thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-24; Part 1 of 5
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
the pain is big it is in the senate of the united states a resolution to establish a select committee of us in conducting investigations having an extent if any improper or unethical activities or engaged in by any persons acting individually or in combination with others in the presidential election of nineteen seventy two when a campaign campus or other activities from washington and that brings to gavel to gavel videotape coverage of today's hearing of the senate select committee on presidential campaign
activities here is in fact senior correspondent robert mcneil beginning today was the fifth day of the watergate hearings and today we got back to the main narrative for the past two days the evidences straight into the question of attempts to cover up the watergate operation and in the contradictions and the evidence of james mccord and his former attorney general knowledge this morning arch got the most rigorous cross examination of any witness so far and one senator threatened perjury proceedings if the discrepancies could not be resolved this afternoon the hearings really does present returned to the original game plan stories and motives of two more of the man connected to the watergate break in because progress through the original witness list has been so slow the committee today announced an additional three days of hearings in the first week of june senator sam irvin the man from north carolina who's running a spectacular took a stronger personal role in today's session as you will say he demonstrated two of his most famous quote it's tenacity and charm
after that it was over the senator said i am with impacts peter carey to discuss the progress of the hearings thus far we have learned about new evidence that indicates that some persons in a conspiracy throughout problem disrupt of the process with the united states is elected we haven't got the status of all the arson so we do have evidence indicating that the purpose of all broken supreme court has previously unscheduled we decided that as long as we want them to be well really interesting the country past to get these characters media and that's possible because i do think
that the opposite in the economic situation in the country and a lot of people are concerned and i might add the reason i asked questions they are crime to rent out what i consider the same points on the witnesses' testimony and not all a fashion well it can be understood now alan all here in the center of the discussion will run longer version of the interview at the conclusion of the hearing playback later tonight robin forging gangs with us or veteran washington journalist and author allen barra and adrian fisher dean of georgetown university law school gentleman one points fascinated you most in today's hearings and i think that what is derek's the most shocked me most to was a sense of of a morality that prevented the testimony the denial of individual responsibility if you like it a job and then something that one of the witnesses said it is not a customary in a hierarchy question
your superiors know that i submit is a profoundly an american observation i think this country needs to return home two area to a kind of morality which obliges every individual to judge the quality of the character of his own conduct i think there's been not revealed in these hearings a year terrifying kind of abdication of personal responsibility well off i would look exactly the opposite side of the client list barker is a man who buys own lives is a mormon he's quite public there'd to make splints out by woody believed to lose my inhibitions and ceo sincerely port of the most poisonous in the world participating in a problem with your organization operating under cia sets of
rules i find it very difficult to listen to a person on television i was frightened by those reasons we operate your court will rescue and i don't deny everything will get you out are literally enemies custody when the enemy turns out to be here you have the democratic party the dispute police and the notion that this sort of thing is applied to us domestic politics i'd actually call it was we can do something about trouble and yemen and we'll be talking to these two distinguished gentleman later that night at the conclusion of the night played back i can the witnesses today offered two different portraits of men whose lives were drastically altered by the watergate affair the first character today with bernard proctor remains and ashamed about being caught inside democratic headquarters walker who was born in cuba said he resents implications that he was a mercenary man who did what he did just for the money doing the work that we
do we're not for sale and i'm feeling like i don't mean to of effect people believe that's because you have to pay the other man you meet tonight is opera ball when the former fbi agent who served as martha mitchell bodyguard and listen to those democratic telephone conversations and ike rocker baldwin was upset about his role this incident to the government i believe that as i do now there's only one government and i have talked to flee to the united states attorney as i went into this committee i do not
regret this decision was that i didn't know my family and i believe in science working for the former attorney general and white house officials would not question to do what i was asked to do now is now i regret only that decision regardless of this question i'll follow through with my commitment to help them in an american people the truth work as you want to plan your viewing your bedtime here is eight hour by our rundown of what you'll see tonight testimony came in our number one from gerald watch the attorney who said his reason for being there was to refute false accusations made by his former client james mccord all gathered but he never suggested the cia be brought into the trial as a defense from a court in our number two all suggested that a lie detector test might be used to resolve conflicts between his
