thumbnail of 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-14; Part 2 of 6
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+.
or in needing to be needed it's been buried and ride continues its coverage of hearings by the senate select committee on
presidential campaign activities here again correspondent robert macneil as we go back to the hearings jeb magruder has just testified that he did destroy the gemstone files after a meeting with top campaign aides do you but says rollings well mr dean was a person that worked with us on the navy's legal matters he had brought their mr liddy to the committee he was a close associate of ours for mr mitchell and then also all all of us industry very well and he was one person from the white house to work with this quite closely and it was very natural in this situation for mr dean to be part of our meetings this point in time because of his association and others back or i would leave on your understanding we're representing any white house members of these meetings i think you really have to ask mr dean a question
do you as i recall i asked most recent recall through my file pull out any sensitive material it could be embarrassing to us there was the suit was placed against us by the democratic national committee which asked fermi of disclosure and as i recall we all indicated that we should remove any documents in libya could be doubted whether they related at all to the water that's as long as the thought that was committed is the group that shortly after your return after the quake and that you tend to pull yourself concerning about wanting that mr slavik the midst of that that you stay here on recollection of that specialists law the first discussion we had two meetings on monday the first meeting was when i determined from him that the money was our money and then we'd
discuss that in his arms and he came up to my office and out in attempting to allay those concerns or to help him in some sense to give some advice i think if we talk about that what would he do about the money to my understanding of a new election law indicated that he would be personally liable for hedge funds that were not reporting these were not reported funds so i indicated at that meeting i thought he had a problem and might have to do something about it you mean commit perjury i said we might have to do something like that to solve your problem very honestly was doing it in good faith that was just long to assist them at that time an hour later we met three times twice that we can once every hour he returned from his vacation that was on the subject of how much money has been allocated in thinking of about seven months from the time we
authorize the funds to the time of the november election i thought that mr luigi receive somewhere between a hundred and twenty five thousand dollars actually i was my guest mr groening get it distributed thirty some thousand dollars to mr libby's allies of the lester sloan probably distributed somewhere under a hundred thousand dollars i artfully admit that i hope that the figure was as well as possible and we all hope it was low mr sloan would not tell me what the figure was he refused to tell me it's a very sad that i can't i think i said just tell me what it is so we can work on the solution to this problem if we don't know how much you get literally how can we determine what their the money went for on the third meeting i have a couple drinks and he still would not discuss the facts of this situation with me i did not at that time or in any of those me ask him to do anything relating to money other than tell me what the figure was and i hope it was a low figure and i certainly did it was lovely but i had
no problem accepting a higher figure because i thought we could work something relating to any figure within reasonable limit i think the real problem was that he knows a hundred ninety nine thousand dollars and i was aghast at that figure because there was no way mr libby should receive that much money and that triggered times only to have months and his approval areas that you needed some disinformation to work out a solution is a true that sometime during air during the month of august that but at a time when your great to make up a story about how to wake him in the bombing took place and was unwell yes i want to stay here to admit that there was never any feeling on my part but no one asked me to do anything i personally felt that it was important to be sure that the story did not come out of
itself true form at that time as i think that the other participants so like i want to make it clear that no one would coerce me to do anything i volunteered to work on the cover but on the one who participated with you without question you and he working out to be fabricated story where there were from the time of the break in to my second grand jury appearance and then actually into my third grader advantage of them or seasonings these meetings did not appear on my counter because they were actually they were not planned there were many elements to mitchell's are the main participants typically were mr michel ms ruth mr martin and mr dean although many other people would would meet in these meetings much of the meeting would be on subjects that were perfectly and i think acceptable to discuss so it's very hard for me to pinpoint exactly when and how we came up with the cover story but
