DOCSLIB.ORG

Watergate Items 0517

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Watergate Items 0517 Walter Pincus man has testified he was called to the meeting at the last minute and was not aware of its purposes beforehand. He was not asked to confirm Walters' atergate Questions characterization of Haldeman's state- ments. Ehrlichman also testified that Perhaps it is because of the impend- at the June 23 meeting he and Halde- ing constitutional fight over the Nixon man told Helms and Walters, ". the White House tapes. Or perhaps it is the 27- 73 (..e, White House contact on this would be rush to get this phase of the hearings John Dean who was the fellow follow- over, or the fact that former White ing the entire matter." Asked if he was House aide John Ehrlichman offers information on the morning Of June aware of what Dean later proposed to such a broad target. But whatever the 22. At 9 a.m. that day Ehrlichman met Walters, Ehrlichman replied, "I do not reason, the possibility exists that the with Mitchell and White House aides know about these conversations." The long awaited appearances of Ehrlich- Clark Magregor and Charles Colson. committee's minority counsel, Fred man and former White House chief of What was the substances of that Thompson then asked, "Dean did not staff H. R. Haldeman before the Ervin meeting? report back to you?" To which Ehrlich- committee may come and go without At 11:45, Ehrlichman and Mitchell man replied, "Not about that, no sir." the men closest to the President being met together. The two were never Thompson did not pursue the mat- pinned down on dates, times and sub- friends and this session must have ter. However a check of Dean's testi- jects of meetings in a way that will been electric. Ehrlichman knew Mit- mony and the Ehrlichman logs shows permit sorting out already conflicting chell subordinates were involved in the following: On June 26, Dean called testimony. Watergate, a blunder which could cost Walters to arrange a meeting and sug- Haldeman's aide Gordon Strachan the election. Mitchell, on the other gested the CIA official clear it with testified he was told by Haldeman's hand, knew that the two directors of Ehrlichman if he had doubts about chief aide on June 18, 1972, the day af- the break-in, Hunt and Liddy, had both Dean's role. Walters did call Ehrlich- ter the break-in, that Ehrlichman was worked for a group — "the plumbers" man — though Ehrlichman has not handling the Watergate matter of the — which operated under Ehrlichman's been asked to confirm that call. Dean control. Mitchell now argues that the and Walters then met at 11:45 a.m. in "horrors" committed by the plumbers, The writer is associate editor Dean's office. At that meeting, accord- if exposed before the election, could ing to both participants, Dean raised of The New Republic. the possibility of the CIA paying both bond and support money to the Water- White House. John Dean testified that gate burglars, then in jail. Walters re- on June 19, Ehrlichman "instructed me do more damage than Watergate. With fused. At 12:25 that day, apparently im- to find out what I could and report those opposing views, what did the two mediately after this meeting with Wal- back to him." Was Strachan's informa- of them discuss the morning of June ters, Dean met with Ehrlichman. Did tion correct, as supported by Dean's 22? they discuss th.e session with Walters testimony? What assignment did Ehrl- The next day, June 23, marked the that had just concluded? ichman have in the first days after the beginning of an effort to get the CIA Two days later, June 28, Dean says break-in? And who gave him that to slow down, if not halt, at least one Ehrlichman pushed him to raise the assignment? aspect of the FBI investigation into subject again with Walters. Ehrlich- Dean testified he told Ehrlichman, the break-in. At 1 p.m. Haldeman and man's log shows a meeting at 10:45 on the morning of June 19, of his call Ehrlichman met with CIA Director a.m. that day. Dean met with Walters from re-election campaign deputy di- Richard Helms and his top deputy, Lt. at 11:30—the time originally set for a rector Jeb S. Magruder, in which Ma- Gen. Vernon Walters. According to meeting with Acting FBI Director L. gruder identified G. Gordon Liddy as Walters' notes on the meeting, Halde- Patrick Gray III. Ehrlichman has testi- the director of the break-In. Later that man termed the break-in a political fied he cancelled that meeting because day, Dean said he reported to Ehrlich- embarrassment that he hoped could be he feared "leaks." Dean told Walters it limited if those involved were held to was Ehrlichman's wish that future dis- man on his interview of Liddy, in ■ which Liddy had talked of Magruder the five men arrested. Helms has testi- cussion take place directly between pushing him into the second break-in. fied his memory of the meetings follows Walters and Gray — and avoid CIA Di- What recollection does