thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-07-12; Part 3 of 5
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+.
it's big it was very emotional he was right as counsel to the committee to have an introduction your interview with him on november twenty four is that the correct well i think my testimony and my recollections of the actors to be in that brought this committee on you meet with me and i know from her twenty four nineteen seventy one and discuss the areas in which he would be working we met as
lady myself we discussed it and then as i understand it and the suggestion was that sense mr mcgrew was then overriding mr liddy they put in touch with mr dean mr mcgrew there but mostly been hiring took place over there you were the circumstances the circumstances mr dean helen rutledge through video they made and i having said that look the mayor likely to be perfectly competent counsel for that honor approval the natural i would presume that the aisle now have you ever denied anybody that you were aware of it is one of the committee there was one occasion in which my recollection failed with respect to who actually hire mr lilly
it is still my opinion that mr mcgrew retired lydia not john mitchell what about the question of who actually higher than the circumstances under which that idea that became law which included least you're interviewing oven and you're adding some low i mean did you ever denied at knowing any of those circumstances i don't recall the fire on the same testimony mr mitchell on september five to nineteen seventy two the question to put you on page eighteen of the transcript do you have any information as the circumstances under which mr libby was hired or the committee for the next president was answered no sir i have de la question have you ever made angry to find out how anybody was right answer and i made a great question yes answered no i have not now that testimony under oath would you have actually been able to answer no question
were gravely because i was not aware of how mr mcgregor ultimately be a question that it was in the context of that you've read again as i understood it at that particular time the answer was yes it was as you have any information as to the circumstances under which that was a truthful answer that day and i may not any information the green is the direction the question as to the hiring in hiring was done by mr mcgregor following month and i had no knowledge of those aspects of remember do you remember that interview
i have no recollection of your approving a restaurant that using were proving once was and that that extends the basis of a conversation that yes i think they are well i would say to counsel for the committee and the ultimate decision was made by margaret and especially in an agenda was prepared for that interview and that if you didn't approve of it you know information that idea that have information about me that the decline that romney was not within my recollection isn't as an insult mr mitchell if you answered now and that's given this context because at that time in september five was that he had been identified as being involved and you do not want to have any relationship with his duties involved in the
economy than the magnitude a consequence obviously mr levy was known to maine senate meetings in the justice department and different subject matters including the drug abuse law enforcement so forth that would've been about nineteen but any event your statement that you had no information whatsoever with any circumstances on september five was quite different than your testimony before this committee so i believe that major league rejecting of the records and the committee gave a kind of unfurnished they were the copy of the agenda that must have been provided in further reflection on the subject our very much into focus now mr
mitchell you testified yesterday the mine make an investigation for us to the watergate break in cooperating with the federal investigation they matter evolved i do not recall coming back on the blank in california whether that was specifically discussed or not that there was a policy with a committee that they should cooperate with the fbi and of course that was the basis for the start of his property all the instructions that they should be cooperation it no specific he said it wasn't him what is that you recall that
i recall is an interview that i don't recall the recall being question is one of the lincoln and youre informing agents the lebanese members you get that information for a girl weather was correct or not that a victim of the fbi investigation would you want to get whatever leads the information that they need it and even the former attorney general and silicon check out period promotion for the reasons of the seventies the fbi was part of their decision to be made in a very strong decision were the reasons given to see to it that none of these
things go up it was the design of those are involved in not volunteered information under any circumstance and the recall being interviewed i don't believe that i was not mister mister that's that that was a telephone call ins that means and information about what to do and this today as that is not the case i think you're fine and related related to my wife or not to myself oh there it is true that in the lead in
that conversation of that relates to why but the police fbi records show that they are the question of what the wreckage you also have any information that was their absolute wrong reasons subject matter was limited to question about whether or not they should interview my wife which alito has tanked both bands you might say final question and you answered
