thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-07-11; 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 oh my six o'clock four continues in the june one and fifteen the junior six forty pm point not convincing i was seventeen
my question is because you were reading women's association of america un meeting was structured this very simple mr liddy had written a letter to the washington post which was subsequently published at the request of misunderstandings responding to some charges that were made by somebody on the staff of the general accounting office about the failure of the finance committee failure the finance committee to comply with certain provisions of the corrupt practices act and they public information mr
schama they said that he did not want that letter published without my approval soon as the show more abroad goes through it and it was look the story families thank you thank you just as a
researcher south korea you know you're right you know aren't you twenty nine
and following june seventeenth in their everyday second holiday was absolutely correct which i will and that's a case where you find and also after the troops out of town and the follower and constant meetings yesterday civil litigation in many facets that were involving connection with problems with the mortgages well i suppose that state of these meetings white actors and religions nineteen ninety eight was the discussion during the course of these meetings were on june nineteenth you're nineteen
respect poison each of these meetings there was no relationship regular days continuing relationship
those things it's not true that you were very close to the persons involved in political campaigns was assistant martin inaction the investigation on zero season caesar and so basically that's because i'm of course a later date sometime when second week of april the lawyers that were obtained by the canadian connection with any civil litigation ri
the consultation and in the ones or interrogating people in the committee civil litigation the positions are taken or were being taken a connection it is we were working
that's right that's right euthanize having ever created the very reason why these two men would lie about is that why is the difference of opinions also testified that there is no such discussion i know jews just because they use he's not necessarily
that's right we've been brought up to date of california advice as to what the current circumstance was and what it was to be the response of this dramatic in it for the reelection of president did you mr martinez seize mr martinez aeroplane for five hours that i and i'm uncertain whether i did anything more than ask mr martin or instruct mr martin to get on top of this mattered to see what would happen to find out what and who have anybody else on the committee were involved in the wealthy and the
well to do let's go to her at one thousand and thirty two and reverberating site le roux meeting martin that's also a real room martin martin short meetings the remaining teams that's media operation for five members of the
rue morgue many of these meetings with the room or in the room or any one of the individual's us the report it is an order these meetings were not sympathetic circumstance i think the problem with a later burden time as a meeting and woods mr boies
says fb on tuesday oh isis and that's it
savannah mr moriarty concerns about it so sorry this one is amazing as marnie and not a lot from the white house is a
phone call that's less than six o'clock to sidwell early victories and that phone conversation it really is that was from the president that obviously didn't relate to the record and i say i have a very distant recollection of having to have a discussion with martin grew old and that's why i believe that it probably took place on the twentieth first when i did meet with martin and lou oh and not on the twentieth when there were two other people share one of the meeting hillary clinton
does anything come to mind good morning that conversation i apologize for the president for not having a better control over the activities of some of the people over at the committee for the reelection of the president and then you drop the president and sixty six twelve whichever is not in your lungs and six you talk to john dean and seven fifteen you talked to john no one's there with social
security and ask me what the subject matter is of those conversations where i don't think that i can recall juxtapose verb one question about was what this series of events and whilst ruby martin phone call means is as you describe and in the line to translate any information and certain information in the meeting
i know you're talking about the briefing living for us that it wasn't the region i believe it was as lawrence jamieson court vacancies in nineteen seventy two this ain't your attention or you given any information that is true that obama's promises of the democratic national committee prior to june seventeenth nineteen seventy two answer
i don't have that information to us that accept or even speculation in the newspapers question the answer is no answer no question how to do something or teenagers you know essential oils i said that was my recollection and i could be wrong and ive been advised that the earlier rates certainly that libby was involved with questions as you just didn't relate to security group of
record and it was answered in a convent to meet its very clear us isn't saying well you'll have to read the rest of the transport mr lilley was not part of the security group just a living work for the finance committee the questions and all their have to do with security group was headed for this is a symbol of the litigation and i was not volunteer in an information mr liddy as a practical matter was not a member of this group of the security of knowing you know we'll have to go through the discussion of what was a security room and it did not involve was the levee because mr larry works in the finance committee
and now's june twenty first they seized in the middle of the morning routine or messed up the son of a day fifteen years martin not very little room to room as marty four point five six twenty fourteen can you indicate is whether anything in the discussions to haul related to the water
