This office. And that was august 8th, 1974, when president nixon went on national tv to announce his resignation from office. That followed a compel long series of hearings in the us senate the year before and a threat of impeachment by the house of representatives. Thanks for joining us for the American History tv series. Congress investigates where we look at significant congressional investigations over our history. This week, its a look at the watergate hearings and their aftermath. Our guest is kate scott, who is the Senate Historian and author ofhe book reining in the state Civil Society and congress in the vietnam and watergate era era. Ms. Scott, what was the defining event that led to the Senate Hearings in 1973 . The trigger that set off the hearing, the call for the Senate Hearings in 1973 had happened the prior year in june of 1972, when five when burglars broke into the Democrat NationalCommittee Headquarters in the Watergate Office and apartment complex here in washington, d. C. Those burglars were arrested. And in the course of reporting about that, there unusual arrest and some of the unusual things that were found in the bags with these burglars. A couple of intrepid reporters, Carl Bernstein and bob woodward, began making connections between those burglars who had been arrested and the Nixon AdministrationAgents Committee to reelect the president. It was 1972, was a president ial election year. And the connections between the burglars and the president s committee to reelect became ever more clear over the course of that late summer in 1972. Nixon won in a landslide reelection in november of that year, but the Senate Members of the senate remained unsatisfied by that about the information they had, about that burglary and its connections to the president s reelection campaign. And so in january of 1973, the senate formally created a special committee to investigate president ial Campaign Activities. Of that 1972 year. And the official name of the watergate Hearings Committee was a select committee on president ial Campaign Activities. It was created with a 77 to 0 vote in the u. S. Senate. But was there a contrary urgency about creating this committee . There wasnt so much a controversy as there was a concern that this investigation may be seen as or dismissed as a partizan witch hunt. So the democrats controlled had the majority in the senate in 1973. And, of course, Richard Nixon was a republican president. And so mike mansfield, the majority leader of the senate, looked around very carefully in making his selection to the special Watergate Committee, and he settled on a chairman who he thought was had unimpeachable credentials as sam ervin, democratic conservative from north carolina, had been in the senate since the 1950s. He was at that point in his seventies, he had no desire to become president. Later on, he was just content to be a United States senator. And importantly, he had a couple of interesting credentials that made him really perfect for this role in this political sensitive position. He was the senates constitutional expert recognized by his colleagues as such, and he was incrediblinterested in some of the issues that the watergate scandal had exposed, issues of surveillance, issues of breaking and entering, issues of invasions, of privacy. Hed been investigating some of these issues, actually, for about ten years prior to the break in at watergate. And so senator sam ervin in being selected to to chair this special committee, that that vote, i think of 77 to 0, that Unanimous Senate vote was really a vote of confidence in senator ervins ability to lead a fact based, nonpartisan investigation on the other democrats, on the committee. Daniel, in a way of hawaii, Joseph Montoya of new mexico, Herman Talmadge of georgia, the republicans, howard baker of tennessee, who was the ranking member, Edward Gurney of florida, and Lowell Weicker of connecticut. Kate scott what struck me about that was this was a 4 to 3 democrats republicans committee. Thats not very thats pretty close. It is pretty close. And actually, its interesting because it didnt reflect to the Party Breakdown in the senate at the time. The democrats had a larger majority than those than than than was reflected on the Committee Membership. But the membership itself was really important, not just with the selection of sam ervin as chairman, but howard baker, a moderate from tennessee. Really important to serving in that vice chair role in this politically sensitive committee. In fact, its interesting with baker because in the beginning, initially, his instinct was to try to protect the president. He and his top staff would meet with the president s aides and discuss what the committee was talking about, the information that they were finding, how the course of the investigation was rolling out. And then over the course of the summer, as the evidence began to pile up, suggesting the president s involvement in the watergate break in and cover up, howard baker cut his ties with the administration and really dug in to in search and pursuit of the truth. A couple of those other members let me just say a couple of words about them. Daniel, in a way, was this fabulous member of the of the committee a quiet member, but very interested in getting to the bottom of the investigation. Very interested in finding the truth. And he was in his second term here in the