Martin Agronsky: Evening Edition; 21

BELINCES I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say, I don't know what to say From Washington, this is evening edition. Now here is Martin Agronsky. Good evening. Nearly a year ago, Richard Millhouse, Nixon resigned rather than risk impeachment. And the man who succeeded him in the White House said

then, our long national nightmare is over, our constitution works, our great republic is a government of laws and not of men. And at that moment most Americans would have said after the words of President Ford, amen. But today there are many afterthoughts about how well the system did indeed work. One man who stood at the center of the Watergate crisis was Leon Jaworsky. He served a special prosecutor for almost a year, replacing Archibald Cox after the Saturday night massacre. And tonight on evening edition, a discussion with Leon Jaworsky of the National Nightmare and the future of constitutional government as he sees it in the aftermath of Watergate. Mr. Jaworsky, can we begin with this? Had Richard Millhouse and Nixon destroyed the tapes? Would he be sitting in the White House today?

If he had destroyed the tapes at the time or near the time when it was first known that the laws are recording system in the White House, I would answer your question in the affirmative. I'd say yes. I would have to qualify to some degree because if he had undertaken to destroy them, for instance, after the Supreme Court had acted, I don't think the American people would have committed it. I think he would have been impeached. Well, let's go back to the other place then. At the time, the existence is revealed by Alex Butterfield and his testimony for the Urban Committee. But I raise it and I'm interested in your answer as it applies to the contention that the system worked. How well did the system work? If it required the accidental revelation of the existence of the tapes to make it work, how well did the system work in the light of your contention and concession that had Mr.

Nixon destroyed them? The system couldn't have worked. That I would have to concede. It probably would not have worked. Again, I have to break down the answer a little bit because you take the cover-up trial, the trial that involved Mitchell and Holderman and Erlichman. The indictments were returned before all of the tape recordings were gotten and before the time of this July or rather June 23rd tape recording, which was a very devastating one you will remember. We had not had access to it at the time the indictments were returned. But I'm going to say that your question implies something that I believe is right and that is that there may even have been difficulty in obtaining a conviction in that case if we have not gotten the rest of the tape recordings. I say that for two reasons. One is we wouldn't have had as much evidence as we wanted. Secondly, there is a rule that entitles a defendant to have the evidence

that the government has. We might have been considered a part, you see, of the prosecution force to the extent of being a part or an arm of the government. In that case, we would have been responsible for producing these. If we couldn't have produced them, the court may have dismissed those indictments. You see, the reason that I think it is so important for you to discuss this a little bit further is the whole idea of asking ourselves now if in the aftermath of Watergate, there has come into being safeguards which could prevent another Watergate safeguards which would not reduce us to being dependent upon accidental revelations such as we had with the tape or revelation to ensure that the system will indeed work in the future. Now, you yourself and your testimony here before the Senate Committee last week made the point that you were against the establishment

of a permanent office of special prosecutor which you held temporarily for something like 11 months. I was amazed that you took that possession and that's the reason I began with the tape. Well, I think I'd better start defending myself because I have some reasons why I doubt that on balance a permanent special prosecutor or office of public counsel which you wish to term it is necessary. Let me tell you what my doubts and my fears are. In the first place, I may be naive now in this conclusion but I think it's going to be a long, long time before there will be another Watergate. It's going to be a long time before there will be anything that will approach the dimension of the Watergate that you and I lived through. I doubted a man of the stature that you would seek for this office. I doubt that he would be willing to serve. I think he'd be

subjected to tremendous boredom because it just isn't enough to do. Now, they're going to be some smaller Watergates. I certainly am a believer in being realistic and I'm sure that corruption has been wiped out or wrongdoing has been wiped out on the port of government officials just because of what has happened in Watergate. But at the same time, I feel that the importance is to give your prosecutor independence. If the prosecutor can get the independence that I got, for instance, where I couldn't be discharged except for extraordinary improprieties without a consensus of congressional leadership agreeing to it, you give a prosecutor that sort of independence and that's what he really needs and you can move a man in pretty quickly and get him to perform once he has that independence. This is what I'd like to see. Now, the bill that's before the Senate at the present time and that they're considering also has some constitutional questions. Are you taking something away from the executive branch of the government and is it

