thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-07-26; 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+
F Since there is no objection for seating, I move that this time the Council for Committee be authorized. And of the appropriate laws and statutes, the United States, including the declaratory judgment side, presented your just, just, just issueable issue to the appropriate court based on the subpoena issue lawfully by this committee. And the letter declining to honor the subpoena day of July 25, 1973 signed with President United States. It takes that step, this might be necessary to present that issue for adjudication. Because in the second to the motion, then all in favor of the motion, let me know in the region in the right hand.
I think this litigation is essential. We are to determine whether the President is above the law, and whether the President is immune from all of the duties and responsibilities of this kind, which devolve upon all the other mortals who dwell in this land. In the Senate of the United States, a resolution to establish a select committee of the Senate, to conduct an investigation and study of the extent, if any, to which illegal, improper or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons, acting individually or in combination with others, in the presidential election of 1972, or any campaign canvas or other activity related to it. From Washington, NPAC brings you Gavill to Gavill videotape coverage of today's hearings with a Senate select committee and presidential campaign activities.
Here is NPAC Senior Correspondent, Robert McNeil. Good evening. John Erlichman weathered his third day of Senate interrogation without making any admission of complicity in the Watergate cover-up. One of the few new facts he permitted to escape his well-organized mind was his wife's observation that he looked on television as though he was scowling too much. The committee again spent a good deal of time exploring Erlichman's relations with the White House Plumber's group a year before Watergate. This finally brought from Senator Baker, what amounted to a demand from more information from the White House, if President Nixon's use of national security concerns to explain much of Watergate and the cover-up, was to be credible. Mr. Nixon wrote to Senator Irvin today refusing to comply with the committee's subpoenas to produce White House tapes. The committee then voted unanimously to take the President to court over the issue. Mr. Nixon also declined to honor the subpoena of special prosecutor Archibald Cox.
Federal Judge John Siricco said August the 7th for a hearing. The White House said the President would accept an ultimate decision by the Supreme Court. Throughout these difficult negotiations between the Senate Committee and the White House, the leading optimist has been Howard Baker. But after the committee voted to go to court on his motion, it was a subdued Senator Baker who expressed his personal feelings to impact Peter K. I regret that it has arrived at that point. And I guess partly because I've tried to be the one who suggested middle courses and wise men and alternative possibilities that I guess that played some part in my decision to go ahead and make the motion and suggest we do it there as a signal that we intend to persevere and we intend to be fair and we intend to litigate the matter an orderly way in the courts. But to rest any idea that there's division within the committee, there is not division within the committee on the necessity for doing this. So I guess all of those played some part in it.
Accounting part for my fatigue and disappointment that we've reached this place, but my continuing small flicker of hope that we'll get through it somewhere. Have you been in contact with the White House throughout these rather troublesome weeks? No. I had no contact at all with them. I've done my communicating as I'm doing now by television and newspaper interviews the line, but I've had no contact. Senator Baker had several other comments on the progress of the hearings thus far and at the end of our videotape playback tonight will present the rest of his interview with Peter K. Right before your very eyes as the saying goes, you're soon going to see a committee of the United States Senate vote in effect to sue the president of the United States. Jack Murphy of the Georgetown University Law Center here in Washington is with us. Jack, how does this Senate action relate to the actions involving special prosecutor Archibald Cox? And sure what I'm asking you to do is sort of all out force. Well briefly, Jim, the White House this morning through the legal initiative back in the direction of the parties who had served it with the subpoenas. In the case of the Congress, of course, refusing to cooperate for a reason stated in the president's letter of July 6th and July 23rd.
