thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-12; Part 2 of 4
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
it's been as the hearings resume our number two will include more questions put to her a reporter and some praise for his testimony and that involves some of senator ervin's now famous use of shakespearean quotations to characterize witnesses your testimony you were you had been instructed by artisans program that mentions a reason or your testing i think specifically or
did you essentially reasons why it is well my day or could involve not what was missed the reason is as the opposition and see it and pursuing your conversation with the people you did appear before the fbi are you were interviewed by the fbi for the grand
jury and then you did a year before the us attorneys i mean i didn't hear before the grand jury and walking and i didn't hear the fall of the port and the testimony would you have used all three places was with respect to the disbursement of approximately one hundred thousand dollars per what is that what was your testimony that mr libby to thirty five thousand dollars which is correct what i've stated that was not correct was that mr mcgregor had asked me in december ahmadi program of infiltrating radical organizations would
cost and i told him that it might cost one hundred thousand dollars and use that as the base of that conversation as a basis to then say that you and i'll tell you there was a dialogue between you and this route with respect to the figures which you would testify before the grand jury in a hundred thousand dollars or eighty thousand dollars with the president i'm just saying i understand that for you you mentioned this in a conversation with mr miller and again in the gym that he could justify that expenditure one hundred thousand dollars by
hiring right there would be a fight through before the grand jury which the fbi and the grand jury and followed it was a committee a little preview of some of our thirty five thousand dollars wedding a one hundred thousand dollars and into other than that as you have mentioned with respect to be enough for the case that you referred to now when you write this and can that there had been a delivery of one hundred thousand dollars to somebody else
now did you at any ambient mr silbert oh i have a vivid mr silver recently or if you're doing a bass when you were back and racing witnessed mcgruder about a possible appearance that he might make at mr silbert office you at that time you were asked mr miller our mr rove for a roman god during their discussions with them about your grand jury testimony to answer that question specifically so yes in that moment but in january of this year when we were getting getting through with the president's inauguration obviously the future employment and i got
told me that could be could possibly be an obstruction to why getting a good job with the government after he said well he said i think it'll probably be a little bit you know that they're in there and so i asked them what's the best way to be measured i call him directly or weapons have no one to talk to the conversation went something like that you know this problem that i am i said i don't know pretty loyal and he said yes i know that when i said i would be treated better than anybody else that would be any worse than anybody else either perhaps
so are you concerned about i could be in one and what we used to have to have to leave and ninety eighth was a drone a crp that day on important decisions of mr haldeman should be in one and they're what their sphere of decisions would you say covered in the communications between the crp an all white
house senator i can only i can find my average my my area of involvement in certain scheduling program but i everything that i do all reporters all plans or schedules law excuse me it's time to disperse what would you say i would say that to my knowledge to my knowledge they did not include in it because i mean let's go and you mentioned that term for every disbursement which you've maybe you had we've seen a receipt
every april seventh twenty fifteen i recently received any longer politically sensitive democrats what are a few things and i think politically sensitive but in that
same process and then again we get ballots and street movement where the money and me do you show in this season mr reeder relayed information were filming and what was so says they respect what i own discretion now we're speaking to me what sensitivity you finding of receipts that they're wondering where their destruction anything creepy
politically sensitive and in the new york times it shouldn't be worrisome other instances and the sensitivity and according to the committee the receipt said he's joined other documents
that's a position papers and that sort of thing now what we're hearing and what they're doing i don't mind and the fighting's over the program i mean yeah i mean anybody's pertaining to scheduling and being out in the field i say within the crp in house what other duties to perform another way to say you were the one who were
instructions this song for this person of money unless you were the one that would give instructions to mr slone when the disbursement of money or you would receive that money to mr sondheim in turn gave money to individual sense of the senate i received my instructions from mr mcgregor on the monday was to get certain funds on how much and i'd just won't get those funds to pass them on to various individuals as i say to the senator baker of the some sixty nine thousand dollars that i went through many others seventy five percent of it what the money has been used you won't know how
that is an obligation of service and testified truthfully we call multiple ran through it all the value of his way to the top of the show with respect or even nonexistent conversation between you and the seven nineteen seventy one when his insistence that the quadruple along with him on the opposition with the bill i'm excited which will
oh i'm sorry it is so as the new episode mikey you would not money that we netted mountains at the pope we covered a lot of material
frankly there's a lot more material to cover for a recall that first examine my asking china ask other questions on other subjects but you indicated that you were in the interest of time and orderliness the committee has tried an informal way to compartmentalize these proceedings particular subject matters real questions we have not probe in great neck and other matters that we attended and i understand you're fully agree of overturning thank you very much talking about the water our first ever meet privately with any assistant us attorneys for your grand jury appearance that led to the september nine wins no set about now in your conversations with them it's b now in your interview with the federal investigation or your testimony before the grand jury