it became apparent when we found out the sounds were in the two hundred thousand dollars that we had to come up with a very good story to justify why mr libby would have spent that money on illegal activities what we did was we simply took the actual activity that we had asked mr levy to do and we're exaggerating to a great extent the amount of money spent on those activities to the tune of the other two hundred and thirty some thousand dollars i asked mr porter to would he be willing to work with us on this cover up story and he's testified he indicated he did so he took care of in effect a hundred thousand dollars and i took care of in effect hundred and fifty thousand dollars fine and occasionally have legal projects for us in the intelligence field and we're going to start with this financial industry mr martin hello mr mine was resuscitated
much to a much lesser extent made in the others did my primary contacts on the story were mr dean instrument what are you libby and not to do well there was some discussion about me and i volunteered at one point of maybe i was the guy who want to take the heat because it was going to get me and i we knew that and i think it was there were some takers on that but basically the decision was that because i was in a position where they knew that i had no authority to either authorized thunder make policy in the committee that if it got to me it would go hire whereas mr liddy because of his past background it was felt that it would be believable what mr
libby was a truly the one who did originate and of course it was true i think that was truly did originally the plan was basically the one who did come up with these ideas in specific terms and we felt that was more believable and someone like myself did not have any background in this area authorizing these kinds of sums of money and authorizing off writing this type of program when it was known full well throughout the committee the white house that i had no such authority now this story develops mr parkinson at the ryman were representing the committee on after july fourth mr martin brought mr parkinson in the mine office and said to me that he would like me to tell a true story and i said you mean the true story which you know at that time we were doing this because it had been a number of stories in there and he said no i want the true story and i then for two hours i think pulled mr parkinson the true story
mr bryden of the parts in the story that have been developed and agree to buy the apartment yes that's correct july fifth yeah it was just a new organizational appearance in effect of who was who in the committee on the second apparent reason august sixteenth which you interviewed by the yes i was immediately after my grandparents has interviewed by the federal bill or soon thereafter another time you interviewed by the fbi the story about it we had not that we still have a problem for the money so but other than that we basically had developed guidelines to historians and when you interviewed by the fbi didn't tell this fall and you say you are next brought before the grand jury when
in august of sixty now when you testified according to the full floor yes i did mr dean way and prepare you for your second grader terrence on the day before the grand jury appearances i was aware that i was a target of a grand jury at that time and so i was briefed by our lawyers are very normally also i was interrogated for two hours by mr dean and a half hour in a gentle way by mr mitchell not the grandparent the second thought that led to the un report yesterday after mr cain indicated that i would not be in that most of these patients you worked in the white house yes sir i think you
sell when you testified are before us in executive session and they get it that you were the mayor with the roles you would later that level instability yes that's her we're standing therefore mr gene was working with you doing our last year for the second grand jury representative well again it's an assumption on my part i should be very careful and he was in a staff will and did report to the gentleman you mentioned and consequently it you would assume that i did not know at no time that i know that he was directly reporting back to be an astronomer mr updike i didn't assume this so innocent and for my work at the white house with you again before the grand jury trial first real yes and one was that i was in september a middle of september
yes it might and my diary contained meetings are primarily the meetings in january and february with mr libby we knew they would be very interested in for cuts of everly and mr mitchell mr dean i met to try to determine how i would be really worried andrews yes or purpose was to develop be a story in effect of what took place at those meetings and that has to be asked if he could be a remove from those meetings and i sit there with that would not work because too many people knew he had attended those meetings then that mr michel mr bean and i agreed that we would indicate i would indicate that the first meeting never occurred that we can solve it and at the second meeting we discuss the new election law which actually been past week an aunt and that i introduced mr lee dumas could mean that he had no i met him with michel at about that mr michel were turned out that he had
met mr mitchell but i was unaware so i am indicated the grand jury that there was an informal meeting introduce mr liddy and also to discuss the intellectual was any suggestion made him i guess as i recall one of a member of one of the individual's indicated that i think we agreed that that rangers could be a determined by the federal bureau of investigation if anything was raised proceeding was being well will you sell more be very careful here i think at during this time of course as i knew i was the target of a grand jury and i was somewhat concerned about what would happen to me if i was invited so i went through the same type of thing that the other defendants in the trial began and