In the case of Mr. Cox's subpoena issued under the direction of the district court by a letter to Judge Siricca indicating that the president apparently feels he cannot submit to the jurisdiction of the United States courts. This is a very interesting question, which we'll have to develop later. But the point is that Mr. Cox quickly resumed the initiative by filing a petition with the court asking for a show cause hearing as to why these documents should not be brought forth. The show cause order was signed by Judge Siricca. There will be a hearing on that August 7th. In the meantime, the Congress will have to file an independent lawsuit which will take much longer to get going. Hence, Mr. Cox will have a first crack at the merits of a constitutional position taken by the president, although at some later time, the two cases might be consolidated for appeal purposes. OK, thank you. Mr. Murphy will be back at the close of tonight's broadcast to share some more of his legal wisdom with us. He'll be joined at that time by Alan Barth, long time editorial writer here in Washington and author of the book, Government by Investigation. Once again, today, Erlichman was the sole witness and he began his testimony as soon as the questions about the White House tapes were dealt with.
Here is our nightly specific schedule of coming attractions. Chairman Erwin begins the session by reading a letter from President Nixon, who says he most respectfully refuses the committee's request for the tapes. Erwin himself terms it very unfortunate that the president has named himself custodian of the tapes, making it necessary that he be directly involved in the forthcoming legal action. Then Erlichman resumes his testimony, saying that there was pressure to get information on Daniel Ausberg, because the president was keeping the pressure on in response to the Pentagon paper's case. In the second hour, Erlichman says there was a need for the plumbers in the Ausberg case because the FBI probe was inadequate. And later he says President Nixon kept John Dean on the job after learning of his cover-up involvement because Henry Peterson of the Justice Department wanted Dean to stay while the department's probe continued. Erlichman speaks in the next hour of why Marie Stenz was allowed to give a deposition rather than appear personally before the grand jury. As to whether this was done to avoid difficult questions from jurors, Erlichman says the sole reason was to protect the campaign finance chairman from the gauntlet of newsmen outside the grand jury room.
And here Erlichman begins his debate about national security with Baker, insisting that we are not playing games. During the fourth and final hour, Erlichman says he didn't know about the dean and combat roles in the cover-up because he was not omniscient. And he says Watergate was a manageable political liability because it involved only the committee to re-elect, but not the White House. Now Senator Irvin is about to begin today's session. I'm going to make another request to the audience that the audience will refrain from expressing an interim manner of approval or disapproval of any person or any question or any answer. I'm trying to conduct a dignified hearing, which would be as fast as possible to everybody concerned. And the committee is going to have to give serious consideration to the question of excluding from the hearing room,
the persons who audibly express their approval or disapproval of any person or any question or any answer in an audible manner. And I hope that I will not have to repeat this request again. The committee has received, at least I have received this chairman of the committee, a letter from the White House dated July the 25th, 1973. Dear Mr. Chairman, White House Council have received on behalf the two subpoenas issued by you on behalf of the Select Committee on July the 23rd. One of these calls on me to punish to the Select Committee recordings of five meetings between Mr. John Dean and myself.
For the reason stated to you and my letters of July the 6th and July the 23rd, I must respectfully refuse to produce these recordings. The other subpoena calls on me to punish all records of any kind relating directly or indirectly to the activities, participation, responsibilities, or involvement of 25 named individuals in any alleged criminal acts related to the presidential election of 1972. Some of the records that might arguably fit within that subpoena are presidential papers that must be kept confidential for reasons stated in my letter of July the 6th. It is quite possible that they are other records in my custody. That would be within the habit of that subpoena and that I could consist with the public interest in my constitutional responsibilities provide to the Select Committee. All specific requests from the Select Committee will be carefully considered.
And my staff and I, as we have done in the past, will cooperate with the Select Committee by making available any information and documents that can appropriately be produced. You will understand, however, I am sure that it would simply not be feasible for my staff and me to review thousands of documents to decide which do and which do not fit within the sweeping but big terms of the subpoena. It continues to be true, as it was when I wrote to you on July the 6th, that my staff is on the instructions to cooperate fully with yours and punish an information pertinent to your inquiry. I have directed that exact privilege not being invoked with regard to testimony by President and former members of my staff concerning possible criminal conduct or discussions of possible criminal conducts. I have waived the attorney-client privilege with regard to my former counsel. In my July 6th letter, I described these acts of cooperation with the Select Committee as genuine, extensive and in the history of such matters extraordinary.
