Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (2/2)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (2/2)
[01.20.41--LEHRER in studio] ***SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS AREA*** LEHRER states that STANS will not answer questions pertaining to his pending indictment, and that the committee has been careful to avoid asking such questions. However, the staff feels that things have gone well in spite of the agreement to limit questioning. LEHRER introduces interview by Peter KAYE of Rufus EDMISTEN, deputy counsel. [01.21.08--KAYE with EDMISTEN in vacated committe chamber] KAYE asks if EDMISTEN felt circumscribed in his questioning by virtue of the fact of STANS' pending indictment EDMISTEN says he would characterize it more as restraint, and rightly so, as not to prejudice the judicial system KAYE asks about pre-interviewing by the committee staff, and if there were any surprises with STANS. EDMISTEN says he won't comment, but perhaps there were??? but there will be the opportunity for further corroboration by more witnesses. KAYE asks about plans to call MITCHELL and Dick WHITNEY to corroborate the issue of the MEMO which STANS denied knowing about (the reserve fund of the Commerce Department) EDMISTEN states that the committee staff plans to follow up all investigative leads KAYE states that STANS had been billed as the first of the big-name witnesses, and he seemed to acquit himself well with his testimony, Asks how EDMISTEN feels about the testimony EDMISTEN states that he doesn't feel the staff really even got started today, he covered the ground that he could cover, and the Senators will have more questions tomorrow. [01.23.45--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that the mention by EDMISTEN of a memo from MAGRUDER to MITCHELL that said STANS had a million-dollar political fund at the Commerce Department was a surprise to many. STANS denied the existence of the fund, and LEHRER states that it was a surprise to many in the audience that EDMISTEN dropped the line of questioning. [01.24.11--MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that if STANS finishes in time, MAGRUDER is expected to take stand the next day, and may potentially resolve some disputed issues, such as the reason MAGRUDER gave to Hugh SLOAN as justification to pay cash to LIDDY. MAGRUDER may, conversely, testify like others have, that he was just following orders from someone higher in rank. LEHRER calls on Alan BARTH, D.C. journalist, and Bill GREENHALGH, assoc. dean of Georgetown University Law School, as guest commentators. LEHRER asks GREENHALGH whether it's true that the hearings will prejudice STANS' trial in New York. GREENHALGH. states that he thinks a juror would be hard pressed to find prejudice based on the proceedings today. The witness appeared precise and cooperative. If anything, STANS' appearance on TV seems as if it would become a credit and not a liability. BARTH says he hopes that the days hearings will lay anxieties to rest that a congressional investigation automatically prejudices judicial trials, and that STANS' testimony was beneficial to both the committee and to STANS. States that the counsel's argument ought instead to be made to the court if they later feel that the course of the hearings did prejudice his case, but the committee had exercised great restraint despite the graveness of its task to investigate the operation of the executive branch under the system of checks and balances. LEHRER asks GREENHALGH if this bodes for more legalism in the future in the hearings, and the issue of the rights of potential criminal defendants will become a greater issue. GREENHALGH says that this is true, and that as yet, there has not been an invocation of the fifth amendment, leading him to believe there is a great deal of behind the scenes effort to establish ground rules for questioning. States that he is impressed, and he is not sure when a witness will choose to take the fifth. Continues to state that he was irritated by AGNEW'S statement that the ERVIN hearings were a miscarriage of justice because the concepts of Due Process, Notice, Counsel, and Self-Incrimination have been scrupulously followed, and witnesses have been respected in their rights. LEHRER states that Senators ERVIN and BAKER used quotations and generous words to address PORTER at the conclusion of his testimony, and sent him on his way with thanks. LEHRER offers that PORTER'S discussion of his character and some flaws in it was dramatic, personal, and frank, and very sad. STANS was self-assured as a man who had been at the top levels of power for a long time, but PORTER appeared to be in awe of even the mention of President NIXON, which was one of the reasons he followed orders to do what he did (PERJURY). STANS confessed to nothing, and the contrast was striking, and LEHRER wonders what quotation will be offered by Senator ERVIN when STANS finishes tomorrow. LEHRER signs off [01.30.47--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES", sponsor credits, NPACT ID--PBS NETWORK ID] [01.31.26--TAPE OUT]