thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-05; 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+
you put them all in one file it's conceivable he may have given them back to me and they made it i don't think so i think was pretty random selection of materials now you mentioned he's so few minutes ago and then what about the terms that were out mr david armstrong strong which were being violent videos of the attorney general's office did you see those charts no sir i'm not seeing anything that identifies as charles i saw the package approximately the same time the size and shape of a package to states but it could easily have contained charges that it might when was that it has taken an active are worried the fourth visit to the attorney general's office i didn't seen as really believe in a meeting and i don't know in a little channel in the bank and
how are you no no in march thank you generally align with those of other industries
nineteen seventy three it became its status as a dozen of the united states this notion that it was exactly the same as it was when i worked for mr mcgregor it was nineteen thousand dollars yes it was with the communist dictatorship therefore when i was given when i was offered the job of the offer was made and it would have been a one great increase over what would have been if she has thirteen stanley tucci as fourteen sound which is what i am now at the office since twenty three thousand and twenty four on
our radar roll call do you think you're him oh yeah no sir yes an incessant yes and what what he was saying was it's an incredible any meaning you remember the easel nobody remembers and then later and then later he said that he was he apologized he was under great deal of pressure mean and i should do a
lot i construe that is advice on his part at the time that he thought it would be he was indicating to make that would be extremely unfortunate testimony but he subsequently correct that impression and so you intimidated you feel he really really you were you're asking questions i think that one of the things that mr mcgregor did that simply didn't happen when he traveled the world and therefore the rule change
there you are every page you know so there's no surrogate and i think i thought about that video as to whether mr mcgregor and i think throughout the summer i was i had suspicions about the things that i've told this committee it's not until i'm <unk> indicated that she typed transcripts and that they came from germany and the us germany have been convicted a lot of testimony came significant at that time it was at one of their merit wasting my suspicions and i didn't do that that that i think isn't question
i think that but but i think that it's safe to be precise there was that i was in a situation where i thought that i could make assumptions instead i was asked to remove a file of which come from lily and that meeting was being investigated by the grand jury it looks very suspicious and i certainly had suspicions about that on the other hand i have been reassured by mr mcgregor that there was not adequate involvement here that that the committee was not involved and i listened to mr mcgregor as those same questions in miami convention we spent four hours and i listen to that discussion that there wasn't any need for me to race to hand suspicions i'm sure that he had been himself but as to evidence that i don't think any time that we have any that anything more conclusive we're
reviewing it and i didn't have a complete watch the debate there was no question my mind that mr mcgregor was discussing this with people who knew the facts and the idea that perhaps <unk> mcgregor was being misled by others with whom he was working dr vs for exactly the reasons that i think you've indicated to watch a man stand before the country and say there is no involvement here when you yourself think yourself for many years and many tears but that you know there's so many factors involved in this thing that i wasn't aware of and then i wasn't sure that i think that i know what the effect is running for me that mr mcgregor insane it suspicions well that would have indicated i think that i had complete lack of faith in what i've been told when mr
mcgregor and i didn't i trusted well no i had cause to believe that that was something that as to what it was big on long island and western they had acted on his own and i have no cause i have no evidence to believe that he had not acted in any event either you remember the committee to reelect president they just reverse everything that's why he was talking to you is a top mr colson during the information
to my knowledge i don't know whether that this information that are here today that was transmitted and so that when you saw this about reports it did concern such as about being made without this type of knowledge are severe enough to undermine americans' now a file seem suspicious in that respect because it thinking as to whether i know and it's concerning them this is different in europe and you talk about the song you're seventeen you would seem out of the car and it was an
active file and i think when i meant to say was that i wasn't certain that was in a violent insurgency and a general knowledge dc i had read in the press that it's supposed to have significance is supposed to indicate a wiretap transmittal i didn't know that at the time and if in fact that's what it contained i don't believe that i had seen documents that began a confidential source reports mr oliver wow
all things involving cooperation with and manual jobs and today's hearings we've heard from two more formal campaign people who had access to key watergate documents but failed to examine them simply because they were told not to one thing has become clear that republicans have no need to worry about campaign security within their organizations will read that day of code words absurd and cher to the spy within the humphrey came and i was ruby was ruby to crystal refineries in the tour for the gem stone intelligence laws that included over democratic telephone calls tomorrow we should be getting quite a different perspective that what this will be a huge blow to
what the campaign soon after watergate and it's been widely reported that he lacked because he was invited to participate in the cover up but decided he couldn't in good conscience sloan has been moved up on the witness list horrible plan explained by committee counsel sign that this get further detail on the break in itself and concentrate on the aftermath the top of the impacts the uk just two weeks ago
reporter speculation sometime in july during watergate the case for sub committee of resolution to go into the various political espionage and campaign contributions and we're investigating and now we will have hearings before on and that the president will be the next major cover up an obstruction of justice which is a much more significant law professor and leave to senator levin's committee the man who with clinton's backing has more than any other except the course of this investigation and its tone despite
demands from some committee members that the baby was the elegance of haldeman's in the beans should be heard from before the public interest wanes that has resisted has with iran insist the proper foundations as lawyers call a belated the testimony of each witness it may at times be tedious there's reasons but it is his way of building a case gentleman with a special knowledge of the congressional investigations of the many legal ramifications of all watched today's hearing session with as ellen bard an author journalist there and watch no matter what about congressional investigations is joined by being adrian lester of the georgetown university law school here and wash and eliminate the committee itself was on trial to some degree when it began the day as a result of their decision not to delay their proceedings after being asked to do so by archibald cox the special