testimony in the court under further questioning you set records crossed a bug embassies did not amount to a contrived defense from the card because it was all the calls were relevant to the case and the third hour grilling all just pressed about talk of executive clemency he said he could not have passed on any offers a common sink because he did not know anyone at the white house also when the third hour convicted burglar bernard barker testified that he undertook missions for the heart because he hoped that would get in the cuban liberation movement matter said his mission during the break in was to find documents that photograph in the next hour barker says that and did not pressure him to plead guilty or offer clemency suggest that was overwhelming evidence against the seven men indicted but they maintained that his decision to plead guilty despite his attorneys advise was entirely his own but under questioning in our number five barker says he did not question the legality of the break ins
because he had faith in his superiors especially hard he also did not question the arrival of unknown attorneys at the jail because as he put it i wasn't there to think and the final hour we'll report on the stand each order surveillance work outside the offices of antiwar senators and congressmen when he was hired he was told to return to find himself as an employee of the former attorney general john mitchell he did so when asked by police about an unlicensed revolver you carry presented with these issues be the point i don't think it
does he committed as a meeting this morning and decided the invasion will give you all the fourteenth of june your hair's all the folks who have lived through westerns since then humans first of those seven live in the command and has received requests there's going to be a very calculated the committee is one of a slew of a list of his death you were this is the committee would extend the midst of record unless the festival top candidate to them for my status i'm writing what they wished to
testify to a condo on this warm status on their own that they've it's also given up today to meet with his diet and see what it is they want us to do but the committee it does not intend to get bogged down with a controversy between long as you all may have a person i met them at a senate committee has been investigating reception so far has been a game of trial so we'll see this time on the assumption that the warrantless record which has to do with a force that there was a sworn statement is what they do and simple
or maybe not oh and we were but i do think that it's important that the lights reputation of every witness be protected there or i'm delighted that job the step well and that other interview with most important will not interview mr principal in order to advise this committee a respected by this committee on the desirability of having them as witnesses under oath we are persuading
with the ordinary witness list especially pleased that meanders region soon as possible that we are going to have this recession fall so that we can proceed this is one for the comedy festival that informing just before the committee convened that that it would be immediately after his divorce his testimony fallen sworn statement before the committee members are all for but you know as you indicated with the uc forgot what was it twenty five thousand dollars plus expenses which expenses have not been seen this happen and when you're young with the exception of all the last two installments which were in the forms of cashier's checks and relatively small amounts of
seventeen hundred dollars the bulk of the money received was in cash in one hundred dollar bills did you have any knowledge or information are believe that's where the money was no sir and i believe that in one of the records the depositions he stated that at the time he'd paid mean it he did not tell me where it came from accept that came from him to do in october nineteen seventy two the witnesses report and urge them to work with the committee that election president certainly give him more money so you may have any additional no sir that there was a conversation we're playing yesterday the original payment of season schedule of the original payment fees was not being adhered to by mr mccourt and i asked
him whether or not what i might expect more money in in accordance with his schedule that he had told me he told me that to deal with him that it would be forthcoming iphone that i would go out it is those obviousness of all of your statement delivered at that you were quite upset and statements and when i first like to do and i think the couple is to isolate these specific statements made by the port which find objectionable and the end of a directory of their official but i think that there are two main areas that are statements and years that one his statements and his memoranda of my four nineteen seventy three that on two occasions wanting the monocle restaurant and another time in boston but he suggested that the basic offense on cia involvement in that they don't
have a reference to wear what you might be able to do with mr schlesinger in terms of the orthodox church and the second area implying as his statement that you participated in having him exposed to a lot more of executive clemency appeared to me to be the two main areas of his statements which i didn't find objectionable and countless providers that it's in right now as to the reports first but you suggested to use the cia involved as the fact that it is true that it is not that the question at least of cia involvement was the subject of discussion between un report on two occasions in december one of them on a restaurant and another time and your support in this way mr daly i specifically asked him whether or not there was any
