thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-10-11; Part 5 of 5
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
it's b and specifically as i recall when testimony given before the canadian an increase which i made of the internal security division of the justice department i think the committee and i want to believe that the information given by the internal security division to find that record and the president also made available you come into the relationship between i'm interested in the idea that testimony so at the time i tried to get a statement out that that was false at the time that we receive that information from my internal security division or anywhere else because all over the notion that the money's a
job jessica would you set the record is quite adequate as a place to draw the line as to what you investigated for here on the table those investigations
i go beyond that shows that only question of examining public record but also acting in a campaign in an open manner that is making order to conceal you are from her work i think a little more serious question even though many are pouring through trash for example are checking on a candidate crucial element which i agree is a dangerous subversive but i think even more dangerous than that is the surge practice of putting out statements really want anyone in fact they're paid for mr mitchell yeah even with more sophisticated washington
as the question as to whether or not your white house finding personal lives of politicians were justified and the answer for the american people came back at three percent to eight percent maybe some people might build might be trying to testify before the committee but as use of the american voters i noticed that finding center with a considerable own gratification as well i have a question and in the course of the campaign from member stations between me and
became known right quickly under circumstances indicated that means somebody else was listening but those are about matters that the listener would be talking especially minorities most of the country groups that were as they had to take it is that i believe that occurred when the expert testimony you know you're talking to a line or anything like that yes and guesses as to what this commission do the main audience in the united states and to prevent the very things that happen all of the tracks
it's morning edition a lot of these people of action we made it to almost ritually is now only one campaign the exhibit's these characteristics and i think that's not the route that record if you look at it that way yeah i think there are real legislative loophole i think an espionage purporting to work for another candidate going to being paid by someone else should be illegal efforts are already i think is doing political material from a campaign for the privilege of using another campaign can be reached i think the year a kind of thing we talk about a year of publishing him for publishing a press release or a leaflet in the main one candidate when in fact he is not responsible for the material should be dollars to
think people ought to be able to become that when they see something from a candidate it is indeed from him beyond that i think a question of financing is it was a very serious one but i think it i think we ought to be having interaction with a public financing question of disclosure of times people should be able to allow for a woman candidate for which candidate somebody is working is crucial but i think we can also be stampeded into a lot of legislation that may not be needed because what is really needed is a is that we nominate and ultimately elected public officer and those supporting campaign people are expected to have respect for their for the system and in general it had that the location like a statement from at an advertisement
says sami election when you can hear and i don't want them anyway all free speech as all the next and now i know there are some states that will not permit any paid political material to go out of the three days before an election of the forties before and that's probably useful the state can provide a candidate from saying anything he wants to the knowledge of the most sophisticated about those are probably going to have to reject anyone and many take me richard i think the whole question of commissions responsible for them should be tightened up and i think there should be much stiffer penalties write somebody a one off to jail for that
as i said some political family warm in an investigation now legislative solution mr cooper great thank you and just one question about perceptions that sense of my life just as about one other activity which has has come before this morning he's right which are
but his nomination citizens of many committees it's a deception it gets close to la and out but i think it well i i think that recently the rise to indicate not only will people are assigned here but was paid forty four democrats are nixon for example of the alliance in the newspapers ran on a television commercials of turnout there are they both newly reelected president if that fact had been indicated the time to weaken their impacts of deception in fact the question of
that sense of my mother well enough to have a fair chance to use a sense an it firm in this he's being misrepresented so that he believes that the honest citizens like and believe in a certain way a man in pain you might be able to recognize wine library of those ads supporting president nixon after the mining law overnight conferences that line the bottom with a copy for this advantage by a special counsel to president nixon and paid for by the president special counsel less than that thanks melissa
the pain and that's what at least two democrats had to say about what they did or didn't do in nineteen seventy two and what the republicans did or didn't do to with me to talk about their testimony in other aspects of where we are now and these hearings are john lupton former editor the official republican party publication monday now a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and john kramer professor of law georgetown university law center in washington presto mind about this michael woods point that it's a dirty tricks are politics as usual is just another part of a cover up first year was a lot i don't agree with that because i don't know of any witness that gave a blanket endorsement all the dirty tricks excuses being politics as usual on the subject of dirty tricks i mean if you were humphrey who said earlier this year on meet the press the democrats played dirty tricks on themselves on pre talked about their crazy system of orders somewhat was partial building all kinds of gymnastics there were gone through to divide his own party on for you i
said that no republican could consider such a program that did is much better than the democratic party parties themselves i think there was sort of a cover up and what language itself was saying that it's a cover up of the democratic divisions but the democrats did to themselves what the republicans did that i think it is ludicrous to suggest that this feingold george meany or put george meany apart from george mcgovern joins me in george mcgovern for a plot eight years before and nothing was going to run together or get them jobs and i think there's a tendency to rewrite history night with selling point when democrats together we never weren't they never been actually and i thought like what's also indicated that the democratic primaries at least the dirty tricks are politics as usual he said that over a valley flood came out that the assumption would be that was from the democratic opponent lebanese politics the democrats ok at this age the point there is that a dirty trick let's say that if you're actually running a primary one candidate against another new front too well obviously bp opponent that's one thing but to try to intercede