asked mr mitchell mr dean for the kind of assurances that they did he made those assurances to me about what it was about income and being taken care of from your stove where my family and a job afterwards and that type of thing and also that there would be a good opportunity for executive clemency but having looked at the white house and being aware of our structure there i did not take that as being meaning a direct relationship to the president at all in fact the use of his name was was very calm in many cases were where it was inappropriate in other words were where he had not had any dealings in the matter so i knew that the not necessarily mean it came from the president or anyone else other than this begins to mature no i did not have a country nobody planned that a chinese visa salaries
to the famine summers support for the families and i was aware that they were being taken care of because of course one of the questions i have if i was going to giffy before the second ranger which is where it when i had to decide to go out and didn't tell was his cover story that they're in i wanted assurances that the other seven defendants are the least seven defendants would hold and i was assured that they were being taken care of that was nice extent of my knowledge well no a protective mr mccourt i think mr hunt to some extent at various times and also i think this is sturgis who i did not know that they were the three were brought across from him we're where the proposed a cia defense again in the series of meetings of rehab from that period from the break into through september that defense was discussed in general terms of meetings i can eat but i couldn't be specific about it you testified
at the first mortgage well yes or you tell the samples sari to testify before the grand jury until the npr yes sir but savage trial in january policy works well according to plan but you have to work out its financial mr dean with the money and what your recollection of that deterred the land to mcconnell well i think that as soon as we realized that the way grand jury was going to reconvene much more so than most of course didn't because i knew that of course that would be hearsay but as soon as i knew the grand jury was going to reconvene i knew that things would be difficult to hold i knew i could not go through the same process of the election was known around the reason for the cover up from my standpoint was now no longer
valid but also i knew that mr reeser that will them right now are from my standpoint you only state prosecutors made was in going through the organization that they'd missed most recent threat grow cotton street earlier i think that but the story would not have made that i didn't get a mystery for now because it became obvious that he had been my assistant at that time so soon as i knew that as soon as i knew that history being began to indicate some reluctance to discuss those meetings in the same terms that i've discussed that the grand jury i knew that yeah ian storey would not hold up under a second investigation by your committee which of course had begun to hold hearings and also the grander now that you have a meeting with the stockholm in january nineteen seventy three yes i did i could you briefly tell us what the nature the need was for two purposes one was to discuss i was the director of the inaugural at that time it was to discuss future employment regarded myself
and also at that time there was a problem regarding this reporter's employment and it made certain assurances mr mitchell had about his employment and i want to be sure that the strong was aware of that and then thirdly and i realize now that these were probably take conversations i had some conversations with mr dean in his office where he indicated a certain lack of memory to events and i became rather concerned he indicated at one point was that surprising part of his plan would ever put into operation surely you remember the meetings we attended and then he didn't seem to remember those meetings and i said to myself was something something's going to happen here if that continues i think as it turned out i think these conversations were taken are so i thought i'd better seat mr haldeman and what had actually happened i thought probably with that
that this maybe was becoming speaker time and maybe i was a scapegoat and i'm so i am what i say is what you know on the whole watergate situation and the other activities was a concerted effort by a number of people and so i went through literally a monologue on what occurred that was my first discussion with mr holland where i laid out true fact you know what your date would have been before the inaugural because we were still working on inaugural but i would not do it i would have to look in my diary as to what specifically another there come a time when you met with mr mitchell sometime after the trial as well the mccourt letter basically a great concern
