thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-24; Part 2 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 pittsburgh apple of the chairman but also recall that when i tried cases in tennessee that win proof was concluded the job search the theories add something to this effect he said ladies and gentlemen do not take the evidence as it is in the well all the witnesses if you find the testimony of witnesses and conflict you will reconcile it if you can if you cannot give you a lot of the testimony of other witnesses the circumstantial evidence if available or documentary evidence or demonstrative l evidence of appropriate and they knew a way and balance the evidence and make your judgment as to where the truth actually live bob lande is a charge
use innocence that the courts in my native state of tennessee i think that summarizes the dilemma that we're faced with here as committee members but we will certainly after the fire the troupe and is now at that we're going to have to try to reconcile differences in testimony if we can and if we cannot lot of the testimony of other people to monitor elephants is circumstantial evidence to try to find where the truth a lot of the time i have before me still remaining two minutes burleson i wasn't just two or three things that appear to be in 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 this subject matter begin with the allegation as i understand it mr mcwhorter state on page three
of age to have his testimony as well their final suggestion from mr austin i use as my defense during the trials for the watergate operation was a cia operation he says most importantly i heard him out on the suggested which included questions as to whether at the stats we haven't we got a retirement from cia the protest late in the operation he said that yes so my personnel records of cia could be doctored reflect such a repeal he stayed in this lesson for the new director cia was appointed just been announced could be subpoenaed and will go along with that mr martin yeah two no
one speaking to the third party that was there was that mr bernanke at its you know in the seventies if that had proved inconclusive with regard to this discrepancy and woodward got to the discrepancy that his defense to all that it told me that he was not going after the president now finds out if you will to the allegation made the most important date on page two of his written statement with respect to a defense of the recall the cia and the doctor and his records reflect then is there anything else except mr shankman its possible testimony that you can suggest to us that might shed some light on that at that time and the testimony that we knew or if the i suggest that both mr mccourt and i if he's willing to
submit to a contract test conducted by a competent examiner accredited by the american polygraph association i think my willingness or do you have any other suggested no not at the time and his brother suggested that most important that on a number of occasions intense pressure was brought to bear on him to involve the cia i do not have that record before me but i hope it's a fair summation early justin vernon most reports testimony you had an idea the suggestion that you consider that we're creating an offensive rebounds and i can use it any other lot on whether there is there were other or
different occasions on when you suggested that we get on the cia i never did that you ever run in science or any pressure to bear on this record on this or any other subject any suggestion on how this committee might reconcile that apparent conflict now in my plan the testimony of other witnesses circumstantial evidence not evidence or other information that might try to tell us where the truth lies pressure that i put upon him i'll tell us if you know of any other information say panic set the testimony and that is the minimalist record and i knew that my chances on information on who's telling the truth for us to one particular point the point that intense pressure was brought to bear on him repeatedly referred to make a cia operation to my knowledge the activity of macho my activity to which he points was that meeting at the monocle
restaurant you you can correct me if on my reading of the political event the only instance in which he says that i question him with regard to cia activity i've already given you my two suggestions about how to find out and telling the truth to my knowledge we have not cite any other examples of mine allegedly pressuring him to adopt a cia defense full moving vans another subject it would appear to me that a material for your testimony and the statements of mr tunstall long given publicly at your insulin yesterday they produce for this committee a similar dilemma and like mr armstrong likes a statement or just the latest your allegation that mr pasztor walls and were out to get the president understand that this question is premature therefore i'll say vigilantes in anticipation of
i rather suspect that he may leave your is bolivia's not here but i believe he is publicly out here this would you now what method used to you could suggest to when the testimony of other witnesses to murder or other circumstantial evidence or any evidence to try to find who is telling the truth and that risk that congress that was a conversation to my knowledge nobody was not i know nobody was listening in on my hand to my knowledge nobody was listening in on his hands i don't know that you would immediately adjourned immediately and yes mr john mcnally assuming you do that it wasn't immediately after that conversation you're familiar with the term race yes yes as an exception to the hearsay evidence for it as we are
