Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973
****SEE RESTRICTIONS/RIGHTS FIELD BEFORE USING**** [00.36.08-MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that we have been watching DEAN for four days, and it's becoming increasingly clear that if DEAN'S testimony is to be discredited, it won't be done by the ERVIN COMMITTEE. DEAN will return for one more day. States that the committee, in 3 days of cross-examination, has obtained little information that was not contained in DEAN'S opening statement. That statement "so massive and so rich" has given the committee enough to talk about since then. The next witness, states MacNEILL, will be former Attorney General and CRP head John MITCHELL, but the real questions now seem to be awaiting the testimony of H.R. HALDEMAN and John EHRLICHMAN, part of the "White House Faction" that opposes DEAN, MITCHELL, and MAGRUDER. The most crucial questions, however, are for the President himself. States that ERVIN desired some kind of input from NIXON, but no one on the committee is willing to suggest that NIXON be invited, or subpoenaed, to testify for the committee, perhaps out of fear of deepening what the WHITE HOUSE is already calling a "CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS", or perhaps out of fear of bad P.R. [00.37.38-LEHRER] LEHRER states that Senator WEICKER had talked to DEAN about attempts by the WHITE HOUSE to influence the committee, states that reporter Peter KAYE discussed this with Senator BAKER after the end of the hearings. [00.37.53-BAKER in empty hearing room] KAYE asks BAKER about WEICKER'S comment at the end of the hearing about pressure, asks if BAKER has experienced such. BAKER states it depends on perspective, but he hasn't felt pressure, he had had inquiries to which he felt free to say no, concerning the appointment of the White House's choice for minority counsel. Says that WEICKER feels very strongly about the points he discussed, and that BAKER feels it is a proper area for the committee to investigate if there are hints or signs of such pressure, he is understanding and sympathetic of WEICKER and WEICKER was within his rights to make his statement. Affirms that the issue of pressure will be monitored. KAYE asks BAKER about the meetings he had with the PRESIDENT, as mentioned by DEAN. Asks if the points described by DEAN as an AGENDA for that meeting were raised. BAKER says he has no recollection about being told about SEGRETTI and other matters. Says that NIXON and he talked about only two of the points, BAKER saying he hoped NIXON would waive EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, and NIXON saying he hoped BAKER would help conduct the hearings in a speedy fashion. BAKER says that he does not consider that as PRESSURE, and he is happy that those two objectives of the meeting are being carried out (EXEC. PRIVILEGE/speedy hearings). [00.40.01-MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that the WHITE HOUSE has evidently failed to sway BAKER, and its strategy remains unclear. Notes that two versions of the statement by BUZHARDT, special counsel, were issued, and BUZHARDT is at pains to explain how his statement could not be the official White House position, and if it is not the official position, what is? [00.40.23-LEHRER] LEHRER says that the question "everybody" wants to know is "how is DEAN doing after four days of testimony", introduces "two everybodys", guest commentators, David AUSTERN of Georgetown University law center, and Steven HESS, former NIXON White House aide and fellow at BROOKINGS INSTITUTION. LEHRER asks for assessment of DEAN'S performance and credibility AUSTERN states he thinks DEAN is doing very well, Lawyers are often bad witnesses due to overanalyzing questions, but DEAN is doing well at answering questions promptly, without thinking too much, but he must confess that part of that impression on AUSTERN'S part is that most of the questions have been very easy, and very easy for him to avoid giving sensitive information, and, with the exception of Sen. GURNEY, the Senators and counsels have given DEAN the opportunity to make almost any answer he wants, and are satisfied with almost any kind of answer. LEHRER asks an opinion on Sen. BAKER'S questioning (WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT KNOW, WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?) AUSTERN says he thinks Sen. BAKER either incidentally or intentionally bolstered DEAN'S testimony, went over it step by step, and actually had the result of shoring up some of the structural problems with DEAN'S original narrative of events. HESS agrees that DEAN has been cool and a skillful witness, and has done much to lay out a pattern of seamy activity at the WHITE HOUSE, but after all the testimony, there is not much to go on with regard to the central issue of DEAN'S charges against NIXON except for the lone example of direct evidence, the March 13 conversation where DEAN claims NIXON directly discussed the payment of money to the defendants to keep them silent. LEHRER asks about DEAN'S demeanor and manner as a witness as a factor in his credibility AUSTERN says he rates it very highly. DEAN appears spontaneous, and even is able to laugh on occasion, and carries a feeling in his testimony that perhaps he has been the victim of threats and intimidation. So, DEAN comes off well, even though he has made statements about his own actions that are damaging. HESS states that he doesn't rate DEAN so highly in that sense, and that DEAN to him doesn't seem like the kind of man he'd want for a friend or to grill a steak in the backyard, but he does appear cool, has not lost his temper, and it does seem that that DEAN has carried off the key task of not seeming "like a person we should disbelieve". LEHRER states that that is the central question at this moment. [00.45.12-MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that DEAN has made it through his fourth long day of testimony and his story is not seriously challenged. Sen. BAKER has said the central question is "What did the President know, and When did he know it?" The questions of the committee and the questions prepared by BUZHARDT have done little to deter DEAN'S claim that the PRESIDENT "knew a lot, and knew it early." MacNEILL states that one thing that has come up, through Sen. GURNEY'S questioning, is that there is a possibility that DEAN misinterpreted NIXON'S statements to him, although DEAN has been very consistent in his story for all four days. The role that MITCHELL chooses to take, a defender of the PRESIDENT or a corroborator of DEAN, will likely be the deciding factor on the question of NIXON'S guilt or innocence. Signs off. [00.46.31-title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"-SPONSOR CREDITS-PBS NETWORK ID]