The MacNeil/Lehrer Report; 6027; Billy: President Speaks Out

[Tease -- on videotape]

President JIMMY CARTER: I can state categorically that my brother Billy had no influence or effect on my decisions or on any U.S. government policy or action concerning Libya.

[Titles]

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. After it was all said and done last night, a reporter asked President Carter if the affair of brother Billy and the Libyans was now behind him. `It depends on how you all handle it and how the American people judge it,` he said. Thus far, most of the reaction, press and otherwise, has been favorable. Political writers and colum-nists generally praised the forthrightness of his 99-page written report and the way Mr. Carter fielded questions about it for an hour on national television.

Comments from members of Congress followed much the same line. So did that of various governors questioned at the National Governors Conference now under way in Denver. But, as Senate Republican leader Howard Baker pointed out, last night`s performance serves the president well only if there are no further major developments in the affair. `Any new damaging revelations could be devastating to Mr. Carter,` said Baker. So, it may or may not be over. There are still two major congressional investigations to be disposed of and there is that push to turn next week`s Democratic convention into a so-called open convention. The president is still firmly bucking that move, but whether he makes it stick could well rest on how delegates and other Democrats perceive the president`s performance last night and on the Billy matter generally. Tonight, we look at last night for Jimmy Carter, as well as his most immediate political tomorrows. Robert MacNeil is off. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in New York. Charlayne?

CHARLAYNE HUNTER-GAULT: Jim, clearly the Billy business generated a high level of anticipation among the nation`s press last night, but their appetites were also whetted by the fact that the president had not met the press since April 29th, when he went into detail about the hostage rescue attempt in Iran. Last night`s performance also offered a healthy platter of detail topped off by the following statement. [On videotape]

Pres. CARTER: Billy has had no influence or effect on my decisions or any U.S. government policy or on any action concerning Libya. Neither I nor anyone in the White House has ever tried to influence or to affect the Justice Department`s actions or decisions. Neither I nor anyone in the White House informed Billy of any leads or evidence obtained by the department. Everything that I and the White House staff did with respect to this case was designed to serve the interest of law enforcement and justice.

LEHRER: One of the first major Republican leaders to call for a full-scale congressional investigation of the Billy Carter affair was Senator Robert Dole, Republican of Kansas. Senator Dole, the 1976 GOP candidate for vice president, is one of four Republican members of the special Senate subcommittee now conducting the investigation. Senator, has the president cleared up the concerns you had about this whole affair?

Sen. ROBERT DOLE: He hasn`t cleared up the concern, but the president did do a good job. I think he made his case very well, but there`s still unanswered questions, and we`ve got to do our job as a special subcommittee.

LEHRER: What are the major unanswered questions from your perspective?

DOLE: I think perhaps the role of the attorney general. Mr. Civiletli. What did he do, and when did he do it. and when did he know it? The money? What kind of a relationship did Billy Carter have with the Libyan government? Why was he paid $220,000? Was it in fact a loan? And I think we have to say that in this long report that President Carter issued, it contained a disclaimer. It said -- I don`t know which page, but it said in effect that this isn`t everything; there may be other material forthcoming; it`s not intended to be a final report. So, I think we have to consider that. I agree with Senator Baker. If. in fact, this is all, then the president wins, but if there`s more to come, he`ll probably lose.

LEHRER: Do you know if there is any more to come?

DOLE: Well, I don`t know, but, you know, there are rumors around and some are of substance. I can`t -- and I don`t want to start rumors, but I know that there are certain people saying certain things that could be damaging.

LEHRER: Do you feel it still might be necessary to take testimony directly from the president?

DOLE: I never really thought it would be necessary in the first instance. I said it was premature. I would hope that we can do it without the president`s testimony. I think if he comes before our committee, there may be some in this country just perceive some degree of culpability. But the president made the offer, if it`s necessary. Once we`re organized, once we have a special counsel, which we still don`t have, once we`re really into the thing and investigated the facts, there are probably a hundred witnesses or more to interview, before we`re ready for the president.

LEHRER: Do the concerns that you still have and the rumors that you have heard about possible new revelations- -- do they deal mostly with what Billy Carter may or may not have done, or with what President Carter and his administration may or may not have done?

DOLE: I think there is some of each, but I think essentially we`re prepared to probably hear a lot of testimony about some of the antics of Billy Carter. And I share President Carter`s view -- Unless there is some involvement, we can`t burden him with his brother`s problems. But in any event, he was the president`s brother. He was viewed in the eyes of the Libyans and maybe others as having some access to the White House. We understand Billy made hundreds of calls to the White House. He didn`t always talk to the president. We would like to look behind those calls and see just what the activities were. And again, Mr. Civiletti may figure very prominently in this before it`s over.