will you ever asked the example the songs of money nominations money which gave them as the lady and what is a worm it was an individual investor you ever ask you the fact that the program while setting up an individual's a thousand dollars a month while units you gave mr libby were not in minnesota thousand dollars were allocated ten thousand dollars a month was the understanding that the conversation would you had witnessed a big reader like your testimony that would provide justification were you having some thirty thousand also testified that possibly i testified that i did
not know specifically what mr levine thirty five thousand dollars but in the conversation with suppose a conversation with mr rudin one that never took place that was supposed to provide justification for the large sums of money given by who are part of the money that it was supposedly pointed to justify later you would gregory any other questions concerning the use of the money and maybe somebody such as what did you ask mr liddy whether there were ankle traders whether mr liddy indicated they were infiltrated or anything along those lines now supporter you have stated today that even though the
request and unique communities that attorneys office that i know that has not requested immunity for on this committee's letter and i assume also that you have no desire to be invited reporters after that's a committee and why a note on the new or senior counsel c community senator baker is those questions why i'm here now that many of the reasons that the reasons people were not in my
case i didn't do anything and yet on the other hand there were three or four factors that the only way and i think the percentage in which way more over to the other side it was the president it was the heat of the campaign a campaign is abnormal situation you react to act and react to spend most of your time reacting i think we get an american
visa having discovered that weakness and having determined that the context in which what it has been oil i believe so you're nervous these people are doing i believe
they wrote letters and what it was not interested in the substance of the report they make reports to my phone conversations and we need to remember the second with all of the leaves and one hand written statement that was later i think we might and i was wrong his activities in life these reports
our conversations this report on the day i think it was a narrative of the man's letter on his activities in this field office in pennsylvania the report to anyone would expect that may have taken that the report on pensions with you and mr mcgrew now to discuss this the reason our factories manhattan and get it back in the us as a written report that was the reasons i would be there
do your reports this particular rulings illegal activities on talking about watergate bugging surveillance act that i've always acted that the watergate villain and he was thirty three i knew about that i had said not put that in context the watergate cover up the un and the other thing so there were no government was among eligible thank you it was you justify the government thought of the scheduling of surrogates because the issue scheduled events of the acting
the americans did great ray's activities or scheduling for him all out of the white house to my understanding he was not that he was not a surrogate for the campaign you know that was there i identify as a newspaper reporter thank you or the witnesses dismissed that would join in that expression to the witness i must say that united on delicate and painful ground on thursday and i think you are very manly in the way he reacted too probing certain
questions and the committee is not here to sit in judgment the committee is really forthcoming testimony and security we explore it they are implying cope with not with the impression that we have done so with an absence of sensibility to her own situation now concerns like you are to be commended for a parent just fine committee is grateful it uses rolls like in place the testimony of harvard airport the
last of the little fish as we're going to hear from four was water confessed on national television and in committed a crime a very human level you can't help but wonder at this point what's next in a lot of rebel porter public television's uninterrupted coverage of the watergate hearings will continue after this fall for station identification on a bridge to coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service of the member stations of pbs and public broadcasting service the the
pope and that continues its coverage of hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities you again
correspondent jim lehrer well we're still in the second hour and the next witness was billed as the first part of that show former commerce secretary maurice spencer was finance chairman of the nineteen seventy two nixon campaign stand is under indictment for his involvement alleged in the involvement in the best showcase and he appeared with his attorney robert walker who really said no thanks will pass that's right the team i
like that this is now there were less than that it is an early request that interview all the impending new york is the beekeeper and certainly no quarter at your local court ruling which brings us at we were really
testifying before this committee we did not the rule the court ruled that legislators if the law rule and reserves for a labor ruling on whether the extensive why are probably generated by the watergate in activities and as ready with him you probably recognize you know where you need an unusually witnesses then they call that if the ear
or your committee who is under an impending indictment or criminal matters arising out of a presidential election campaign this morning's report really really well very important and individual rights over having said this i don't like to take a minute to review some upon with us this committee to make this ruling mr spencer head of the watergate break here and was
on june eighteen nineteen seventy two when i read about it in the morning papers he was ready that are consistent with the five eighth in his possession of a loyal american demonstrated by years of service of this country the senate standard for himself on this that it's a complete cooperation with the investigation when legal counsel the finance committee with richie gordon liddy refused to cooperate with the fbi investigation into his jar lester spence approval immediately commencing early in july of nineteen seventy two
on three occasions he voluntarily submitted himself to an important discussion with fbi agents and son in the watergate break in and a presidential election campaign on august second nineteen seventy two mr stanza voluntarily appeared and gave sworn testimony assistant united states attorney for years before the watergate grand jury of your wife ec subsequently reversed and voluntarily appear before the staff of the house committee and gave information with respect to campaign finance and cooperated with that committee on six government agencies one of the committee and does that matter to representing the general accounting office concerning campaign finances and i believe it that everything that to clarify matters