trying to not only yourself your own purposes but does it all and the scope of that very well are we here in a proceeding or two lawyers were potentially at least in the swearing contests but that look like that's where we're headed now i want to move on to more general subject matter then i had remaining to me salman suggested that it might be and you advised this record to plead guilty but after all he was a caucus chairman willie brennan and in the watergate is indicted on what seven counts for a lot
did you ever consider revising it not for these reasons he told me from the beginning he didn't want to he told me he wanted to go to trial and told me the defense he wanted to use based upon what he claimed to be the true motivation of his actions and a judge in a major motivation and action his attempt to obtain advanced warning all plan violent demonstrations by radical it was at the point of what you do in his opinion lead to violence prominent republican officials and he said that in relation to the country and the democratic national committee did not enter the headquarters of the weather or any other group but that's what he told me was his reason for doing what he
did would you advise him that that was i was i told him i would look into it it and he was talking and submitted memorandum to me under the topic of that sense of others my research told me or shown that this particular defense did not permit the lung claiming it to know that he was breaking the law i chose that particular one but i also told him that it was a similar related offense which typically allowed the perpetrator to know he was breaking the law that was defensive the rest back defense was presented in his behalf when tj to repeal rule as a matter of law that was not applicable to the fact i made my offer of proof the us attorney's office or the justice department or anyone else and get too dry to induce or even to discuss the matter of your
time reading guilty mr lande is reflected and i think there were two times that they disappear and i think they want to plead guilty on one church of the indictment and become a government witness and a second time to plead guilty to or three or four ranger the end become a government witness or there any other offers from the government knows whether any suggestions of executive clemency not the only other man and i don't want to characterize it as an offer it was not an author but as a result all a meeting in chambers with chief judge of the river during the trial i came out of five my client that it was not too late to go before the grand jury mr alter you previously stated that the way you practice law decision on whether to play tennis and are built is too important for you to decide it must be laughter kleiman i admire your rectitude in that respect but i got her judgment and i really wonder and i put this to you in a very block
a very very cruel way i really wonder if there is in the balancing judgment to be made in the minds of the export retained by counsel to advise him on the challenges writes on them one hand the likelihood of prosecution and conviction on the other advantages of pleading guilty on one of the indictment i was not on that point if my discussion witnessed in my discussions with mr mccourt as we were talking about defense which we ultimately you i pointed out to him that number one it was the only possible legally recognizable defense i think all and also told him that in my opinion the chances of success were less than fifty fifty at work i don't want to go to trial on crack offense on defense
commander conversations with embassies were the suspected or knew of wiretaps set before or after your conversations with him about the possibility of pleading guilty either the one or four pounds of them all down and i i'm not sure tell me what your reaction was i asked her about the relative to the case i get it that he suspected they were to get us and i knew that i'd get what would be say i know i know i know you ask him anything else i have to move out you know he said there was a similar situation in the albert case when was the altercation trial in german business that was a long time after
that no he gave me a memorandum i think it's one of the papers i submitted to the committee cited the oscar case was one of the documents well here but now you are a lawyer you're a member of the bar of the district of columbia those are the state of massachusetts if you understand your obligations as an officer of the court cause you have the impression that you're trying to manufacture and contrive a method by which the government would be required to dismiss this case notwithstanding his guilt or innocence i and i did not take this to be a foreigner was a tangible action on his mind when he told me that these calls were relevant to the case at my clients instruction i prevent the promotion and he knuckled you is what would you would you then have an ethical
dilemmas of the term user if i had been if i had gotten my own mind that number one the calls were not being number two they were made for homeless services and of no consequence no relation to the case assemblywoman the pittsburgh the piano piece be and your letters they get all the supporting her of what we're really in a few minutes they're zero and the letter signed him
this is a supreme court that appeared directly on the decision making a bit of course for government dismissal of the case rather than disclose the chilean embassy for one wiretap in which both these conversations were recorded there's raisins for granted parental directly wrote our situation that they are having that one on constitutional grounds determination the relevance of wiretapped conversations be made an adversary proceedings rather than again to recreate refusal or a court to compel discovery and conduct an adversary hearing is in fact what the provisions to our kids that means that it's spending frozen streets at sixty eight and the original nineteen seventy the jobs report it's not the