factual basis to the contention that the cia was involved but it was that discussion with a razor i said yes that would not get you either hit show mr mccourt a statement from a dc police officer garrett button down there ms mccorkle yes that statement had been provided to me pursuant to my discovery motions filed in the case by the government it was a report in which he quoted a district of columbia police minister that invented by name as saying that at the time of mr mccourt unrest i believe that the district of columbia yale mr mccourt said referring to the other four men had been arrested within these are all good man ex cia man i'm actually call that my clients attention because the aluminum distinct possibility that that statement might be introduced
against him at trial in fact it was not in the statement that you submitted that admitted that that was not included nice that you're mentioning ford it was not sir i believe i mention that when i met with you the night before my testimony was very reason why not thank you bbc reporter in rome these meetings i didn't i didn't mention the name victim i surely not in the context of his being a witness it came out this way in the course of discussing mr mccourt background with the cia i
mentioned to him that i had recently for it the man behind that name about the cia i mentioned that mr mccourt he said to me words to the effect that news to mike and he was not in a good race with the cia already its members of the cia said he didn't think a highly of the man and that was the extent of the conversation on the government than there my life out with a discussion as to whether there's the market it would be a good witness through training through cia man there was a discussion with mr mccourt with regard to his background of the cia and in that context i mentioned to him whether or not the
stomach eighties book might be a good reference point he said it would not be if you're meeting in december for that they did you or your partner that mr bailey and raised the question i get and what was the nature of that or i would constantly keep with the daily violence are the developments of all cases that i was working on in the course of my conversation in this conversation took place after the meeting at the monocle but prior to my meeting with most important was that i told him of the conversation that had taken place in the lawyers office and told him that i had asked mr mccourt whether or not there was any factual basis to the cia involvement as i told you yesterday mr mccourt did not specifically respond to that question it was my impression that that topic was going to be
raised at our next meeting in boston mr dailey told me that unless mr mccourt or anyone else could come up with any factual evidence of any cia involvement that if mr mccourt which to pursue that defense without any such factual evidence that i was to withdraw from the case and that i was to tell that to mr mccourt when most important equity in boston our next meeting he initiated the conversation by saying to me there's no cia involvement and i'll have no pot of anything that's going to put the blame on the cia that rendered my withdrawal direction from mr bailey no i think that was that was a significant discussions or the defense of the cia and it i wouldn't say it was significant in the sense that i keep mr bailey advice
that all cases that i'm involved in which he's not involved and he's the head of the office and his policies that are latino and what if they raise the possibility that you might that readers which means if there was no factual foundation presented to me for that that record that discussion was not legitimate it now appears that it's a team meeting or well that question arose to oversee i was involved you tell us how the question arose raise this was at the meeting in incidence of its attendant violence it was at that point that i wanted to announce to my and the other defense council what my contemplated defense would be i did so i
told them that i was contemplating the defense of duress based upon what my client told me the reaction seemed to be that this would only be acceptable to mr mccourt in view of his being the chief of security and that this particular defense could not in europe to the benefit of awkward not be utilized by any other defendant my response was well that's my contemplated the fans what i'm going forward on it was at that point that the question was raised of whether or not he was at cia involvement now that raises a question i'm not sure it may have been mr bittman i can't be positive that's a possibility but may i stress that when it was raised it was raised in this type of way is there any cia involvement in the state and at that point it was the fact that defendants had some prior connection with the cia
at least one of them have been found with documents which purported to be a widow with were allegedly forge cia credentials now and that i was interested in the age of you were going through your clients and as the question of this out or you wear all of every contract that may have been made by others who may have suggested that the fences no so i only legal therefore any pressures that or you might not know where her and tyler as i pointed out yesterday mr cash i i do not come before this honorable committee it too was set any judgment or opinions on allegations of wisdom of port which pertain to activity not involving me i i don't know about those
things i came here to refute what he said about me are not present where you are for example that in december which is a very minor you raise the question is for that record sent mr john caulfield and well complaining of a white house effort to line the cia for watergate and threatening oak trees the farcical for the severed internet where we were that that was i was not so that has sort of fiction that this report will be the concern for what he believed was a conspiracy that happen and to get the cia in the world that i have no knowledge or contradict that statement by mr mccourt i'm actually a warrior when you first race the cia involvement with the support of the mob or restaurant is really respond to it but