LEHRER: When you mean Civiletti, you mean the statement that he made that the president -- that he had had no conversation with the White House, and then the president later said that he did have a conversation with the attorney -- is that what you`re talking about?

DOLE: Yes, that`s -- What really- -- You know, what was the conversation? As I under-stand it, Mr. Cutler was asked to leave the room. They had a private visit. We may never know what was said. But maybe that`s borderline. Maybe we shouldn`t say, `Well, that`s just the attorney general saying your brother better do this, he`d be foolish if he didn`t.` But there are other areas we`d like to investigate before we draw any conclusions.

LEHRER: Do you feel that the president`s written statement plus what he said at the press conference diminishes the need for your Senate investigation?

DOLE: No, not at all. And I don`t believe the president would indicate that. I would hope and I believe that he would want us to proceed expeditiously, no dragging of the feet by Republicans or Democrats, finish this investigation at the earliest possible time, hopefully long before the November election. And we`ll do that. And if there`s any evidence of anybody on the committee doing something other than an expeditious hearing or investi-gation, then we should be called to task for it.

LEHRER: You, Senator Dole, are not going to try to drag this out close to the November election?

DOLE: No. I was involved in one in `76 where they investigated President Ford up until the middle of October before he was given a clean bill of health. I know how sensitive it is. and I`m prepared and we hope independent counsel will be chosen by tomorrow, hopefully Jim Neal who is from Tennessee, a Democrat, who prosecuted a number of the Watergate people. He may be the special counsel if Senator Bayh agrees.

LEHRER: Finally, let me ask you this, Senator. Based on what the president has now said publicly, based on what`s on the record at this point, do you feel that anybody at the White House did anything illegal or improper?

DOLE: Based on what the president said, I would say no. Just taking his statement at full value, and I do. I don`t have any quarrel and I hope, as a Republican, that when it`s ended, we`ll say, `You know, there are a lot of things that shouldn`t have happened on the part of Billy Carter, but the president was not involved.` But again, having said that, our obli-gation extends beyond just accepting the president`s statement.

LEHRER: Sure. All right. Thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Intertwined with the legal questions over Billy and the Libyans came questions of political fallout. The Billy issue added momentum to the call for an open convention. But as Jim indicated earlier, the president stood firm last night in his staunch opposition to an open convention.

[On videotape]

President CARTER: This so-called open convention -- which is a phrase that has been used by Senator Kennedy and others, and picked up broadly by the press -- is a gross misnomer. What they actually are catling for is a brokered convention to induce those delegates to violate their signed pledge or oath that they would go to the con-vention and vote in accordance with the way the voters cast their ballots back home. There is a requirement throughout this entire electoral process. A decision made by the Democratic National Committee, unanimously, 18 months before the first caucuses, which were in Iowa, that this is the way the rule would be imposed. All the candidates agreed to it or understood it. And also there was a requirement that in the states there be a line for uncommitted delegates who did not want to express their preference. Some uncommitted delegates were chosen. That line was put there to give them that option. What Senator Kennedy and others are now asking for is for those candidates who are elected by the people who wanted me to be the nominee, violate their oath and that all the delegates in effect be uncommitted. This puts back 10 years of progress that the Democratic Party has made to democratize the process and to remove control of the convention from the power brokers and put it in the hands of the people who go to the polls and vote on primary day, or go to the caucuses and select delegates.

HUNTER-GAULT: The Democratic nominating process started officially back in January when party members caucused in Iowa, as the president said. That state delegation, which is split 31 for Carter, 17 for Kennedy and two uncommitted, is headed by state party chairman Ed Campbell. Mr. Campbell is going to the convention as a Carter delegate. He is with us tonight in the studios of Iowa Public Television in Des Moines. Mr. Campbell, what did you think of the president`s performance last night?

ED CAMPBELL: I thought it was superb. I thought he did a job of -- very forthright, honest approach with hard questions from the press. I don`t -- couldn`t think of one question that could have been asked, and I think the answers that he gave were not only honest and forthright, but they were documented. I somewhat disagree with Senator Dole. I think all the questions he raised in this show were pretty well answered last night by the president.

HUNTER-GAULT: Is this typical of the kind of reaction you`ve gotten from your dele-gation so far, your reaction?

CAMPBELL: Yeah, I tell you, if I was a betting man, I`d say that he was worth 10 points tomorrow in the polls.

HUNTER-GAULT: In your view, is the Billy affair dead now as a political issue?