constitutionally sound in the event you try to establish this office? So, you have a problem. I have some givings about trying to debate with you on a point of law, especially a constitutional law, but I feel I really must let me raise a couple of points. We had two attorneys general in a row, Mr. John Mitchell, Mr. Clindinston, who certainly were not in a position as we now know, to honestly pursue the ends of justice in the whole Watergate situation because had they followed that trial to its logical conclusion and obviously especially John Mitchell, the trial would have led to themselves. Therefore, without any reflection on the property of the Justice Department, it is exists today. Don't you think a very valid question is raised whether indeed you can trust a man who is appointed by the President of the United States to inquire

into abuses by the President of his authority? I think your point is valid. The problem, though, is you still have a constitution to reckon with, which places these functions in the hands of the executive branch. As you know, there was considerable talk about the special prosecutor being someone that Congress was going to and office Congress was going to create during my day and there were many who said, well, if you do it, you're going to have something of doubtful constitutionality. Interesting thing the American bar has just come out with a suggestion that what should happen is that the Chief Justice of the United States should appoint three retired judges of courts of appeals and let those judges in turn select a man to do this prosecuting function. In other words, they would constantly be in being as a body for that purpose. That's correct. Well, that goes a step in that. I mean, what I am concerned about is that it is on a reasonable

to assume that a man appointed by the President, the Attorney General, who has all of the prosecutorial authority under our constitutional system, should be expected to in effect turn against the man who appointed him. I think we had that all the way down the line and it was the reason for your office coming into being, Mr. George. Yes, but do you also realize that I was appointed in a sense by the President of the United States. Now, what happened technically, the Attorney General appointed me, but we know that it was a President that said to him, appoint this man and he comes along, profanct related and appoints me. He lived a regret it. Well, maybe so. But the point still is, you see, this was an executive branch function and of course it did raise some serious questions. One of the things that it raised, which I resented it more than anything else, was when the President in the case before the United States Supreme Court took the position that

I couldn't sue him because I was a member of the executive branch and here was the executive branch suing another member of the executive branch. But that's been laid to rest because the United States Supreme Court said, no, you created this and we're not going to let you raise this question now. Mr. George, I don't raise these questions I want to put to you now in terms of you're trying to give me any certain answers. I just I'd like to raise a couple of them just in terms of their effect on what we know about watergate and your perceptions of watergate. Let's go back to the tapes again. Why didn't the President destroy them? Well, I have to engage in some speculation, I know, but and I think probably you are the first one whom I've undertaken to give an answer of my my conjecture on that.

First place to think that the that the President never did believe he would have to surrender those tape recordings. I think he was convinced that he would prevail on the claim of executive privilege. Now you and I might not have you know rested our whole case on that and said we're going to keep these tape recordings intact because we'll eventually win on the claim of executive privilege. But I think he also had another motivating factor and that is that he looked upon these tape recordings as having a tremendous value. I'm talking about real intrinsic value, you know, and some day a real market value. And even considering the language, you know, that's right. That's the thing I could never understand because he certainly would have had to do a whole lot of cleaning up, you know, before he could have made him public. But apparently he expected to edit him and apparently he expected to to sell him someday. Beyond the rather selfish and commercial aspect of the reason you described, might there not have been another might they not also have been a means by

which he had the goods and effect on various government officials. Possible. It's possible. Again, a mean reason. You know, he devoted a tremendous amount of time listening to those tape recordings and relisting to him. He he went over him and over him to try to determine what the content was and what they really reflected after the matter began to evolve into a full scale investigation. Looking back again and let me lead you once more to hypothesis. Have you thought it all what there was in the president now from your own very intensive examination of the tapes and what it revealed of his character's personality is thinking. Why did he do what he did? Well, I don't know that I can give an acceptable answer

that would would really be authentic, but I can I can contribute this much. I do know that the president felt very strongly that he had received a mandate at the hands of the American people. Right after the election you will recall that came Christmas time and I was a bombing of Cambodia and it was criticized by a number who had been his friends. Also, there were others who would not rise to his defense. They remained silent. I listened to some recordings that were never brought out into the courtroom because I had nothing on Watergate and he was willing for me to listen to these to convince me that they were not Watergate recordings. None of them have ever been released. No, they were largely discussions between him and Charles Colson. But I do know from those discussions that former president Nixon