well i think the newspaper accounts for a lot more productive than what i've heard from martin or lulu and what it would do is not discussing and had no knowledge of the fbi or the watergate break in you can imagine yeah from our family there's still an open question of whether that happens because we're having recruiters are talking and telling us to the country and advising the lawyers of the country walk out in any of that it seems to make it there is an art to instances that i've been able to voting record
we're testimony revive a civil deposition was that matter who draws the testimony before this committee and say on that as the mitchell is that since you may and given false testimony on the israelis and is committed to believe your testimony before this committee especially on the year whether to do it now give final approval of the key biscayne meeting easily whether or not you had any doubt about the president's not a cover up for the suspension in the cover up where he took any action far in the playoffs or cover up rewarding race or any other part of the white house mr daschle oh i disagree with your interpretation of those mothers that you just throw it as far as the
determinations of this committee i think they can judge their testimony my testimony make their own conclusions after my parents here for four days three and a half days i think that's true either park which would include what you had to say about being keep his game in which you have to say about the raising of funds to pay off the defendants and some other parts to believe that your testimony to after this belief is the voter lists long listed for mysteries and in some respects suggestive so you wait over the rest of the witnesses that you're going to have a career and i will just be testifying under the same subject matters and its luster
so the white areas they pointed out something and the notes to many about an estimate the real estate minister what transpired at the night of march thirtieth meeting key biscayne you have any recollection that the liberal in fact the recollection of that meeting because i don't have any recollection and he had direct testimony is that there's the low i would agree agree with your testimony that one facility better represented ian poulter you and keep his gang units that as an employee nevertheless the money the fact you stated it decided let's just a dash of affirmation of the fact that it wasn't approved in key biscayne i say i wasn't crew subsequently that certainly
the data marketers testimony that it was approved in key biscayne on now boston i have a question nominations i'm
melissa block both the piece cold in here ms nickols foresight and then i could say to
be no connection between five thousand conversations are meeting the secretary i think the prayers mr rosenman yes sir listen to
yes what well sometimes long political debate in the year nineteen seventy three young readers of all or her mr colson yeah the conversation
yes sir mr thompson yeah he was
any significance mm hmm revealing some of the incident happened over the period of time when it might have resident connection with statements that parents forced to select a certain day in going back over the chronology of these events the advice is not to follow polls
there is information ms it is obviously yes and because you were
polls his position or jean louis let's go this is america and the patients in particular
meeting with everyone the morning and close on the same morning that they connection that i don't believe that this thing that i call rose any relationship between the ruins the polls and myself throughout this whole period i mean tennessee's your conversation with him
whitney any specific three years because americans spend more time we're still working
so yes but we also had a smaller fires in connection with is that democrats for annexing personnel all just fine my responsibilities dealing with some people who were involved in a bid for reelection but in the election re election presidents of generating over a lot of young people that the the ball was that there was a great disagreement as to which democrats should help those organizations in the different states as tolson on one way another way in time sallie
organizations the regular political organizations they want to make sure they didn't know that right and frequently a broad and how are opponents of jewish or any other area of the second narrative person's involves at the establishment and labor groups that were supporting rebels nicholson conversations on that subject or third one of course would involve issues that particular time and relationship to win the interview hello imagine the situation
i mean imagine you have the somali community from thirteen or fourteen conversation when discussing these matters with him asked him if what they have said about those murders drew most of the smartwatch they'd be insulated polls regarding what those two mothers with him cable situation and the situation of that size matters were discussed from time to time and you would resist savor least i received we start with the
deserts in search of tap and from time to time you have learned additional items about a particular is true of what were the major label i mean the situation that it's a moment frankly that they could never imagine those mother olson wants to find out whether much of an improvement a lot of content in these statements on the subject matter
that's true about the medium cables and just close all thirty percent in all of the details at that time but i don't know that most polls were cables and a doctor mr lambert william lamport about that the date with the kittens this
story i gather part of the information it didn't begin refer that particular period of time and treasure her husband mars it was
significant in the year nineteen seventy three the fed has a man didn't mention one lasting about who might've been pushing through for all as a possibility well suspicion that was a day
yes sir will be you know suspicion will continually about where i wouldn't really recommend it if i have any suspicion of the person from walk and others is that this time his seventies but miller's testimony was concerning to a lot of information in the united states well recently testified
