Good evening. I'm Dan Rather, CBS News White House correspondent. As you probably know
by now, seven persons were indicted today for trying to cover up the Watergate scandals.
Tonight, we'll try to examine the importance of those indictments. The accused included
all four of President Nixon's former top advisors, the four men who at one time were closest
to Mr. Nixon and held the positions of highest trust. All seven of the men indicted today
were charged with conspiracy. Some of the charges also included perjury, lying under
oath and obstruction of justice. Overshadowing what happens to those seven men is the more
important question, what does today's development mean for Richard Nixon? For the President
of the United States, is the worst now over or only beginning?
This is a CBS News special report. The Watergate indictments. This broadcast is sponsored by
Bufferin, the headache tablet that gives you fast relief and is easy to your stomach.
It started here, spread upward, headache. You need relief. But before you take plain
aspirin, know the truth. On the average, most of aspirin is still in the stomach 20 minutes
after taking 20 minutes. Take Bufferin. It's twice as fast getting out of the stomach and
speeding to the headache and with less chance of stomach upset because aspirin or any pain
reliever in your stomach can't help your headache. Next time, get fast relief with Bufferin.
I wondered what antiperspirant you use.
Ritegar.
Suppose I told you that Ultraban 5000 was tested against Ritegar and it was proven more
effective in helping stop wetness.
I'll have to try.
Now, you're not just saying that.
No, no, no. I wanted to be dry.
Tests have proved Ultraban 5000 is more effective in helping stop wetness than Erid Extra Dry,
Ritegar, Soft and Dry, and Dial. Isn't that what you're really looking for?
Ultraban 5000. I'll have to try it.
Reporting from CBS News in Washington, here is correspondent Dan Rather.
The Washington federal grand jury's report today did not publicly accuse President Nixon
of any crime or misdeed. There was, however, a tantalizing mystery, a sealed envelope given
by the grand jury to Judge John Sirica. The material in that envelope is reported to deal
with the president's role in Watergate. And beyond that, the nature of the indictments
today and the names of the men indicted raise new questions about the president.
These indictments concerned only the Watergate scandal cover-up. Two of the four former top
Nixon aides named previously had been indicted in other Watergate-related cases, John Mitchell
and John Ehrlichman. But two others among the top four were indicted for the first time
today, H.R. Bob Haldeman and Charles Coulson. The other three men indicted today were Gordon
Strong, one-time White House political operative under Haldeman, Robert Martian, a Justice
Department official under Mitchell, and Kenneth Parkinson, a chief attorney for the president's
re-election committee. One of those indictments may be especially important to President Nixon's
future. Daniel Schor has the details.
H.R. Haldeman, who is the highest and closest of President Nixon's aides, is charged in
the indictment with three counts of perjury. One of those counts implies a charge against
the president himself. It has to do with John Dean's assertion before the Senate Watergate
Committee that Mr. Nixon on March 21, 1972, appeared receptive to raising a fund to continue
payments for the silence of Watergate defendants.
H.R. I told the president about the fact that there were money demands being made by the
seven convicted defendants, and that the sentencing of these individuals was not far off. It was
during this conversation that Haldeman came into the office. After this brief interruption
by Haldeman's coming in, but while he was still there, I told the president about the
fact that there was no money to pay these individuals to meet their demands. He asked
me how much it would cost. I told him I could only make an estimate that it might be as
high as a million dollars or more. He told me that that was no problem. He also looked
over at Haldeman and repeated the same statement.
H.R. Haldeman, from the same witness seat, sought to refute that. He said he'd been present
for part of the talk and listened to the tape of the whole meeting and had a different version
of Dean's talk with the president.
H.R. He also reported on a current Hunt blackmail threat. He said Hunt was demanding $120,000,
or else he would tell about the seemy things he had done for Ehrlichman. The president
pursued this in considerable detail, obviously trying to smoke out what was really going
on. He led Dean on regarding the process and what he would recommend doing. He asked such
things as, well, this is the thing you would recommend, we ought to do this, is that right?
And he asked where the money would come from, how it would be delivered, and so on. He asked
how much money would be involved over the years, and Dean said probably a million dollars.
But the problem is that it is hard to raise. The president said there is no problem in
raising a million dollars. We can do that, but it would be wrong.
H.R. If in fact the tapes clearly show, he said, but it would be wrong, it's an entirely
different context. Now how sure are you, Mr. Haldeman, that those tapes in fact say that?
H.R. I'm absolutely positive that the tapes...
H.R. You hear it with your own voice?
H.R. Yeah, with my own ears, yes.
H.R. I mean, with your own ears, was there any distortion in the quality of the tape
in that respect?
H.R. No, I don't believe so.
President Nixon at a news conference in San Clemente supported the Haldeman version.