United States senate, a decorated World War Two veteran, fairly quiet member of the committee. But interestingly, the first member of the committee to publicly call for Richard Nixons resignation. He did that in october of 1973. Lowell weicker, a republican from connecticut, really interested member of the committee. He he pursued a kind of side investigation. He actually had his own investigatory team, which ruffled some feathers on the committee from time to time. But again, he was appalled by some of the allegations and evidence that they uncovered over the course of the investigation. He would often, in his role as a republican, take a stand and say, you know, whats happened with this administration . That is not what the Republican Party stands for. He could be a bit of a wild card, but ultimately he was committed in his search for the truth. Kate, scott, would you call any of the members of the Watergate Committee hyper partizan, or were any looking for political advantage . Yeah, i think that Edward Gurney might best fit that category. He was a republican from florida. He was strongly partizan and just to the extent that i think he allowed his partizanship to interfere with his pursuit for the truth, i dont know that he ever broke from his support for president nixon, even when all the evidence piled up against him. Well, because of the fact that these were televised that entire summer of 1973, both the counsels, the majority counsel and the minority counsel became pretty well known. Sam dash and fred thompson. Right. Right. And, you know, that was such an interesting phenomenon because prior to the Watergate Committee, senate staff on even famous investigations would not typically become associated or recognizable figures in the publics imagination. But the fact that the two counsels did become recognizable members and you know, would often have people come up to them in public and ask for their autograph or tell them how they felt about the watergate investigation and how it was unrolling, speaks to the fact that the watergate hearings in the summer of 1993 were an absolute national phenomenon. Evy dy knew something about watergate. Every American Household was tuned in to these hearings. I mean, thats a slight exaggeration, but not by much. Millions of American Households watched these hearings live during the day, if they could, or if they were at work and werent able to, they would watch the rebroadcast on pbss each evening. It was it was a nationwide sort of living room experience where people had this extraordinary, eerie look into the operations of an american president ial administration in. And they were pretty horrified by what they saw. But at the same time, the support for president nixon was still relatively high when the hearings began, correct . It was, you know, in if you look at the gallup polling from 1973, Richard Nixon enjoyed really high Approval Ratings in february of 1973. So thats even after that. Some of these allegation have become public and even after the senate has created its Watergate Committee. I think he has something in the upper sixties Approval Rating in february of 1973. But those Approval Ratings begin to sink over the course of the year. And by november of 1973, his Approval Ratings are in the tank. I think he has like a 24, 25 Approval Rating. Now, interest strongly his Approval Rating goes underwater, meaning his disApproval Rating is higher than his Approval Rating. Only two weeks after the Senate Launches its public hearings in the watergate investigation. I dont think thats a coincidence. Kate . Scott, can you give us a sense of what the atmosphere was like in this town during the summer of 73 with the hearings going on . Well, i its its hard to exaggerate the sense of importance that this Senate Investigation had held. Its hard to exaggerate the level of Public Interest in the senate. Watergate investigations and its hearings in particular. You know, we have collected a couple of stories in interviewing a few people who were around and members of the Watergate Committee staff at that time. And they recall that being present in that in the Senate Caucus room where these hearings were held in 1973, the feeling was electric. First of all, every single seat was absolutely packed. Every day. And there was a line in a public line out the door and out onto the street and around the building to get in and take a take a seat and be part of this historic moment. I mean, people were riveted by the committee and what it was telling the American Public about these allegations as it sort of developed its narrative account over the course of the summer in 1973. How long did the select committee on president ial Campaign Activities sit . Well, it sat a technically from january of 1973 until the fall swing spring of 1974. But it didnt. It only held the most popular portion of the public. Hearings occurred in the summer months of 1973, really made june and july in august. The senate traditionally breaks for recess, and it did with the intention with the senate Watergate Committee broke with the intention that they would reconvene public hearings in september and october to explore some of the other issues that had arisen as a result of their investigation. And the Public Interest in the senate. Watergate investigation in those hearings really waned in the fall months. So the the the most compelling part of