that's correct that's correct and then there were six hour rated the process of the aisle concern on i think all of the participants part it on monday the twenty fifth went to see a the two lawyers from the committee and as you are aware of this time i did not have my own counsel so i was depending on council basically from our committee and that i went over my problems with them which i think were more acute at that time than the other participants and i may agree that i had a serious problem said suggested that i see a replay my own counsel i think they then transmitted that concern of mine and mr mitchell because on tuesday he called me at the commerce department asked me to come to new york i flew to europe that afternoon and disgust what did the march twenty seven percent today are
three i went through all of the problems i thought could occur because of the problems of a renewed interest in this case would bring from your comedian from the grand jury and indicated what should i do and then he indicated that i should hold that he would take care of things at everything would be taken care at that time i realized that he was no longer directly involved in the white house as he had been so i asked the interesting history within the next day what the uk's mr mitchell to assure you know it i asked for the same assurances of salary being taken care of if i had to go away for any third time dimensions yes i did use a u s for me would have the whole yes i thought wouldn't be appropriate since this was something that he was more directly involved on a day to day basis just so yes i
did on the following day wednesday the year march twenty eight i think that was the strongest mitchell myself what we'll discuss what we discuss the same same things we discuss with mr mitchell that i discuss with mr mitchell the strong very careful to indicate to me that he would help me in any way as a fee what could make no commitments from the president indicated differences of opinion over meetings project at jenner and federer in meetings were course my view was that since the three mr mitchell mr the night agreed to my testimony that they therefore should stay with that agreement mr mitchell indicated of course he was willing to do this but mr dean indicated that he had some question about it this time we know that that agreement was the agreement based on a false story about you yes that's correct and with all the new batman
i says i cannot recall in my meeting with him in january whether i yes i'm sure i did discuss me so that the attempt to get together and agree on that meeting was to go to agree on what that full story that's correct mr mitchell i knew which week i realize that mr dean had different opinions than as to what he would do probably and so then my idea thought that that probably more appropriate that even on that monday that i get separate councils so that i can get advice independent of the individuals who had participated with me in these activities at the meeting with the financial position of that means that this was before he would not to indicate a position that the
comet and mr and on saturday the idea want to meet him he was out of the country and i find that in and we agreed you greta be my counsel of that saturday evening and decided yes that is correct we have we agree that have that they discuss things with us attorney i think on april twelfth and i saw them informally on april thirteenth saw them formally on april fourteenth on saturday april fourteenth so everything to the assistant us attorney says yes i could mr solberg mr glen campbell and tell them everything that you're not running this committee yes thank you yes caller while i was with the eight us attorneys and asked me what i come over and talk
about the case we talk to us attorneys they agreed as a courtesy that we should end of mr bierbauer another attorney with his dear bern i went to see mr ukman that afternoon and then they do they don't know what happened and what we're told in and read a capsule form of basically what i've told you this morning now i just do final question put you back around and twenty four you recall having a meeting with this is dan mitchell yes sir and at that time we recall whether mrs danvers inform walker actually truthful in it so well
we discuss the discussion was in three part earlier that morning mr slavik on the war office <unk> indicating testimony was with him was not there that weekend he was in mississippi long came up and as i recall mr martin myself mr michel were in the office and that is that at the time when mr sloan was asking for guidance of mr mitchell indicated mistaken about when the going gets tough the tough guy going in and we knew mr song was rather disturbed with that my understanding is you went down to talk to mr stanton this is danza call the city wanted muppets mr mitchell when he came up that mr michel indicated i should stay in the meeting which i did it was not a longing in basically three things were discussed in general terms what was was first assistant wanna what happened we told him that things had not gone beyond right that things have gone wrong we did not say that eta our lives mr mitchell i worked directly
involved and mr libby's activities but if things had gone wrong and we knew that had gone wrong and we knew that mr libby was involved there we discussed the fact that mr libby probably at some point i might have to terminate his employment from the committee then as i recall we indicated mr the problem we had with that the money and it would he try to work with mr sloan to see if mr sloan could be more cooperative about what happened to the money and how much there was mr stanza indicated that he worked in recollecting as best as i can i mean we did not getting too stiff great detail as to what it actually happened that the word testimony now you're correct decision but i believe it doesn't show that you did indicate that expands the un is that your goal i don't think i said that an executive session but i think as i recall i did not remember that meeting in great detail into we talk about