recession or the other oh just just as douglas is among iran's support the new manager prepares some of the thinking or just pretty recent decision on the wiretapping issue skipping over some parts of it in any case out that my life's not the supreme court will rule of germination the relevance of wiretapped conversations the main adversary procedure that camera and the ability of the personalization on whose phone was tapped was made to be made no defense counsel refusal to work or veiled turkish government conducted an adversary hearing is an anti poverty work have instead decided to buy and so in my own case there are three possibilities one is whether this year totaled cars are made that my office bomb from a young chilean employees line the chilean military attache for instance in the city and for members of his
family as employee minute appears then in some of the same situations to skin cells and they'll score gains if those balls were that on national security grounds of the government seventy eight there would be illegal according to reports it on june twenty six years of us versus a us district court eastern district of michigan there's a sense that there were such steps during that time is to raise and address that by marriage ripple innuendo the watergate operation may have been a latin american or anti castro operations of song attack on domestic security grounds on the attorney general's out the recession only now legal would be a fair likelihood three in a column he subsequently june
seventeenth to any organization and there were nations very large there weren't on motion have to be disclosed to the defense if any of the three are in support of the health program under races for having a rat for successful for the supreme court not disclose the prosecution would have to be dropped but to split opinions of the government is us district court case from michigan remote you about three weeks ago of a copying the rest of the appendix to the elkhorn ranch i'm on an island to open find some encouragement of this two things about that are still underway just extraordinary there are necessary legal that would you agree with that and second that would appear to you that your clients and at the possibility that those telephone calls that he made and syrian embassy could form the basis for a dismissal because of a non disclosure of
wiretaps on those embassies of the nine states that do not think of that because i asked him if he's a relative to a case he told me that they were when a client comes up to you and says i've been making college i really you were that i think if the government refuses to disclose and it may result in the dismissal of the judges after having been told it and that they were relatively case i felt like that was an emotional i will perceive other except same restaurants are you telling this committee but the only thing that saves that situation from being a contrived defense which you should have objected to as counsel and as an officer of the court was disabled representation that the material was not at all but with the
material contents evidence which led to other evidence that the company is going to introduce that at sixteen i wanted them to come forward to say yes and inaccessible then according to my understanding is that cedric robinson white imposed sanctions tension in white van is out on the basis of filing a motion for discover the representation of your tribe calls a relevant to his defense were sufficient but to go for b and that you needed the substance of the messages as intercepted at a lot of factors that i had to know what they were not willing to see what if anything could be done with a package or cornerstone within me the testimony of most of
these significant cotton in a number of incidents oprah time wherever there's any evidence of perjury i think the essays that this meeting to submit a trend of that situation now most of those qualities nicole welcome and when you go and you know given what i did not the letters and i kept many came to see you in this as an employer or fisa court today he
lived in time the vigils being and a few members of their own not made on his second three presidents of both sam silberstein sure a i mean as proud as a decision again i asked him what that he said that the watergate operation had been brutalized on which i asked him how i knew this and he said political
i respectfully submit it's not a discrepancy when he told me that he did not tell me that in any way imply that that justified the operation and made it legal you never told me that because libby told him that this committee was involved that it was legal and then he told me that that's what committee told him at no time and told me that was in the context of him saying to me and therefore i think it's a little fb that's a good question because i don't know because from the very beginning i've had specifically asked mr mccourt and discussing the fence we ultimately arrive at all whether or not you know the fact that he knew he was breaking the long awaited when he
said he could understand that he was breaking the law i believe i believe that i believe what you read the poem they are also carries with it are you breaking into a big fight and investigate that point was caught just that union it was not as big
carol welsh discussing a little possibility the senator touted about whether the watergate break in and bugging could have been lethal and they've been approved by john mitchell before he resigned as attorney general of march testimony become an intact continuing coverage of the hearings will resume after a station identification on a bridge to coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service of the member stations of pbs for public broadcasting service oh yes and black continues its