That cooperation has continued and will continue. Exactive privilege is being invoked not only with regard to documents and recordings. That cannot be made public consistent with the confidentiality of essential to the function of the Office of the President. I cannot and will not consent to give an ininvestable tour by the private presidential papers. To the extent that I have custody of other documents or information relevant to the work of the Select Committee, and that I can properly be made public, I will be glad to make these available in response to specific requests sincerely, rich at Nixon. Now, how the President expects this committee to specify each document that he says falls within the amendment of one of these subpoenas is a very surprising thing. We are not a cloud volume. Since we have never seen the documents, and since even those White House age who are willing to identify the documents are not allowed to copy them or any parts of them,
the President puts on the Committee to manifest the impossibility of receiving the documents. The way the chair construes this letter, the President flat refuses to give us the tapes that were identified in the subpoena as recording conversations between the President and John Dean. And he lays down the second conditions about the documents which are impossible of fulfillment by the Committee, because you cannot identify a document which you have never seen. And you have the restriction upon the White House former age or age or former age that could go through these papers and identify this document that they can't copy them, much less so can carry them out. So, the chair finds it a little difficult to see how very much cooperation comes from the President in these matters.
This is serious the fact that the Committee is engaged in and has present the United States as informers. Now, some of these recordings do have reference to the matters we investigated, but he can't finish it to us because we might misconstruel them. And then he tells us he'll have to punish the documents that they're not, they doesn't consider it to be presidential papers. If we can identify the specific document which is an impossibility. Oh, I just like to say, I think the President could apply with the request of the Committee on both of these respects. And the Constitution wouldn't collapse and the heavens would involve, but the Committee might be aided by the President in term of the truth of the involved.
Mr. Chairman. As those of us who are lawyers and that's meant to be a term of approval rather than disapproval for those of us who are lawyers, I think the best way to summarize the present situation is to say that's the issue was joined. It is important to note that this Committee caused two subpoenas to issue rather than one. The first subpoena specified with I believe great particularity of the conversations, the dates and the participants, that we wanted access to on the allegation of the subpoena that such conversations might be concerned with alleged illegal or criminal activity. The second subpoena dealt with a rather more general demand for documents.
And please, Mr. Chairman, that we chose to issue our subpoena in two parts rather than one. Because as you pointed out, it's far more difficult to specify with particularity the documents we see if we don't know what the documents are. But it's fairly easy to specify the tapes or the portions of the tapes that we see. In any event, we've arrived at the place now where it would appear that the issues are in fact joined. And the third branch of the government now, the judiciary may in fact be called on to resolve an historic conflict between the remaining two branches. I think as in all litigation in this country, it is our desire, all of us to proceed, if we choose to proceed, to permit the Court to make a calm intellectually and judicially sound judgment on the appropriateness of the request of this Committee together with all of the several fundamental and significant constitutional questions that are presented. I have only one remaining comment, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding that the issues are joined, I would still hope that there is some way to ameliorate the situation.
There have been a number of suggestions in the past. I've made many suggestions, both publicly and in the privacy of our executive proceedings. Certain suggestions have been passed on, both formally and informally. But notwithstanding that we have reached the point where the issues are joined and litigation may in fact ensued. I would still hope we can find a way to permit this Committee to have access to the relevant portions of the testimony or of the evidence that we require quickly and speedily, and without a prejudicial effect on our mandate to investigate or on the appropriate functioning of the presidency as an institution. I have suggested, for instance, that an informal panel of distinguished Americans not now holding a position in government might review these days at the request of both the executive and the legislative departments, and recommend to both the President and the Congress what portions are relevant and what portions are not relevant.
I am prepared to go even further, Mr. Chairman, and I have not discussed this with you or my colleagues on the Committee, and say that it's an extension and elaboration of that suggestion. I would be willing to have one or two or three or a small group of distinguished non-governmental officials review the tapes and the documents, and recommend to the President and to the Congress that certain documents or tapes are or are not relevant to this inquiry. And if they're so intermixed with other conversation, or if they lend themselves to more than one interpretation, that such a panel give to us a finding of the net effect of that information.