there wouldn't have been no discussion of the watergate that that particular staff meeting that involved the upper echelon of the people in the white house specific details and this is a dispute so there is also want to receive information ruin morning on the twenty four when they're interested in the twenty first and you haven't given the final call the whitening lou roy i will say the action in the twenty first but i believe that we're a lot more likely on the day of the meeting nih pointed out because i have a very distant recollection that they were going to people are not used to you
know for years and yes i made sure that you understand we're not talking about the watergate we're talking about the other matters that have been discussed or so all white house harv you're a review which was a more serious situation before
in trying to protect the president ms giddens you feeling for rose and stiletto and that it was not to tell us so you know it was
mr was no the book follows the course would not because they were involved in what they want and i do the one thing that i didn't i didn't do anything to prevent an area residences situation but that spirit danger situation senator i'm sorry the rationale is that they were involved in those other activities and was every indication to believe that they were not about to go into incriminate themselves in those
particular characters absolutely i mean the concern was that oh oh is that we didn't know you did not meet with a taco could quote and i'll say no but obviously we know that there were other people in there that have that concern and then started a very early date payments for supporting warriors these rituals no sir
as a matter of fact of justified hear that when the suggestion was made at the martin meeting after another level at least suggest that would be helpful if the committee for the reelection of the president might provide bail money for only ones that workers in the jail and i refused to go along
it's morning edition you mean i don't have no specific recollection of persons far as just the women for the tainted issues in connection with the campaign right right democratic national committee filed its lawsuit and i'm sure that they must've had the subject matters of the conversation you're welcome
i'm fine but after the review job for me june so there was a reaffirmation of some of the song that they're in they want exactly the same stories that there was a cross indexed of information senator feingold the next day and the day after that unlike through saturday of that week there were calls the combine and those calls that entirely to do was to come by assistants to my wife
who was then the new party and california having substantial difficulties with some of the people are out there with him one is political there was no discussion of money there's no need to
to these men the investigation seventies i mean on the same day
and all of their employees her first long as you're saying an experiment twenty four and the special mention to mention the two new voter expressed no such concerns of the technology that was undertaken argument with mcgregor and the presence of martine so forth as to the amount of money that it passed on to mr libby and that's been arrested only time i met lester sloan not worthless bits won't subsequent through june seventeenth into his testimony with respect to the fact that he was brought in the seamy before he was being interviewed but it is not correct
three or four days visit venezuela on june twenty first nineteen seventy two when you were unintentional revelations of farmers what revelations you do could be devastating to the president that you and others began to cover up the carrot over to the white house in order to prevent any such really well and so i certainly was not about to do anything that would provide closure on what others were doing on their own or in concert with others their subject matter that i've testified to what the fda is justified to that he thought the cover up that started on june nineteenth and connection with certain activities that he testified
maisie of the activities that you discovered whoa whoa can you have a question about are just as one of the president's closest advisors and also the head of the committee to reelect president will say nothing to the press well i obviously have discussions with the other individuals involved here about the subject matter is in this is where i leave you learn more olivares chorus from john the letters to the front of a covert action that was no action period of time
let's move through some other days here are you at what time and what made you leave it as the head of the material that i met with the president on june twenty ninth jones yes president to discuss the subject matter and the conclusion the decision was raised and it was announced on july first fb
with maureen music one point five minutes although the meeting with president twelve thirteen and then four thirty eight white house meeting that was the reason for your campaign ads conversations ms mitchell i sometimes talk on sometimes through the action effectively the campaign the reason why that was very welcome
like you in july john ireland thing so it was quite a different kind of operation you go back and forth what you've done there is just a list
i'm always dressed in these were certain people that if you go back and look and say the change of the nature of the meetings this is these are not well let me read your schedule and the individuals and while i'm a special agent when i was left to us was that a certain schedule it was a real moral and being ruled morning me six goals just as big
senators governors work isn't it it changes completely telling you about acceptance and specific areas that remain true for military by consulting role anybody discuss the fact the middle of the reason why you should be very reluctant president it might be considered that in that capacity you're subject to the daily confrontations with the press in which the us might do and continue to ask you a question about the war against ever discussed and that was it wasn't as just that determination senator for
