Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973
[00.59.01] Senator MONTOYA. Why did you, as administrative assistant. to Magruder, give the Gem file, then, to Mr. Odle to take home when it Was the only really sensitive file in the whole bunch? Mr. REISNER. Well, it is sensitive in retrospect. It, is sensitive in the fact that we, now know it appears to have concerned illegal activities. If that was ordinary intelligence, just, things that Mr. Liddy had been gathering somehow, through his sources or whatever, in a perfectly legal way, it would have been sensitive, but it would not have been any more sensitive than anything else that was taken home. I gave it to Mr. Odle because I was told to give it to Mr. Odle and my relationship with Mr. Odle and his with Mr. Magruder was one of trust. I mean there was no reason not to give it to him. I was just asked to. I am certain I would have taken it home if Mr. Magruder had said it the other way. Senator MONTOYA. Did you on that day do any shredding? Mr. REISNER. No, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Did you on any subsequent day do any shredding? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Tell us about that. Mr. REISNER. Subsequently, on Monday morning, as I have indicated--on Friday I had been given a document. I presumed it was a document. I had been given an envelope which was marked "sensitive material." When I was given that envelope-- Senator MONTOYA, Who gave you that envelope'? Mr. REISNER. Mr. Liddy. When I was given that envelope by Mr, Liddy, be indicated to me that it was a copy or an extra. It was standard operating procedure for me to get rid of copies. There were five copies made of all the documents that were given to Mr. Mitchell and clearly, that, was not necessary for the files. Many of them were sensitive and I would get rid of them. Now, on that Monday morning following the 17th, I discovered that I had not in fact taken home that copy--I had not given that copy to Mr. Odle as I had been instructed to, Senator MONTOYA. I understood that from your testimony, but the point I am trying to make is did you shred many documents after June 17? Mr. REISNER. Oh, no; not many. It is conceivable that Mr. Magruder might have put something in his out box and said, "destroy"-- just written "destroy" on the thing, or "shred", or something, Senator MONTOYA. Did you, on your own, take and examine files and cull out sensitive documents and shred them? Mr. REISNER. There is a distinction. The distinction is that if it had been an original, it is extremely unlikely that I would have destroyed something that was an original without having Magruder indicate that he did not need it any more. If it was a copy, I am certain I destroyed many copies. Senator MONTOYA. Well, after June 17, did you receive instruction and pursuant to those instructions, if you did receive them, proceed to categorize documents as sensitive or confidential and then proceed to shred them? Mr. REISNER. No, sir. The instructions were, find those sensitive materials that may be in the files and give them to me, which is what I did. Senator MONTOYA. And I think you indicated in the previous testimony that you. wanted to centralize the sensitive documents in one particular file. That you did, too, did you not? Mr. REISNER. What, I did was I culled the files to find things sensitive, gave them to Mr. Magruder. It is conceivable that he Put them all in one file, It is conceivable be might have given them back to me and they might have--I don't think so. I think it was a pretty random selection of materials. Senator MONTOYA. NOW YOU mentioned the easel a few minutes ago. What about the charts that were in Mr. Liddy's or 'Mr. Hunt's room Which were, going to be used at the Attorney General's office? Did you see those charts? Mr. REISNER. No, sir; I did not, see anything that I could------ [01.03.06--TAPE OUT]
Watergate Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973. Testimony of Robert Reiser
Watergate Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973. Testimony of Robert Reiser, aide to Jeb Magruder Senator Joseph Montoya (D New Mexico). Now you mentioned the easel a few minutes ago. What about the charts that were in Mr. Liddy's or Mr. Hunt's room which were going to be used at the Attorney General's office. Did you see those charts? Robert Reisner, aide to Jeb Magruder. No, sir. I did not see anything that I could identify as charts. I saw a package at approximately the same time. The size and shape of the package was such that it could easily have contained charts, but it might not have. Senator Joseph Montoya (D New Mexico). When was that package taken on that February 4 visit to the Attorney General's office? Robert Reisner, aide to Jeb Magruder. I did not see Mr., Liddy leave for that meeting and I don t know. Senator Joseph Montoya (D New Mexico). That is all, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witness.
Watergate Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973. Testimony of Robert Reiser
Watergate Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973. Testimony of Robert Reiser, aide to Jeb Magruder
Watergate Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973.