now the white house disagrees therefore when you raise the question for the very first time mr bittman until orders that is likely is that not taking into consideration the entire circumstances of his reports on signs that that's an important component but like the cia in my judgment that would be giving him the benefit of about to which i don't believe he's entitled for this reason i suppose hypothetically speaking that it's possible for a man to misinterpret the questions put to him as to whether or not the cia was involved on the one hand and the suggestion that it was on the other that's the point that discrepancy which an answer to a
hypothetical question could possibly be the subject of a misinterpretation however on his allegation that i said to him words to the effect that i could cause his personnel records to the doctor and that the director of the cia would go along with it it escapes me how that type of elevation can be a misunderstanding i didn't say it you can't in for words of that nature i must there we said i didn't say it and most fortunately there was a third person present at this meeting now that voice indication or the implication that you know that you were disappointed in all the pressures to accept an awkward because yes it is true that not that you might have also been not aware
of pressure from other sources or further from the thaw the committee for the reelection of president white house concerning executive clemency and therefore when other wearable that might've been going on consenting that's it that's true i if i i may not have been aware of it because i had no knowledge of that if in fact happen now were you for example where that was a frequent contact with the community religion president white house officials i was not i really saw mr hunt and as you know when the trial started and he's pleaded guilty was accepted by teachers are ago he was out of it it is true though is not that you did go to me was with president ford at the first day of the trial is because when interest rate and the reason why is out there and that you had a
private meeting i had a meeting with mr bittman a discussion with mr bittman i i hesitate to call it a private meeting because of the average plane yesterday we walked into the office came into the library of the office we're other lawyers who seems to be it was not there i walked back to his office to see if he was there he was was anybody else in that you're correct in years that you acknowledge that there's that word was and i think in your words we're trying to make how did you did you think you were big and that it really is a long report presents no because i had told mr mccourt why i was going to miss tibetans office instead of immediately going back to my hotel where it was arranged that each
day after trial he it and local council would meet to discuss what happened that day and was going to happen the next day i told him why i wanted to speak with his dad i want to find out the ramifications of the proposed changes plea by most tibetans klein which i felt could possibly be the predicate for most infamous drought which i eventually filed absolutely fifteen minutes at the most maybe less and so that's correct the us has that political i did not want to i felt that was not know what is to me ice or minus in my mind that this call was in connection with mr mccourt he is at his co defendants were plotting against him if i had to
guess that's why i thought was going to call i thought it may have come from is the biggest client list of that in any event the remark was made as i was walking out of the office and i said okay went back to the library later that night i just said mr pittman said you'd be getting a call from a friend and i also told mr mccourt i think i went in there and i told him make your request about your feeling that you were being gamed up on so to speak by a co defendant and the button said will be getting a call from a friend now this committee has already received evidence was at intermission at the white house with who
you ask on the beginning no it is not and therefore says with you it was received on a night and that was the port newark and then the messages that i was that full which ultimately resulted in the author of executive clemency was made your client present is coming from the highest levels of the white house really wasn't so a reasonable for this report to conclude that you were involved in setting up for such an offer if you made their conclusion it was factually false but but suppose he did make that conclusion
this was in a period of time as the trial was just about the comments were i enjoyed with him what i consider to be a very fine relationship why wouldn't he have come up to me and asked me about it or told me that something to the effect that facility on message to me i got a call last night that never happened you were in response to that is because from what i know it would seem to me rather or highly unlikely that he would go to trial with a lawyer whom he did not trust we actually mentioned that he had received you know
that is correct the money was going to the last question if i'm a man mr mccourt told me that he had received a call from a man named paul and specifically refused to tell me who he was or what the nature of the conversation was what i did was is was to see whether or not there would develop any tampering or modification or interference with my advice to mr newport as his counsel or whether or not there i was suddenly going to be met with suggestions to change the trial strategy but most important i had already agreed upon mr mccourt was free to see you every pleased but at no time did any indications come to