it we didn't say we were directly involve i think the impression was given that we were certainly aware of what happened yes i think that would be a fair statement that we we were aware of what had happened and that was an operation that occurred while we were in in effect while he was in effect in charge of camp vs leicester it out later when you say that assurances were made or you've heard of insurance they may twenty seven militants and their families would be taken care of financial support and other while you recall those assurances primarily mr dean mr mitchell now you testified before the grand jury under immunity provision no sir when did you buy that were most recently testified before the grand jury that would've been probably two weeks after the april fourteenth discussion
with the prosecutors and what understanding do you have a prosecutor as i understand it i will plead guilty to a one count felony charge of conspiracy yes sir as chairman it very much as we get on yesterday we made an effort to rotate the question among members of the committees of the sequence in exactly the sign we intend to try to do that again today with the chairman of contracts and to rearrange the sequence of things why i will know almost to get it away and our turn to senator warner and senator kerry and the question is what i'm not lying
originated the idea the clandestine intelligence operation and when i was there mr liddy with that committee in the senate and i was talking with and our intelligence gathering operations feinstein indicated that mr michel approve this we did not discuss in detail and that mean what these operations would they discuss electronic eavesdropping that we did not discuss the democratic national committee the chain of events is that mr baine ah recommended to you mr liddy yes sir is your understanding that mr mitchell had recommended mystery my understanding is they had met in november november twenty four foot mr liddy mr dean mr mitchell at times review would become our counselors and our intelligence operations what was the nature of your concept of intelligence operations at that point my
concept yes oh mr danger mr mitchell no i do not know what their concept was my concept was simply one of gathering as much information from sources in the opposition's committee would have been bipartisan i think it's the portraits in the case of activity that you now have any other information that would shed any light on what mr mitchell or mr dean had in mind at that time about intelligence that's because of a course to leave it just to be ten other individuals and i cannot recall a hat i think and very expensive who is right
what's your understanding of that power station mr liddy said he would have a million dollars for his life as the sun sets are other hand some samba your curiosity about what he was going to use a million dollars for what his plan was well exactly as you say mr mitchell i believe january twenty seven nineteen seventy two i do participate in the formulation of this million dollar plan of mr libby's boss at restricting participated in it but an event on january twenty seven february fourth march thirtieth his mind note for you mr lee mr mitchell yesterday
met to discuss the lady and a third of those meetings a plan was approved at approximately one porter exactly one or against the originally proposed yes it many of the details of that plan is not in fact voluntarily tales of that plan in its final form or disgust mr mitchell mr dean no sir mr dean was not at the last meeting our first to second guess or so mr dean was not present when the us after the planets final one was that correct or was that meeting or who was oppressed mr lew mr mitchell allies it's important first and almost magruder what took place at that meeting it's important for me to know exactly how the site was given and the scope and the extent of the knowledge of mr
mitchell it's true and you're not allowed to cancel the planned and the consequences that would go from an event like the northerners well as a whole lot it was in the form as i discussed and a half sheets of paper without any padding the figures and the announcement and it was quite obvious as to what they were for that would be dollars next to a commitment as an example and so and we discuss the pros and cons a little and i'm alive not a great feeling of acceptance to that plan with the exception that supposedly these individuals were very professional the information could be valuable and that after this reno's seven million dollars is probably two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
acceptable figure i think we all my questions about mr levy but you come with a recommendation and that mr mitchell made some notes on his comments indicated that targets as we have discussed previously and the iowa caucus was acting as the telephone answering service at that time and may call came into was at that time he was answering the phone i don't think his to lose their oil are those not discussing this problem though points kind of our discussion and mr mitchell simply signed off on it in the sense of saying okay let's get in the quarter million dollars and lets see what he can come up with an impressionist mcgregor that that decision was sort of not made or that it was passively many guns or i don't want to say it wasn't a decision was away only some