Ehrlichman alone with Walters' notes. Ehrlich- rector Helms. Dean sought from Wal- have of these two Dean reports? Did ters some suggestion as to how the he tell the President that day of the FBI inquiry into Mexican checks that passed through one of the burglar's involvement of Liddy and Magruder? bank accounts could be delayed. Dean At 9 a.m. June 20, Ehrlichman, Cam- again met with Ehrlichman after this paign Director John Mitchell and session with Walters. And 20 minutes Haldeman met to discuss Watergate. after that meeting with Dean, Ehrlich- By then, Ehrlichman knew about man met with the President. Liddy and Magruder. Haldeman had, There is another area of questioning by then, ordered Strachan to "make where Ehrlichman's testimony could sure his files were clean," a directive be enlightening On March 21 Dean that led Strachan to destory several testified, he told the President about papers on political intelligence includ- the possible prior involvement in ing one from April which specifically Watergate of Mitchell, Magruder and referred to a $300,000 sophisticated in- Strachan and also about the cover-up, telligence programs, being put into op- which involved the President's closest eration. The third participant in the White House advisers. Dean further meeting, Mitchell, had been briefed by testified that at meetings with the Magruder and Robert Mardian and President on the afternoons of March was aware not only of the Liddy-Ma- 21 and March 22—meetings attended by gruder roles but also of the fact that a Ehrlichman—Dean saw no change in prior break-in had occurred. At 9:45 the past policy of cover-up. What is a.m that morning, the three were Ehrlichman's recollection of these joined by Dean who had been told that meetings? E. Howard Hunt's safe had contained a On March 28, Ehrlichman recorded a suitcase with electronic bugging gear. conversation with then Attorney Gen- What was discussed at that meeting? eral Richard Kleindienst. One subject When that session was over, Ehrlich- brought up was the President's desire man and Haldeman went to. the Oval to be informed if any information was Office for a meeting with the Presi- developed concerning Mitchell's in- dent that lasted two and a half hours. volvement in the original bugging Did the President ask either of them plan. When did the President ark Ehrl- what they knew about Watergate? ichman to make that request from the Mitchell testified he first learned of attorney general? Why did he want it? the Ellsberg psychiatrist break-in, With key witnesses such as Ehrlich- unauthorized wiretaps and other activ- man, the committee should concentrate ities of Hunt and Liddy (which he la- initially on developing the facts, fore- beled the White House horrors) after going until later the temptation to de- his aides, Frederick LaRue and Robert bate constitutional issues. Mardian, interviewed Liddy. The exact time he received that report is in ques- tion. LaRue said it was the evening of June 20. Mardian said June 21. In ei- ther case, Mitchell was aware of that .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The President's
    Afterword AS SENATOR Sam Ervin completed his 20-year Senate career in 1974 and issued his final report as chairman of the Senate Watergate committee, he posed the question: “What was Watergate?” Countless answers have been offered in the 40 years since June 17, 1972, when a team of burglars wearing business suits and rubber gloves was arrested at 2:30 A.M. at the headquarters of the Democratic Party in the Watergate office building in Washington. Four days afterward, the Nixon White House offered its answer: “Certain elements may try to stretch this beyond what it was,” press secretary Ronald Ziegler scoffed, dismissing the incident as a “third-rate burglary.” History proved that it was anything but. Two years later, Richard Nixon would become the first and only U.S. president to resign, his role in the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice—the Watergate cover-up— definitively established. Another answer has since persisted, often unchallenged: the notion that the cover-up was worse than the crime. This idea minimizes the scale and reach of Nixon’s criminal actions. Ervin’s answer to his own question hints at the magnitude of Watergate: “To destroy, insofar as the presidential election of 1972 was concerned, the integrity of the process by which the President of the United States is nominated and elected.” Yet Watergate was far more than that. At its most virulent, Watergate was a brazen and daring assault, led by Nixon himself, against the heart of American democracy: the Constitution, our system of free elections, the rule of law. 337 Woodward_AllThePresidents_4P_yc.indd 337 4/2/14 2:28 PM 338 : AFTERWORD Today, much more than when we first covered this story as young Wash- ington Post reporters, an abundant record provides unambiguous answers and evidence about Watergate and its meaning.
