Nomination. Timothy hi, im timothy naftali, director of the richard museum, yorba linda, california. I have the honor and privilege weld interviewing william in new york city for the Richard Nixon oral history program. Mr. Weld, thank you for joining us today. Please tell us how you came to be involved with the inquiry . A call in the fall of 1973. I was an associate at a law firm asking me if id be interested in interviewing for a job on the impeachment staff. Point it really hadnt gotten off the ground. I said, no, i have to stay here i make partner and then i called the guy back 15 seconds made aaving realized i dreadful mistake and i said can i still interview for it and he had a telephone interview with sam garrison who was running the republican side was not yet who fully unified. Some thought it never was. Went down and had a good interview with sam and i was in shortlycome thereafter and reported for duty in december of 1973. Timothy tell me a little bit about, first of all, about sam garrison. Give us a word picture of him. William he was a devoted family south,think from the from richmond, and he worked in on sunday slept mornings but that was about it. Personalhad a good relationship. Timothy you were there before was named. William john was there before burt jenner. Was before john door. I remember showing up for work staffer,was the first Hillary Rodham from yale law stafferas the second and i remember john door calling us into his office saying, ok, have aillary, we Research Project here. We have to find out what constitutes grounds for impeachment of a president and there doesnt seem to be any case directly on point so lets see, its friday afternoon, i ruin your weekend, why dont you have the memo on my desk tuesday morning. Fine, chief. And looked around and looked months later and 40 lawyers had gone blind trying to figure out what the answer to that question was, we decided questionanswer to the really resided in the newspapers not in decided law cases. Timothy some of the literature committeeout the suggests that you and John Davidson wrote a minority grounds the constitutional grounds for impeachment. William i know we wrote a ofority memo on the right jim sinclair, my future law partner, to cross examine witnesses. Im not sure we ever wrote a memo. Minority the big question in the early days was does the grounds for be a crime have to and i can remember being of the really it on that should be required that it be a crime or theres no stopping any president could be impeached for anything and the only check would be political. Well, the ultimate memo that we filed, all filed, said, well, aat if a president took up life of pleasure in a foreign land, that might not be a crime law but itstatutory certainly would be grounds for removal from office. I found that rather persuasive and i guess the dirty is that the only check is political. On congressmany gerald ford, future president an Impeachable Offense is whatever the majority twothirds ofnd the senate say it is and poor gerry ford played too much football without a helmet and doesnt understand anything and after 40 lawyers months on this, joe woods, head of the task force, stated publicly, what congressman ford said was a terse but profound statement of the definition of the Impeachable Offense. Own viewdid your shift . William i think my view shifted. The brighted about line criminal requirement early on and ultimately came to the view that impeachment was a remedy directed at a defect usually between the branches of thegovernment, usurping powers or functions of another perhaps dereliction, failing to discharge the duties incumbent on you for your branch. We set a lot of store by the take care clause. President takes an oath to take care that the laws be faithfully executed and there was a that in thehink, whole mess with the watergate conspiracy and misuse of the c. I. A. , that the president had not taken care that the laws be faithfully executed. And that, you know, it took a while to get there. Of floundering around. Timothy how did you in your own the actions of the lieutenant from the president or conclusione to the that the president is responsible for the actions of lieutenants . Erickson . Alderman and timothy and dean. William i didnt listen to all the tapes but to a lot of them and halderman and erickson all seemed to be on the same page. The president was right there with them. No question of parasite and host here. Timothy since you mentioned him, could you give us a word of james st. Clair . William jim came in. Even at that point he was a trial lawyer. My abiding memory of him is i a case for the committee on an article based on funds, failure to spend funds that had been wasopriated, i think it clean water act, clean air act. And i said heres the case for impoundment and heres the arguments from the other way and mcclurey from illinois said are there other defenses the raise and thisd was in the thick of the argument documents