thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-08-07; Part 3 of 6
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
it's been and the documents that you receive and subsequently destroyed by the time those events that unfolded in my life i really had arrived at the conclusion in my own mind that i could no longer function as the attorney general of united states this weekend and i remember talking to for people out there who i respect a great deal since sunday morning and told them of my decision is really one disagreed one b in my
mind one of my senators i can't leave impossible situation julie and we have discussed with me resignation you can't think this maintain an
appearance that justice is be evenly and impartially administer when you have a person such as our lives in the abbasi know i recused myself and be involved really investigation and they can witness this process with respect and men like mr mitchell and mr martin proximity i have with him in the room that amendment might have a very close intimate relationship for some forty years it just seemed to me that that business standpoint of the administration of criminal justice states that richard williamson says there was a ceramic mug lot of vacant that still
state pension system last year and for three weeks that's right and in this particular moment you ain't evil previous novel the senate he might have said something to me you're going back to march twenty one i have no recollection of that and it i don't think that i would be a reliable
person with respect to resign fifty five the precise events of that day this is a conversation and that you it is but they do it's amazing it takes you know as a nation
listen to a clip what i meant by that statement was that as a result of the sentencing procedures objects and i think that i mean in the eleventh inning of the final four grand jury after their conviction and sentencing he neatly to interrogate them under under the community to find out what they don't know they they did not testify and it's a standard procedure the affluence and i wonder if you have a conspiracy type situation when you convicted a person or persons and this happens then you going back before a grand jury
acquitted under oath when you give an emt and then as a natural settling in love if they refuse to do so they'd be punished free content but we certainly because of family or that you just didn't see that this is of the department of justice we want to get the rest of the media one final thing ric gillespie counselor to the president requested a copy of the page at you and your view of executive privilege changed into this whole nineteenth century the constitution in my opinion as a
lawyer at not changed and i would rather flatter that train general richardson who i think is a much better came up with essentially the same thing from the standpoint of pasco and i never got around to my second round summertime in my first testimony was as a lawyer talking about the constitution and i was prepared and next week the administration and discussed the policy with respect to that agreement to write a constitution concept that's exactly what it was then from the standpoint of policy i think exactly provision use various parent and have been throughout history you know evidence of a cover up of the crime don't come under the purview of executive privilege senator talent of the presidents state wants to exercise based on the documents separation about a privilege not to get to the judiciary or twenty congress united states and he documented his possession i think under the constitution that
is his constitutional power even if its evidence of duty in office yesterday rice said that several months ago the engine that memorandum difference that at one time i thought i'd written on it unified in a way that could prevent a witness before the committee that he could protect seven million federal employees in the performance of their duty well i know i wrote was mostly testimony that it at for united states senate and prepared testimony
and i wrote my self centered coming and that document is before the united states senate that that document and my testimony and you think again the last name is comedy evidence of that is in the president vote it would still go on my understanding of the constitution and the law there are no cases in this area and the last case in the supreme court was i think around it hundred and thirty having to do with the post office contract there just isn't any literature of the subject matters of the talmud and the reason why there isn't is that this throughout the decades has been a political matter you know so your conclusions based on
judicial get my understanding and interpretation of the constitution of the united states every year i do three separate right now serbia to the system of checks and balances must be blood all i think as a result of circumstances and when i read the newspaper that question might soon be answered for senator thomas on the division hq witnesses were not true you know i think my reaction was this
i think under our constitution with its greater protections for individuals who are accused of crimes that first you should prosecute somebody under the front of the wall so that they are guaranteed their rights under the constitution and i think for my mind that individual on the united states government in many might disagree with my preferred to have from the justices will impress your body based on the evidence and i've always said that there is an appropriate forum to probably going to examine the conduct of public officials have said that the public's right to know is more important than whether or not two or three people my personal feeling is that the
public's right to know should not be true specifically inserted into constant united states for the protection of an individual because the essence of our operation is that it seems to protect individuals states should be to examine that time a public official we were given one david