    [Show full text]
  • To Set the Record Straight by Judge John J. Sirica Richard L
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 Book Review: To Set The Record Straight By Judge John J. Sirica Richard L. Aynes Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Aynes, Richard L. (1981) "Book Review: To Set The Record Straight By Judge John J. Sirica," Akron Law Review: Vol. 14 : Iss. 2 , Article 6. Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol14/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Aynes: Book Review BOOK REVIEW To SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT: By Judge John J. Sirica W. W. Norton & Co., 1979. 303 pp. Reviewed by Richard L. Aynes* N MANY WAYS it seems almost impossible that eight years have passed since that night on June 17, 1972 when the Democratic National Head- quarters at the Watergate complex was burglarized. Yet, the fact that so much time has passed becomes evident when one recognizes that many of the principal characters, once prominent in the headlines, have now faded into obscurity.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Mardian (Bress)
    REPRODUCED AT THE I~ATIONAL ARCHIVES ¯ 2466 MR. BRESS : l.iay~ it please ti~e Cou~’to, counsel, ladies and gentl~:aen.of the jury. ~ly n~me is David Bress. I am app.-e~a~ing before you on behalf of defendapt Robert C. Mardian. As you understand fron~ ~qhat the C~t has already stated, the defendants do not ]]ave to make ~m opening state,_-:~ent they have the right to reserve. So~,~e have reserved, and some have: ~hos.en to make an opening statement. I have chosen to make one to you -~/: this ti:.::e for t%,;o re.aSOl~S . First, Robert i.iardian is very mi=fmal!l~ involved in the evidence in this case i.~; a very perfLrlieral ~.:ay and it would be a long time before %:e are able to l~u~ on our evidence on our case. It may be t~o or three months from, aow before he / has the oppontunity to offer evidence in hi~ o%-;n behalf. Therefore, it would make your- function a lot easier if you kne~; ~;ho ~e ~.:e~.-u si~ting at the table and ~hat are we doing her~-~ ~’.nd \.~hat U~ -,-.~,s,-, do ~,;e have, so that you can ~ore I REPRODUCED AT THE NAT;ONAL ARCHIVES ¯ 2467 twelve-count indictn, ent against five defendants. Robert [.:ardian is mentioned only in the first count. He is ti~e¯ only defendant before you who is ntentlo;.e~" ~ ~ only in the first count. I kno%, m~%y of you have not had previous experience as jurors and ~’un~s ’ must be some~.~hat of a novel experience for you, unique, but the Govez’~ent files an indic~r~ent, a charge, ~,hich is not evidence and it stahes t-~hat it expects to prove in support of the charge, what the charge is.
