And it wasnt that big a deal, but it was a big deal and it led to even further big deals because in the aftermath of watergate we had the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee investigations that showed how deeply riddled the u. S. Government was with this kind of abuse of power. But watergate itself was much more than one burglary. That was actually the third burglary they had pulled off, and as repercussions you had the president resigning. At the same time you had the Vice President resigning. You had two attorney generals resigning. All told, 12 corporations and i think 48 individuals pled guilty and maybe 2 dozen men went to jail. How significant was the resignation of spear spiro agnew that led to the appointment of gerald ford. I think its significant in itself. But i think theres a good chance that nixon would not have been impeached if he had agnew as insurance. There was really no great payoff for the democrats to get rid of nixon in order just to get agnew. A weake
It was originally reported in the New York Times, the Warren Commission report in 1964 that no material question remained on some unresolved. That is the conclusion reached and propagated by new york the outset before anybody got a time to read the report in the 20s and volumes of supporting evidence. The New York Times right from the getgo was supportive. It has become policy. Alwaysthe things that is been the strong support for oswald was the fact that the scientific autopsy Scientific Evidence supported it to find in a book by visit who was interviewed and said all of it pointed to oswalds guilt. When you look at the people we should trust on this. One of the things what the things you will know from people who has followed the case a long time is that there are people who are considered really the authorities. These are people detached, objective, experience, professional, scientifically trained and so forth. What are they . Photograph, in old i cannot find a better one. Finck. Wel
The wounds, the evidence was flawed. This is a part of a Conference Marking the 50th anniversary of the release of the report. It is about one hour. I will be running through quite a few slides and i want to thank everybody and congratulate cyril for his devotion and he is one of the people when stimulated my interest and brought me sort of onboard after the debate and certainly the medical evidence in 1990. We became acquainted. It was at that point i met smith who was walking in to sit down and i want to start out with just a discussion here about it was originally reported in the New York Times, the Warren Commission report in 1964 that no material question remained unresolved so far as the death of president kennedy is concerned. That is the conclusion reached and propagated by New York Times on the outset before anybody got time to read the report, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence. The New York Times right from the getgo was supportive. It has become policy. One of the things
A few words about the genesis of this panel, the idea behind it and some of the issues i hope we are going to be able to address. So this year, 2015, marks the 40th anniversary of one of the most important congressional committees certainly of the 1970s. And i think arguably of the latter half of the 20th century and that was the Church Committee. The Church Committee which was chaired by frank church began its work in the spring of 1975. And for the 16 months between the spring of 1975 and when they delivered a 14 volumes report in 1976 the Church Committee held hearings, performed investigations dug into Background Materials on the american Intelligence Services. And this was really the first mass scale investigation of what had been going on in american intelligence practices in the past 30 years, but arguably back even further than that. The Church Committee held hearings investigating the fbi and the cia, in particular, but also the nsa military intelligence and some of the smalle
Want to know. Since then members of congress have wanted to know. Congressional oversight of intelligence is a recurring flash point in executive congressional relations. Our guests professor Laura Donahue of Georgetown Law School and mark from the Security Academy and John Hopkins University will explore the context to the current dustup between the senate and the c. I. A. By not only reminding us about past struggles between congress and the Intelligence Community, such as the Church Hearings but helping us to understand why this context matters. Everything has a history. Until the 1975, Church Committee, there was no congressional oversight. Despite the sensationalism of the committees rev lyingses the mandated reforms were moderate. Once again, we have revelations demand for more intensive oversight. Nobody at least a good historian, will simply say history repeats itself and that is how we learn from it. We do know that it is impossible for us to understand change without context.