Watergate Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973. 13.05 [LEHRER in studio] [**SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS AREA**] LEHRER remarks that the day's testimony featured two witnesses who had access to the sensitive files but did not read them because they were not supposed to. States that the Republicans obviously have no reason to fear for security within their own campaign. Notes the mention of political spies, in the GEMSTONE files. States that the next days witness, Hugh SLOAN, who quit the campaign after Watergate, will offer a different perspective. rumored that he left because he was asked to take part in the COVERUP. This is part of a plan to skip over more details of the BREAK-IN and concentrate on the aftermath. [cut Correspondent Peter KAYE in committee room with Sam DASH] KAYE asks when the tesimony will be given by John DEAN and MAGRUDER, the "Big Boys" of the scandal. DASH discusses his plans to wrap up the hearings within the requirements of the Senate Resolution. DASH says the next phase will be investigating the COVERUP. [cut MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL remarks that DASH has done most to set the course of the investigation, laying a foundation for the investigation, before proceeding to the big fish [cut LEHRER] LEHRER introduces guest commentary from Alan BARTH, a journalist, and Adrian FISHER of Georgetown University Law School. Commentarty about the Committee's refusal to delay the proceedings as per the request of Archibald COX, Special prosecutor. FISHER says it was a good move, because after the trials and appeals start, it will be impossible to conduct such an investigation. BARTH says he was impressed by the Committee's action of backing off of forcing LIDDY to testify. Says there's an ugly legacy of Congressional Committees of forcing Witnesses to plead the Fifth Amendment publicly and embarassing them. FISHER states that the activities of the Senate Committee have given a kick in the ass to the criminal investigation of Watergate [paraphrase] BARTH states that the simultaneous action of the Special Prosecutor has served to check the excesses of Congressional Committees generally. LEHRER introduces the next day's testimony of SLOAN as more "background", with careful, methodical proceedings. Notes that the hearings have brought "real people" like REISNER and HARMONY to the public view, reflects on the human aspect of the unfolding scandal, and "new famous people" created by it. Solicits viewer response. Signs off {title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [PBS Network ID] [00.25.22--TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.02.00--NPACT logo/black screen--image of page with text of Senate Resolution 60, Robert MacNEILL v.o. reads resolution text--MacNEILL in studio] **SEE RESTRICTION FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION*** MacNEILL introduces testimony of Hugh SLOAN, former treasurer of Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President, which focuses on the financial practices of the campaign, payment of cash funds to Gordon LIDDY to conduct operations, and efforts by his superiors, including Jeb MAGRUDER, John MITCHELL, and Fred LaRUE to get SLOAN to keep silent about the payments, leading to SLOAN'S resignation from FCRP Jim LEHRER states that a new group of top White House staff has been hired to replace those who were fired or resigned due to the scandal. Further states that the course of the hearings and with many witnesses still to come, it will be necessary for the Senate Committee to hold more hearings. [Senator BAKER with reporter Peter KAYE.] BAKER states that the committee will go to a 3-day per week schedule for the forseeable future [LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that the bulk of SLOAN'S testimony (recorded earlier) focused on the financial practices of the committee, and his futile attempts to get his superiors (MAGRUDER, MITCHELL, etc.) to investigate the Watergate matter fully, On one trip, to MITCHELL's office, SLOAN was asked what happened in the meeting: [00.05.45--shows SLOAN testifying, states that MITCHELL'S response to his concerns was "When the going gets tough, the tough get going". ] LEHRER states that watching the hearings in full will give all viewers a chance to judge for themselves the truth of SLOAN's testimony, Gives SLOAN's background--educational, governmental, political history. States that SLOAN'S testimony made a big impact on the committee, particularly Senator ERVIN [00.07.38--cut to Senator ERVIN ] Senator ERVIN tells SLOAN that his testimony has restored ERVIN'S faith in the saying that "An honest man is the noblest work of God." [MacNEILL in studio--seen to chuckle at ERVIN'S remarks] [00.07.58]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.07.58] ***SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION*** MacNEILL states that SLOAN will return to testify the next day, followed by CRP press secretary Powell MOORE and CRP scheduling director Herbert PORTER, neither of which man has been prominent in the testimony thus far. LEHRER states that a big part of SLOAN's testimony relates to the change in campaign law that took effect April 7, 1972, and introduced much stricter requirements for disclosure for contributions and expenditures. Calls on guest commentator Phillip HUGHES, director of the General Accounting Office. HUGHES describes the increased stringency of the laws over the previous Corrupt Practices Act, which HUGHES says was characterized by LBJ as "More Loophole than Law"--states that much confusion was evident in the transition period between old and new requirements, and that the transition period was when many of the financial dealings pertaining to the Watergate breakin were effected during this transition period. HUGHES states that the GAO was available to help political committees to comply with the law, and that part of the problem was that committees had to get used to the idea of a strict law that would be enforced MacNEILLgives an account of the testimony of the day, hour-by-hour. [00.11.23--cut committee room, Sen. ERVIN conferring with Sam DASH. MacNEILL continues, v.o., to give hourly breakdown of the testimony] [00.12.46--ERVIN gavels meeting open]
African velde / village / families
Family having dinner
Family having dinner
Greyhound Races
Greyhound Races at Derby Lane
Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
Neon Signs of Las Vegas
Neon Signs of Las Vegas - Night MS lights of the Eldorado Club. CU Golden Nugget lights. MCU marquee "Enjoy the Old West". MS Eldorado Club. CU Eldorado Club neon showing miner using pickaxe. CU Golden Nugget lights. MCU marquee "Enjoy the Old West". MCU Eldorado and Boulder Club lights.