coverage of hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities here again correspondent jim lehrer now senator bernie will begin his questioning of gerald all to longtime defense attorney for james mccord there's one thing we haven't discussed it was whether the judge really get that actually touched off one against that so i think we ought to discuss options to hear i have a lot of them will take up at various points that he brought out mr ryan wanted to talk about the first time he mentions there was political pressure required and famines to legally enter remains
the question of you know what can you say did he ever discuss with you at any time you've heard from the time he first in danger as his lord and taylor time he describes you as is or anything about any political pressure brought against any defendant and what you did not mr mccourt didn't testify to really was that he had some conversations during the trial with mr blocker stood recess period or after the trial you
would see them in the corridor he would talk to them and that's one of dozens of political pressure came out that is the other defendants saying that political pressure was being brought on them know exactly what to do about iran his testimony seem to indicate they were trying to find out where he was where you have your client most of the time during this trial when i try to find out where the cars were you present any of these talks and we weren't we were you with your clients i thought i was but as i reviewed his testimony were having was a great deal of activity on this which i was not privy to either by being president and having all would you describe who the committee oh you and your client to work together during the trial first time that you met in the morning whenever the trial began interview part of the end of the day would
you describe it we were driving to court i can say that during every five or ten minute recess i think i decide i'm sure there were many occasions when i converted with us at lunchtime and we would walk over to believe it's the museum near the courthouse would have once there i did not always have lunch with the record on some occasions i've been on some occasions i did when the court adjourned for the day he and i would take a taxi cab to my hotel sometimes physicians would come right up for this overtime to go up to his office which was terrific received a check on fall ill we have a discussion on what happened that day and what was about to happen the next day and this report would the whole
my next contact with him would be ready to proceed to the following day or you know for the first time what you mentioned the white trying to him about that letter and asked him not specifically about political pressure but why he had done this without them you're welcome why did he think of that union protection i don't know if it was his attorney i don't know well no the next go it makes their number two major repair during the trial period of the restructured orientation in any case had a motivation an untenable defense that he ever discussed any perjury that he thought had been
committed and drop nasr what he opposes the other thing that was when mr mcgrew there was testifying and he leaned over to me and called the area when i cross examined is the root of this is what sticks out in my mind i'm trying to support my defense asked if he would routinely for the court if you could of their visibility at citicorp and i asked him to give me his opinion of describe the manner in which was the record carried out his duties and he had nothing but a proto far in his testimony before the committee has a constant flow of mentioned either before going to trial he was afraid her through is going to be committed that he never discussed as you know and again i read for that
mission and intent of the studio to discuss that with you know some who are keeping in mind that after the first two three days of trial yes but he never discussed that the motivation and intensive of any of the people who were arrested and one of them i wasn't he did in that sense and testify i asked him what the nature of his testimony would be and that's when he told me that mr libby had informed him that mr
michel have known and all approved of this operation now why do you think he brought that up i remember that you have discussions with him about whether he would testify but why do you think he brought this up i can i can only guess that it happened when i asked him what we were trying to decide whether an option would take the stand i simply cannot tell me when you get up you're going to have to kill all that you know just what do you know about this thing are defensive the rest had been turned down by the court that's when he told me why you chose that time to talk to me i honestly don't know well ask him if this venture is involved in this house is arguing the defendants were present in court and i don't i help him for
them and i haven't really asked if you have any other troubling said no i said well you know this is not a pot of our defense defensive the rest was not caught on and the only actual of the fence we had was just it was a general lack of criminal intent which i thought that was a mouth it was in that respect that i liked all of that but i didn't tell him that despite the relevancy a lack of relevancy have preferred defense in response to questions a number of primaries says such statements some statements were unfortunately made by weapons which left the court with the impression that he was dating and troops or we're going to have no one in fact only our memories were involved who is he talking about
i'm not sure i believe that he was talking about mr baldwin i'm not sure i believe he was talking about mr baldwin lawyer said not on top of the lead out on the man to whom he was to deliver the logs at the committee to reelect president had a german sounding name and at one point we were before the trial that a lot of that in fact that question is the living and that this was an honest mistake in recollection on the borowitz but that maybe what we would write discuss the monarch this was after when it may have been but i'm not sure it could be that when all those testifying to that effect mr feinstein i think he's raised
