poisoned the whole political system but you know i think if something down the road we'll have to say if it has no i still think some kind of public financing has got to come do you think this committee can actually sit down and write something that's going to take care of some of these abuses are we proclaiming to things well i think you can take care of some of them i mean you get a situation like test when we had the date there was a willingness to commit crime because leaving before april seventh wisconsin lawful corporation make a
contribution so there was a women's willingness to commit crime and unwillingness later at least to connect various forms of perjury now when you have that i'm not sure any law can can finally on forever stop that kind of an operation where there's a concerted effort to brickell now that occurred earlier in the senate caucus room the proceedings did run a bit shorter day so so we thought we'd provide a little watergate special pbs tonight with me now back in the studio are washington star news political investigative reporter jim park and three years ago austin bureau chief of the chicago daily news and a regular on our watch and weekend review program janice been following his overall investigation of campaign financing very closely in fact it says journalistic special there right now and there's been on top of the new move by president nixon to reestablish his credibility over what watergate matters with members of congress they are now this was the second
day of those meetings over the white house meetings that the president has been having with members of congress which are you know is going so what was one of the most interesting public relations exercise i think the president has ever undertaken jim according to a spokesman he was the meat the watergate is true and related scandals and charges and allegations that case a case it had the head his first meeting with a republican coordinating committee which was sort of the opener was a forty minute monologue in which no questions were arrested often second meeting last night with a group of six southern democratic senators and one word virginia an independent and they rarely discussed watergate they discussed the middle eastern energy crisis the us or the american they can so the chinese problems and only in passing at the end they discuss war iraq and no questions
were asked tonight he's he's had a prestigious are there still there he's had some of the first batch of republican senators than about a third of the forty three members republican members whether there will be any question that we don't yet know that if they don't ask questions about watergate is where they want to have me establish any credibility or the trustee who's pledged not clear who's follows of that there are no questions is that absolutely that's democrat winning one discuss watergate course a worthy the southern democratic supporters of the president by mr centuries and mississippi center sparkman senator mcclellan senator allen senator russell long they didn't want to discuss why bother with another question that remains is what the president's going to invite the hostile democratic senators who do want to discuss watergate and senator tower for one the republican from texas says that the president's most reluctant to invite hostile
crowds than the white house and make a pitch on watergate suspend the curious exercise so far now they may need to come to grips with it but the real key i think their gym is a must listen to congressmen and senators do not know well enough to less relevant kinds of questions and to cross examine the president which is necessary in this situation the only group that now says the senate watergate committee and they have to a man say they will not go to the white house under the circumstances i wanna go as a group there's a good to interrogate the breath and specifically to interrogate not the listener monologues right now that the mission but less relevant parton questions which have not been answered to try to correct some of the inconsistency as in contradictions in the whole white house case oh you didn't even that will have its limitations for the request today to talk about the white house all activity would
shoot me so even though it isn't likely for the president to answer without being under oh you mean at the request of the watergate i let me ask you this as they have any of the congressmen or senators raised the question that women maybe we should not talk about watergate with the president because after all the house is now considering impeachment proceedings and the mayor's the house around eventually may eventually have to vote on that and i think that they do vote impeachment family members of the nine states either going to serve as a jury so would it be proper for them to discuss the question has arisen a lot of senators' minds i'm sure i talked to senator weicker about it for example specifically he said i have refused to comment on either resignation or impeachment on the grounds that i may be a juror in this case and i would disqualify myself if i expressed opinion before hand a lot of senators have said the same thing you know if you ask them they say we won't talk about that we are open to jurors now living on
my ass will it not be disqualifying so i'm going on the president could say anything you ever succumbed to the senate this hour of those qualify that thousands of laughing you didn't have a quorum the ocean it's a curious their line of the legality of it whether there is influencing of the jury involved or not but in political terms it's a fascinating question when i had gotten the impression that obviously a mistake and one that these meetings about that the president had set up for the specific purpose of that is responding to specific questions about watergate did i get that and that's the impression that the white house let's go out so far that has not happened this is not to say it may not begin to have that as of the first two leading that we know about there were just no question about what you know on how they make on them saying look we want all about watergate and nothing