    [Show full text]
  • Watergate, Multiple Conspiracies, and the White House Tapes
    Do Not Delete 8/1/2012 8:26 PM Watergate, Multiple Conspiracies, and the White House Tapes Arnold Rochvarg* On January 1, 1975, John Mitchell, former United States Attorney General, John Ehrlichman, former Chief White House Assistant for Domestic Affairs, H.R. Haldeman, former White House Chief of Staff, and Robert Mardian, former Assistant Attorney General, were convicted of conspiracy1 for their involvement in what is generally known as “Watergate.”2 The Watergate conspiracy trial, presided over by Judge John Sirica, had run from October 1, 1974 until December 27, 1974.3 The trial included the in-court testimony of most of the figures involved in the Watergate scandal,4 and the playing of thirty of the “White House tapes.”5 The purpose of this Symposium article is to discuss whether the evidence presented at the Watergate trial is better understood as evidence of multiple conspiracies, as argued by two of the defendants,6 or as a single conspiracy as argued by the prosecution. The article first will set forth the law on multiple conspiracies and apply that law to the evidence presented at the Watergate conspiracy trial. The article will then discuss whether the admission into evidence of certain White House tapes premised on the single conspiracy view may have prejudiced any of the convicted defendants. I. THE LAW OF MULTIPLE CONSPIRACIES It is not uncommon at a criminal conspiracy trial, or on appeal from a conviction of conspiracy, for a defendant to argue that a guilty verdict for * Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law. Professor Rochvarg was a member of the legal defense team that represented Robert Mardian in the appeal of his conviction of conspiracy at the Watergate conspiracy trial.
    [Show full text]
  • I,M the Guy They Called Deep Throat
    The Deep Throat Revelation "I'm the Guy They Called Deep Throat" Despite three decades of intense speculation, the identity of "Deep Throat"—the source who leaked key details of Nixon's Watergate cover-up to Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein—has never been revealed. Now, at age 91, W. Mark Felt, number two at the F.B.I. in the early 70s, is finally admitting to that historic, anonymous role. In an exclusive, Vanity Fair puts a name and face to one of American democracy's heroes. by John D. O'Connor July 2005 On a sunny California morning in August 1999, Joan Felt, a busy college Spanish professor and single mother, was completing chores before leaving for class. She stopped when she heard an unexpected knock at the front door. Upon answering it, she was met by a courteous, 50-ish man, who introduced himself as a journalist from The Washington Post. He asked if he could see her father, W. Mark Felt, who lived with her in her suburban Santa Rosa home. The man said his name was Bob Woodward. Woodward's name did not register with Joan, and she assumed he was no different from a number of other reporters, who had called that week. This was, after all, the 25th anniversary of the resignation of President Richard Nixon, disgraced in the scandal known as Watergate, and hounded from office in 1974. The journalists had all been asking whether her father—the number-two man in the F.B.I. during the Watergate years—was "Deep Throat," the legendary inside informant who, on the condition of anonymity, had systematically passed along clues about White House misdeeds to two young reporters.
    [Show full text]
  • Video File Finding
    Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum (714) 983 9120 ◦ http://www.nixonlibrary.gov ◦ [email protected] MAIN VIDEO FILE ● MVF-001 NBC NEWS SPECIAL REPORT: David Frost Interviews Henry Kissinger (10/11/1979) "Henry Kissinger talks about war and peace and about his decisions at the height of his powers" during four years in the White House Runtime: 01:00:00 Participants: Henry Kissinger and Sir David Frost Network/Producer: NBC News. Original Format: 3/4-inch U-Matic videotape Videotape. Cross Reference: DVD reference copy available. DVD reference copy available ● MVF-002 "CNN Take Two: Interview with John Ehrlichman" (1982, Chicago, IL and Atlanta, GA) In discussing his book "Witness to Power: The Nixon Years", Ehrlichman comments on the following topics: efforts by the President's staff to manipulate news, stopping