inlding the Supreme Court and i said yes, based on a, b, and c, the president could stand upon the ground on the defense of immunity and st. Clair collapsed laughing because badously that was such politics at the time. Thethy tell us a bit about effect that burt jenner had when he joined . The original was classa litigator. He argued in the u. S. Supreme court and made the case turn by honors need not reach this issue, you can decide upon this narrow ground and they went for it immediately. Hes a highly, highly distinguished lawyer. Was thatesting thing is an interesting thing, that was john door had this very that we wanted to have a unified staff and my were mostly hillary labovitz, dagmar joe woods. But i also worked closely with sam garrison and on the republican side but i was welcome in both camps. Not sure everybody was welcome in both camps and i think the hard core of the force, im not aware that had any republicans on it. Watergatedence of the conspiracy i think was mainly developed by the democratic staff. Were not quite so partisan texas congressman from who at a Democratic Caucus was ed, whats the theme of jack brooks. Twos the theme of article about agency abuse . F. B. I. , c. I. A. , its all so understandi dont it. He took a cigar out of his mouth and said the theme of this going to getre there. N of bitch out of timothy was there some pressure thehe republicans and staff there were a number of the staffembers of who were very disappointed with how things were going and how his job. Was doing were there any pressures on you . Questions . Sking you william the republican members of the committee had their own their ownght to have Legal Research done and i did that. Memo mightt minority have been about the right of cross examination because we did memo on that and there would be the occasional research dale ladder or chuck mcclurey, davert dennis, some of the republican members. Would do that. I thought we had that obligation. Hand, i spent a lot of time with the democrats. It may have helped that my job legal constitutional side more than the Factual Development side. That easier. De timothy once the committee chose the broad interpretation Impeachable Offenses, high crimes and misdemeanors, what were your after february, what were you focusing on . Thecontinue to work on legal case . William yeah, i did a lot of the legal case. I listened to the tapes. I, by myself, developed and proposed and presented to the committee the case on wasundment which i think article 6. It was not accepted. At this time did get some photos. It did get some votes. Involve more courts of law. There had been 15 or 20 cases down theapping president s position but some upholding it. Lawheavy. Ry it was submitted because i testified before the committee. They did. I think it was voted down 72711 or Something Like that. Did you play a role in shape shaping any of the other articles . I remember a discussion about agency abuse. Article ii. I dont think i ever had the blue pencil on that. I also had quite a lot of exposure to article iii, which i think dealt with subpoenas and contempt of the subpoenas if memory serves, and i remember reading the different versions of the documents, where it is white house would have erased the incriminating material on most copies, but one of them got through, and needless to say, that infuriated everybody on the staff. Did you participate in the decision about retranscribing the tapes, because the concern was the white house transcripts were just not usable or not thorough enough . Bill i was not a decisionmaker, but it was clear to me, having listened to both versions from the white house and the perfected versions that that was absolutely true. Later, i became a federal prosecutor, and, you know, we would expend a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, on those transcripts and have the jury listen to the tape and have the transcript at the same time, and the defense would scream bloody murder and said thats not what that word says, and i became a civil litigator, same thing, the transit of a tape is a huge forensic development. And whoever made that decision, i think it was probably john dohr, bert jenner, and joe woods, they were absolutely right. How valuable were the materials that the Watergate Special prosecution force handed over . On the development of the watergate conspiracy . I assume they were very valuable, but that wasnt rell my hunt. I was really wasnt my hunt. I was not in article one man. What is the story with bert jenner . He sort of changes positions. Thehe forced out by minority leaders . I dont know about forced out. He was a prominent lawyer in the United States of the great chicago. A person like myself, having gone to a life school and aspiring to be a kicker litigation parker lawyer, he was skyhigh. He formed the opinion early on that the president was going to be impeached. I remember him saying that to me and a couple other people in a car in march. He