me that event is to appoint his own thinking or potentially as result of being talked to by others was either disregarded my advice modify my advice on introducing a new approach to the trial that never happened and you're doing fine i hesitate to use the word suspicious they were thai as well ah i would communicate with him and ask him for positions on information on particular topics and he would not give me immediate responses his attitude would be on his response would be let me think about the words to that effect and these would pass and then i would get a definitive
response whether or not that spins probably serve as a predicate for inclusion of one being suspicious i hesitate or be vindicated that give you all the information that attitude comments from my very first meeting with him but i i might say that in my experiences am criminal defense attorney complete disclosure by a client is not something that happens in every place now that has to do in his testimony before this committee stated that one of the meetings during the time he was making offers of executive clemency was born that this report was quote not
cooperating with his side unquote now with ms didion have referred to be referring to anyone other than you but the fact is that i was mr mcwhorter attorney at that time to my knowledge and the only reason i have that can be out is this i was informed that when i read it i was on a four when i read a transcript of i believe mr caulfield the testimony i believe he said that in one of his meetings with mr mccourt prior to the completion of trial that the subject of bail came up and mr caulfield stated maybe your you can handle it or words to that effect too which according to mr caulfield was to record replied well i'm negotiating with another lawyer maybe he can handle about this was before the trial and it's present lawyers in his defense the war i had no contact or even knowledge that such a man existed
until after mr mccourt incarceration so i now think and ask myself what's mr mccourt in any contact with any other attorney during the trial if that statement about you're not cooperating with your turning or get close to her journey was directed towards me i can't explain it because ive explained to the committee yesterday was to record was cooperating with me every day what they could put a beach lined then again having already testified twice this morning that you are not aware of all time fact that might have been made by others injured your client or other defendants white house that the mayor would be likely some context but other defendants or their counsel were being made with the white house during which is your representation of your pipe and disgust ms diaz it's possible only because i don't know how and therefore i am in no
position to refute are confirming you have no other explanation of why mitt romney might've made that statement i cannot as i told committee yesterday i'd never met the man was walking to my life it's been
nice boy it's been this bill's buddies well it's both
so how to explain that you indicated that war yet in the situation which is that the oatmeal for it that if i made a motion for disclosure of such intercepted telephone calls which he thought were intercepted that the government because of the embarrassment or national security reasons would refused to divulge and libya for a little bit longer
there's a complete defense he described it as a means of effect awaiting the dismissal of the charges against him it is anyway when he gave me that material he said let's get on the offensive let's turn lets make the democrats put the democrats on the defense is less but still when i when he told me that when he sent me the memorandum i simply to know x forty
years or wanting a republican according to the dissemination of information i have been a five time i associate mr johnson who attended the arraignment with mccourt in washington mr mccourt said wouldn't it be better monetarily for me if this book were published before a presidential election let's listen that's correct
i was expecting you none whatsoever you know that's correct that's correct he was raising money from other sources you know
he's just a really ridiculous you were that's correct let me explain the day before the memorandum was
published on one of my set my top off a secretarial notepads my secretary rice that a call come in from them as jackson of the los angeles times to be effective in mr storey was about to break a memorandum alleging are talking about the cia <unk> important and me i could not the next day the memorandum appeared in the newspapers i got a copy of the new york times rented put another columnist report tony was at a meeting in the message for him to return my call would be given to him and that's when i called up with the festival when i asked him about this mr pfister was the ayatollah's to a point of telling one surprisingly good i asked him to explain the reason for this memorandum which contained false
allegations mr finch the world will mean something to the effect that mr mccourt had given this story back in december so before they had given this story back in december and when he heard one estimate or her about the story was about me as the festival circuit court wanted to be a newspaper is to answer that is the memorandum of events are two that they're going and repeated that statement if you ask him if he had any information that record would not have that would implicate the president i did not my only responds to him on the telephone was stated yesterday i'm not interested in any personal vendettas that after it ended the conversation