information leaks, interaction between the President and his staff, FBI surveillance, and payments to Watergate burglars Runtime: 10:00 Participants: Chris Curle, Don Farmer, John Ehrlichman Keywords: Watergate Network/Producer: CNN. Original Format: 3/4-inch U-Matic videotape Videotape. DVD reference copy available ● MVF-003 "Our World: Secrets and Surprises - The Fall of (19)'48" (1/1/1987) Ellerbee and Gandolf narrate an historical overview of United States society and popular culture in 1948. Topics include movies, new cars, retail sales, clothes, sexual mores, the advent of television, the 33 1/3 long playing phonograph record, radio shows, the Berlin Airlift, and the Truman vs. Dewey presidential election Runtime: 1:00:00 Participants: Hosts Linda Ellerbee and Ray Gandolf, Stuart Symington, Clark Clifford, Burns Roper Keywords: sex, sexuality, cars, automobiles, tranportation, clothes, fashion Network/Producer: ABC News.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTHMUNC IV Crisis Committee: Watergate Scandal Start Date: June 18, 1972 (Day of Watergate Break-In) Chair: Richard Nixon
    NORTHMUNC IV Crisis Committee: Watergate Scandal Start Date: June 18, 1972 (day of Watergate break-in) Chair: Richard Nixon History: In the 1968 election, the death of Robert F. Kennedy opened the doors for previous Vice President Hubert Humphrey to become the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. On the other side was Republican Richard Nixon, who ran on a platform promoting domestic and foreign peace. Nixon claimed victory over the White House by 500,000 popular votes. Once in office, Nixon’s greatest problem was the Vietnam War. How was he going to stop it and fulfil the promises he had made to the American public during his campaign? The war was widely unpopular among the American people and resulted in many protests demanding peace. Nixon urged the American people to be patient and pursued negotiations. By the end of Nixon’s first year in office, he sported a 59% approval rating. At the end of his second year, that figure had fallen to 52%. At the beginning of 1972, Nixon’s approval rating reached a high of 62%. Possible causes of Nixon’s high approval ratings include landing the first man on the moon in 1969 and running a successful re-election campaign. It is safe to say that Nixon was relatively popular amongst the American people during his first term. During the 1972 election, the Democratic Party chose George McGovern as their nomination over Senator Edmund Muskie. The Republican Party renominated Richard Nixon. In early June, it seemed likely that Nixon would win his second presidential election as many Americans believed he was taking the right course of action in Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • Oral History Interview with HR Haldeman Co~Ducted by Raymond H
    Oral history interview with H. R. Haldeman co~ducted by Raymond H. Geselbracht in Mr. Haldeman's home in Santa Barbara, California on April 13, 1988 RHG: All right, Mr. Haldeman, we're going to discuss the theme from your Journal that I've called Nixon's attempt to create a responsive bureaucracy. I've been trying to think in my mind, last night and this morning, how to organize this, and I can't quite manage an organization that I'm satisfied with. The concept is consistent, I think, throughout the things [that] we'll be talking about the next while. My thought is that there are two things involved in creating a responsive bureaucracy. The first is the structure of the government. The second is the people put in positions of responsibility in the government. I've decided, since structure is almost always simpler than people, that I would try looking at that first. See how that works. During the transition, Roy Ash got a telephone call from either the President, or yourself, I'm not sure whom. HRH: I'm not sure which, either. RHG: He was asked to come, be part of the administration, and do something regarding management. Now, for personal reasons, he wasn't able to come at that time. He did agree to come on a part-time, occasional basis, and head up the Ash Commission. As far as he was aware, there was no preparation for this. He didn't really know Nixon, very much, prior to receiving that telephone call. Do you know why Nixon picked him, and what Nixon had in mind for him to do? 1 HRH: I hadn't realized that Nixon didn't know him.