That may not end the controversy. It may be necessary for the Committee then to pursue the matter further. It may be necessary for the President to disagree, but at least it would move us one space forward. It is not idle optimism that compels me to once again urge that we find a way around this joiner of issue. For the benefit of the Congress, of the presidency, of the President, or the benefit of the courts that they may be spared, the business of defining 200 years after the drafting of the charter document, implied, explicit, and overlapping apparent powers, and for the people of the country.
So no matter how small the flicker of the flame of optimism may be, I continue to urge that we have an accommodating spirit and that we continue to try to find a way. And this way or any other way that seems promising a result to produce that desire to end. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Any other member of the Committee have any observations they'd like to make at this time? Then if not to leave my purpose to call a meeting of the Committee at an early time and let the Committee decide what action it shall take, then here's an audit of the Senate, which is set forth in paragraph 77 of the Senate manual, which confers upon this committee to power, to bring us in suit that the Committee feels is necessary to enable it to perform duties that's required to perform to the Senate. It's a very, an unfortunate thing that the President didn't claim that he has custody of everything in the custody and control of everything in the White House.
Because that prevents the Committee from taking a very similar proceeding against the actual custodian of these tapes and the actual custodian of these papers. I don't believe even the President would have claimed that he had custodian of all the things in the, he had, once locked on including the alleged telegrams that he is alleged to have had in his custody. But if his plane be valid that would have to be true, I would think the Senate will likely resume unless there's some comment by the members of the Committee. I just like to say that I just make motion. I don't see any of my colleagues have any objection they may say so, and I don't mean to embarrass any of them, but I don't see any point.
I have an executive session, I think we've discussed the matter, and I think that when a position to act, and if you want to do that, I'm personally willing to make a motion. If a motion would be considered in order. Well, it'd be considered an order unless, if any member of the Committee would rather go in the executive session, leave that up and they could communicate that to me. There's an open ill private. Mr. Chairman, since the chairman is absent, but I guess we can make him record his vote when he gets there. Mr. Chairman, let me, let me state a motion. Since there is no objection for seating, I move at this time that Council for the Committee be authorized, and the appropriate laws and statutes, the United States, including the declaratory judgment side, presented your just, just tissueable issue to the appropriate court based on the subpoena issue lawfully.
This Committee, and the letter declining to honor the subpoena, dated July 25, 1973, signed with the President of the United States, and it takes extra steps, this might be necessary to present that issue for a due to occasion. If any second to the motion, then all in favor of the motion, they'd be known by raising their right hand. Then the six senators present vote unanimously for the motion and the Senate to tell them it will be given an opportunity to record his vote when he comes in. The chair recognizes that there is no precedent for litigation of this nation, but the reason there was no precedent for any litigation, and I think this litigation is essential. If we are to determine whether the President is above the law, and whether the President is immune from all of the duties and responsibilities in matters of this kind, which devolve upon all the other models who dwell in this land.
Mr. Wilson, you want to say something? Mr. Chairman, I have received information overnight that the Committee or its staff possesses at least one document in relation to the sequence of the document of August 3, 1971, which was identified by Senator Wiker yesterday. Mr. Chairman, may I correct me in forms? I indicated that there was no correspondence, Mr. Wilson, in sequence. If you're talking about a document and sequence, you have seen the document that might be considered in sequence and was submitted to you, which was the August 11 memorandum from Mr. Young and Mr. Croak, Mr. Erick, that's the only document that might be considered in sequence. But what yesterday and the committee, which I responded to you, was were there any further correspondence, was the reply to this letter, other correspondence in sequence.
There is a document which may be considered to be in sequence and that it followed that letter, and he actually even refers to that letter, but you have seen that document, it was submitted to you. The August 11 memorandum from Mr. Croak and Mr. Young and Mr. Erick, I know of no other document that we have in sequence. Is that the one in which it stated that Mr. Hoover said that he would proceed with a full-scale investigation of the Pentagon papers? I think it's the one that says that they would give it a FBI special, something of that nature. We have the document. You've seen it, it was submitted and it was a matter of record. I just asked you yesterday to produce it. It was produced and it wasn't, when I was questioning Mr. Erickman, you were given that document. Is that the document that's referred to in the New York Times this morning?