again bob kelly we went to new york and appeared before the us attorney handling the grand jury investigation into the vascular contributions to the campaign and the band also long lines are completely justified normally members of the visibility in addition on three occasions that the positions and the civil litigation by writing out of the campaign to find work down that subsequently he appeared reporters baffled as commenting on two occasions gave them information concerning the campaign activities and finance and he fully intended to appear voluntarily before this committee and the inequality cooperation of the system
united states of america oh she's the whole situation it brought an indictment against mr stan starving and were very serious crimes are rising out of the campaign and his duties the chairman of the finance committee as in oliver stone and waited and now before this committee under subpoena with the direction to testify about a re elected president inevitably directly or indirectly that hearing will influence any during which might recall hear the case in the euro as places mr stanton an impossible position in a completely unfair or i know
and it uses in her well by an impartial jury unimpeded by it they'll lose about listening in other words as the supreme court said in as the versus texas a concept of due process of law and tied of the defendant loughner will vote judicial serenity and follow and it will mr chairman the inevitable legal i a publicity lecturing solver mr spencer fearon fear would preclude any judicial serenity and followed the trial now centers they say for september eleven in new york it would also tend to deny them the possibility of an impartial during their time here indeed by the sixth amendment the language of the supreme court reverses united
states mr stanton before this committee and the television and other news media related you probably should issue investigation and extensive publicity which would serve no other workers who are prejudiced mr stanton right to a fair trial now the supreme court and speaking of the problem of publicity and fair trial of st michael the court has insisted that normally punishable crime without it starts early may be unfairly tried in a public eye view and excitement and tyrannical power also speaking of freedom of the press the supreme court has said it must not be allowed to develop a trial are very purpose of the port system to adjudicate controversies open a columnist and solemnity of the court room according to legal procedures
among the legal procedures is the requirement that a jury be based on evidence received an open court not from outside sources you know at eighteen room of the supreme court the state of law well why mr justus call when he said and i quote the system is that the conclusions that the reason the case will be only by evidence the argument in open court and not by any outside influence whether a private plan or a public plan now this was set in nineteen seventeen before the great medium of radio and television existed i'm speaking today the supreme court has indicated that it will as part of due
process of law to a fair and impartial jury trial me from outside influence i posed this question after all honesty given these hearings of the watergate situation in general where the united states and an impartial jury and influenced by public publicity the fall more honor ourselves estimate to process a lot of justice the ante by the fifth amendment and excuse as the right to remain silent completely silent and require the government to go forward with the presentation of defense before the defendant may present his case or put on any evidence like wine makers fan have to appear here before wonderful in the arm of the government which is place these charges would require lifters
chance to present his faith in advance of hearing the government's case in new york is clearly would deprive him of the process the law it measures and refuses to testify as we understand it you would be under severe threat of citation for contempt and with a simple as the best places him under the whole thing altogether interfering with his own fair trial we're going to do it this was a completely unfair the only other alternative open them as statins mr chairman is for and refuse to testify on the grounds that the fifth amendment they slipped into the reagan of bethlehem and with the really interfere with that while because who he would be branded throughout the night united states for every former cabinet officer who had taken refuge behind the fifth
amendment what would have affected your say about that the courts have recognized the fact in many cases still taking the fifth amendment even though the cost to the right is likely to severely private as a person in the mind of the public including members of the committee mr stanton left no reasonable choice or a fair opportunity as lawyer the right experience each of us recognize that therefore under the prevailing circumstances on behalf of mr stands i respectfully request that the committee i strongly urge the committee in the interest of fairness and fair trial for mr stanza parents and testimony until the indictment in the vessel case in new york have been visible it is probably already too
late to preclude the publicity which will make a fair trial and it is impossible however it wasn't silly play that the committee will at least not make the situation worse by graffiti at this time of the first test will it with chairman members of the committee are no state committee and of the nature of the position would be taken that will witness the committee considers ramallah as moe that's right to him this question oyelowo
information will be in presidential election of nineteen seventy two what information with many campaigns of hillary clinton's nomination which had the effect of all the integrity of the process with presidents of the united states are nominated show i'm going to go with this i don't think that will enable estimated at the time
well the activities of suggested the place where we'll be in is it the ability of the united states and well any new legislation is so necessary that all about they want to be we're following on ethical on top of that the united states is in part of the government oh oh this
is they have low and his environmental law so electoral processes of other nominations collection of them and i'm not playing and i think the committee that he had put a lot of investigations until they can be determined reporter calls the prosecution gets to the senate the investigation and it would lose money and just as well i think it would be