my leaving the campaign was made entirely on the basis of that luncheon conversation i had with the president saturday ninth we knew the room were ruder the waiting room for plenty of my telephone and then five thirty five thirty six of does not appear underlines your phone conversation the president and sent money obviously the phone call lawyer shows
this conversation was on the evening of july references are for ideas or the president or the next day july the second is also where you'll recall information july second the information provided ford chose the la times nine am and i don't know i have my information shows six am on sunday morning well i mean the discussion yesterday of believers to the time difference and i'm not certain of those washington time st angelo i know you wrote eleven o'clock in the morning
oh no so for forty three years the explanation is through july of eleven conversation that's my recollection of that test were guests of the president's determination to keep vice president agnew in particular least recommend into the convention that he be kept on the ticket and then after that phone call the president meet again with mark emmert
obviously no relationship to it because i wasn't just doesn't work martin route president's desire to learn and here's an example june thirtieth there's
no question he just doesn't know you all aspects of the senator including civil litigation including analyze this runs on through the general accounting office inquiry has to do with the eu sleep problems that weren't all that has to do with versus you can save money in these meetings will respond to the charges that the democrats remain it is possible
so it's conceivable but i doubt that would be the case because of the manner in which these long for a cat and i'm sure the staffers interviewed by secretaries and they'd be much better able to describe that and i went oh i think oh these girls were quite accustomed to receiving phone calls from the president and i think that they might have had many many more accountable for this period of time was my earlier life would show but it was customary or not to have them while no sir that was not as a matter of fact the monologues as i testified yesterday work or started in the justice department and they were continued in one beyond my knowledge after i left the justice department to sign form
shape and circumstance after i came through the practice of law through the committee you spoke with president want the families all subjects were executive privilege and evolving liaison with selective that correct and nothing else main topic of a meeting there was also the discussion was seven having somebody provide liaison with the economy appear the most disgusting that we rejected the non ehrlichman and as i think we're going to show up like these recollection of the president promised to find it sounds of techno a ruler
everybody seems to be very much in tune with the conversations about the crimean and yet in the president's remarks of april seventeenth nineteen seventy three these days on march twenty first as result the city's charters came to my attention some of which were publicly reported it an intensive new inquiries into this whole matter to my attention so it will publicly report new inquiries into this whole that and on march twenty ones that
on march stories that you and so ms emily younker so obviously a lot of information with this committee but if you're talking about the meeting have any conversations it went back and reviewed the bathing used to be a lot of whom under what circumstances the answer is no but we know from the president's home state on the babies or doing for mating call that theory as standing org following day
and he agrees made all the material and the president knows or the conversations were reported so if that no question you know presidents that new employees were being made knowingly was being made of you by president joe halderman ehrlichman and to be in that no such discussions you find that surprising mr doucet about the march twenty first conversation reporting on that was set by the president what would they have a state license is the statement of april seventeenth nineteen seventy three
and the statement says my second announcement concerns the whitest record on march twenty one as a result of serious charges that came to my attention some of which are publicly reported on an intensive new inquiries into this whole matter last sunday afternoon the attorney general says the attorney general peterson i might yield need to review the facts would accompany my investigation also to review the progress of the department of justice investigation i can report today the major developments in the case concerning which it would be improper to be more specific about that to say the real progress of the main finding relative to what he did on march twenty four not what question would you buy a question you is do you find it surprising when you appear on the scene on march twenty seven sweeping new investigations of inmate raises the watergate and so forth and participation was
no surprise i know under the normal process would be having other to look into the matter or not the president himself on hearing a lot more important things to do than to conduct an investigation of his own right forty that it's possible though that doesn't surprise even the va doesn't surprise new novel is the sport i do and i'm specifically talking about in all persons in that way it's not surprising and it was never discussed and like this that the present no no
and again you know well now those concepts that i'd only government is when he made that the president you know the president for specific purpose and a purposeful was that of the purchases were as i have stated the air you were well you know one surprising he doesn't turn iran say please tell me what you're involved in this matter of house and are you taking that from john dean's testimony does that what is the white house was a meeting of a meeting with john mean between john mccain and the president and what does it say
