Senate Select Committee On Presidential Campaign Activities July 10 1973 2 2 Footage

Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973 (2/2)
This clip is not available for streaming at this time. Please contact WPA.	Tape Master:	10437
	Catalog #:	489304
	Clip Number:	489304-1
	Orginal Film:	117005
	Timecode:
	Location:	Caucus Room, Russell Senate Office Building
	Year Shot:	1973 (Actual Year)
	Audio:	Yes
	Color:	Yes
	Headings:	GOVERNMENT: Hearings, Watergate
	Description:	***CHECK RIGHTS BEFORE USING @COMMENTARY SEGMENTS*** [01.00.15-IN to MacNEILL giving final commentary on the day's hearings] MacNEILL states that the first day of MITCHELL'S testimony has ended with his reputation for being unflappable still intact, although there were signs of trouble as Sen. TALMADGE hinted that MITCHELL may have committed perjury by telling the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1972 that he did not have campaign duties prior to resigning as attorney general. Mitchell has now admitted that he did have campaign duties at that time, but contended the debate involves semantics and not points of substance. Were also moments where MITCHELL seemed to be getting upset at questioning by Sam DASH, with DASH backing off at each occasion. MITCHELL will have at least one more full day of questioning, and possibly 2, during which he will have ample occasion to explain why he did not inform NIXON of the coverup. Introduces an interview by Peter KAYE with Sen. GURNEY. [01.00.58-GURNEY in committee room] KAYE states that MITCHELL's testimony was full of outright contradictions with previous testimony by DEAN and MAGRUDER. Asks how this can be resolved. GURNEY says there's no question there are profound differences, notes that MITCHELL did in fact use the word "lie" to describe the testimony of others. Acknowledges that now, with only the testimony of the three in question, nothing can be resolved, but as other witnesses come forth, these matters may be resolved. Example, the point of controversy over the authorization of the bugging at the Key Biscayne meeting-MAGRUDER says the bugging was authorized by MITCHELL there, MITCHELL denies it. GURNEY wanted to know if Fred LaRUE was at that meeting, and when LaRUE testifies, he may be able to resolve the conflict. KAYE asks if the DEAN testimony was the low point for NIXON'S credibility. GURNEY concurs, says that in his own private conversations on Watergate, he has told people that successive witnesses like MITCHELL will help to undo some of the damage done by DEAN. [01.02.59-LEHRER] LEHRER says the question is what has been learned in the first day of questioning of MITCHELL. Introduces guest commentators Steven HESS (Brookings Institution, former NIXON aide) and David EPSTEIN (Georgetown University Law school, former US Attorney for D.C.). LEHRER asks HESS what has been learned. HESS states that MITCHELL offered a great deal of contradiction of both MAGRUDER and DEAN. It is clear that MITCHELL even under duress will not admit to wrongdoing; MITCHELL'S testimony was that he did not discuss serious matters with NIXON, that his subordinates continually defied his orders, and that the events of WATERGATE happened against his wishes and direction. HESS makes the point that if MITCHELL'S statements are taken on their face, MITCHELL appears to be "the worst informed and least competent Presidential campaign manager in history". LEHRER asks EPSTEIN for an opinion on MITCHELL'S tendency to pick and choose when he would or would not make reference to DEAN'S and MAGRUDER'S testimony. EPSTEIN states that MITCHELL would agree with the other testimony on matters of fact corroborated by the records that existed or with multiple witnesses to an exchange, and tended to disagree in cases where there was no obvious corroboration. States that MITCHELL has suggested that his own hindsight was better than his foresight. The committee should pursue the line of questioning of how hindsight leads MITCHELL to such radically different judgments than he made at the time of Watergate. Alludes also to the fact that MITCHELL'S testimony requires one to believe that a tremendous degree of insubordination was present in the Committee to Re-Elect. LEHRER states that HESS has accurately observed that MITCHELL did not admit to any wrongdoing. From a criminal standpoint is that correct? Did MITCHELL give any statement that could make him culpable in a conspiracy charge for Watergate? EPSTEIN states that MITCHELL was clear and firm in his contention that on three occasions, he refused to authorize the LIDDY plan for breakins and surveillance. As far as the coverup, MITCHELL never acknowledged taking part in a coverup, but did state that he wanted to prevent press reports of Watergate and White House Horrors that would damage NIXON'S reelection prospects. It is a question of Semantics whether that constitutes obstructing justice in a criminal sense. LEHRER asks HESS if he could determine a pattern in MITCHELL'S testimony that shows MITCHELL'S feelings toward the other players in the case. HESS states that MITCHELL seemed to have a disdain for activities in the White House, but stopped short of assigning any blame to HALDEMAN, EHRLICHMAN, or any specific others. Used the derisive phrase "WHITE HOUSE HORRORS", and left the suspicion that he was talking about HALDEMAN and EHRLICHMAN as the architects of the abuses. MacNEILL states that the next day will mark the halfway mark in the committee's schedule for the Watergate phase of its activities. It would be foolish to make firm predictions, but since MITCHELL has begun to testify, more light is shed on how the central question, NIXON'S involvement, will be answered, at least by the committee. States that much hinged on MITCHELL-how isolated had he become from the White House after rumors that MITCHELL would be scapegoated for Watergate. Of all witnesses to follow John DEAN, MITCHELL seemed to be in best position to incriminate NIXON, but today MITCHELL made it clear that he had not come before the committee to do that. MITCHELL will still be cross-examined, but the committee has not had a good record on getting witnesses to change their original thrusts through examination. One may speculate that MITCHELL will leave the room with both his story and the defense of NIXON intact. Among other remaining witnesses, perhaps only one man has the knowledge and motivation to incriminate NIXON-Egil KROGH, the former head of the White House PLUMBERS group. DEAN had testified that KROGH stated privately that orders for the PLUMBERS to execute the ELLSBERG Psychiatrist break-in came from the Oval Office, but KROGH has stated publicly that KROGH ordered the breakin on his own initiative. MacNEILL states that if this line of speculation holds up, and it is only speculation, MITCHELL'S testimony makes it appear less and less likely that NIXON will be censured, IMPEACHED, or RESIGN office-NIXON has passed the worst danger of the hearings. Signs off [title screen-SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITES-NPACT credit/sponsor credits-PBS Network ID] [01.10.08-TAPE OUT]