I didn't see any document in New York Times. Let me read you the sentence. Reportedly, when the hearing resumes tomorrow, a he that sent a wiker plans to show Mr. Erickman another letter, this one from Mr. Croak to Mr. Erickman, in which Mr. Croak remarks that Mr. Hoover had promised a full investigation and noting that the bureau had interviewed Mr. Marx's wife. Is that an accurate report of the document that you have just described to me? Well, we'll get the document and we'll save you. Mr. Wilson, I might state that it appears by implication or animation, at least from the President's letter, that this committee doesn't have all the documents that all have. It hasn't been able to get it. We don't have any plumbers to go out and seek for them. You've got a pretty good staff that seeks a lot of things. Yes, but they don't believe in so repetitious activities.
May I have this clarified before, Mr. Senator Wiker begins? What document shows a reference to Mr. Marx's wife? Yes, the August, it's the August 11th. The August 11th memorandum in which you would proceed. The August 11th memorandum in which you saw an examine thoroughly when I presented it to Mr. Erickman for examination. It's the August 11th memorandum from Mr. Butcroak and Mr. David Young to Mr. Erickman in which Mr. Erickman was asked to approve a covert operation. We undertaken to examine all medical files. It includes a list of names of persons that say the Boston grand jury will meet next week. Justice has made a final decision, but it's considering subpoenaing the following individuals. And Mr. Lewis Marx is one.
Then, if the memorandum says that we have received a letter from Director Hoover confirming that the Ellsberg case and related matters will be handled on a bureau special basis. That's the only memorandum we have. I believe that Mr. Wilson was asking for another letter that was offered in heaven's health to the fact that from day to day, stating that they had transmitted to someone all of the files they had on them and on 17 people, and stating that they would go ahead and investigate everybody except, and they said also included a statement of Ellsberg, and in which he stated that they were prepared to interview all other people except of Ellsberg. Mr. Wilson, do you have a copy of the transcript? No.
Well, I remember you're giving me a three or four page August 11th document, which is exhibited, what, two? Well, it's exhibit numbers 90 and 90. No, I mean, in this proceeding that Mr. Ellickman did not get a new number. We don't have new numbers, though. It was listed as exhibit number three of an executive session. Thank you. Yes, I have that one. I think before me, is that the one in which he said that they were continuing to press the FBI to determine some subjects? In paragraph six. We are continuing to press the FBI. That's right. To determine whether the report of a foot locker. Thank you. I just wanted to identify it. Thank you very much. That was submitted to you. Thank you very much. I would like to state that the reason to tell me is not here this moment is the fact that he is a chairman of a very important conference committee on the very important subject. A crucial piece of legislation and its conference committee is highly desirable since this piece of legislation relates to agriculture.
It's absolutely essential that the legislation be passed before the beginning of the next fiscal year. So the American people who are interested in agriculture and pursuits can know what they can do. And that's the reason he had to give that task priority over his task as member of this committee on this particular occasion. Mr. Wilson, I'd ask you the question. I want you to get in the document we got. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you do. And those documents your attention may call to, do they comport with the document you mentioned as being printed in New York Times? Say that again, sir. The two documents that your attention has been called to, are they apparently documents referred to in the New York Times? I'm assuming so, but I guess that's on the sender, like I will explain it if he cares to.
Mr. Chairman, I don't think I have any explaining to do. You've raised a point, Mr. Wilson, saying that there's a document outstanding that you've not received when, in fact, you'd received it two days ago. As I understand it, that's the only point that's been made here that you have had that very document in your hands for two days. Then as far as you know, the New York Times is not talking about any other document. As far as I know, you have had the information that you requested today in your hands for two days. I have no other documents to go ahead and present to you. Thank you, sir. I have some questions for your client. And you might proceed at this time with your interrogation on the witness. Mr. Ehrlichman, you stated...