did believe that he had received a mandate from the American people and I also know that he frequently referred in the course of those discussions to his 62% vote, which Mr. Gransky caused me more than once to wonder. What would the situation have been if he had won by 51% or 52% instead of 62%. I don't think any different myself. Well, may not. I think if you win by one vote and you're cloaked with all the authority and awesome power of the presidency. That's true. But do you think that the mandate concept would have been in his mind quite as strongly if he won by one percent instead of, you know, this 12%. Well, perhaps not. But I don't think that his course or policy would have been very much different because he was convinced that he was right in any case and had an enormous contempt again as the tapes demonstrate for the opinion of anyone else and

felt that he had to go ahead. He regarded himself. I suppose truly as a savior. I wonder this too. And again, I lead you into a hypothetical area. But again, from your intimate involvement and knowledge, it's an area that I'd be interested to hear you speculate about. Mr. Nixon today, do you feel that he feels that what he did was right? Does he regard himself as having done anything wrong? Does he see any guilt, do you think? I would think that when he engages in some self-examination and I assume that he's doing some of that now, he's bound to realize that there is guilt. In the first place when you accept a pardon, as I construe the acceptance of a pardon, as I have said before, I think I don't, I wouldn't take a pardon and frame it and hang it up in my living room. It has certain implications, the implications of that of wrongdoing. Otherwise,

you reject a pardon. Now, the acceptance of it to me has a definite connotation of guilt. I think that he feels that bound to feel it and I'm certain that there's a certain amount of soul-searching that is going on. One of the everyman has to answer to himself or how he demeans himself, I guess. I would have thought that by now that probably former President Nixon might have come out with some comments different. From that of intimating that he made mistakes, but never agreeing publicly to say to his fellow Americans that these mistakes involved culpability and wrongdoing. You said, Mr. Jaworski, that you would like him to unburden himself and tell all the truth. I always wondered was any response from him to that observation? No, sir. Have you ever talked to anyone who's seen him, who may have raised that with him?

No, sir, not anyone who may have raised it with him. I have not talked with anyone who has seen the former President with one exception and we did not go into and couldn't as to what the conversations was. What the conversations were. I did talk with Mr. Ruth about his having seen him. Mr. Ruth went there along with two or three of his assistants. A couple of members of the grand jury were present and they took some testimony. But what transpired was not discussed, of course. Let me ask you some red and butter questions that interest me in sort of what has been left behind in this case. Remember Mrs. Holtzman on the House Judiciary Committee pointed out that a lot of things were left unresolved, one of the most important being the whole situation of

BB Roboso. Now, you made the observation last May that you felt that there was nothing that demonstrated any guilt on the part of Mr. Roboso. At that time, I was very surprised that you would have said that. You never would have said, for example, I don't think that you had information that indicated he was guilty, but isn't a finding of innocence, a prejudgment as well as a finding of guilt? Well, the explanation I would offer on that and you, I think, have stated accurately what the situation was at that time. All I did was to confine my comments with respect to that part of the investigation that had been concluded and it was only a part of it at the time that I bowed out of office. At that time, obviously, there was not sufficient evidence to return an indictment or an indictment would have been returned, but I also said that the investigation

wasn't ongoing one and that I did not know what else might be uncovered. What about the 18-and-a-half minute gap that's ever been resolved in the tape? Well, Rosemary Woods. All right, sir. I'm involved in that one. That's right and you know that we had the testimony of some of the six most skilled experts in the nation on that particular tape recording. They subjected that recording to any number of tests. They came up with a conclusion that there were some seven to nine segments there of stopping and starting so that we know that there wasn't an accident involved and so far as the erasure of the 18-and-a-half minutes was concerned. I Rosemary Woods herself testified that she had erased four and a half or five minutes of it accidentally. We have no testimony on what happened as to the rest of it except we do have this testimony of these experts. Fine as you can get in the nation who say that somebody stopped and