CAMPBELL: Well, I would hope so. I think it`s been blown out of proportion. I think most people realize that the president`s brother is sort of his own person, as the president said last night. And he`s gotten in and out of a lot of trouble and caused the president a lot of problems in the last four years, but I think people think, `Well, you know, it up to the press and up to the people. Let`s go on in this convention, Jet`s go on in this campaign, and let`s let the Billy Carter thing go by the wayside.` I would hope it would get back on page 5 or 6 or not even on the news anymore.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how do you think that this whole thing has affected the open convention drive so far?

CAMPBELL: I don`t think it`s going to have that much bearing on whether they`ll vote for the open convention rule one way or the other based on the Billy Carter affair. I just don`t think there`s enough votes out there to change the rule.

HUNTER-GAULT: Do you arid your people agree with what the president said about the open convention?

CAMPBELL: Well, I`d have to say that I do. I started out a year ago. I was against the Winograd Commission report. In fact, I voted against it. And I was voted down resound-ingly at the DNC meeting. I can recall people like Joe Crangle from New York, who`s one of Senator Kennedy`s top lieutenants in his campaign, I mean, screaming and hollering wanting that reform in there.

HUNTER-GAULT: And the Winograd Commission report was the one that came up with this rule in the first place, right? Recommended it?

CAMPBELL: That`s right. And I think -- now, I was elected as a Carter delegate by people who knew what the rule was and voted for me to go to New York and cast my ballot for them for President Carter. And I`m a firm believer that you just don`t change the rules in the middle of the ballgame to benefit anybody else.

HUNTER-GAULT: Those people who put you in, then, you think still feel the same way?

CAMPBELL: I have not had one person who voted for me at the state convention in Iowa who has called me and asked me to change my vote.

HUNTER-GAULT: How would your Carter delegates from Iowa react if Carter changed his mind and released them?

CAMPBELL: Oh, I don`t know. It would probably be mixed, I think. There are certain people who probably feel that if the president released the delegates to vote their own conscience, that they feel that it might give the president reaffirmation of grass roots support, might provide a little more party unity, and give some people some political ground to stand on, say, like Senator Kennedy, to withdraw from the race.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Another view of it all now from another Carter delegate to the Democratic national convention. She`s Mary Demetrious of Darlington County, South Carolina, where she is the Democratic county chairman. She formerly served on the Democratic National Committee and is vice chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. What did you think of the president`s performance last night?

MARV DEMETRIOUS: I thought President Carter was at his best last night. And I think he went a long way in defusing the Billy Carter issue. I don`t like to refer to it as `Billygate`. I don`t think that there is that comparability between the problems that the president is facing with his brother and obviously the problems that the country faced several years ago.

LEHRER: Now, you`re a Carter delegate to this coming convention, DEMETRIOUS: That`s right.

LEHRER: And yet you`re in favor of an open convention. Did the president not defuse you on that issue last night?

DEMETRIOUS: No, I`m afraid he -- I disagreed with the president on that issue. And for me, it`s not so much a matter of an open convention as I am opposed to Rule F(3)(c). I think it sets a bad precedent for the Democratic Party. I have been opposed to that rule for months. I was no longer a member of the National Committee when it was adopted, and I think they say that it was adopted unanimously. I think that I would have joined Mr. Campbell and voted against it.

LEHRER: But you`re not a Kennedy supporter in disguise?

DEMETRIOUS: No, I`m not. I do not support Rule F(3)(c). It has nothing to do with support for Senator Kennedy or a dump Carter or an anti-Carter move. I am philosophi-cally opposed to the rule, and it`s on that basis that I`m urging the delegates to the national convention to oppose that rule.

LEHRER: What about the president`s point that it would put the convention in the hands of the power brokers?

DEMETRIOUS: Who are the power brokers? I think --

LEHRER: I guess he`s talking about you and Mr. Campbell and the delegates.

DEMETRIOUS: I`m certainly not a power broker. I think that President Carter`s position and the position that has been taken by his campaign staff shows a lack of confidence in his delegates. When we decided to run as delegates to the national convention, we signed not a pledge, but we signed a form, and we were carefully screened. The Carter campaign organization knows who we are. And my feeling is that the president has asked us to trust him -- `Have confidence in me` -- and I think that he should show that same confidence in us. And I believe that if we do reject Rule F(3)(c), the president will still be nominated on the first ballot, and that he would come out of it --

LEHRER: And you would vote -- you would still vote for him?

DEMETRIOUS: -- and I would certainly vote for him on the first ballot.