because i remember that the name on that although living and that there was a guy here with a german sounding name is confusingly may have told me that the ball you remember that number section his letter to the judge says that's my motivations were different from those of the others involved but were not limited to possibly those offered in my defense during the trial this is not their second chances and that which we have to parent that's what can you tell us about his motivations being different from those of the other i can so i can only tell you two things number one he told me that his motivation that is the protection of others was peculiar to him as to his reference to other areas which we did not pursue through no fault of my attorneys i don't know but i can only
surmise he was making references to areas of which he had made no disclosure eleven years the only information that i get that could in any way be interpreted as an answer to that question is this when it was consensual the night that night that the day that the memorandum came out alleging that i had told him about the forging of cia documents and i asked him why the sip and then he made a reference to fiddle made a reference in a telephone conversation that this was all just like the ones we dropped on you
back to forget your expect out of my mind because of the use of the word weak whether it was intentional i don't know what was said you know you say at that point across the defense the wall was not mistaken cause of turning once we know the state of indiana i mean i don't know speaking over that do you mentioned i think at one time and i can't remember now if it was in the courtroom and coming out of the court room this unknown man rushed up to mid card you can use my
office one wanted that occur in a twenty minute recess it gives the river a lot of you were less reactive his reading of the letters i stayed in the courtroom with mr mccourt this is the way you live and this was i don't know why and he when i asked who this gentleman was the record store i turned around and said oh i've got to do a great deal on the telephone and that's when the thing i'm sorry about his holiness surprise on the walls that price no i know
before those occasions this crisis with many meetings and conversations other than to say that he had received a call from a man whose name i recall recall well they would not tell me who he was or what he was talking about i told him that was his problem and as i explained this morning my concern was to see whether or not they would be any indication that might be tampered with disgusting and awesome
we are going with you did you have any discussion at any time with mr bochner about what came out of this meeting with the nose i never saw her that day after he got out of the cab and the reason in my statement i put down there was no significant conversation is because my recollection is that there was no conversation in the central and the rival fatah which now no significant but you know it had any discussion with him either at any other time as billy you mr jt
mr bailey on average that every development and occasionally interest section there and i wouldn't say every step of every case but we can convert i give him or less of progress reports on the case as you also buy just one should be doing on occasion he tells me what in his opinion would be the right thing for the wrong reason is not i'm an employee you as david yes it is a fee unfortunately because of the law you also
really wants debate and represent that for people that that was the alien and to get that he did not want the case that's correct what movies well i think yes you know i think it may have been his last time circumstances follow because of the bizarre nature and circumstances of the matter before this committee these questions and the loan was mr bailey invited were injured when there's
to my knowledge the indictment came now maybe nineteen seventy three major those terms before this committee witness that only to the extent that i live in that i had received a telegram from today and i didn't i don't see how rubin in a neighbor's officially on riva
ridge which i have been in contact as i explain yesterday when mr paul ryan who was introduced to me are with to whom i was directed by mr mccourt and was described as mr mccourt as counsel to the committee to rewrite the president says this debate is not absolutely not it i think we should let the chips fall where they invited investigations of laura kd
and several illustrations anyway major innovations was his knowledge
no calls and conversation ordination of these political organizations and violence groups we're losing money nobody in the justice department this committee which indicates the existence of a conspiracy going on the way out of the potential candidates all
right this is the security security division the problem one witness
something to the effect that no deal just tell them like i'm not interested in that type of all of this is communicated nor as result of him being in the office and most of it is that correct are we talking about you went into a car with him and that you discussed with him to a possibility that this was going to robert oakley of buildings are now did you have that conference after paying a mortgage you at that conference received the suggestion or analyze the prosecutors' best of what they might
do it most importantly most of the media discuss the midst of that i did not i understand that even the courts will be asked how did you attend any other conferences in mr putin's office risser when was this weeks i think i don't recall i recall purposes one such purpose with the cricket motions member an affidavit in support of one such occasions the record company and the obvious reasons but you remain now on this particular occasion we were using mr bittman his office and secretary of health because of logistical problems whenever immediate tightening had to be that now what made a debut and the lawyers for the other defendants need