thank you it seems to me the situation is that the institutions of this country people say that we don't have the most free press in the world justice system works hard edition reports that congress works and then out also of all this an odd that a citizen politician for many years i think as a result of these revelations the politicians and officeholders in this country for decades are going to have imposed upon them a higher standard of conduct than they ever have had people i don't think anything about it for many years
you can't legislate can't legislate men's hearts and i think that maybe the decades ahead for my children grandchildren and a show and demonstrate level in american politics unless a great achievement our country is so great it is the image you can shake the foundations of his great society on that same subject of good that i'd like to examine the visit the eye thing though is i think the fbi has been the greatest patients still it still is
i mean i think they did a pretty thorough job that i'd like to perhaps one day they weren't able to come a little closer to a broader implications former fbi people and if you do it on a voluntary basis to say they can't sit there and witness they simply do an interview and also if somebody is at the defendant he have the right to take the fifth amendment doesn't even after me to have some evidence walk with my somebody else because of the protection of the process the fbi doesn't get the guy stand against of all the things the nfl that kind of interrogation and the problem was that there was a cover up here in this many weeks why one
question on that meeting with the president and i'm not sure that it was caught with me is that this is the april fifteenth sunday me that the president of her did he tell you in the media and then dealing with the consequences what to do next my recommendation that everything is unknown actor michael eisenstadt getting henry and relief workers came in this first meeting the president with tennis shoes dirty teacher very nervous going back
to that you know a number of phone calls meetings during this period of time from the june seventeen break and go through almost a resignation phone calls are calls for example that those travel watergate all never recall ever talk about watergate but there are also a number of telephone conversations with mosteller road did you ever discuss watergate and also i wanted to do this there were a few phone calls too mr crowe i think that was brought to my attention by mr herr the committee yesterday that had some conversations with mr crone on monday the day before the general election i think you also see on that day there must have been six years ending call that
means what mr colburn director united states marshals service and then she wasn't on that believes those conversations have to be with respect to and demonstrators in anticipation of the election returns the next day his assignment was to court made on behalf of the white house leadership and the department of justice in this situation nothing with respect to this situation or anything else i've never heard of this local farmers until it became publicly reveal on this one reason
when you do i thought this was most unfortunate so because actually you're not in any risk that the fuel economy there's a nasty weather mention that i did and i would prefer not to make your resignation was your own decision and you were the ones who just on the president to resign as like a setting of conversations as a subject explored by senator in our way when we returned to the hearings public television's coverage of the senate hearings will continue after a pause for station identification on a bridge to coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service by the member stations of pbs a public broadcasting service
it's been
terry and pike continues its coverage of hearings by the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities here again correspondent robert mcneil senator in oliver why in our splendid instrument some taped telephone conversations mr levine yes those views we just comply was it reprehensible because the us to make substantive statements whereas you knock on that this was being recorded to make statements
i think my characters live more subjecting and then senator i've never taken cell phone call i never had a transcriber written down i think on a couple of occasions services department because of an unusual call i have my secretary make note of our own and that was a very unusual situation when you're eating in good faith you've got just a couple of work with you just judge in a mutual obligation an undertaking in this case on behalf of the united states to me is the most is breach of good faith imaginable for one person to make a technical in a conversation about the americans i suspect that mr erlichman was doing that without tommy i
think i would never speak to him again just meeting with the book the conversation you all earlier that morning the president in his office in the executive office building you know you were the announcer i don't have the same feeling about president united states there was a sense of well let's go i don't like either surprise was in europe a couple weeks ago my idea what my character's take
and i like to distinguish between a president and somebody liked talking to the both of those who are working on behalf of the president this has was for the president conversation with him but putin's office was the speedo likewise in his office at the executive office of you about where the conversation i did not know that any conversation i had with the president's statement reported until a couple weeks ago when i was in your business in july nineteen seventy two he was five and stevie all related sectors that has
appeared before the grand jury testified the man was involved in and act they could have been construed is that i yeah i was i feel man the presenter impose upon to re impose upon himself he had no background or experience in the criminal law was kind of a stupid mistake that he made and i was more concerned senator to have a very precise clear understanding with mr erlichman but that would not happen again in the future i think this was in