of the worlds of history's great decisions have been non decisions on occasion an agreed approach it from this standpoint you say mr mitchell signed off on you mean physically initially said we'll get it we haven't identified the targets to that include the democratic national committee headquarters of the watergate was at that with a pencil specifically recording but is there any doubt in your mind that the plan was agreed to those rules no doubt but it was a lot of dissension and i think that's important to know that was not on anyone's overwhelmed or what it was made immediately in july we knew it was illegal
probably much would come out on the other hand maybe something would come up and i think it recently one of those decisions unfortunately we have thirty decisions are all thirty thirty decisions that we made at a greater sums of money to have another decision like that day that involve any illegal actions the us or in a clandestine activity those that stand out in your mind as one of the reasons why you made that decision reluctantly did you ever express any reservations about it this is that you wanted to say well it was illegal and that it was inappropriate and if it may not work to make you say to mr mitchell mr mitchell trouble i think he had some reservations or what to do so well we were concerned about this time we have had some indications of compatibility with
mr libby's behavior we knew that this was a possibly an appropriate program what was your reaction as similar he did not he was not overwhelm what was your ear i was in moscow i think understand that i personally latest relating to mr liddy and i was concerned about letting those personal feelings overcome the decision that was mr strong reaction i think he felt uncomfortable with mr libby but again i think we have to do in all honesty say that we thought that maybe some information that could be very helpful to us and because of that certain atmosphere that have developed in my working at the white house i was not as concerned about the legality aside for that if you're concerned the action was known for you to be a legal
few thought it improper or unethical that you thought the prospects for success we're very meager and you doubt the reliability mr levy what color would've taken to decide against that not very much i'm sure that if i hadn't fought vigorously against that i think any of us could have had their plans canceled it was also cancel my fire from that position you really really tricky elmo if you still can't quite come to grips with why new law and expressed reservations about this you still want him what was the prospects for success so tantalizing that you felt an irresistible let me i knew you would get to this life lessons or what i could be what i read the response here i looked for two years three years really in the white house and the committee during that
time i was mainly engaged in activities trying to generate support for the president both with mr allman amenities declined now by that time we had worked primarily related moral situation and work with any more troops i had gone to college as an example under the course of athens as an example of millions won't cop who i respect for celebrities and i think at the same time during this whole period of time that we're in the white house during this time for the us of trying to succeed with the presidents of all i knew how finally jim this week weasel i mean he was human
we do i said when these extreme and we had to use in some activities that would have what we thought was a right to say that and i'm just a weakness that was an incorrect decision there was
just a kid was used on a legal basis countless cliches that come to mind that i could use to try to discredit their state of mind in that attitude fighting fire with fire two wrongs don't make your animal arrest but they also in an anti war ii had no justification for it i fully accept the responsibility of the disastrous decision or at least participating i didn't make the decision but certainly bridges they didn't it and really that is going to affect his troops right now song january twenty seven third report march thirtieth nineteen seventy two you consider the plant formulated by mr levine are legal and clandestine activity was put into effect and ultimately lead to a break in of the democratic national headquarters watergate on may twentieth nineteen
seventy two which went undetected we understand from other testimony mike the water not that there was criticism of the first great and i believe that mr mitchell it did not produce the desired result there's a second american effort on june seventeenth nineteen seventy two the illegal entry was protected it was reported to you and others including mr mitchell christine you're visiting california mr martin key biscayne that you should return to washington which he suggested to examine the conversation will go stanton situation wanting to return
so i told him my candidate for the five people had been apprehended that one of the most important is our security fix it with money found probably was our money or what we didn't know at that time he suggested that i go back to washington to try to solve it you know it was a straightforward discussions of the problem and end and in effect are the greater you get back and just solve a problem yes now in the clear if any that i started a cover up or anything and i kind of just wanted to somebody back there to get all the situation because obviously it was going to do it you tell anyone else to go by or suggestive of anyone accompany you