in another party's primary which is really what they spend less and what course and read it was designed to do a lot of different matter anything so i say nothing wrong what i think the debate on to be about is what sort of message do you use to influence another person's progress in nothing wrong with trying to get the weakest candidate to see a presidential nominee the other party i think that will be debated as one of the methods that you could use that road you go along well i don't know it's it's so it's a hard thing to generalize about if you have a specific method and mind that can react to what about what we've been listening to this week on not dirty tricks a tired espionage espionage and intelligence gather a man who worked for one one candidate will work and another and other candidates came one thing my calypso put his finger on a really talked about permissible non print reasonable limits of activity we talked about deception and i think that they're in and i would have to disagree with guns i think the democrats a bit indulgent dirty tricks and i think that
in boston i'm overtly and i think the number one getting dressed in the democratic party was george mcgovern and the reason i say that is because i think it was a dirty trick on a deception for mcgovern two thousand twenty thousand dollars and then withdraw to say was a thousand percent behind the growth in the city was going to withdraw troops from vietnam with lieberman trial in the case his position on women in the south carolina delegation is sitting on to cut the defense budget by thirty million dollars but not the muscle an enormous is deception and a common problem well but well actually living in somebody else's campaign that there's a real problem with the problem of the worms hatch first wants to see that not to tell who you are who you're from the second form of deception as a synod misrepresentation saying you're from place actually a really fun place was a problem is constitutionally but you cannot force somebody to print literature with his name at the bottom of literature can be anonymous and therefore you know you can say you're from the democrats running for election in your factory there's a problem even for a friend who is putting the literature so there may not be
a constitutional article i mean going back to forgery just made jon jon lauck and are you suggesting that that that take the government out of various positions and changing as you decide those were dirty tricks obvious things were done in public view are you not saying that's the same kind of thing that we've been that none of them go as npr's juan said that the democrats thirty trips were performed over women performed by the presidential candidate and i consider that to be a form of deception and dirty tricks and on the committee didn't have an overburdened for side of the hearings and actually think the average vehicle and there's plenty of deception on his part what it was like in english and adolf hitler changing his position on for parodies or israel and now on abortion about all this several different positions on all those issues are likely to search i think that's the seasonal positions at stake in these hearings to right now particularly when it's uncertain what was actually a gunman was on the public record even on both sides nothing was don't think on the government before the committee and asked if he thinks deception like the legendary adolph
hitler somebody would respond about each other women in the condition that he would support the south carolina challenge the new america which in iraq in the booth selling them out that my village as for what we have in the job but you were ok with that let's move on to the hearings themselves now the committee itself they're taken it to a few weeks off the obviously they have at least finish one phase of dirty tricks and telling him to go into a campaign funding now other people have suggested that they commit is rudderless that kind of lost sight of what they're going to do that some of their testimony in their witnesses a better relative cetera et cetera et cetera i think about jon all i think there is a short like the president's economic program and evan fraser and it becomes less effective and i think beginning of you really to stop right now it's
funny and nothing came out of that was what we would suggest is legislative recommendations that wasn't really even seriously thought about a death obviously hadn't are not supposed to be the whole purpose of here and so it made clear that it lose their purpose is not being fulfilled oj answer those who say that there were women a mandate for this committee was to investigate dirty tricks and campaign funding as well as the watergate break into the watergate break in of course brought the big names et cetera but that after all the committee must proceed whether nevada was to watch it on television ads that's the public's right of the committee must pursue the one demand demand they can proceed and those senators are only two attendants in the afternoon and what republicans were apparently elsewhere for quick question about witnesses so that was kind of unusual it really changed you noticed mr backus as mr mankiewicz was sort of legislative proposals we have an inch china's leaders of the notorious back in the identical
question many have one time in a series and they can either be a five months old or two days ago ok jonah thank you very much but the committee is taking the two weeks off now before it comes back to begin its investigation of campaign financing and possibly other matters well our guest tonight i'm jim lehrer thank you but washington you've been watching devil the devil videotape coverage of the hearing of 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 as the production of the vision of a greater washington educational telecommunications association <unk> then named fb
1973 Watergate Hearings
Part 5 of 5
Producing Organization
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
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/512-4x54f1n78h).
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 45 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, Rick Stearns and Frank Mankiewicz testify.
Asset type
Event Coverage
Politics and Government
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Anchor: MacNeil, Robert
Anchor: Lehrer, James
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2342117-1-5 (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.
Chicago: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-10-11; Part 5 of 5,” 1973-10-11, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 17, 2021,
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-10-11; Part 5 of 5.” 1973-10-11. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 17, 2021. <>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-10-11; Part 5 of 5. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from