Mr. Ehrlichman, you stated... ...and has that he be recorded in voting in favor of the motion which has been adopted by the vote of 6,000 senators and so on. You stated yesterday, Mr. Ehrlichman, that the FBI, through its leadership of Mr. Hoover, was not pushing, was not pushing the Ellsberg investigation, allegedly because of a relationship Mr. Hoover had with Mr. Ellsberg's father in law, Mr. Lewis Marks, and that it wasn't until after September 20, 1971 that the FBI, quote, was clicking on all eight cylinders. End of quote, that'd be correct. I don't think I said after. If I said after, I should have said by, Senator, and the reason that I picked that date is that honor about that date. There was a meeting, which the Attorney General had with the President, where he gave the President of Progress report on this matter, and that was the gist of his report at that time.
Now, when that commenced, I don't need to testify, too, because that's not something that I know my own knowledge. But at any event, one of the difficulties, apparently, on the FBI investigation was the relationship between Mr. Hoover and Mr. Marks. That's correct? That's what the Attorney General reported to me. Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Lewis Marks was interviewed by the FBI in June 1971, before Mr. Kroge's memorandum to you of August 11, which memorandum has been referred to here this morning, and before the September 3, 1971 break-in by Hunt and Liddy, part of the covert operation you approved? Did you know that Mr. Marks had been interviewed in June? By the FBI, Senator? That's correct. I don't recall that fact. Well, then, how could you ascribe the reason of Lewis Marks, or the failure of the FBI,
get information from Lewis Marks as the reason for setting up this unit and for having this or more specifically have the unit investigate Ellsburg as they do? Well, what I attempted to testify to was the report that I had had from two people who were intimately familiar with the progress of this case. One was Mr. Kroge, and the other was the Attorney General, Mr. Mitchell. They both reported to me what I have testified to here. Now, it may be, and I don't know this, and I'd be speculating in this answer. But it may be that the explanation is that that interview was either unsatisfactory or perfunctory or did not deduce that the information that was desired or that that interview is what resulted in this disciplinary action that Mr. Hoover imposed. I just don't know.
Mr. Chairman, may we see that report? The FBI report? What if the interview with Mr. Martin? Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. We got the FBI reports from the Attorney General Klein, these, on condition that we would not release them to the public. Now, if you get the... Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I can be helpful here. My knowledge of the interview by the FBI, Mr. Marx comes from Mr. Marx. And he was interviewed in June of 1971. Well, I've now established that the committee is in possession of a FBI report. Oh, no, I'm a speaker. Is that so? We do not have the FBI reports. They were committed to inspect them and to make notes from them. That's all.
No summary? They have a stifesum. Some stifesum is, but we got those under great difficult causes, and on the agreement that we would not release them to the public. If you get all those things from Attorney General himself consent, he has a custody album. Now, director of talent, well, I'd be delighted to have everything to come out and be shown Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me... Mr. Chairman, could I say a word at this point, Mr. Wike will yield for a second. We've been deeply involved in the business of trying to get documents to make documents public, and I can understand Mr. Wilson's concern in this respect. But you and I, Mr. Chairman, were parties to the conversation with former Attorney General Klein, who had a strict requirements imposed on our access to those. Now, rather than ask the witness to be relieved of the obligation which we assumed at that time, for my part, I'm willing to have the committee ask to be relieved of that obligation, so we can show that information to witness and counsel.