about natural laws you'll see so you're named among the conversation has invented about this is totally the nomination sen whitehouse claims of the meeting on march twenty seven upon us through these conversations with them as they related to identify with at all
unusual because of the continent that in knowing that you don't find an unusual man identified a little unusual because the basis of the meaning the purpose of the meeting was a different a different ones announcement is your definition of stonewalling that i don't know that yet you turn from connecticut one more question it's billions
he leaves the white house specifically what i believe is the radio sorry you're no longer attorney general which was a skirt and you're an officer of the coral
did you bring this american detention of any law enforcement officials you know sir the justice department it does you know i know and as a former attorney general of the united states your contention remains i'm you know you knew the science why possibly confess an american citizen wyoming's law illegally or illegal conduct sure that you're aware of the fact that the
brake and produced nothing whatsoever and under no circumstances could have possibly been many foods of the break in that affect the problem where they are and the answer to your question an american citizen there was no sense of home i didn't know that time i cannot of the aca i did when i was advised the nature of the breakdown what i'm saying to you is that you have no way of knowing at the time that you remain so this man might not have been that
information to information that you move in illegally his stories it became known to me that their entry was unsuccessful in obtaining any information out of the doctor's office is there anything in this country aside from the president of the united states to put you know almost a metal buggy where i put you in awe the report you do the prosecution
no information it's b this bill as bleak
as bait he's been on the planet joining the show returns tomorrow to continue his testimony several committee members want a second chance and questioning the former attorney general the debate continues over whether measure can be shaken from his prepared story told in a monotone or is it possible so far mitchell is kept his cool again today like yesterday there were indications that some of the questions were getting under his skin and michel's closing remarks in today's testimony indicates that things hadn't gone as smoothly as he would've liked when the committee completes its questions with mitchell the next witness will be richard m or a california television executive has been a special counsel to the president since nineteen seventy one more couldn't corroborate some of john dean's testimony about the decision to tell the president the cover up was at an end but first the committee must solve the mystery of the man
who didn't tell the president about the implications of watergate because he was afraid mr nixon would fire the guilty and thereby jeopardize his own reelection chances a political expert on a legal expert watch jon mitchell the number to this day there david epstein adjunct professor of law georgetown university law center here in washington a former prosecutor at the us attorney's office here and stephen hess former aide to president nixon and offer on political subjects now senior fellow the brookings institution but as obviously must've been the bigger question that struck you the most about the right right now baker asked some exquisitely important questions for those questions about contradictions in fact there really questions about judgement during that phone basically i think what senator baker was asking is how does our governmental system are sure that presidential level decisions are made by
presidents the problem was there are so many decisions to be made and often of very mundane ones that really should have the feeling that the president is making great decisions and we found that the people other than the president often choose what those decisions should be that are brought before the president's decision making yemen in the case of the watergate we're going to have the sort of hindsight mr mitchell keeps talking about it's become increasingly clear that the president nixon was seriously amiss sir that there were decisions that were being made by actually by others to deliberately limit is information if we're to believe but which mr mitch rose has told us now he may have done this out of some misplaced concept of wealthy nevertheless he added for himself decisions that should have been made by a president and he did so in what he thought was the president's own investigations and on this my opinion this is perhaps the most charitable
interpretation that can be placed on the facts that have been revealed to us by mr mitchell so far they did this to this applies not only to the president also could apply to camels or what was going to that that would be the question that i think the most interesting question that he is attorney general of this doctrine of selective executive information any advice to subordinates that it matters that were politically embarrassing that you should not know about they should know they have this idea that certain information as to happen and let the poppies that are taken care of at the bottom and the question is a particularly important aspect of the attorney general because there is the person that has enormous discretionary powers to decide whether or not to investigate the particular situation that decided not to listen to the prosecution of a particular situation and during the course of the testimony center and made reference to the liberalization of the apartment just as you suggested