know he specifically as i know when i'm about as most reporters actually unfair to you and mr all right without apology in advance in full for now i've said as far as i'm concerned at least i'm asking for another purpose of the content of that conversation your letters what and you tell me anything about the conversation on wars the mannerisms the anxiety a lot of concern are there many embassies of emotion in our conversation that indicated that mr holman knew how the bright and had been planned and executed who is involved and i noticed all in terms of the length of time i work for my respect him tremendously still do continue today because i think he's extremely confident and find individuals but is now working as many of you senators on on the republican side rather direct someone abroad he is not the one who isn't longer
discussions over issues that reason his working relationship with people who are supportive to him which in effect allowing worked directly under the third time i still was and so our discussion with was rather short and rather to the point rather one of you got a better start it went i can't tonight pbs series of meetings with mr mitchell well on june nineteenth on the monday i met with the gardens time with john thain was gordon liddy was useful in every one of those people know what had occurred out of her wellness is funded mr dean i do not know whether mr sloan kettering idea has indicated he didn't i accept that at face value of mr levy of course when did you begin planning how why think there was no question that the cover up again that saturday when we realize as a break i don't think there was ever any discussion that there wouldn't be a cover
i'm pleased i was not i did not participate in any discussion that indicated anything else except at one point where we possibly thought that i might to volunteer to become the key figure in the case mr decision to go for this plan was thought with another is our decision to cover it up without any great debaters that's great i think that the first senator i think of that point in time we have to realize that the one i felt that i can't because the president had no knowledge of quantum and consequently if he had been if it had gotten out to people like mr michel and others have been involved at that point i honestly thought that his reelection would be to probably negated now that
was the best decision of that they never heard you at that time and i'm not saying those two and jr character testimony but i really wanna know didn't ever heard that there might be other alternatives that one of them might be reporters directly to the president to the piano to clean restaurant at that moment that that might have less effect on the election rather than more on the target as i said we did indicate that at one point that we would possibly do that at a certain point i think it was felt that if it ever reach mr mitchell before the election of the president whose election and since he was not involved i thought that was i thought that was the best decision i didn't think was the right decision but it's a decision for the president tonight sir i can comment as to whether he did or did or was involved directly with the president you know with a western as announcer will be asked again and again if you are the witnesses what i'm asking
us whether or not hurting to the decision of that magnitude ought to be a presidential visit i am the pirate parties in the campaign or the white house would handle it in the way in which they thought was best for the president and that that condition is it your testimony mr mcgregor is that it was also my guess is it your testimony and then after june seventeenth and a series of meetings with mr martin mr mitchell again there's the recount about the course of action you're not going to cover a proper yes was there ever any consideration of presenting this material to the president for his information and now again senator i would not have been in a position to do that it would have been another level i do not know what occurred between mr mitchell mr haldeman ehrlichman and that there's
no way i would have known that the questions that matter that question sir michael berman chairman in a political campaign those decisions very innovation time hundreds some a very important some unimportant some involve major policy decisions which you consider intelligence gathering in the major policy calendar at that time i didn't know i was personally more involved in what it called a tactical operations of the committee
on fifty million dollars in business and has indicated we spent in a campaign most of my time was spent on what i would call a substance of the campaign the direct mail the advertising or the intelligence gathering was what i called it i think the reason i use the term throwing that was a major decision would make such a decision well as i said i think that everyone who was in the fall without hesitation agree to that cover to remain true a panel of the harvard faculty club library sponsored by the nieman fellowship program and the candidates have agreed from the casket jed you keep
saying quote we designed and so forth i have a fair idea of who are making the decisions in the muskie campaign or maybe the mcgovern campaign but i'm really curious about the whole week and portland york happy how was your decision making how much was the president personally and all what was mitchell's role what was called unfurled what decisions were you yourself making how was it all working i thought we'd always made a very clear how our decisions were made there was basically a triad of seeing a decision makers president bob haldeman and john little until july of nineteen seventy two they were in constant consultation with each other or the major activities we do it because i think it's absolutely consistent