but watergate which is what the white house indicated they were down and go jim gillette a nice when i come back to this in a second but the jam you you're downtown today you covered the guilty plea by golf on this campaign contribution illegal contribution and you also been following the watergate committee very closely in this whole area specifically to the question that was brought up by the witnesses today from the american ship building company out of the blue i think mr steinbrenner was quoted as saying that this kind of thing is done all the time by american corporations the obvious question is this is in fact true or is there something unique about this nineteen seventy two elections are a sleek little look leached use that that corporations moved all the time as a rationalization for the older now face with court proceedings alice nam minority raise money illegally as far corporations of the building palatial those corporations have a history of having done it not only in the
nineteen seventy two election when in previous will write of their waste appearance in court yesterday in washington to plead guilty the history of the use of corporate funds for political purposes i think the practices are risen because the justice department and that watergate was very lax about any prosecution of corporations for those wild fish that was another one with last week well yes but these corporations that we're dealing with of the american ship building go for a laugh when oil ran on american airlines these are you know among the top companies in the united states and you're saying that that they've always done this launch thing that they look or corporations that have come forward now seem to have a bit of a pattern which preceded the nineteen seventy two election the american ship building testimony from a listener as well as
opened nineteen seventy was active in two previous years before there's a lack of a lot of other companies have been guilty of the same practices these are the ones that they brought suggest a still a minority of american businesses there are many legal ways what a business can give money which was identify with that forum for political purposes that doesn't violate the prohibition on the use of corporate money a large defense counter nuclear submarines aerospace do the press one hundred thousand dollars for the presidency in nineteen seventy in april while encouraging its employees to believe nine percent on their annual salary suggesting that as a private figure each one to do so voluntarily no compulsion no requirement no use accordingly chertoff says the employees of the defense contractor rather politically
sophisticated they chose to realize the importance of regional so voluntarily as much more common to do it this way or threw a sharp edged a little chuckle when where the new employee again that want her weaknesses money to it forward political awareness funds for oil companies the money set aside as a nudge and say for political contributions and then about voters some kind of interest is hard evidence that yeah but who's been unusually hot managed more than lloyd out of the bottom yes but that it is legal for veterinarians and cooperation as long as the employer uses his partial money and also voluntarily i back to the not so lethal teammates i was fascinated just by the sheer procedure that american ship building came up with the list that what are some of the other procedures that technique slows call it that have been used we're going to move in the next to the watergate hearings and more for laundering money it was the mexican money that one hundred
thousand dollars from houston mexico city in the first week after watergate provided the billy billy committee reelected president inspired many of the apartments of resin watergate troubles are really i think to hear testimony with the next two days on american airlines use of a conduit and lebanon to raise its fifty five thousand dollars it went to illegal immigrants one ashley oil pleaded guilty today in kentucky a few hours after the blast it for one hundred thousand dollars for the president came from the book so much of syria and the bow on the east coast tour on the west coast of africa where they're drilling for for oil offshore oil money came into foreign bank account for yemen's already pleaded guilty to the illegal contribution of thirty thousand dollars and that money according to various levels really dry sending facebook and certainly europe with in return the catch
the grocery and political ad i was fascinated by the wire story on the berkley yesterday only attorney for brennan was asked why the judge about how you guys who is flying the company books in he says it's so complicated that twenty thirteen is going to have the judge agreed but that do happen all have a yellow yellow rope and explain that so they did not writer for taxes as legitimate business expense would've that which will another violation of actual but in the american ship building their case for the testimony today the money was charged also as part of a claim on as a lot of work on and on the contrary when the testimony did shows that when american ship building do that one hundred thousand dollars seventy five thousand first lunch and twenty five thousand employees of all of the planned to get that money in nineteen seventy two the company was seeking payment of five million dollars on a researcher named leo us as researcher but
for the oceanographic survey in to the department of commerce and balances that will truly employees were carried on the books as part of the research or expense twenty nine which of course raised a relaxed obvious area gm off the album either un's stated or stated the implications of them through all of these political contribution matters that the others has not been done his contributions were non majors out of the goodness of someone's heart that they did expect something in return it would get all of that is a new paul design very closely as i said earlier this is your number one game right now i'm affect the war these people have mined thanks for their money and it isn't we only quid pro quo that the damage so far was the new york the increase in oil prices or just leave their humans and history of two million dollars in early nineteen seventy one one hundred thousand