that take the man out of being a campaign director the attorney general or even earlier when president kennedy took his brother robert kennedy and make any attorney general should also coming out of purely political background make the department of justice even more subject to this kind of way of doing enforcing laws and keeping about your mind the fact that their political consequences might be interested in their use these views on that can you or should you take the department justice out of politics altogether and if not that to what extent can you well of course there is that just simply doing what the justice that deals with political conservatives every department government the agriculture department labor commerce it and so forth is a simple answer he was simple answer you can always further expand the civil service and therefore de politicize the federal branch of government but we probably have thirty three a half billion so civilian
employees of federal executive branch over the twenty seven twenty eight hundred now are our political appointees those appointments the president makes when he gets into office so quantitatively at least we can say that the federal bureaucracy is widely over politicize what bothers me is an assumption that we possibly make that politics is somehow purely corrupting force rather than the way that people mandate their government for the president is the only member of the executive branch who was elected by the people and thus accountable class right and i always worry about suggestions that further remove the us citizen from the right to affect the decisions made by the government about that we have to worry about very careful when we have these awful events like watergate and so
kind of swings back in the other direction and that of course is one of the basic things that everybody is that these come out of watergate is this repulsion anything that has do politics but centers that are compact harem mitchell faces more questions from the committee tomorrow after today's session and that's peter carey discussed his performance so far we're ranking minority member howard baker that's a mr mitchell by and large has laid out as the recent addition is presented ideas for the first time substantial complex now on the record at some point we'll at cadillac and sellers if we can't get reconciled try to find out where the truth lies among the conflicting pieces of just that part mr mitchell was a star witness of the city certainly was unflappable beyond that i really think that at this point i've imposed on myself to refrain from
so let me ask you this way that their own questions about what i think fairly be summarized the musculature believe in essence the end justified the means at the reelection of the president can go for some clothes the incident itself that a lot of people who live in the five minutes that there and why that question wasn't true and if you believed in and then doesn't necessarily pick a modern jazz what would make you think you know that's in the body that's very true and i think the only example mr mitchell gave up in afghanistan after going for crossover point so to speak and he gives examples to use and our super wi crimes and misdemeanors which are the constitutional races that deal with the impeachment process as members use it again any of that it was clear vision festival and i don't believe this
does highlight self restraint is kevin mitchell testimony there who claims he did not know of the events before they happen that he did in fact know of them shortly after the middle of a determined not to tell president michel testimony why i was rooting for us why didn't you tell the person how to navigate and two thousand presidential level decision that is to say whether to proceed in one model of the other when you come into gaza each of these facts and as you know while rama my goal of the we never quite as beverage director of the candidates based on my own reactions at this late hour i would be very suspicious of anyone who would attempt a neatly judge john mitchell and his testimony is total performance thus far conjures up uneasy feelings of parliament the world of the confusion rather than absolute certainty for instance he denies that he was a major protests in any of the serious wrongdoing
americans and yet it's very clear that john mitchell is no that's far from he's a tough guy makes decisions who runs the un's including the little people wondering when is that crucial business about is not telling the president every morning and suddenly this may be very blunt and fight about it after all these two men richard nixon and john mitchell were very close friends personally professionally and politically there's no evidence that in one man has never been closer to the president in fact when jonathan mitchell wants us to believe however it never breathed a word to the president about watergate an even more startling in many ways that the president never asked him a single question at her june twenty about what really happened who was involved or anything like that though many other instances of the sort that you're asking us to shake off any obvious doubts and deal with this difficult thing to do extremely difficult and
yet while all the doubts and the questions why around there is that solid rock matter and sound and gesture and of honesty and candor this about this man john mitchell <unk> stop and say well now maybe it just couldn't happen to eighties as well as i say it's all rather confusing to me at least we're back tomorrow with they number three of jon mitchell for robert mcneill in your carry on similar thank you and goodnight from washington you been watching double double videotape coverage of hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities this coverage is made possible by grounds for special events 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 no raise enough in
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-fj29883f66).
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 18 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, John Mitchell testifies.
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: 2341683-1-5 (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; 1973-07-11; Part 5 of 5,” 1973-07-11, 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; 1973-07-11; Part 5 of 5.” 1973-07-11. 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; 1973-07-11; 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