a mistake and then the announcement of the committee that more questions should be directed to the witness and respect of the navajo nation in the indictments in the united states does the court in your and i would like to do in the way this is this now in a question for them for him to be put to be put on the witness with information that testimony about that'd be for something different has a prosecution right under the government refused to testify before one weekend in january and i can understand the reluctance to witness to invoke that right up
the hill they do with immigration in europe second that there would be with the premise of the politics of the committed in a question and they do you know about that and third is due to the committee in the absence of an indication of a constitutional right to interrogate the whips and so many were required a witness in the absence of an indication of that you're
right and to you as well refusing to testify on the circumstances without an indication of the constitution were the subject of the witness to the possibility that the senate might go always use the citation for contempt the confusion of incentive to do the test there's a policy well what happened this week why do you
recommend that it is you dated june four nineteen seventy three years ago and that what i'm trying to make it matter whether witnesses with university in new york what is it you're
right but in the absence of it if you have made it thank you and he has to testify and the testimony you may get on the committee is going to make it better because it's accessible but at the moment that we'll proceed under those circumstances i think that maybe some of them will make some are just sick mr allen i thank you for the opportunity to make one brief remark which has nothing
to do really with the legal maneuvering that have gone on here actually understand the important importance these exchanges i simply wanted to say i'm i believe that the committee certainly on behalf of the center the command is not insensitive to the rather delicate position that must stand finds himself we're not insensitive to the with salt in the judicial system and the legislative system which would appear on the surface patients might be appropriate to set the stage the right atmosphere for us going for it this time we're not offering listeners we're not ordering mr spiers to testify simply to serve the purposes of this committee's desire for city we are so we're not writing the government proceeding with the mandate given us with us at the case that the landing case which council referred my memory serves me was a case that tested this they're on and what on the
question of whether or not the court under the circumstances for the lion continuing criminal prosecutions until after the legislative proceedings have been concluded i did not suggest the united states district court for the district of the state of new york or that in which this case is pending that they should read a continuance and others suggest that you set a sport and i'd rather say that there are remaining teams other than disposing of this witness without his testimony and without justice having the proceedings of this committee and you are really important rights can collect which is presented on the question of fair trial if for no other reason than human sense of concern for their trial for any defendant especially any defendant charged with any artwork violation of the law in conjunction so called watergate situation or presidential campaign activities of nineteen seventy two i'm very
concerned for a fair trial for the government and for the fund but i suggest for whatever it's worth that his committee is in a position to develop the circumstances and involvement to do it fairly and openly to do it publicly as the forum creating an opportunity for the weapons to state his side of the case so the potential jurors do not have just rumor innuendo and princes and conclusions on which to base a judgment so yes there's a far greater journey partial here in a fair trial might be obtained after these hearings and after everyone has had his opportunity justified and would have been the case only a few months ago before the public exposition of all the facts and circumstances attended on watergate and involves describe have been undertaken
this committee no one can be certain of that were so i'm certain i hope for better self but these committee hearings do not prejudiced the right to a fair trial but in fact enhance the right to a fair trial i pledge before you begin that i will not inquire into any matter that i wore you suggested faith might be involved in a trial vesco is to take off your climate perspective pledge on my part that no refusal to answer on legitimate and that legitimate basis will be viewed by the committee or this member of the committee as a failure of cooperation i believe in this legislative committee this committee of the senate or the right of the government can proceed with its mandate is required to the resolution which created without jeopardizing fairness of the trial court either the government or the fine it's my fervent hope that we
conduct ourselves in that way i'm curious well as a place of this very boastful and his act through the united states supreme court decision that's to some cases the committee has acted within limits thank you mr freeman no electricity
thank you let's boogie so having spent all that time deciding whether mr stearns going to testify and under what terms the bottom up to the point of
holding his hand up in the air to be sworn in and then for lunch in a moment we just like once again to express our gratitude for the response the public television has had to this gavel to gavel coverage and primetime response and mail has been overwhelming and so it has and the number of viewers in at least one city this gobbler got more coverage in the evenings as attractive as many viewers as the most popular dramatic program public television has shown there on televisions coverage of the hearings will continue after a pause for station identification on average coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service of the member stations of pbs the public broadcasting service fb in
1973 Watergate Hearings
Part 2 of 4
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-rn3028qd59).
Episode Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 9 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, Maurice Stans and Herbert Porter 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: 2341621-1-2 (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; 1973-06-12; Part 2 of 4,” 1973-06-12, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 1, 2024,
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-12; Part 2 of 4.” 1973-06-12. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 1, 2024. <>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-12; Part 2 of 4. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from