the Senate Watergate hearings happens in the summer months of 1973, and one of the early testifiers was former white House Counsel john dean. Heres some of his testimony. From 1973. Its a very difficult thing for me to testify about other people. Its far more easy for me to explain my own involvement in this matter. The fact that i was involved in obstruction of justice, the fact that i assisted another in perjured testimony, the fact that i made personal use of funds that were in my custody far easier to talk about these things myself than to talk about what others did. Some of these people are referring to our friend as some are men i greatly admire and respect, and particularly with reference to the president United States. Id like to say this. It is my honest belief that while the president was involved that he did not realize or appreciate at any time the implications of his involvement. And i think that when the facts come out, i hope the president is forgiven. After that, the next time i recall meeting liddy was at a meeting in mitchells office in january 27 of 1972. Magruder called my office to set up the meeting, and only after i call him to ask why he wanted me to attend the meeting that i learned that he was going to present his intelligence plan. I met magruder and liddy at mitchells office, but he had a series of charts or diagram forms which he placed on an easel. And the presentation valerie began. I did not fully understand everything mr. Liddy was recommending at that time, because some of the concepts were mind boggling and the charts were in code names. But i shall attempt to reconstruct the high points that i remember as best i can. Liddy was, in effect, making a sales pitch. He said that the operation he had developed would be totally removed from the campaign and carried out by professionals and called for squads. Kidnaping teams up to compromise the opposition and electronics of it. He explained that the mugging squad could, for example, rough up demonstrators that were causing problems. The kidnaping teams could remove demonstration leaders and take them below the Mexican Border and thereby diminish their ability, the ability of the demonstrators to cause problems. At the san diego convention. The prostitutes can be used at the Democratic Convention to get information as well as compromise. Press involved. I recall that he saying that the girls would be high class and the best in the business when discussing the electronic surveillance. He said that he had consulted with one of the best authorities in the country and his plan and vision far more than the bugging and tapping of telephones. He said that under his plan, communications between ground facilities and aircraft, but also be intercepted. I might also add at this point, he also gave an an elaborate description of intercepting various microwaves that traveled around the country through various communication facilities. And i cannot explain to the committee what that was, because to this day, i dont understand it. Each major aspect of his proposal was on a chart with one chart showing the interrelations with the others. Each operation was given a codename. I have no recollection of these codenames with regard to surveillance. I do not recall if this was necessarily limited to electronic surveillance. He suggested several potential targets. I cannot recall for certain. It was during this meeting or a second meeting in early february that he suggested the potential targets, the targets that i recall. He suggested were mr. Larry obrien and the democratic headquarters and the Fontainebleau Hotel during the Democratic Convention. Mr. Liddy concluded his presentation by saying that the plan would cost approximately 1 million. I do not recall a reaction during the presentation of the plan because he was sitting beside me. But i do recall mitchells reaction to the Mission Impossible plan. It was amazed. At one point, i gave him a look of a element and he winked. Knowing mitchell, i did not think they would throw liddy out of the office or tell him that he was out of his mind. Rather, he did what i expected. When the presentation was completed, he took a few long pass on his pay and told that he that the planning and develop was not quite what he had in mind and the cost was out of the question. He said he suggested to leti that he go back and revise his plan, keeping in mind that he was most interested in the demonstration problem. I remained in mitchells office for a brief moment after the meeting ended. As the charts were being taken off, the eyes on dissemble and mitchell indicated to me that mr. Liddys proposal was out of the question. I then joined magruder and liddy, and as we left the office, i told liddy to destroy the charts. Mr. Lee said that he would revise the plan and submit a new proposal. At that point, i thought the plan was dead because i doubted if mitchell would reconsider the matter. I wrote back to the to my office that liddy and magruder. But there was no further discussion of the plan. The next time i became aware of any discussion of such a plan occurred, i believe on february 4th, 1972. Excuse me. Magruder had scheduled another meeting in mr. Mitchells office on a revised intelligence plan. I arrived at the meeting very late, and when i came in that he was presenting a scaled down version of an earlier plan. I listened for a few minutes and decide