in his ear in nineteen seventy nine you see him an independent of the us are doing something that i don't believe i've seen him since june seventy one years to new orleans so my question is let me ask you to
refer back to in february a fifteen of that year was announced that mr richard moore came to visit you know a conversation with you and in your desk you really here the committee this financial commitments activities as howling to some extent the white house years on how the committee for the reelection of the president on their personal or to be hidden thank you for
many years and we're going to i'm here before this committee i think i'm very much of the kind of suggestion we've gotten to the question of whether or not i would be interested in helping to raise support one thing i didn't think you were that i'd find anyway we discussed we discuss a number of other areas with respect and the committee and proposed that on as i recall in question the game of executive privilege which with all things as general approached well let me as usual color specifically is you can't exactly what he said to you concerning money this specific thing one thought that sticks in my mind which there may not be an exact words but it was
something to the effect you you wouldn't be interested in help raise money in connection with its activities would you or other question was a plea and my answer to that was negative one activities it does it is yes oh
yes just fine i think they discussed in connection with other aspects of litigation that there was discussion the committee examining this area of the subject matter of the people from the committee for coming up there to testify and that was conceivable that they would need additional assistance i think both luca potential of the ocean waters it was a clerical errors that helped to
take care of providing feedback on the record yeah which he discussed the requirement in this moment where a minor consideration of environmental i don't want to harm over i don't recall the most times and resistance amid the one thing the committee for the reelection of the president has the finance committee are you finding referred specifically it is in the words that he used to support money for defendants lawyers in that respect that's the way that you took it that sweater because i say
that that's my recollection of very brief almost assad would you be interested in racing anymore money and answered things in a normal well i think there's a better problem worse i have raised a lot of time thanks for or was it the original conversation proper terminology of the way in which it was swan more questions that
should be asked in my members are the news the reports were that one occasion for reasonable even a telephone conversation you had with a columnist i think that you indicated that you're not going to be the volga it's been and then i didn't know you did not get down that was made yourself and uncensored at it as a conversation requested
i was just thinking for many many years maybe coming and going to an emissions and so forth up much much easier than it might have been a lot of them are pretty well
for more than thirty thousand customers select committee has completed its examination of jonathan mitchell in a moment a man named john being described as his confidant of the white house will take the stand public television's coverage of the senate hearings will continue after pearl's for station identification on a bridge to coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service by the member stations of pbs and public broadcasting service fb the point is
by the pay off but fb is
by the pope from washington and baghdad continues its coverage of hearings by
the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities here again correspondent robert macneil as we pick up the action in the senate caucus room senator obama's about to report on his telephone calls president nixon on right now great question oh no
being committed is on medication maybe they do loma always was a blue tile with that these famines and the committee the white house i will reply the level of discussion among we've made it the committee unanimously authorized you ate whale nineteen seventy three why why should be seeing him as well as the speed of your level of the world cup some debate the committee feels a little as they did
in that level measured against those tremendous responsibility to ascertain senate resolution sixty present in the day a great possibility of a fundamental constitutional confrontation between the congress and presence we wish to avoid that if possible consequently we request up in people within this committee and his date to meet you in your sweat more confrontation we stand ready to discuss the matter with you at your convenience we would've gone out that remains ongoing hundred pounds of the essence we are i would like to have the other was a lot of that they didn't listen to buy
maybe it was brought into the special mention in the seal of the article to boldly home it's b this is a problem with him at the small all right let a new president its intention to present day today the gemini and was your bow close the person doesn't
always necessarily imposed he will meet with this question you know made it there's a meeting today ms asta select committee on presidential campaign activities force that committees of the amount of opinion that commission will have access to every lesson the white house on a palm away with all disproven of the medicine committee senate resolution system to investigate second that native born in a confrontation with the white house and respected as well and this region authorizes the president as possible we're in a reconciliation