LEHRER: Let me go back to Mr. Campbell on the question of -- to pick up on something Charlayne asked you a moment ago, and I want to ask you the same question in a minute, Ms. Demetrious. Simply this -- The president has made a big point of the fact that this would be -- that this vote -- if this rule is not adopted, it would be turning -- the party would be turning its back on the 19 million people who voted in the primaries. What would the voters in Iowa do to you, Mr. Campbell, if you did not vote for Jimmy Carter, no matter whether there`s a rule or not a rule?

CAMPBELL: Well, I`m sure there`s going to be a lot of people will be upset if I decided to vote against that rule. But I think the president had a point. This was a party reform rule, and even though I was against it a year ago, I mean, these are the rules by which we all agreed to play the game by. We started out in Iowa that way, and if I wanted to play the other game, I should have ran uncommitted. But I elected to go into the Carter caucus and ask them to support me because I would intend to support President Carter once I got to New York. And I think that would somewhat break faith with a political breach contract.

LEHRER [to Ms. Demetrious]: You don`t see it that way?

DEMETRIOUS: No, I don`t believe that all of those Democrats that attended the caucus were even aware of Rule F(3)(c), and --

LEHRER: No, but I mean were they aware -- did they select you as a delegate to the convention believing that you would vote for Jimmy Carter?

DEMETRIOUS: I think that they did, but I also think that those delegates were voting for Mary Demetrious, and they were voting for Ed Campbell. They know us in our own individual parties, and they elected us to go to New York and to use our own judgment.

LEHRER: What about the point, though, that Mr. Campbell makes that that`s changing the rules in the middle of the game if you do it -- if you reverse it now?

DEMETRIOUS: Well, those were temporary rules. The national convention -- the dele-gates to the national convention constitute the highest authority in the Democratic Party. Those rules that were adopted by the national convention, the call to the national conven-tion, are temporary in nature, and we as delegates will adopt the permanent rules of the convention. And the position that I`m taking is that we reject that rule.

LEHRER: All right. Thank you. Charlayne?

HUNTER-GAULT: Not all of the delegates to the convention are split between Carter and Kennedy. There will also be block of some 100 delegates uncommitted to anyone. Among them is Joe Divany of Dallas, Texas. Mr. Divany is a former Dallas County party chair-man, and is a member of the Texas Executive Democratic Committee. He came to New York today to attend a meeting for supporters of Senator Henry Jackson. Mr. Devany, from where you sit, how did Carter acquit himself last night?

JOE DIVAN: I think he did an admirable job. I have never thought that the Billygate matter was really if any great consequence. I think he`s just got an erring brother that causes him some embarrassment and -- but I don`t really believe the president has done anything wrong in that regard. But I wasn`t a supporter of Mr. Carter for other reasons, and I was uncommitted from the very beginning.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, in terms of the performance that he gave last night, did he win you over?

DIVANY: Well, no, but he didn`t -- he has not lost ground or gained ground with me over the Billygate matter.

HUNTER-GAULT: What impact do you think his performance at the press conference last night had in general on the draft Jackson movement?

DIVANY: Well, I can`t relate that -- I think he probably lost a little ground in percentage points, if you can measure that sort of thing, when the Billygate matter started, with other folks. And they -- but I think he was so forthright and he did such a good job last night, he may have won back some of that support. But the issue that I`m concerned about is the open convention, which is another matter.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, what is your reaction to the president`s position on the open convention?

DIVANY: Well, I think we`re in a computer age so much that we think in terms of programming people like we program a machine. I don`t think a delegate is a program-mable animal. I think he`s a human being -- he or she -- who should go to the convention and vote his convictions based on what he believes his constituents want him to do at that late time. What a person -- Constituents elect a delegate in April. Matters change between April and August. And I think this process of selecting the nominee of the Democratic Party is a grave responsibility. We`re helping to pick the next president of the United States. And the American people should, in watching us, should realize that we are trying to do the best job we can to pick the very best man for the job.

HUNTER-GAULT: You were meeting today, as I said before, with people from the draft Jackson movement. I asked you a moment ago what impact did the performance have. What were those people saying today? I mean, were they less enthusiastic about a Jackson candidacy -- nomination?

DIVANY: No. That matter -- the Billygate matter did not come up at all. They -- as they view the situation since, in the past two weeks, the move towards an open convention has gained strength notwithstanding the Billygate matter.

HUNTER-GAULT: Well, would you support the president if he changed his mind and released the delegates?

DIVANY: At this point, I think a fine statesmanlike thing for the president to do would be to release the delegates. I certainly- -- He would gain ground with me if he did that.

HUNTER-GAULT: And you would support him?