But since I was there and present, I know the rather extraordinary links we went to to gain access to them in any form. I'm also keenly aware of the promise and the commitment that we made with respect to the confidentiality of Rowette, be I data. But I would hope if there is no objection on behalf of the committee, that the committee formally requests the Attorney General of the United States to relieve us of that obligation. I'd be grateful to you if you're doing that. I don't question for one moment, sir, that you've got some information from Mr. Marx. But it can't be his accurate. It may I say with all due respect, as the role of the court would be itself. And I appreciate the suggestion of the offer of the Vice Chairman on our behalf, perhaps for US2, to seek to have that document released to us. I wouldn't keep the records absolutely straight. As Senator Baker said, this agreement was made between him and myself, and the Attorney General planned these days, and we had to accept the terms under which,
so we were all for access to Summers. And the condition was, as we informed with the Attorney General, we did not want the Summers fall off, or any FBI records for the use of evidence. We merely wanted them to identify persons who would be, who could be some of the spinners' witnesses, because that was revealed by those Summers that they had some knowledge of the mouse we were investigating. And we gave them the Attorney General of Solomon Palmer, that the committee would not release these publicly. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Council Committee be authorized to request the Attorney General to release from that commitment to secrecy, so that a copy of the staff summary can be given to Council for this witness. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
And I assume, from what's been said, and forgive me for pursuing this further, because I'm grateful for what has just been volunteered. Members of the committee, or the staff, did read either the summary or the role report of the FBI on this so-called interview with Mr. Marks. And your committee does have knowledge of the contents of this report, and we don't have it. Mr. Chairman, may I speak to this point for a minute, please? Mr. Chairman, may I address myself to this point? I think I should point out the piece of history, the legislative history, that at the time the Chairman and the Vice Chairman made the determination with the Attorney General, that only they would be allowed access to the FBI files. The junior senator from Connecticut, excitable as he gets, jumped up and down and objected. I will start to corroborate that.
Senator, maybe we're going to get it. Maybe we're going to get it now, you and myself. And so having an investigation to pursue, I went down other avenues. I've already told you, I have talked to Mr. Marks. And I tell you now, I have also talked to Mr. Brennan, the Assistant Director of the FBI, Head of Division 5, who ordered that the investigations take place, so I can confirm to you from both the FBI that did the investigating. And for Mr. Marks, it was investigated that an investigation took place in June of 1971. And Mr. Chairman, you have lived up to your agreements with the Attorney General of the United States, and I have never seen any FBI file that has come into your possession of the possession of the Vice Chairman. Or any member of the staff, Majority Minority Council that were authorised. This makes the record even clearer. And as a result of the record, the position stated by the Center for Connecticut, I called the Attorney General Klond East and asked him to modify the agreement,
and allow five other members of the committee to see these FBI files. And he declined my request, and then after he was succeeded by Attorney General Richardson, I wrote him a letter repeating the request. And he declined the request to extend that privilege to other five senators. So we have had, he did modify one member of the staff designated by both the Vice Chairman, and he had himself to go and look at some of the original FBI files. But let me tell you, it hasn't been any better. Rose was trying to get information out of the executive branch of the government, which is germane to this investigation. But I'm going to suggest an interesting time that you will communicate to the staff for the documents you want instead of us. Thank you.
And we will do the best we can for you in our power. We will certainly try to give them to you. Thank you. And so I would suggest that the Center of White could proceed with interrogation for you before Center of White could ask. I impose on this time just one more moment. I hope that it clearly appears from this record. I don't believe anyone on this committee, certainly I do not, want to withhold any document or information from this witness or his counsel. And we would not impose any restraint on that. We're at not or the condition imposed by former Attorney General Klein being. So that was the basis for my unanimous consent request. And I gather from the chairman statement just now that upon the request of counsel we will proceed in the manner I outlined in the request. Thank you both. You're good, Laura. Mr. Wilson, I've got to get my engines warmed up again here. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Now, Mr. Ehrlichman, isn't it fair to say, then, that Mr. Crowe,
do you have the August 11th memorandum before you there? Do you have the August 11th memorandum before you? Do we have that August 11th memorandum? I isn't fair to say that Mr. Crowe's August 11th memorandum asks for Mrs. Marx's interview because both you and he knew that Mr. Marx had already been interviewed. There's no mention of Mr. Marx. This is August 11th now. Yes, I'm looking at. Yes, for Mrs. Marx's interview. Would you point out where it does that? I don't recall that. Well, right there where it's on the page where it says Memorandum says the Boston Grand Jury will meet next week and the first name on there is Mrs. Lewis Marx. Well, that doesn't say anything about the FBI interviewing her. That says they have not made a final decision but is considering subpoenaing her to a grand jury. I don't see anything there about the FBI interviewing her. The August 11th memorandum for Mrs. Crowe and young view states the FBI had placed the Ellsbury case on bureau special status. Well, that's not what you asked me, Senator.