Desert Landscapes
Desert Landscapes Scenic WS of desert dunes w/ two shrubby plants in the landscape. WS dunes and shrubby plants as sun sets, nice shading w/light. MS rippled layers of windblown sand creating an abstract pattern, twisted skeleton of a plant creates interesting shadows. LS desert landscape showing sand, shrub and mountains.
Desert Landscapes
Desert Landscapes Scenic establishing shots of desert landscape showing shrubby plants and mountains in BG. MCU tall cactus, willowy tree behind it blows around in the winds. GV tall cactus growing in middle of shrubby tree. Static view of desert landscape with shrubby plants and mountains in far distance. MCU leafless desert tree.
Car in the Desert
Car in the Desert GV 1940s era car pulled on the side of desert road w/ hood up, parked in front of communal barrel reading "Water - Radiators Only", man looks under hood as second man and woman stand roadside, man under hood walks over to water barrel. MS man filling tin can from radiator water barrel. MCU man back under the hood, pouring water into radiator.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.39.32] Mr. MANN. But, what bothers me most of all are the loose statements, some Which we have Just now heard, that the, President is going to go to on trial, Without knowing what the charge is. The President if he goes to trial, is going to trial not only knowing what the charge is. but knowing, what every word, every i and every t, every bit of evidence that has been made available to this committee, which has been presented here in the presence of the President's counsel. If we get further evidence, I can assure you will have my support to see that the President's counsel is present when it is presented to this committee and that, he is present when it is presented to the House of Representatives, if -new evidence is presented at any time. So, what are we talking about sneaking tip on someone? The evidence all of it, will be available to the President tomorrow or the next day. He has gotten it up until now. He has some, of course that we would like to have. Now, I do not find that this proceeding, which admittedly has sparse precedent, is in violating the constitutional rights of anyone who stands before the bar of justice possessed of every fact known to the prosecution and possessed of the description of the charge against him. What surprise--what surprise can I conclude other than this is not a substantive objection; it is a procedural matter. It is a matter that I must suggest that I somewhat predicted as I realized that the arguments made here in front of these cameras would not be made for the benefit of me as a member of this committee. I do not think Mr. Sandman would be so strident or even so partisan if these proceedings were not being conducted to influence the opinions of the American People. But, I am here to study the law and the evidence, and to see that Richard Nixon gets a fair trial, that he is advised of all the evidence against him, and in my judgment , the charges that are included in article I notify him of what he is charged with. And they set out something extra , the means by which he is alleged to have committed that offense of obstruction of justice. Let us be reasonable. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield'? Mr. MANN. We have had the advice of Mr. Jenner who because of his objectivity stands stripped of his title as minority counsel, a man who was chairman of that body of the American Bar Association, the Advisory Committee to advise the Supreme Court on Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure, and the foremost expert in the United States, I submit on this subject. And he tells us that in his judgment this article is adequate to advise the respondent of the charges against him. Mr. WIGGINS. the gentleman yield? Mr. MANN. Fairness is what is required. I would settle for nothing less. And I submit that this article grants fairness in the highest tradition of American jurisprudence, and of the power of this body to exercise its serious power of preserving our Government through the power of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WIGGINS. Would you yield for a second, please? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, for 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, and reserve my remaining 2 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I am amazed that I have heard some of the arguments I have heard here today. I cannot believe this is the same group that made all of those speeches yesterday and the night before, everyone of them making that Constitution, the Constitution the most valuable thing that was ever made, and it is, and yet, so willing to cast aside the most important provision therein, the one known as due Process, that one now for their own convenience they will throw under the rug. Isn't it amazing that they are willing to do anything such as resistance to making the thing specific? Isn't it amazing they have so much, but they are willing to say so little? Isn't it amazing? They are willing to do anything except make these articles specific. It is the same old story, you know, when you don't have the law on your side, YOU talk about facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, you just talk, and that is what a lot of people have been doing today. Now, we talk about this going to the Senate. What about the House of Representatives? Are you going to get down there and say fellows, we have got so many stories to tell, here is 40 books that have been put together by Doar and Jenner, you just rehash those, you don't need anything else. Don't pay any attention to the constitutional law or else, just look over these things, and maybe this is the reason why they didn't want any witnesses. Never wanted a witness. [00.45.42]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.51.27] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie Mr. WALDIE. I thank the gentleman, but a 5 minute segment of the Watergate saga is a pretty hard