taking decisions to allstate didn't think about it obviously was to say the least antagonistic towards the present epiphany and this is a sometimes that mr fischl might be using mr mccourt as a means for this particular goal objective which he stated to mean what i perceived as best i could being on trial in chicago was to keep abreast of the newspapers to see the nature probably memoranda and the testimony was difficult was getting the first mention of my recollection on most important referring to the president was when he referred to an alleged executive offer clemency coming from the president last friday
yes and i was in contact with one of his death jesus the only a discussion which might be embraced by that question was the when i referred to yesterday in my hotel room that night before our last in court appearance where his defense the wall said that reporters have been asking him if he had any prior relationship with the court and he said i call my head looked up with a surprised look in his face and his defense to waltz insurance remember there were checks if you donated to the committee investigators
assassination of the president with the benefit of mr mccourt countered by saying oh yeah yeah that's right your relationship with the assassination about this i know situation i'm my first injury was when the name was mentioned to me and mr mccourt told me that he was a friend who could help with daily mr frans de waal himself later told me that the reason
for his motivation on over his actions were to justify what he termed an opportunity for a three hundred thousand dollars bail the point where this conversation came about which i have just prefer the very next morning consequently the very next morning i called them both together outside the crowd or in the courtroom and i said look if you want me to remain as attorney of record you have that keep me abreast of everything that you're going to do i don't want to be embarrassed again i had been won the literature to reckon with the river that was when his defense the wall said to me i will call you every single day even if i had nothing to tell you keeping in mind the private with political rally on trial i need someone local you have any objection if i retained some way it is
is this withdrawal there's a reason why as the weekly after the primal relationship and each day after courting combat with me to discuss what went on i would have the discovery material for the next day the concern on a matter that may come up i would have it was that type of thing at that point were talking about jury selection and i recall the discussions that
afternoon after we left with the burdens office over my but you get to reprise concern at the election night i think it was anyway yeah no we had gone to the courthouse as the trust them turned out to be we would go back to my hotel room and i said to him him i want to go back and talk a bit about this matter of his clients changes plea come on with me and it sooner than through i'll tell you about it and we'll go back to my hotel for further discussions that's the way it happened that is exactly the way
he wanted to building in which the veteran's offices i did not just import iron chicken wire across the street to get a drink when i came up with the idea to think about as to why we were going there as to how long the movie thought i simply have no knowledge at that time it was just in iraq but i'm not sure i know mr rockwell an office very close to most of the songs i know that because when it was decided that since so out of town lawyers in the fall when we would meet whenever we would meet mr rockwell agreed to meet with the victims are either in the same building are very close to it may even a single aisle you're going to discuss this situation which
the president laurel what you don't know no no particular reason i'm the shaking was privy to all of my trial strategy what happened was we walk into the live well three cases that are dealing with it i just got up and said i want to go back to steve rosenthal and i did even if you know that a checkmate is i believe he may have said the whole thing i mean it was not a long absolutely not just as a matter of fact i told that certain point what the discussion was witnessed that there was no
didn't you ask that time was i didn't know anything mr thompson as they say in the context of that remark my assumption was that it could very well have been a call from a friend or perhaps some of the other people i don't know why at that point in the trial i was not aware of any conflict i well it would you beginning a trial in your life and you weren't in complete agreement on a presentation of a defense that was my main concern his job
mm hmm you know i don't know yeah go so the senators are still trying to sort out the conflicting testimony offered by james mccord from that given by the attorney general approach auch maintained he wasn't aware of any political pressures on his client the senators were each take a crack at separating the different versions of their conversations as we take a shot right now the true a cup of coffee it like to thank the twenty five thousand of you written this already expressing your opinions about this kind of gavel to gavel coverage if you still liked writers would welcome that you can do so and that po box three hundred washington dc to oh four four would like to know if you
think this is the kind of coverage the public television should be doing on occasions like this and that's coverage of the hearings will continue after we pause for a station identification on average coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service of the member stations of pbs a public broadcasting service from washington and that
continues its coverage of hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities here again correspondent robert macneil as the hearings continue an attorney general options being questioned by committee chairman senator was it you're right if you're in the stands oh yes and you go
yes listen now all right well yes i mean it really does i think you