started and stopped and started until they had erased 18-and-a-half minutes. Personally, I have to come to conclusion that it was done manually and was done deliberately. Now, while I was special prosecutor, we had a rule that we didn't indict unless we felt that there was at least a 50 percent chance of conviction. The rule was found to be sure, but we tried to follow it. During a time that I served, we did not have enough evidence to return an indictment. The difficulty lies in this. How many people are going to handle and had access to these particular recordings? Now, we do know a few of them, but there were very, very few, but unless one of those was willing to talk, there was no way of getting the evidence that would show who actually manually erased a good part of that tape recording. Let me carry you one step further and I'm asking you to name a name, but did you indeed settle on a person who might

have been the one? I have my... Do you think you didn't have sufficient documentation to go here? Without revealing his or her name, I'm going to say to you that I have my own suspicion about the matter, but it is not evidence on which I would want to stand because I just don't have. I didn't have that evidence. Well, it would appear then that will be forever unresolved. Well, it is still in progress. I understand that the investigation is not concluded. Whether anything else will come to light, I just don't know. The White House wired taps of newsmen and presidential aids. Is that going to be carried through to a conclusion by Mr. Ruth? I have not discussed that with him, but I do know that it has been active and it tends to remain active until at least the last of September. What will happen during these next two months, I just actually don't know. Well, the rest of my laundry list is the alleged sale of ambassadorships. Yes. Well, you know, when that subject came up at one time,

someone at the White House said to me, well, why do you concern yourself with that? And I said, why do I concern myself with it? Because it is wrong. It is a violation of law. It is dishonest. So, this individual said to me, well, this has been going on for a long, long period of time. Everybody knows that people are appointed to an ambassador ship because it made campaign contributions. And I said, well, would you cite me as a single instance? Where someone had an agreement, I give $250,000 or $300,000. And if I don't get this ambassador ship, then I get my money back. And he said, no, should I have to agree with you that that that has not happened before? And I said, well, it's happened here. And it did happen here. And yet it's again not been brought to a conclusion, not to a conclusion, but there's been some activity in that situation. Mr. Jaworski, one of the real concerns, one of the really most

damaging dividends of Watergate, I think everyone would agree, is a loss of credibility in government, a loss of public faith trust in government. Do you think that in any sense that is in the process of being restored or can be restored? I think to some degree it has been restored. If I may mention to you, I have received many, many letters, countless letters from young people. Mainly in high school, they would say in a letter, 14 or 15 or 16 years old, such and such great. And in many of those letters, and most of them, in fact, they speak on that very subject. And they sometimes would use such expressions as having been skeptical and having been cynical, but that it really meant something to them to see our processes of government work, our institutions work. And how glad they were to see that it wasn't just a matter of our processes failing to do a job. Now I have stacks

and stacks of letters of that kind. If they're representative of the feeling of the young people of this country, then I'm greatly heartened because the young people of the ones that we want to think about, as you recall, Disraeli said that they are the trustees of posterity. And if they lose faith in our institutions, then we are in bad shape. Your successor, Mr. Ruth, is infinitely more skeptical and discouraged and cynical than you are in this particular area. And I just, there's a feeling in this city, you know, that the unevenness, for example, of the justice meted out in the case of Watergate, seemingly exceptionally light sentences that were handed out, were again a demonstration that there is a law for the rich and highly placed in another law for

the poor in our system. Who do you address yourself to that? Yes, sir. I think you have to examine each factual situation. And I think you really have to know the facts in each one of them before you can pass judgment on whether the sentence was proper or not. I do realize that in a number of these instances, all of which are referred to as white collar crimes, the sentences were what one might say relatively short in duration as far as service and prison is concerned. My contention, however, is, and frankly, I had nothing to do with the sentencing because that was the judges and we made no recommendations, but I'm going to defend what the judges did because I think that a man of the type that was involved here with an impeccable record of service prior to that time, but who had turned out to be engaged in criminal wrongdoing. When he spends four months or six months in prison, I think that it serves society as well as if he spent two years in prison. He's not going to be any better rehabilitated after two years and it would be after

six months. And I think it might be worse. It may be even a situation that keeps him from being rehabilitated. Mr. Dewarsky, do you think that the work you did worked the Senate and the House did served our system well? Well, the only way I can pass on that, and I may be, you know, kidding myself, but I have the feeling that it has worked. This is my own inner ceiling. Thank you, sir. Thank you. You're late for evening edition. Funding provided by Public Television Stations, the Ford Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This program was produced by NPECT, a division of GWETA, which is solely responsible for

its content.