Mr. President, could you tell us your recollection of what you told John Dean on March 21 on the
subject of raising funds for the Watergate defendants?
H.R. Certainly. Mr. Haldeman has testified to that, and his statement is accurate. So
that was why I concluded, as Mr. Haldeman recalls perhaps and did testify very effectively,
one, when I said, John, it's wrong, it won't work, we can't give clemency, and we've got
to get this story out. And therefore, I direct you, and I direct Haldeman, and I direct Ehrlichman,
and I direct Mitchell to get together tomorrow and then meet with me as to how we get this
story out.
H.R. But the grand jury, which also heard the March 21 tape, apparently did not hear
the president say a payoff fund would be wrong. So Count 8 of the indictment says that Haldeman's
assertions were material to the said investigation and study, and as he then and there well knew,
were false.
H.R. It is of some interest to me to note that the section of the indictment to which
you refer, I believe it's section 8, is apparently based on questions that I ask Mr. Haldeman.
And I must infer from the fact that the indictment charges that those statements given by Mr.
Haldeman in response to my questions are false. I must infer that they must disagree, those
statements must disagree with the tapes. I have not heard the tapes, therefore I can't
say that with certainty, but you may be assured that as a member of the Watergate Committee
when the case comes to trial, I'll pay particular attention to that part of the proof to hear
whether or not the Haldeman's testimony, as I tried to elicit it from him in July of 1973,
is borne out by the White House tape recordings.
H.R. Also, according to the indictment, almost immediately after that Oval Office meeting,
Haldeman telephoned John Mitchell, who then authorized another $75,000 for Howard Hunt,
which indicated that the payments the President had purportedly just called wrong were continuing.
No charges made against Mr. Nixon, but the indictment indicates it is not naming all
the conspirators. It uses the unusual phrase, other persons to the grand jury known and
unknown. That may be spelled out in the separate statement on the President given to Judge
Sirica.
Judge Sirica Indicted persons under the United States Constitution
are presumed innocent unless and until convicted by a court. So what follows now are trials.
That may be a long drawn out procedure. Fred Graham reports on what lies ahead for the
seven men named in the indictment.
Fred Graham Nobody's going to rush out and arrest these
men although Mitchell, if convicted on all counts, could get 30 years in prison. Ehrlichman
and Haldeman 25 years, Strawn 15 years, Coulson and Parkinson 10 years, and Marty in 5 years.
They'll assemble in Washington for arraignments on March 9th, a Saturday, to accommodate Mitchell,
who'll spend the week on trial in the Vesco bribery case in New York. Then will come the
usual rounds of motions with an expected try by the defendants to move the trial away from
Washington and its heavily democratic population. That will probably fail and come August or
September this capital city will see a trial in which clustered daily around the defendants
table will be some of the most famous faces of what used to be called the law and order
Nixon administration. Ironically it was John Mitchell and Robert Marty who made the conspiracy
trial popular and who brought us the Chicago 8, the Harrisburg 7, the Gainesville 17, and
all the others and it's probably inevitable that these gentlemen will come to be called
the Watergate 7. Their trial is expected to become complicated and long, perhaps four
months because the offenses alleged in today's indictment are so complex. The indictment
makes it clear that Watergate touched off a criminal conspiracy by some of the most powerful
men in Washington to obstruct the proper course of justice. It allegedly began with Mitchell
shown here outside his trial today who allegedly ordered the destruction of documents, attempted
to get secret CIA funds to use as hush money and lied when he protested his innocence to
the FBI, the grand jury, and the Senate Watergate committee. Do you recall any discussion of
so-called either gemstone files or wiretapping files? No, I had not heard of the gemstone
files as of that date and as of that meeting I had not heard of the fact that anybody there
at that particular meeting knew of the wiretapping aspects of it or had any connection with it.
H.R. Haldeman, the White House chief of staff seen here at his home today where he declined
to talk to reporters, allegedly ordered the destruction of White House documents, turned
over a secret $350,000 fund to use as hush money, and later committed perjury about his
role and President Nixon's. John Ehrlichman, second in power only to Haldeman at the White
House, allegedly sought to purchase the silence of the arrested Watergate burglars by arranging
offers of clemency and by recruiting Attorney Herbert Comback to raise more hush money.
Charles Colson, the White House special counsel shown making a statement today, allegedly
concentrated on the clemency and hush money projects. I know that in the end my innocence
will be established and I put complete faith in God and I believe in my country. Thank
you. After the indictments were handed up today, Judge Sirica surprised everyone by
not dismissing the original Watergate grand jury that's been on the job for almost two
years now. There's some speculation the grand jury may now be used to subpoena those 27
tapes President Nixon has refused to turn over. And the other two special grand juries
are expected to hand down indictments soon on ITT, the Ellsberg break-in, the Milk Fund,
and other campaign contribution cases. But the event that started it all, the Watergate
break-in and cover-up, is finally out of the grand jury and into the courts. And it's
ironic that the grand jury did not discover the two secrets that were being covered up.