to work out the strategy for the trial there were several meetings i cannot specifically recall the pace i could tell you that they were to my recollection perhaps three awful in the late fall and winter in the late month in nineteen seventy two the cia the news events occur mr mccourt claims it was december twenty one nineteen seventy two it could very well be in every respect that conference what transpired specifically as the chilean senate is i announced what my defense was going to be the response was well the supply it on and doesn't do us any good at that point the question was asked is this a cia operation in the conversation that followed it was pointed out that some of the defendants if not all of them had five cia
connections that one of them had been caught with documents which purported to be cia for credentials at each layer agreed to a quiet whether or not those of the factual basis for cia involvement in a lot of the topics that matter of using the cia involvement of the defense as i've told the senate is it i'm not sure it may have been as tibetan and it may have been one of the other defense attorneys i just don't have a specific recall or any of the defendants present at this conference i believe that i believe i believe we're still living with the president i believe that really was did you communicate specifically to the conference in those attending that that mr carr that not at that time because i hadn't discussed it with them after i discussed with him and he told me that at a subsequent
meeting i didn't say to them as the report says there's no cia involvement and he'll have no pot of any allegation of the country when they use my word that immediately after the meeting that in late december december twenty one i believe and then a few days later in moscow mr mccourt by mr shankman what does failure in the defense that day he did not to communicate with you for the reason that you were trying to get the cia involvement in an event that's what mr shankman tolling mr mccourt told him an effort to justify to hear what i just said sir it was that when i confronted mr mccourt
after the letter of dismissal had been given to judge the record it so i told him that mr shankman had told me the reason for being i have to satisfy was this cia contemplated the fact that i said in the words of substance i thought that was laid to rest at our last meeting which he replied that's not my reason why reason is i don't think you're communicating with me and off i don't think you're adequately preparing the case and so did you feel any kind of not giving you real facts presented it fans well i knew from the very beginning by what he told me when i asked him exactly what's involved he said i'm just going to tell you what my motivation was daily would not get you in many instances immediate response is to try and there will be days of laps and then he would come back with kevin answers multiple years and most of it is not
just are you inclined to present day an adequate defense the puzzle minorities but you know all the necessary information you might consider withdrawing from the gates mostly for this reason was that when i would ask him to give to me was corroboration on a lot of things from the very beginning he said this is why i broke into the watergate and i would say to him well can you were given the reasons documenting are corroborating our attention and he'd say when you think about it that i would get in the mail memorandum some of which i've made available to this committee outlining here's my reasons is the information i was receiving i'd been on the carrier being on the premium january you indicated that you were concerned about what was going
on that he was being me for that you indicated mr bittman told you tell or that he will receive a call center manager that mr bittman what and curiosity to the extent that i surmised that it was something to do with his theories on suspicions that his co defendants were ganging up on him because the incident right after i made that remark with the nigerian military i did not i i sold without asking that it was going to be awkward and then did you have an estimate for when you go in and who might be going that night i did not need to speculate as to what the almighty yes i would speculate too in the purpose of the speculative you might speculate in my own mind that the purpose might be to allay those fears
now i spoke to this man did you ask him the next day but the caller nasr it didn't come up the next day it was some days later i don't exactly recall how many days it was you had known curiosity in your mind about this thing all know so i was preparing a case we were selecting during i have my hands full i know when you discuss that wanted to discuss with mr wittman the author of in the context that i have this practice i don't believe i have a reasonably that the tibetan was serious about this offer of times in my opinion he was not right mr mccourt the possibilities those are the only time i discuss clemency with him is when i really
in my discussion with mr bittman i told him with a substance you're right every discussion nasr because the reason given to me by mr bittman wasn't mr hunt was so emotionally upset over the death of his wife that he simply could not stand the rigors of a trial of children we'll wear or did you have any suspicions that mr mcwhorter any of the defendants were being offered clemency an exchange last year we'll wear any interest on the part of many people at the white house that you're in the event mr hornby guilty there will be more integration now i