got there pretty quickly and he and dohr spent a lot of time together, and he would come and make presentations to the republican members. But i dont think they ever felt at ease with him. I remember at one point, he was testifying, dell latter from ohio says you say that, mr. Jenner, but i dont have to take your word for that. I saw the report you just filed about how prostitution should be legalized, and thats not binding on me anymore than what you are saying right now and one of the democratic members said i hope the member from ohio reflects on what he said. Dell latter did not need to reflect on what he said. That was an example of the comradecamp of the happy camaraderie on the committee. Was there some tension . Absolutely. Sam was considerably more conservative. He approached this i wont say as a entirely as a partisan, but his view at the beginning was, listen, if the president of the United States is going to be impeached and removed from office, somebody better give me a pretty dang good reason, or were going to be a banana republic. He had deep relations with some of the conservative republican wing on the committee, and i dont think bert jenner did. Both of them tried to be very professional about it. But there was tension . Yeah, there was tension. Had he worked for spiro agnew . I forgot that if that was true. Did you play any role of shaping information . The books that were handed to the committee . Again, not the article i watergate conspiracy, but i may have had a role in some of the other stuff . The question for you, since you were working on the legal side, did you come to the understanding that this procedure was like a grand jury . Some question as to whether mr. St. Clair could be there and crossexamine. And then i guess the issue in a grand jury, the defendants council is not there. Most grand juries. Some states by statute permitted defense council. Is this one of the sort of discussions . Yeah, there were a lot of arguments about whether the standard here was probable cause, 4 out of 9. Preponderance, 5 out of 9. Reasonable doubt . You mean five out of nine jurors . No, percentage likelihood. A grand jury if they find a four out of nine chance something has happened, thats probable cause. There are all different standards of proof required. Another would be preponderance, 5 out of 9 or 6 out of 10, however you like. As another standard in fraud cases, the requirement is clear and convincing evidence, loosely translated as 7 out of 9. And then beyond a reasonable doubt, which is sometimes translated as 9 out of 10. So you know, the people who wanted the president betobe impeached said we dont president to be impeached said we dont have to prove this thing, this is probable cause. And others said this is a rather important proceeding, if if were going to send the guy who is president to get removed from office, u. S. A little bit more a little bit more important than a speeding ticket and maybe the standard should be a little bit different. And i can remember doing a good bit of Legal Research on all of those things, and analogizing this to various different kinds of proceedings. The fact is, almost no judicial proceeding which is analogous. This is quintessentially legislative proceeding, and ultimately, the check is political. Its not not some statute, not some rule. Sure, high crimes and displea other thanes, but put whatever water into that vessel you care to. How useful was the johnson precedent . I thought johnson was very useful. There was a 1934 case involving a judge i think called willis ritter, also useful to me. Way, one end, by the article two. Did you reach 4, 5, 6, 9, or 10 . In the agency abuse . Yeah. Pretty clear he did it. I listened to the tapes. The question, too much potpourri jammed into the glass jars. A single cognizable offense. The evidence behind that, a lot of evidence in the watergate case. That was just there. On tape. How many times does president have to do it fortis too many . President s if a president says once, maybe we could encourage the cia to get involved here because that would maybe dissuade the fbi complicated efforts. Even once, if it was to dissuade the fbi at a case, that might be enough. Prosecution perjury takes into consideration the color of the underlying defense. That case, the obstruction takes that color. If you do not have the underlying evidence, may be would say this is to artificial. Sense the vote, did you there would be bipartisan support for some of these articles. Articles . Yeah. Im trying to remember the timing. But it was clear there would be some bipartisan support. Some republicans going along. There was a very dramatic moment i remember involving Chuck Wiggins, and i think it was when the smoking gun tape was flayed. Played. June 1972, not sure when this meeting occurred. But there was a diehard group of perhaps nine or ten republicans with the president all the way, and their legal leader was Chuck Wiggins who became an