will so if i may use the fact that you do hear this fee applies if he's pleased that's the ultimate goal he can't guarantee whether it's going to get convicted or quit what upset me is how the man turned on me with what i have alleged and believe with all my heart to be false accusations in the manner and the framework of pop of which he did it of course some of the things you are you opened about those who have suggested though the
cia now as justification thank you mr o you're welcome that's right that's correct
an american in the proceeds and it wasn't just that i don't mean to want to split a few years but i do wish again to point out that it did not come out in that in the sense that let's make this a cia defense and didn't come out that way it was presented that way the way it was presented was could this be a cia defense
because of all these think let's go back as hard line stances do like this of course and it wasn't just in this is that all laws in half now that's correct yes it is tom mike lee knows that history is it was that
type of potential if it was that type of potential misunderstandings assuming it when they do that may be so but in mr mccourt statement he throughout this out under the general heading a lot of pressure my bringing pressure upon him which to me navigate in awe diminished the chances of it being a misunderstanding that it gets it it did it to meet him why morrow it sounded more intentional misrepresentation will work rob with concern about the possibility a cia that he had the political sailing
state to involve cia the idea that all these boys were for a lot of the cia i know that i did i'll answer the sale is like hitting this man isn't it do not enjoy coming down asking to appear before this honorable committee for which i'm most grateful and in effect calling a marijuana that i
my nature is such that i don't enjoy doing it what you are suggesting is that they may have been if we take the liberty of interpreter i'm not that they may have been a misunderstanding on the record about that particular aspect with the exception of my objecting to him categorizing there's pressure that maybe i'm not looking to bury mr mccourt my really my presence here is a reaction not in action but i keep going back to this you can interpret and make the law is saying and plentiful of cia documents with the assistance of the cia director i don't mind saying what you want for lunch or c when boston all are discussing is the idea that even those words were sick or they were not now when i watch television last night that i heard and saw mr mccourt again reiterate
that i said those words i have already tried to commit even at this meeting there was another lawyer present i'd like you to contact him however i also saw mr frans de waal in it that he said to me on the telephone were out to get different well no that's not my job there's no evidence for that except that he said that conversation with that except that when the remark resonate in the virus to run into the wall and he said i mean
yeah yeah information is information about them all right mr mccourt so much stronger he said i just told him that i could effectually afford to reduce the irate cia records with the cooperation of the cia director yeah so the court date with the right before the election the senate bill that you will
also allow said that not a cia show because he's so do we it's an event to do anything to advocate that you with us and incentive perhaps through what is an experienced lawyer eyes looking at really close dissecting at that conclusion might be proper but not for the
average person reads it on the street it's very unusual i recommend no no sir i specifically pointed out that in response to your question he said i could not reveal to the woman good afternoon yes and you and you will
go i told him that i was out of the opinion that it would prejudice here and because of the reaction to the jury that because this visitation in this case because the fence now we do i really do he recommended do you expect
for those reasons first of all specifically said to you i never suggested that he had plead guilty to reason that when one is proposition was put to me on this awful in practice this way i don't that's four point a decision from the american i think we take it back to the quite clear is that when you say he said no when i get up when i was about a non safe investment crop all i'd say this particular instance it just brought back in and say here's what's available to maybe we'll discuss of the international line you know in advance you know i need a partnership with you ari and it
is you recommended no because he said just the opposite you do it's funny polling data i mean it obviously was not your decision and now he's formally committed to religion you didn't
imagine this the us no sir i mean i try to make that very clear yesterday that my discussion with his to begin with the words executive clemency came out did not happen on january eighth happen sometime in late nineteen seventy two n when i happened when i said to him just in a casual conversation what do you think our clients are liable to receivers hands if they're convicted and just like that and that's when he said to me and you know i'm not a very tall in my head you know but until christmas time rolls around executive clemency mai came into the picture i said
yes if it was i simply don't recall you don't go because as the hunt was i don't recall when an away when us army said no well he didn't say it that way so just let me say it as he did not he could
not force on in this type of way he could not say that christmas is coming again executive clemency it wasn't that type of a conversation with the set and he wasn't sort of a paralyzing way well christmas time comes around who normally maybe executive clemency i immediately responded as i told you yesterday there is no chance of that happening and i did in late nineteen seventy two i mean what do you think you're going to jail those are his words