Who ordered the break-in and bugging at the Watergate and why? President Nixon tonight
for the second evening in a row hosted a group of congressmen for a movie at the White House.
Tonight's movie was friendly persuasion about the society of friends or Quaker religion.
Last night it was the sting about con men. Mr. Nixon has declined to say anything personally
about today's indictments. He had one of his middle level aides say in answer to a question
that the president is glad the courts are moving to conclude the Watergate case, that the courts
are the place to decide guilt or innocence, that all defendants are entitled to full presumptions
of innocence, and that the president hopes justice will be done swiftly. Reaction from
two top Republican leaders came in Phoenix, Arizona. Vice President Gerald Ford read a
statement Senator Barry Goldwater was interviewed by Ben Silver. We must keep in mind that under
our system of justice, anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
I trust that all of the defendants in the Watergate case will get a prompt and fair
trial. Our judicial system appears to be working well in this instance. It is in the best interest
of the American people that this matter be disposed of as quickly as possible while the
court sees to it that all of the rights of the defendants are fully protected. At this
point are you satisfied with the way President Nixon is handling the Watergate situation?
I think he's doing it about the only way that he can with no evidence at all ever been pointed
at him of any wrongdoing. Mistakes in judgments, yes, but here's a man that some people have
judged guilty without any evidence, which is contrary to the American system and custom.
So I think what he's doing now is about all that he can do. A group of young Republicans
visited the White House this afternoon a few hours after the new wave of indictments had
been announced. President Nixon's son-in-law, David Eisenhower, was host to the group. He
was asked about the President's mood. He said the President did not seem disturbed after
the court announcement and Eisenhower added his own analysis. I've been accused for a
year. An indictment is an accusation and so as far as I can see an indictment doesn't
represent anything new in this entire case and their guilt or innocence will be established
at trial. Political professionals in both parties agree that justifiably or not today's indictments
and grand jury report mean that President Nixon becomes even more of an issue in this
year's elections. Republicans already were reeling from the loss 10 days ago of Vice
President Ford's old congressional seat in a special election in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
An often beaten Democrat using what he called the quote moral bankruptcy of the Nixon administration
as his theme upset the heavily favored Republican to the shock of Mr. Ford and the White House.
Next Tuesday there is another special election to fill another traditionally Republican seat,
this one in Ohio's first congressional district centered in the eastern half of Cincinnati
and suburbs. Republicans fear that if they lose this seat on the heels of what is called
the Grand Rapids disaster, no GOP candidate anywhere this year will be safe. White House
age in turn fear that a loss in the Ohio race will weaken the president's position with
congressmen who are wavering on the impeachment question. For a report on reaction to today's
indictment in that first congressional district of Ohio, Ike Pappas.
I really see nothing, nothing newer, nothing surprising. It seems to me that the indictments
which we've just heard about are about what most people in this area and I imagine most
people around the country have been expecting for some time.
As Republican candidate Bill Grattison toured a general electric plant outside of Cincinnati
today, he attempted to minimize the impact that Watergate indictments might have on his
chances. The people he says will vote for him because of his stand on the principal
issues in his district, mainly the economy and abortion. He had nothing to do with Watergate
therefore he feels he should not be judged by it. It is plain that Bill Grattison is
one Republican who does not seek the support of President Nixon.
One of the areas of my greatest disagreement is his entire handling of the Watergate situation.
I think it's been deplorable. I think he's been too secretive, too legalistic and I think
we would have had this whole matter over much quicker and the presentations could have been
made to the courts much faster if the president had come forward with the information which
he has available without all the delays. If it wasn't for Watergate you probably
would have had an easier time of it here, is that correct?
Well I'll let you know after Tuesday.
Former candidate Tom Lucan arrived at the same plant as news of the indictments was being
broadcast.
In my book it is evidence that is what the president's appointees have done while in
office and when he had failed to remove them. If this evidence indicates that he has been
deficient in that respect and failing to remove them, then that is a possible grounds for
impeachment in my estimation. I'm not making any judgment as to whether it is sufficient
grounds at this time on this sketchy bit of information.
Lucan gave no indication that he would use today's indictments in the final days of his
campaigning. He's already given a slight edge in the race and today's indictments are expected
to make him a solid favorite. Ike Pappas, CBS News, Evandale, Ohio.
Joining Daniel Shore, Fred Graham and me in our CBS News Washington studios now is Leslie
Stoll, another correspondent who has been active in our coverage of Watergate and related
affairs. Leslie, are there any other shoes to drop now in terms of special prosecutor
Leon Jaworski and the Watergate cover-up case?