your reporting he was like don't worry about it won't happen again i call the president stayed very seldom in my formative years ago i tried to impose myself upon him or insinuate ourselves upon and i was prepared however to request aid meeting with the president as to have persisted in his original attitude that he would feel free to do this because i've said job i said then i'll come down and we'll meet with them as the president tells me that that you have that then i will submit my resignation as attorney general united states it was not necessary for me to have
a state users mr peterson only now because he did know much about innovative on saturday morning june seventeenth one that shocked me was just coming out senator mitchell to come up and film in know they're shocked me was his fantastic statement that maybe people who were employed by the white house with a campaign committee were all were arrested but that one has to let it was known through operation and so it was just a subtle wording lets the country that i did not know that matters what my association the facility was very
minimal and very grief as i describe in nineteen sixty nine and i don't believe i've ever run into in reverse on again until i was about substandard with you because you would not respond when someone saying well i knew him senator jim or who did them standing with them was willing to more directly associate together in the department of justice when he was the deputy director of our public information is that sort of opposition originally it was supposed to have this conversation the investigation hours or shortly thereafter days essentially what mr libby told me that is to say i think i
think the first record was identified almost immediately after they got under the aliases and he goes further identify the campaign committee it is and cooperate with prosecutors than the biden the truth falls to the headquarters of one of the longest a low crime and the other activists spend so we work this week
ruby the car we will lose gossip and the at the national democratic national committee requests of the old company to sweep that area and of that we were overseas very intensive this occasionally interviewed the members of the democratic national committee one of the fbi people
i don't know it might have better for the fbi you didn't take a swing at me i want at a saner baker's the comments earlier where he cited those instances where you'd tried to live up to this job that you go over and what you did the way you relate to others are just want to know one important to take a swing at the junior senator literally within
the next year and suggestive language that would be calculated to talk about it and that's why one of the use of language that i did one family relationships on this edition nineteen seventy three on march twenty one i personally a solo responsibility for coordinating intensive new inquiries into the matter investigations forget all the class and to report them directly to me right here in this office
did you receive any such orders from dates on which i had no recollection of talking about that i might have and i don't recollect a very significant event of ideas and the language of the present and the state has a very strong both conducting investigations it'll be right here in this election that means i can't unfortunately leave your resignation that point were you indicated to this committee that he preferred not to comment
i do in this miniseries i am asking the question as to whether or not matter was not discussed with president prior to this stable areas whether or not to let the moment you know you referred to announce your own resignation whether or not the president prevail upon you not to announce their own resignation but to be london's
well i think that i am by the same conclusion and i think the decision that the president made decisions independently president president discuss specifically with the fact that he wanted to announce my resignation the next day and he asked me to permit him to do so i consented and i would prefer not to comment further but i've had a lot of great things in my life and i've had some unpleasant things and let's just talk for a while i think it is important to do
you're still there right at a rival soulful conclusion that i present rejoinder crime figure a couple months before our conversation was that he wanted me to be sure to stay past september when i left the one thing he said i have a halt again i can't have monetary union and then came the conversation with respect to marriage it was going to be ask me personally if i would permit him to do it then we wanted that they have announced changes mr richardson the prime concern of the words that was his desire that you were going to this group whose nigger he asked me
to remember about my resignation then i consented i so i guess the question was why you were not permitted to go into the natural as the president asked me to cremate him to do it and so unfortunately for our conversations a few states here's a view of it
Series
1973 Watergate Hearings
Episode
1973-08-07
Segment
Part 3 of 6
Producing Organization
WETA-TV
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/512-jq0sq8r95s
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/512-jq0sq8r95s).
Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 37 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, Richard Kleindienst and Henry E. Petersen testify.
Broadcast
1973-08-07
Asset type
Segment
Genres
Event Coverage
Topics
Politics and Government
Subjects
Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Anchor: MacNeil, Robert
Anchor: Lehrer, James
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2322397-1-3 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color

Identifier: cpb-aacip-512-jq0sq8r95s__2322397-4-3.mp4.mp4 (mediainfo)
Format: video/mp4
Generation: Proxy
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-08-07; Part 3 of 6,” 1973-08-07, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 21, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-jq0sq8r95s.
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-08-07; Part 3 of 6.” 1973-08-07. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 21, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-jq0sq8r95s>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-08-07; Part 3 of 6. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-jq0sq8r95s