mr poitier it's a question with like to discuss the question i really gave him the conversation i am you relate to the conversation with that with that you know with a singular rendition of my own view is that the legend i do oh yes and did you
ask mr bittman of what the business of other people have their own event on location at that particular point we've been talking about my clients apprehension and his co defendants were conspiring against him but anyway he told somebody else's will communicate what telephone and it was received a telephone calls have tripled three campuses witnessed no i'll offer you not my dear well chosen that but you can you know convey the message that gave you about that point one so i try to like why everything that at all and you
get oil conversations in his conversation with you well educated you no for this reason it again reiterate how close we were in our contact and what and he is now label this as improper conduct a question i keep asking myself is is that if he did make this surmise and conclude that i was engaged in improper conduct this was before the trial began or was it for the family getaway ever happen why wouldn't a man come up to me
differently with and that's that's what i i don't know yes it is as you say that you knew about like i've i say it was not reasonable for him to win for our sooner or later alleged that that was in any way the bases i mean what's that don't worry most of it i didn't know about and i knew if if any type of legitimate legal came from the government that would benefit my client
i would put it to us that we wouldn't keep it from me there's one more question i'm not a violent you know so he had his electronic surveillance yes eventually he also hadn't come from the fact that that he was pain in your wallet to you than it might be in this circumstances
so he's both thank you well this one is about literacy a number of distinguished career in north carolina and my say mr olson if you are now in the position of having having been interrogated one by one of the best i'm not sure which interrogation it
was not a lawyer or a judge you know if you've been interrogated like the madonna now after it anyway i tried cases in tennessee at that win proof was concluded the judges charged with theories as something that this effect he said ladies and gentlemen do not take the evidence suggests of all the weapons is if you find the testimony of witnesses and conflict you will reconcile it if you came if you cannot bring you a lot of the testimony of other witnesses circumstantial evidence if available through documentary evidence or demonstrative no evidence of appropriate and then you away and balance the evidence and make your judgment as to where the truth actually live
while that is a charge used in essence that the court session mandating state of tennessee i think it really summarizes the dilemma that we're faced with here as committee members but we will certainly after the fire the truth and is now that we're going to have to try to reconcile differences of testimony if we can and if we cannot on the testimony of other people that much of evidence circumstantial evidence to try to find where the truth lot of the time i have a four lane still remaining two minutes burleson i wasn't just two or three things the caribbean and i want to suggest to us how we might go about reconciling those apparent discrepancies or how we might well that's getting additional light on the subject matter begin with the
allegation is understandable mr mccourt est entre three of age to have his testimony as follows their final suggestion from mr austin i use as my defense during the trial story that were in operation was a cia operation he says most importantly it's suggested which included questions as to whether act that instance we haven't really gotten retirement from cia the protest late in the operation he said that yes so my personnel records of cia would be doctored reflect such a repeal he stated this lesson for the new director cia was appointed just been announced could be subpoenaed and would go along with it previously testified that you did not say that the national guard is that correct sir you have anyone say oh no sir and there is a cow in your testimony and that was a lot more amenities
we're going to tell one speak to the flip it that was there was that mr bernanke yeah i can see that if that proved inconclusive with regard to this discrepancy and with regard to the discrepancy that his defense to walt i told me that he was not going after the president now finds out if you will to the allegation made an organ played on page two of his written statement with respect to a defense of the recall the cia and the doctor and his records reflect this is there anything else except mr shankman its
possible testimony that you can suggest us that might shed some light on that that conflict and the testimony between you a national or i suggest that both mr mccourt an eye if he's willing to submit to a pot rack test conducted by he's been fb
1973 Watergate Hearings
Part 1 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-br8mc8s645).
Episode Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 5 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, Gerald Alch, Bernard Barker, and Alfred Baldwin testify.
Broadcast Date
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: 2341608-1-1 (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.
Chicago: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-24; Part 1 of 5,” 1973-05-24, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed April 25, 2024,
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-24; Part 1 of 5.” 1973-05-24. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. April 25, 2024. <>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-24; Part 1 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