    [Show full text]
  • F:\Nixon -- Move to Former Staff on 9.2\Declarations
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PETITION OF STANLEY KUTLER, ) AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, ) Miscellaneous Action No. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, ) and SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS. ) ___________________________________________) DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD M. NIXON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF JUNE 23-24, 1975, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OF THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE Allison M. Zieve (D.C. Bar No. 424786) Michael T. Kirkpatrick (D.C. Bar No. 486293 Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 20th Street NW Washington, DC 20009 (202) 588-1000 Counsel for Petitioners TABLE OF CONTENTS Tab Declaration of Stanley Kutler.................................................... A Declaration of Julian Helisek (including exhibits) ................................... B Declaration of Richard J. Davis .................................................. C Declaration of John W. Dean III ................................................. D Declaration of David M. Dorsen ................................................. E Declaration of Mark Feldstein ................................................... F Declaration of Don Fulsom ..................................................... G Declaration of David Greenberg ................................................. H Declaration of Kenneth J. Hughes, Jr. .............................................. I Declaration of Thomas Long ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. During the Watergate Public Hearings
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2013 Tightrope: Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. during the Watergate Public Hearings Christopher A. Borns Student at University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the Law and Politics Commons Recommended Citation Borns, Christopher A., "Tightrope: Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. during the Watergate Public Hearings" (2013). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1589 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tightrope: Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr. during the Watergate Public Hearings Christopher A. Borns University of Tennessee – Knoxville TIGHTROPE : SENATOR HOWARD H. BAKER , JR. DURING THE WATERGATE PUBLIC HEARINGS ABSTRACT This essay, by thoroughly analyzing Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr.’s performance as Vice-Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities during the Watergate public hearings, examines whether Senator Baker, as the highest-ranking Republican on the committee, sought primarily to protect his own party’s President or, rather, in the spirit of bipartisanship, sought primarily to uncover the truth surrounding the Watergate affair, regardless of political implications, for the betterment of the American people.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review of the Strange Career of Legal Liberalism, by Laura Kalman
    digitalcommons.nyls.edu Faculty Scholarship Other Publications 1997 Book Review of The trS ange Career of Legal Liberalism, by Laura Kalman Edward A. Purcell Jr. New York Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_other_pubs Part of the Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Legal Education Commons Recommended Citation 102 American Historical Review 1264 (1997). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Other Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS. 1264 Reviews of Books prevent information from being communicated). En- For the most part, Rudenstine effectively supports hancing the importance of what the justices had to say his contentions. Only his argument that the Pentagon on this- issue was the evidence the Pentagon Papers Papers contained information truly damaging to na- contained that the United States government had tional security is unpersuasive. Forced to convince the deceived the public about the war, information highly Supreme Court that they did, Solicitor General Erwin relevant to the intense political debate that was raging Griswold (who admittedly lacked adequate research at the time over when and how to end American time) could identify only eleven items in forty-seven military involvement in Vietnam. volumes that he thought supported such a contention. Although the Post's Sanford Ungar produced a Although the last four volumes did contain diplomatic highly readable journalistic account of the legal and documents, release of which could have hampered political battle over the Pentagon Papers (The Papers American diplomacy, the significance of most of the and the Papers: An Account of the Legal and Political information contained in the Pentagon Papers was Battle over the Pentagon Papers [1972]), David Ruden- historical and political.
    [Show full text]
  • Nixon's Silence Haunts Watergate
    IG 1 2 WXPo., Nixon's Silence Haunts Watergate By Lawrence Meyer the President's state of knowledge?" The stakes in the hearings are as Washington Post Staff Writer "What did the President know and high as they can be for the govern- He was the missing witness, the man when did he know it?" was the recur- ment of the United States. If the com- that the Senate select Watergate com- ring question that committee vice mittee determines that President mittee wanted to know about. His chairman Howard H. Baker Jr. (R- Nixon had prior knowledge of the name was invoked constantly in 37 Tenn.) put to witnesses who were close Watergate break-in, or that he aided clays of hearings, his presence was, felt to President Nixon. Baker said that the cover-up or that he knowingly al- almost palpably at times in the cavern- was the central question of the hear- lowed the cover-up to continue, then a ous, marble-walled Senate Caucus ings. firm foundation will have been laid for Room that already has seen so much The witnesses Ervin questioned proceeding with the impeachment of history. agreed that only Richard Nixon could the President of the. `United States. "Now do you agree with me," com- say with certainty what Richard Nixon President Nixon, Ervin has said, has mittee chairman Sam J. Ervin Jr. (D- knew. Baker's question received no the means at his disposal to establish N.C.) asked as he pursued one of his definitive answer, although the com- his innocence. But the fact is that favorite themes, "that of all the human mittee got conflicting indications of President Nixon has not testified, he beings on the face of the earth, the what President Nixon may have known has withheld presidential papers, docu- one who knows the most about this is about the Watergate affair and when the President himself, that is, about he knew it.
    [Show full text]