prosecutor i do think that that committee can also today inflation i think every self quite well first earthlings decision to go ahead with the hearing wise because three months do it would work with the issues about three months now the calls for global village spending stroke and that that meant to get into indictments rubin didn't drop it into the euro's been recalling the suspect the gulf right now i think the the hearing today by its product probably a painstaking way of developing evidence i think went out of its way to avoid any roman holiday type atmosphere which might well jeopardize to the rights of the defense committee persons may later be indicted now many feel about i shared the treasures hugh laurie i was impressed as i have been
in the past with three days before and i was taken particularly with the decision of the committee not to force was the levee to come before it can plead publicly and the privilege against self incrimination would use it in private that seems to me to be wise then right and respectful of a constitutional right one of the one of the ugly aspects of some past congressional investigating committees that has been the practice a determining an executive session that i witnessed would plead the fifth amendment and then putting in as it were exhibition before television cameras by forcing him in public over and over again to refuse to defend himself from his union as it were by exposure and buy puppies that is not a proper role for a congressional committee and this committee i think it's given a
very good illustration of respect for the rights of witnesses go for a gun gingrich did you agree with the helm or did you notice also that the committee was asking both witnesses so when was it that you were first interviewed by the fbi one was a jewel first interviewed by the us attorneys when was a few first interviewed by the congressional committee by their committee the senate bill the case that fact that the senate committee got there before the justice department and many cases that they're trying to build there their own justification or to show that they got their first and why in the world should they quit before somebody else does the think that i think a woman well and a second witness they predict that point paid to work on the citizens to media that is making another point the blizzard so what will the governors have this project to write almost a year now and they really heartbreaking that the progress towards and even
the original mortgage seven until the marines in one wednesday matinee hero was largely responsible or so i think you know this isn't the first time that activities by on capitol hill about a jogger and loosen the prosecution there it's a long time ago but the teapot dome to the head of the congressional investigation and the prosecution proceeding and so i think i'm at the point was that in those other cases were there there was parallel investigations going on was the body out later acquitted or a conviction gone out quarters results of that have on them as a relief to see and boston versus are fifty two hot a low income tax collector was not the prosecution because of the national committee contemporaneously was conducting what was ramadan
that's what the committee that element to agree that if there was an inclination i'm not saying there was that if in fact there was an inclination on the part of any member of this committee the congo the roman holiday route somewhere along the way that the the whole business of cox's not tempered that i mean you have these committee members are now on the spot other not they get a place to noah on the spot on the play they certainly seem to be quite determined to give a display of blight of bipartisanship or non partisanship a very inappropriate concern committee and trust of the inquiry by the senate itself to carry out that responsibility with dignity with great decorum with deliberation and with a respectful of people before well i've that's all what i was suggesting that if they fall you say is true but that if they had any tendency not to be that way that now under the gun as a result of
being challenged by archibald cox and saying that if they continue they will endanger the judicial process in the future that there will be even more careful than i would have otherwise then there's none yes that's quite true and i think you will write a moment ago when you said that the committee was itself the sense on trial so far i think it's been coming through that trial really rather remarkably well and if you want to board cuts contributed to that so much the better i think he was making a record that it was appropriate for him to ask the committee i had to suspend oil or carrots its inquiry but i think it was absolutely right for the committee to insist that it had a vital function the reform at the command of the senate and to go ahead with its business in an orderly
methodical way gentlemen thank you very much today the senate watergate investigators took a couple of seemingly low key steps and they're moved away the watergate case and i am in public tomorrow there'll be more background building with the testimony of use long former treasurer the committee to reelect president some feel it is a tedious process the slow accumulation of information and personalities and nuances under the public challenge of these proceedings will jeopardize the process of justice as it relates to watergate the pace is expected to be even more careful tomorrow and the other tomorrow to the public hearings but there are dramatic human aspects of the watergate hearings that should not be ignored by any artist sally comedy and robert rieser are real people who until today none of us ever really heard of with a believable in their testimony what kind of our decisions the day happen i don't believe they are what would we have done it we did that in their place but they're at their time what i did is that
really a story of facts that there's no question about that but it's also a story of people and tomorrow the people's name is useful another new famous name in america as of them are quite this point we'd like to thank all of you for you to have made comments on our primetime coverage of these hearings the response has been overwhelming and we're grateful for those of you have taken the time to write would like to encourage you folks who still express an opinion about the line your local public television station the one you're watching right now the matter decided around these broadcasts and they depend on you to keep them in business on the air until tomorrow night and on their behalf and july upper robert macneil and peter kay thank you and good night for him from washington you been watching gavel to gavel that yielded coverage of hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities as coverage is made possible by grants for a special event coverage from the corporation for public broadcasting and the ford foundation
and has been a production of unpacked and a vision of a greater washington educational telecommunications association you're only noon news or there 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/512-901zc7sg3z).
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 6 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, Sally Harmony and Robert Reisner 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: 2341611-1-5 (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; 1973-06-05; Part 5 of 5,” 1973-06-05, 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; 1973-06-05; Part 5 of 5.” 1973-06-05. 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; 1973-06-05; 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