So, wouldn't it be, I am saying I am very definitely going to pin down one fact here today. And that is that you base the push on the FBI on the fact that there was some relationship between the director and Lewis Marx, which made it necessary for you to go outside of normal law enforcement channels. And we've already established the fact that Mr. Marx was interviewed in June of 1971. Would you ever ask any member of the FBI if Mr. Marx had been interviewed in June of 1971? Well, if I disassociate your question from your direct statement, which I don't agree with, what don't you agree with? Well, if I could explain, what I attempted to testify here to the committee was the total setting in which Mr. Crowe came to me and in turn, the recommendation was made to the President that the special unit inaugurate investigation of Mr. Ellsbury and his associates.
The total setting included the Attorney General's information to us with regard to the investigation of specifically Mr. Lewis Marx. But that was not the only problem. It was a general problem with regard to the FBI's approach to this whole case. That was the way Mr. Crowe reported it to us. It was corroborated by the Attorney General, and it did not rest solely on the interview of any one witness, Mr. Marx, Mrs. Marx, or any one individual witness. So I had no occasion to inquire of anyone at the FBI or for that matter anywhere else about the specific interview of any one witness or any particular witnesses. Mr. Crowe described for us a set of circumstances, which was general. I did not then recommend to the President that Mr. Crowe's eventual suggestion be adopted.
I talked to the Attorney General about it. Attorney General corroborated. Mr. Crowe's description of the FBI's general approach to the case he was having his problems. And so that validated Mr. Crowe's report in general. The Attorney General cited this one instance as exemplary of the problem, and a particular problem for him at the time. These would be the director. And so then the recommendation was made that these two men that Crowe was working with being designated as investigators to go and do this follow-up. Now, this was very reluctantly entered into. This was not something, Senator, that the White House wanted to do, or at least that I personally wanted to see the White House do, unless we had to, in order to move this thing along. The President, frankly, was really keeping the pressure off to get results.
And that was the setting. Did the Attorney General know you were going to get into the covert plumber business? Attorney General knew solve this problem, to solve this problem. Attorney General knew, and the director of the FBI knew, that the White House was going to send investigators out. Yes, sir. Let me read to you from the transcript of yesterday. Senator Wiker, in other words, what I gather, you are saying he was fixing his views to the extent, this is Hoover, that he would not agree to a break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Mr. Ehrlich, that, of course, overstates it dramatically, Senator. What he would not agree to was an investigation Mr. Marx and others close to Daniel Ellsberg. Now, let me drop back in time, or I'll be the way. In July, were you aware that in July of 1971, specifically on July 20, 1971,
that the FBI had attempted to interview Dr. Fielding? I was aware of it at some time, and I don't remember when, Senator, but I do recall the fact that they unsuccessfully attempted to interview the doctor. And this was before you decided to get into his records by covert actions. Is that correct? I'm not sure I knew that before. In a moment, Senator Wiker will continue his line of questioning, but for now, we're going to pause briefly. Public television's coverage of the Senate hearings will continue after a break for station identification. On a bridge coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service by the member stations of PBS,
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service. Public Broadcasting Service.
Public Broadcasting Service.
Series
1973 Watergate Hearings
Episode
1973-07-26
Segment
Part 1 of 4
Producing Organization
WETA-TV
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/512-2f7jq0tf8c
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/512-2f7jq0tf8c).
Description
Episode Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 29 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, John Ehrlichman testifies. Note: Only reels 1 and 2 of 4 exist.
Broadcast Date
1973-07-26
Asset type
Segment
Genres
Event Coverage
Topics
Politics and Government
Subjects
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Duration
01:36:45
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: 2341710-1-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
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; 1973-07-26; Part 1 of 4,” 1973-07-26, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed February 26, 2024, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-512-2f7jq0tf8c.
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-07-26; Part 1 of 4.” 1973-07-26. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. February 26, 2024. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-512-2f7jq0tf8c>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-07-26; Part 1 of 4. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-512-2f7jq0tf8c