appellate judge in california. A very learned, scholarly man. He made arguments like you made an election, so you cannot argue this. Somebody brought in a smoking gun tape for the die hards. They played it, and the nine die hards sort of realized they had been played for fools. I heard it referred to as a draining effort. And if anyone had been drained, they had. And chuck wiggin, ultimate strong silent type burst into tears. Ive got to situate this, because the Supreme Court doesnt rule that these have to be turned over after the vote. So the committee listened to this tape after this would have been after the votes had been taken. So they listened to the june 23rd 72 tape after the supreme not before couldnt be before the Supreme Court proceeding. I would have said that the Supreme Court ordered that the tape has to go over sometime in may. Maybe a few tapes. No, july 29th. Ten days before he resigns. Yeah. Maybe that meeting was in that interval. Oh, my goodness. That must have been very powerful. Did you have an aha moment when you were going through the materials . Well, listening to the tapes. Do you remember . Was that may, june . It would have been do you remember when you listened to the tapes . No. But it was conversations between the president and halderman and president err lackman and john dean had a big part in some of them. And i thought, boy, everyone keeps their voice down in the oval office. No screaming and ranting and raving. On the other hand, whats being said is pretty amazing. Tell us about john dohr, working with him. Bill he was a dreamboat. Just so sort of apple pie good, and, you know, i knew that he he made a real effort to not socialize with any of his democratic friend in washington. He was quite a good friend with Ethel Kennedy in washington. I spent quite a bit of time at hickory hill. That john dohr, he wont even return my telephone calls, its really awful. One time, john took exception to the fact that i think it was i had written a memo for mr. Hutchison of michigan, the ranking member, at the request of sam garrison and i think sam asked me to deliver it to mr. Hutchison and john said i didnt know about this. I got caught in the middle on that. And i was kind of inned in the middle because i was on both sides. I had a lot of different jobs, long politics, and a house liberal and icon and a conservative administration witness. The ed meese justice department, and a house conservative and liberal administration, witnessed the nixon impeachment. And i dont like either one. I would rather be right in the middle of the road administration. Had to get my own administration. Tell us about working with Hillary Rodham. Very close relationship. Is just a very decent person. If i recall correctly, when i got in the middle and john doerr thinkowny face with me, i hillary intervened and defended me on that and i have never forgotten that. Frowny face . Bill yeah, he did. He said i should have known about this. How did this happen. Tell us about what happens you were you were going to tell us what happened after this experience. Well, you know, this was the beginning of a life long career of litigation and politics from me. I transferred from the Corporate Department to litigation. Ran for state attorney general in 1978 because i was so obsessed with the investigative possibilities of grand juries and thought the ags office was not doing as much as it could have. I was absolutely creamed in that one. But then when reagan was elected, i was, you know, a republican who knew how to try a case. Appointed a u. S. Attorney, and then had a lot of public Corruption Cases there. Went to washington as head of the criminal vest division, went back to massachusetts, ran for governor and won. Before that happened, i was approximately i was practicing law as a litigator. Minding my own business, in a Philadelphia Hotel room, preparing a witness for somebody. And 25 years after the after that happened, 25 years after the watergate case, after the impeachment, i get a call from john podesta, then president clintons chief of staff, and i had known him through the Clinton White house, president clinton and i had been friendly as governors and he nominated me to be ambassador to mexico. During a couple of months, i spent a period of time in the white house with john podesta and rahm emanuel. He calls me up in 1999 and says looks like they are going to impeach my guy and hearings in the house. Nearest we can tell, a couple of guys in the country that know a lot about impeachment of a president. The other is disqualified about political interest. You have to testify, which i was happy to do and did. Tell us about that experience, just doing . Well, i think i went in with a bunch of other former u. S. Attorneys who were also republicans. A pretty impressive panel, and i had the additional background of knowing the law of impeachment, and i said sex is not an Impeachable Offense. It just isnt. It has to be something that