Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Robert MacNEILL states that that is the complete story of John Dean, and the committee will not meet again until July 10, when John Mitchell will testify, and Mitchell's lawyers have already indicated that Mitchell will not implicate the President. States that it will be interesting to see what the White House does in the interim, since Fred Buzhardt's attempt to enter the fray was such a disaster that the White House had to state that Buzhardt's position was not an official White House one. States that next week, Americans will celebrate the second July 4th holiday since the Watergate, and it is still not clear "how many new techniques those under investigation have added to the American Political system."
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Reporter Peter Kaye asks if the hearings didn't end on a plaintive note with the Senators seeming wistful that someone from the White House or the President would step forward to resolve the discrepancies in testimony. Senator Weicker states that it should be the President who chooses his forum to speak, but the President should speak out without being invited or subpoenaed by the Committee. States that he respects the office of the Presidency, and he wants the President to speak out, not simply after Dean's damaging testimony, but "I've wanted him to speak out every day for the last month." Weicker states that the country and the President are best served by Nixon speaking strongly on the matters under investigation. He has said that he wishes the President would "put the committee out of business", and he's sure that that is possible for Nixon to do. He wants the President to act on his own initiative, not simply react to the press or the committee. That said, he is not willing in any way to have the committee dictate the terms, it would be very bad. Kaye asks Weicker for an assessment of former White House Counsel John Dean's testimony and performance under cross-examination. Weicker states that he stood up very well under the committee's examination, but it remains to be seen how his testimony is supported by other witnesses, which must be kept in mind. Dean has had a view of things that not many other people have. Affirms that Dean did well under examination, but in fairness to people implicated by Dean, the other witnesses must be heard.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Robert MacNeill states that Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox is now in total charge of the prosecution with the resignation of the three U.S. ATTORNEYS on the case. Also, today brought a new charge of interference by Ehrlichman and Haldeman in the conduct of an executive agency, the BUREAU OF NARCOTICS AND DANGEROUS DRUGS, by resigning director John Ingersoll.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Jim Lehrer asks David Austern (professor at Georgetown University Law Center) for an assessment. Austern states that adding up all the questions, there is an excessive degree of repetition, mitigated by the fact that four of five days were cross-examination. Says that to understand, explains there are three basic ways to challenge a witness. First, to attack credibility, as seen in the questions by Thompson and Gurney referring to the money and travel issues. Second, to take a witnesses version of the facts and match it to an alternate theory of "what really happened." That was seen in Gurney's questions, as well as Senator Baker, to a lesser extent. The Third means of challenging a witness is to so confuse the issue that no one can make any sense of the issue when it is over. He does not believe that this is intentional, but due to the repetition, many issues raised in DEAN'S testimony are confusing at this point.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Previously, Lehrer asked Austern for a legal opinion if Dean's story could have been told in this fashion in a court of law. David Austern, Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, states that this is impossible, because he believes that John Dean has been allowed to give explanation and opinions in his answers that for the committee purposes add meaning and clarity, but would not be acceptable in court.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
SEE RESTRICTIONS LEHRER notes also that DEAN would not have been able to introduce a 245 page statement in a courtroom. Asks Steven Hess, former White House aide, to comment.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Previously, Lehrer noted that Dean would not have been able to introduce a 245 page statement in a courtroom. Asks Steven Hess, former White House aide, to comment. Hess states that he agrees it was an amazing situation, that the former Presidential counsel was implicating the President in crimes, but due to sloppy cross-examination and repetition, for long stretches of the five days, he was bored out of his mind. It was an effort to concentrate hard enough. Perhaps his problem was that he was expecting entertainment, and politics as entertainment has a long history, but this is in fact serious business.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Host Robert MacNeill states that he was struck by the fact that the Senators, when faced with grave charges against the PRESIDENT were willing to go off into all kind of side issues.