DIVANY: Well, I`m uncommitted on that matter and I`m -- I believe that Henry Jackson would make a great president. I think he has --

HUNTER-GAULT: But if Carter released his delegates, those people who are now with you in the Jackson -- draft Jackson movement, do you think they would support the president?

DIVANY: If -- the only way I can answer that question, if the president releases the delegates and he wins on the first nomination, I will support Mr. Carter then.

HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Thank you. Jim?

LEHRER: Senator Dole, you of course are a Republican and you`ve been listening to the Democrats talk about their problems. President Carter before yesterday was being given up as politically dead by a lot of people, including a lot of folks in your party. As you were watching the president last night, did you have a twinge, a `Hey wait a minute, this fellow may not be dead after all politically`?

DOLE: Well, I`ve never thought he was. I mean, you know, he is the incumbent president and I`ve said to my Republican friends that it`s going to be a tough race, whether it`s President Carter or any other Democrat. So, I start on that basis. He did a good job last night, but I don`t anybody to believe that there aren`t more things to -- more questions to ask about so-called Billygate. agree that Carter would make it no matter what.

CAMPBELL: I think he`s got the votes, no matter what.

LEHRER: Yeah. All right. Well, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Divany in New York, thank you. Senator, Ms. Demetrious here, thank you very much. And good night, Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good night, Jim.

LEHRER: And we`ll see you tomorrow night. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.

LEHRER: Yeah. Do you agree with Mr. Campbell`s statement a moment ago that if they were to do a poll today, he would suddenly have jumped 10 points or more?

DOLE: Well, if he did, he might be up to 30. I mean, it`s where do you jump from? I think that`s the problem, and I wish all these delegates success next week. It`s going to be a very exciting convention --

LEHRER: What would be success from a Republican point of view in New York next week?

DOLE: [Laughs.] Well, I don`t know. I mean, you know, President Carter, we believe, can be defeated in the fall. And --

LEHRER: Easier, say, than Senator Jackson or Mondale or -- ?

DOLE: Everything`s speculative, you know. I`ve been in politics long enough. No one is easy. The Democrats have a habit of rallying around after the convention, where sometimes we go off in different directions. So, whether it`s -- I assume it will be Carter, would be my guess. If not, maybe Kennedy or maybe Jackson or Muskie or someone we haven`t heard of. ?

LEHRER: Yeah. Mr. Campbell, what do you think the chances are -- Let`s say that -- for discussion purposes` -- that through one hook or crook, either through a vote of the delegates or by action by President Carter and Senator Kennedy, that the delegates are free to vote for anybody they want to. Who do you think would be the nominee? Would they go to a Senator Jackson, a third person, or do you think they would stay with Carter?

CAMPBELL: I think they`d stay with Carter. No question about it.

LEHRER: And you feel the same way?

DEMETRIOUS: I feel the same way, that they will stay with Carter.

LEHRER: Do you feel, Ms. Demetrious, that this issue of the open convention is such a severe thing that if it`s not resolved in some kind of peaceful way, that there will be so much bloodshed in New York that you and all other Democrats are going to pay a price, and a big one, to Mr. Dole and his people?

DEMETRIOUS: Oh, I don`t think that there will be a great battle. There won`t be the bloodshed, which I`m sure the Republicans would like to see. I think that what bothers me about this -- and there have been some misleading statements made by individuals on both sides and in the press -- you talk about a closed convention vs. an open convention and it all sounds very ominous, and you think about the smoke-filled rooms and the power brokers. That`s just not going to happen. This party, the Democratic Party is an open party. I personally favor rejection of Rule F(3)(c).

LEHRER: Mr. Divany, let me ask you. Do you -- if this party -- If this convention was `opened up,` do you believe that it would be a power- brokered convention? There would be -- your people with Jackson trying to make a deal with the Mondale people, trying to make a deal with the Kennedy people, and it`ll all be resolved in a hotel room?

DIVANY: No, I don`t think -- I don`t believe it would be a power-brokered convention at all. At all of these conventions, things happen. The people talk. We saw that in the Republican Party convention. I think agreements are made. But if -- I think if Mr. Carter were to release the delegates, I think it would be a very close vote right now. I`m not sure he would make it.

LEHRER: Do you agree? You -- no, you don`t agree. You think, Mr. Campbell, you agree that Carter will make it no matter what?

CAMPBELL: I think he`s got the vote no matter what.

LEHRER: Yeah all right. Well Mr. Campbell and Mr. Divany in New York, thank you. Senator, Ms. Demetrious here, thank you very much. And good nigh Charlayne.

HUNTER-GAULT: Good Night, Jim.

LEHRER: And we`ll see you tomorrow night. I`m Jim Lehrer. Thank you and Good Night.