with what i said i said that mr michel and other high officials agreed with this cover up i am and to my knowledge it i'd never do and i think i clarified later in that statement however i myself never had any direct dealings with the president's idea no date on key campaign decisions at times that was the input from the president i have no knowledge of any input from the president on this decision so i view it as a as a key nation well i think the coverage certainly wasn't a decision yet i mean that's it mr mitchell holliman keep from our standpoint and that certainly obviously certain decisions the president was
involved there weren't costs in consultation with the chirp of major events correct and intelligent belgian decision was a matter of national security and all that and i'm not necessarily all i think we should be clear that in my response to senator baker that we we had been correctly i think together parts of the call he left wing part of the democratic party with much of the anti war activity we were concerned about their response to the president's comments i don't call that national security but i do think it does relate to some of the reasons why we get into an extensive intelligence operations the present time and the white house are two competing motivations
wanted by mr mitchell and the other one's a whole you have two competing motivations know i wouldn't disagree with that completely of my knowledge and everything i ever attended with a strong mr mitchell they were streaming good terms i never saw any difficulty in the strongest mitchell grain in fact i think that's one reason mr mitchell agreed to run the campaign because the new mr holden would be used she dated a contact at the white house it i disagree with that statement that's been bandied about i know i don't agree with that there's a possibility and one group of people in another group a scapegoat i can't i don't think so i don't see any evidence that specific type of activity obviously everyone now is basically on his own and then consequently and it's difficult to say anything is a coordinating
concerted effort this time i well i would think most individuals are operating independently of each other at this time and in most cases foreign spoken one remains disability i realize the voters are pretty on repealing those in your testimony was taken care of my assumption is that he would promise what all the others were what were they
promise and i don't know i only know what i was talking about really well as i indicated before i talk about salary taking care of the family legal costs potential executive clemency assistance in getting a job and so in that type of thing we oversee testimony over the strong very important and he was a liaison between the committee the white house on the other hand was this old woman it's a huge receive an indication that the list of strong and fight and they both mammals and messages that you have been sending he's got a method of working with his droll and obama well because i've seen some of the documents in that was he would do a summary sheet capitalizing activities of the campaign i don't know how often he did it but it was a straightforward memo the condensed
much of the information that we would get the message that was his typical method of dealing with mr altman quoting to give you more information directly and i gather he is a second backup material when he thought it was appropriate juries even if the bottom of the hole and indicating that you haven't received these bubbles will sir you spoke up a conversation with mr charles colson and federal march of nineteen seventy two in which mr colson due to approve the lead back and said how many many plans were an existence of that lost my knowledge there was only one plan to continually was revised downward so there's no question as to which plan was to call some of the problem and in that context i
would assume that that a lot of the economists or he was about to make a clearing was doing other minor projects in intelligence gathering feel they were basically minor nature of this was the prime minister we've received testimony which indicated that you made early morning call to a key biscayne right up the receipt of the news of the break cam like a witness testified that he never called for in the morning that's incorrect sorry i didn't feel a discussion i had with key biscayne was on sunday as both
1973 Watergate Hearings
Part 2 of 6
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-zp3vt1hn93).
Episode Description
Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer anchor gavel-to-gavel coverage of day 11 of the U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. In today's hearing, Jeb Stuart Magruder testifies.
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: 2341647-1-2 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-14; Part 2 of 6,” 1973-06-14, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed July 19, 2024,
MLA: “1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-14; Part 2 of 6.” 1973-06-14. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. July 19, 2024. <>.
APA: 1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-14; Part 2 of 6. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from