one. But, we left the principals after the President and Mr. Colson on Sunday, following the burglary, 'were. having an hour's chat, in which they discussed the Watergate, hilt Only in general terms and never discussed any particulars at all, according to Mr. Colson. And we don't know, according to the President. But, we do know something that happened on June 20. All the President's men gathered from all over this country back into Washington They came from California, they came in from Florida. and they came to Washington where they could meet and confer and de- what to do about this threatening calamity, the threatening calamity of the re-election of the President, the most important thing all of them had facing their entire lives. the re-election of this President, and their blind-dedication to that 'objective is just not even arguable. And after they met and discussed their policy, the President met with Haldeman, his closest adviser, and they discussed the Watergate. That is in Haldeman's notes. Everybody agrees there was a, discussion of Watergate on that tape, That 18 1/2 minutes is all that is missing. There is nothing else missing on that tape except the discussion Of Watergate, right after that big strategy session. Now, it is now determined that human hands erased that 181/2 minutes while it was in the exclusive and sole possession of the President. And it is attributable to sinister forces. My own inclination is to believe that it is ,in inescapable inference that the President had that 18 1/2 minutes erased because. it would have been so devastating in its incrimination of the President immediately in the coverup plan. But, there is something that was not erased. There was a dictabelt of a phone conversation or the recollection that the President had of the events that day. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Is the gentleman from Ohio seeking recognition? Mr. LATTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thought maybe they would never get down this far. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to sit this far away from the center of power. You get all of these statements before you get an opportunity to speak. And let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I was surprised as a member of the Rules Committee to hear that you propose sending these articles of impeachment in a general form. and attached thereto as a supplement I might say, in the report to the Rules Committee for consideration. Well, now Mr, Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee are, supposed to read those reports before. we make a finding and report a rule to the House of Representatives. And certainly you would not want us to void our own rules. I think that we ought to ponder about that, the same way that Members of the House of Representatives ought to ponder about what you are proposing. You are saying that we are going to send these general articles of Impeachment to the floor of the House, without being specific, without, saying the time, the place, and say to the Members of the House of Representatives who are not on this committee, go through those 38 or 40 volumes, try to sort out what we think as members of this committee are impeachable offenses, and make a judgment thereon. Is that what we are saying? If you are, other Members of the House, good luck. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to rethink what we are pro posing. A common Jaywalker charged: with jaywalking any place in the United States is entitled to know when an where the alleged offense is supposed to have occurred. Is the President of the United States entitled to less? Yes, he is entitled to know, even though the Constitution from which impeachment proceedings comes does not specifically spell out, but you have to do so. The sixth amendment is still in the Constitution, and are we going to waive it in this case? They did not waive it in. any other impeachment case. Are we going to set a new precedent here and waive that? Where are these civil libertarians? I think it is high time that we stopped to rethink what we are doing. Nobody is trying to delay the action here, because I well know that anytime that the chairman puts down that gavel and says call the roll, the votes are here to do exactly as you like. Whether or not Mr. Jenner Mr. Doar prepared these articles, which they probably did, they certainly ought, to agree with what they prepared, and I thought that was a question that really did not have to be asked by the Chair as to whether or not these gentlemen agreed with what they had prepared. I think that was useless. But, I think that it is important that we do something fair for the Other Members Of the House. Let us forget about the President of the United States. We are not the only Members of the House of Representatives who are going to be called upon to make a judgement And to throw 38 or 39 books at them and say here, here's what we meant, let Us just take a look at them. On the first page at the bottom, No. 1, he is charged with making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigating 'officers. [00.58.27]
Pigeons fill frame (Italy)
Florence - Palazzo Vecchio, Ponte Vecchio, pan of city
Florence - Palazzo Vecchio, Ponte Vecchio, pan of city
Florence - Palazzo Vecchio, Ponte Vecchio, pan of city
1950s - Italy - Hats and Necklaces in a Rowboat
POV of an elderly adult Caucasian male and female in a rowboat filled with hats. Woman gives a hand-made red necklace.
1950s - Italy - Pompeii Ruins
Ruins of a nymphaeum (fountain sanctuary). Basilica of Pompeii; three adult males standing between colonnade ruins. Forum of Pompeii; Mount Vesuvius in BG. Weeds growing out from cobblestones.
1950s - Pisa - Leaning Tower of Pisa
Aerial of Leaning Tower of Pisa; Pisa Cathedral (the Primatial Metropolitan Cathedral of the Assumption of Mary). Leaning Tower of Pisa; portion of Cathedral. Close-up, pan down Leaning Tower of Pisa.
1950s - Milan Cathedral - Piazza del Duomo
Exterior facade of Milan Cathedral ornate doors and spires.