recognize that you know two positions taken here in the testimony willingness to report and you have this report has already pleaded guilty or have been found guilty by the court and jury and he has of course and he had to make now let's say we let the mercy of the judge and the sentencing procedure now there is this contradiction in the test and i see that was recorded testimony will serve no further except to say that true now you have denied his testimony interstate my question to you is what would be the consequences for you as an attorney should that should be reported allegations need to be true you're talking about the allegations of view what specific
allegations all allegations which i have been eyeing i say i'm not true the recipe are you in the senate with that perhaps as i look upon it now my immediate reaction when i heard them senator was that the man is telling things about me that i'm not true that accuse me of improper or illegal conduct and i want an opportunity to refute those allegations so you have a very specific interest with which i do not for and appearing before this committee to dispel what has been said about you by way of casting aspersions upon your integrity listen
to the messages that he had the information on them which led him to believe that there might be a song now oh yes well yes yes thank you if we can
do it that's great you know conflict in testimony about this is you know just about any quote immunize that i know i believe that in some jurisdictions than ever if there is a stipulation by the adversary packed to the effect that whenever there was also if the judge in the case determined that it's given by incompetent examiner proper circumstances it's admissible and also a lot of recent federal decisions reason i say that is because as a defense attorney we sometimes he was also for investigation and try to get it
into evidence and also cognizant of certain recent federal decisions which revealed that under certain circumstances that is admissible <unk> well senator my i was asked by senator baker asked any suggestion i could offer as to how to resolve the question of credibility which understandably to me is most important i gave the senate have been so emotional that's what i do not do i believe that there are certain jurisdictions now today that kept their opinions which make the iranians i believe and this is just my opinion that as time goes on they will eventually be impossible but i think they are questions that don't you
mm hmm yes but the trend in my opinion is beginning to go the other way in humans mammoth except in this interview so if i may i know from my experience that a great many if not all prosecutors heavily reliant with crime now
what color or investigation is now in a situation because of the coral there's a thing that we hear that these people who are in that one i think we would do a disservice if we did not come up until i received that for whatever it's worth the palestinians have to decide what to do that it was or was not in violation against self incrimination with that
it's big and there's certainly going to be down given them only the lowest glancing so far in this career that i would suggest is an alternative chairman that if it isn't being in the twentieth century which represented not only was i think virtually every police department the united states now has evidence investigated or i would suggest instead possibility that the state it was investigated undertake those years
big questions well theo usual i go break in waterbury financial bubble that was my recollection senators that if those questions were asked by chief jets are they related to the prosecution come out ms martinez i'm constantly is that the bottom one two hundred dollars and bills hussein obama showed a formal campaign contributed to really i have no specific recall that maybe correct you don't recall were not specific
i don't recall the exact amount but i remember that there was money introduces eighty nine thousand dollars of which came through the maximum effectiveness of all i believe that an evidence and also came out well the human toll i don't want that john mitchell was involved and he told us all that then you get there and they knew that mentally and now will call and hummel were committed really present it and this though it can't
reward him on one day by me i don't recall i do not for mr mccourt regarding what mr libby told him in athens in order to maintain low i don't recall if you were for an economist this respectfully i you referred senator to when there was an appeal regarding whether or not the contents of the monitoring the violent political issues the byzantine empire
the message and all this and having green space is that global warming a break and handed down your mom's station that is it's the recession ms bernice became a
poet they let the cat out most us or local stations can identify themselves would like to say thank you to link twenty five thousand of your soul written in expressing their opinions most of them approving about this kind of coverage if any of you would still like to ride we like it very much and you can do so by reaching acid and packed po box three hundred washington dc you owe all four four and that's coverage of the hearings were continuing to root cause frustration identification on a bridge to coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service by the member stations of pbs for public broadcasting service and pike continues its coverage of
hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities here again correspondent robert mcneil more committees reassembled now after the lunch break and the witnesses to testify is bernard l barker an agent e howard hunt during the bay of pigs invasion are participating in several break ins in nineteen seventy one and seventy two the pain yes but that
has begun many are impatient and so forth and worries residents fifty two twenty nine northwest for three days and the place was a seventeenth nineteen seventeen about it both my parents were like my mother