in most cases there has been a remarkable world where pro quo for the money that american ship and francis did not get their thing or a restaurant they did not date and eventually the two hundred british isles know from legally real militia in question they don't think there's just one but they knew by the status quo can't do it you know take away their subsidies interview with other movies that they don't really get along they can be beaten winning staff members in particular why consider satisfactory botched well look at them what about this so you did a major story that became a major national story last week a boy on the contributions of american trucking industry now is if these people have been subpoenaed yet i don't know about a largely untested warning of an interview that was what was in there and they
were all for him patty all the money was given legal voluntarily by the exact by the executives of those are reportedly are on the books are limited what are some of these individual senators chuck washington the trucking industry shows the far more effective method i have driven our church the one man john rando the mountains as secretary of eighty eight and rwandan delivered between six hundred and seven thousand dollars six hundred and seven hundred thousand dollars to the nixon campaign was delivered alive and lee trucking industry we would receive the credit for a large contribution to the ground level at that time the suggested figure in the lead with twenty five thousand dollars for each huge large firms executives that nothing wrong with that nothing wrong nothing was there any prayer for peripheral <unk> doesn't look too slow clinton would've changed the art the interstate commerce commission regulation the trucking industry
more price competition there were no maintenance not to put out there is no as there's no evidence that the outcome of that was that i related to fracking contributions over the regulatory question was discussed at the industry's fund raising meetings monday there's exactly the seven senators who are hearing this testimony on campaign contributions very much wander around in and listen to mr nixon and cross examination shetterly what do you think the chances are that the president will in fact agree to sit down with a lot of your comedy where they say they've made no decision on edge in the white house spokesman is still an open letter conceivably you might do it but william pointed out it's not sworn testimony and what you get into the white house they are of that place tends to
the fang people another very polite it's the president didn't have the presidency kind of all of them and i don't think it's quite as saying he meaning they calculate on this and later he may see how it goes with all these other groups of congressmen that he's having an atmosphere where that's no terror for me i'll just take them honestly again it's not an improbable at the baton and i wouldn't rule it out at all because they don't know that i would just simply ask about then i would just simply raise a question about its effect so something really critical of the members of the senate committee there are not the effective questioning without having a little crazy informal and a privilege that pryor research on the invention and use we're the staff investigators everything when confronted the committee believe that it
would really raise some questions and i don't have to come up with a council and moreover there was one point i like to draw back a little bit if the president were to agree to do this gm he finally crosses the river caught on executive privilege and separation of powers now he sits down with a senate committee even though it's at the white house and that raises question about this president he has wanted to preserve that you don't cross those long you would have cost of almost all together and that maybe overall an opiate from his standpoint the public relations campaign as you call is working pretty well those four would seem to be but one has to suspend disbelief to go with its fantasy until we know that the actual question that thing is art chung thank you very much a senate committee will be back tomorrow to hear more stories about corporate campaign contributions and we'll be back with a completely play tomorrow night please check with your local public television station for the exact time of the broadcast in europe for best and i went back
and peter carey and jim lehrer thank you ended not and it was brought to washington in november thirteenth tonight videotape coverage of today's hearings but the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities this program was made possible by grants from the corporation for public broadcasting and the ford foundation washington november thirteen has been a production of the vision of a greater washington educational telecommunications association you're a noon news fb
This record is featured in ““Gavel-to-Gavel”: The Watergate Scandal and Public Television.”
Series
1973 Watergate Hearings
Episode
1973-11-13
Segment
Part 3 of 3
Producing Organization
WETA-TV
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/512-n00zp3ws62
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-n00zp3ws62).
Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 49 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, Matthew Clark and Robert Bartlome testify.
Broadcast
1973-11-13
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: 2342312-1-3 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color

Identifier: cpb-aacip-512-n00zp3ws62__2342312-4-3.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; 1973-11-13; Part 3 of 3,” 1973-11-13, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed May 26, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-n00zp3ws62.
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-11-13; Part 3 of 3.” 1973-11-13. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. May 26, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-n00zp3ws62>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-11-13; Part 3 of 3. 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-n00zp3ws62