between and that is that the three which then they were permitted to gain access to mississippi and they wanted to make and while williams yeah we might like gossamer reconciliation at least a few of the reservations among the support any possibility of a competition between the committee has represented the legislative by the white house the
police beat the peaks boy the piece it was great
my name is richard now that's nineteen seventy there's no guarantee that you were there and my name is richard anymore and special counsel the president a position which i was appointed april twenty six nineteen seventy one but today i speak only for
myself for the ten years following my graduation from yale university law school in nineteen thirty nine i practiced law and deal with four years ago the army service california the television industry details at this point but in california this battle in california
listen to it a little bit in california and in nineteen sixty eight for years beginning in april nineteen seventy i served as a special assistant attorney general mr mitchell isis to them primarily in the preparation of speeches statements position papers on issues within the department's responsibility is in april nineteen seventy one i was appointed a special counsel to the president my principal going to assist the president step
and communicating their positions in the most convincing manner several public and since then syndication depends on having a convincing position by the bestseller evolving in the substance of what the commission's the public but i don't have any line of responsibility even communication on the substantive side serve primarily as an extra pillow and the source of why they're the advice of some experienced perhaps whenever the president of uganda man with a line responsibility says now i sell the global estimates have any questions basically any aspect of the syrians but i believe that the most innovative testimony that i can get to this committee released a limited time that is basically the period from february six it was seventy three today too
much twenty one nineteen seventy three what's twenty one is the date when president nixon as he later announced to the nation learn of a quote serious charges of which causes them to begin all intensive new inquiries into this whole matter this was the date march twenty one when this to be at my agent went into the president's office and as he has testified for the president much of my testimonial about my recollections about conversations with the president and mr jundi good faith recollections of one particular conversation often that for most of the other the chairman himself addressed this point early in his political also arrived with hopes but once that happened and then the
resistance and i believe that the world's two most talented being consistent with what it means they must be inconsistent with many of them in another charity months but when two men communicate with each other i would've not there's a quota to fall hasn't that communication first the man who's paul might not have expressed himself clearly and may not have said exactly what was in his mind second even if we get a really a man who or what a different interpretation of the words and that the man who spoke the chairman's reminded why sound and i would recommend that they will respect mr chairman that sounds reasonable to be known observable in december
of nineteen seventy two and january nineteen seventy three i was as i recall that particular meetings for consultations with regard to the watergate or related matters until february six and that they would respect the proposed resolution creating this selective it except for the discussion at this meeting i knew about the planning or preparation within the white house california i've been home with the flu for two days of planning to make a reservation for my wife family of that revival we give it that were eight nine while
the late in the afternoon of them or nine of the gobi a whole to say that we were going to meet with the stolen child in santa monica tan and discuss the forthcoming seventeen i therefore took my family and for the violence to stop that could be denied that saturday february three at san clemente with that as well and an american and bestowed his office found that eleven in the morning until three afford we have to do on sunday we went into the little cottage at what cost mr president it is really difficult when the
participants adhering to an expected to innovation than anything that was set during the sessions where about eleven to four people the pentagon each person with a different background or degree of knowledge or quantity of it was that you have a situation where over this law applied to the fourth out without the new levee now give you my best recollection of what at the outset was developing orders to hold onto and i sometimes find hard to recall which is which as opposed to being anti what we have been doing for the americans this was not the focus of both of these images that would be the activities of the committee to reelect president it would be the committee that will have primary
responsibility for the defect i mean these discussions or any answer was no and philomena nothing to discuss here the pain fb
1973 Watergate Hearings
Part 3 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-d50ft8fb07).
Episode Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 19 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, John Mitchell and Richard Moore 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: 2341685-1-3 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-07-12; Part 3 of 5,” 1973-07-12, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 20, 2024,
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-07-12; Part 3 of 5.” 1973-07-12. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 20, 2024. <>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-07-12; Part 3 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