that's right the democratic national committee and there's a great idea that is correct and also been oil commanding officer in the bay of
pigs operation were commanding officer i was in the very very most about it was bleak produced by the end of the office about that ellsberg's psychotic in september nineteen seventy one that is correct activities more do we know but if you see it as a billion dollars to me that this was a major national security
after this operation a second operation was also on mr hoover's death and this was an operation to get assistance and to infiltrate the group there he is federation was the first entry into the warning there was a second entry at the watergate when we recap at all times i call any different from the original motivations for which i have been reprinted
but baucus of the ziggurat that part of your motivation for participating in these operations west again later assistance from the us government and others in high places for a cuban liberation operation our queen which was composed of myself and three as the martinez was just very close to mr gonzales this was a motivation to watergate operations was it your job to search for documents to be photographed that is correct that was my only job and was it missed the martinez's assignment to travel part of the trinity this is a sign that he worked as a team member with me is a sign in was photographed what sort of documents were used primarily looking for in the democratic party
i was looking for god that ink that would involve no contributions of a national and foreign nature to the democratic campaign especially senator mcgovern governor and possibly also senator kennedy we're looking for documents that reflected contribution from any particular following the foreign government announces to the un we're doing that and eventually work yes would you tell immediately as
the names of these objects well mr canning and was rescued thank you you call these lawyers to come they're not going to your knowledge at any of those arrested always going to tell you know who supplied the lawyers know that they're there come a time when the money talks and would you tell the committee the total amount of the money is that users write a poem about the moneys that i mean to the best of my recollection included
those approximately seventeen thousand dollars for bail bond money between ten and twelve thousand dollars for expenses during that period to cover from that time and to trial and i receive the amount of the best of my recollection of eighteen thousand dollars of which five thousand dollars was for i think with mr mcwhorter on social media the other thirteen thousand dollars to cover for her three of the four cuban americans and this debacle when was the last payment that you receive from the assistant principal from this is not a last tuesday i think the last payment i was he was the money for the summer collections the money for the attorney's fees
mr colbert absolutely were they conditions attached to this money received the measures that required you to either plead guilty or to remain silent there were absolutely no conditions and the answer to either plead guilty or to remain silent is negative mr walker we're at operation of executive clemency transmitted to all threats communicated to you in on it and issued to remain silent now you tell this committee chose to plead guilty i was getting i was caught but bottom up final question
do you have any knowledge that anyone higher up in this development almost the libby was involved in military operations i knew mr hunt by naming all i don't what this continent called largo in this operation in the same way as we use animal meaning the baby boomers the reason i know now a courtly i knew him as george i cannot find out mr libby's name until after i was in jail and he was to the best of my understanding statements appear this can be convicted him too as ward that i knew oh no one actually connected with us about mr hunt my question and mr levy by the name of george thank you
the only opinion that i can intelligently remains is that it's a result of the first operation which i was involved in the first operation which i was involved i was told in the ongoing operation that it was a matter of national security oh a high sensitivity that an involuntary to this country were given information to find embassy he or his associates an up i proceeded on amazon contend that time since then i haven't told nothing different oh
oh any other organization i was explained that particular time and place of national security was about the fbi and cia person to whom you're responsible for former experienced man which you were taken care of financially on the fact that it was oh the methods utilized in the operation were the same methods utilized when i worked for mr khan the baby's invasion this training i received with the rest of the cubans from a government agency the
cia operation the money as the money that we receive from the attorneys for expenses and for the family support was received in the same spirit and under the same conditions that would have been somewhere and a cia operation comparatively it is based on the following philosophy if you are caught by the enemy and every effort will be made to retrieve you all will be taken care of and europe it's been
1973 Watergate Hearings
Part 2 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/512-6w96689903).
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: 2341608-1-2 (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; 1973-05-24; Part 2 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 December 9, 2023,
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-24; Part 2 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. December 9, 2023. <>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-05-24; Part 2 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