touches and concerns the office or use of power. This is a nonstarter as a matter of constitutional law and they said well, what about perjury . You brought a lot of cases when you were a prosecutor in boston . Yes, but as i said earlier, a perjury prosecution partakes the color of an underlying offense. I once prosecuted a guy for perjury for denying he was in boston on november 28, 1981. Why bring that case . That was the day of the great lindh fire that almost burned down the city of lindh. He was a known torch, arsonist, and claimed to have been in florida. But an agent for atf, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, found his fingerprints on a ticket at the delta warehouse in atlanta and proved he had come up and flown back to tampa. So thats a perjury case. Maybe kind of like the al capone income tax evasion case. Youre really getting at something else, and you would never prosecute somebody for perjury for falsely denying they had a tryst with some lady of their acquaintance. It would be beneath the dignity of the law. Do you remember when you learned president nixon was going to resign . Yes. I had a longstanding commitment to go fishing with my brother and some friends on august 9th. So i told sam, i had gone back to boston. Sam called me up, said he needed more help. I went back for a few weeks. I said august 7th or whatever it was, ive got to be out of here. So i was on a small boat in a fjord in iceland. I looked down at the bottom of the boat there was a newspaper from a couple of days ago. With a photograph of president ford taking the oath of office. I was in a fjord near reykjavik, island. What did you think of the pardon . Its a tough one. I dont think i would have done it but i didnt have the stereo scopic view of the harm to the country. This experience made me a real prosecutor. And i ive had prosecuteive instincts for a long time. Maybe they werent honed in 1974, but i dont think even then i would not have done it. What did it this teach you about our system of government . The wheels may grind slowly, grand grind pretty well. Theres a lot of force in the law. It made the president do a lot of things that he didnt want to do, and the whole procedure involved a lot of things a lot of people didnt want to have done. Throw there are three countries in the world that i associate with the capacity for self examination. One is israel, one is the united kingdom, and the third and perhaps the greatest is the United States. Did you stay in touch, besides the 1999 story, did you stay in touch with Hillary Rodham after . Yeah, ive known her pretty continuously. There were whispered conversations about bill in 1974. They were neared the next year, same year i was married. And the bill in question, the whispers in question, not bill weld, it was bill clinton. I never did see him visiting there. He and i went to the same college at oxford a year apart, had some very good mutual friends, so that by the time i became governor, i couldnt wait to meet this guy that i had herd so much about. I have known Hillary Rodham clinton in lots of different contexts. You said this launched in your career. Launched your career. In the sense i became interested in criminal law, went back to run for state attorney general and led to everything else. That led to being appointed u. S. Attorney, which led to being head of the Criminal Division in washington, which led to be elected governor of massachusetts. Have i forgotten or been unable to elicit any stories. Thats a wrap as they say in hollywood. Governor, ambassador, thank you. It has been a pleasure. Thank you. Are coming out and getting engaged in politics is feeling a little bit less like a spectator sport for people on the left. But a lot of the same social issues the book covers are still ones that are relevant today. People really outraged by issues like family separation and Sexual Assault on women. The devaluation black lives, etc. Of lifelines, etc. This time provides a crucial precursor to our moment. Local massachusetts professor Holly Jackson talks about her book american radicals. Watch sunday night at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan skewing date. Day q and a. We are live in iowa following democratic president ial candidates. On saturday come at 3 p. M. Eastern joe biden, pete coalition,and maybe Bernie Sanders, and cory booker speak at a labor for cedar rapids. Eastern, at 1 p. M. Senator Bernie Sanders speaks with supporters in indianola. Live campaign 2020 coverage from iowa this weekend. Watch anytime on cspan. Org and listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. Democratic president ial spoke withuttigieg because students and others at a town hall event at Grinnell College iowa in iowa. The states president ial caucuses are monday, february 3. Hello. So i am the cochair of the Democratic Party and we are the volunteers who have the exciting challenge of running the caucuses. So i just want to see a show of