Well the indictment itself had very few new revelations, but Jaworski himself said just
earlier this week that he personally says he understands the Watergate case itself.
There's nothing in this indictment that says, that charges specifically who ordered the
break-in into the Watergate or even why. Now I don't really expect that there will be more
indictments in this, but certainly in the trial we should learn exactly what these men
went into the Watergate for. We really don't know that yet.
It's one of the more often asked questions of why the Watergate burglars went into the
National Committee headquarters. What were they after? It's your theory that we'll find
that out at the trial.
Well Jaworski says he understands the whole Watergate story. I would expect that it will
come out, although no one has been charged in the break-in itself in this round of indictments,
only the cover-up. Also a thing to note is that this period between indictments and trial
is traditionally a time when defendants feel the pressure to plea bargain the most. As
Fred Graham said in his piece, Mitchell stands to get up to 30 years imprisonment, both Ehrlichman
and Haldeman stand to get 25 years each. The pressure is on them to make some kind of a
deal. I think the question we now have to ask is, one, can they take the pressure? But
even more important, can the President take the pressure? And that's not as much a political
question as it is a psychological and even a physical question, one about his health.
Keeping in mind when you say that they stand to get 25 or 30 years, that's if convicted
and those would be maximum sentences. Well Dan Schor, in your judgment, can President
Nixon take the pressure in first of all a political sense, secondly in a legal sense?
Well Dan, you notice that Senator Goldwater said that no evidence has yet been pointed
at the President. And I don't think he read the indictment because I think tonight, for
the first time, we can say that evidence by inference at least is pointed at the President.
The grand jury decided it could not indict the President. They'd been advised by special
prosecutor Jaworski that that would create great legal difficulties. But they described
a conspiracy. They called it a large and concerted conspiracy. And yet they didn't say who was
the head of the conspiracy. They also, as we developed earlier, said that he had perjured
himself when he quoted the President as having said that this payoff fund could be raised
but would be wrong. So I think there is an inference aside from whatever may be in this
special presentment which the grand jury has given to Judge Sirica, there is an inference
against the President in this indictment. And I think that this is another added source
of pressure on him. I would not be the venture to predict how he would react to it, but this
affects congressional races, congressional races affect him, and there is a momentum
to the whole process that seems now to be gathering even greater force.
Fred Graham, there is no possibility that we can outline at the moment that the President
will be in court. Is there?
Well, the conventional wisdom around here, Dan, has been that the President is now off
the hook. This was the one chance that he might have been brought into an indictment
some way and either embarrassed or actually brought in as a litigant. I dispute that,
Dan. I think that even though today in the indictment sense, that's going forward and
he's not in that. I feel that legal events are going to turn in such a way that he'll
be very much back in court, at least in three possible ways we can foresee. The subpoena
for those 27 tapes that Leon Jaworski says do concern the cover-up could issue. There
could be more litigation over those suspicious gaps and hums in those tapes. And then finally,
the House Judiciary Committee might have to go to court to enforce its subpoena. So we
could find when the election time comes around next November that rather than all of this
being a matter of the past, the President could be right back in the heat of court litigation
as he was that time last year.
Leslie Stahl, there were a number of people who were not indicted today that there'd been
a great deal of speculation about. Now, without zeroing in on any one person per se, for example,
what happened to Patrick Gray, who by his own testimony was responsible for destroying
some evidence?
Well, that's... I'd be very careful about that, Dan. He was responsible for destroying
something. We do not know that it was evidence.
Well, I was going to say that.
He destroys the papers.
We're not sure he was guilty of anything.
And it may well be that because somebody decided that was not evidence and therefore didn't
constitute obstruction of justice, it may have been misconduct but not a crime.
Is it also possible that Patrick Gray traded out his testimony for a promise of not being
indicted? Is that a possibility?
It's a possibility. Certainly, you can say so more assuredly with other people who are
actually mentioned in the indictment. Al Patrick Gray's name is never mentioned once in 50
pages, which is kind of interesting right there. I can't explain it. But there are other people
who are mentioned. For example, William Bittman, who was E. Howard Hunt's lawyer, is mentioned.
He is not indicted and he's not mentioned even as an unindicted co-conspirator. I would
guess that is because he's cooperating, but that's a guess. Other people like John Caulfield,
who actually offered defendant's executive clemency, are mentioned and not indicted in
any way. And one can only assume that they are cooperating, will testify at the trials.
This whole case was handled in a classical sense in that the prosecutors went after the
lower echelon people in the conspiracy to get the higher ups.
In the old-age conspiracy?
One sense it wasn't quite classical. Sometimes conspiracy cases, Dan, involve the kitchen
sink approach. You dump all of the charges into the kitchen sink, they're alleged abroad
conspiracy and hope out of all the charges some of them stick. This seems to have been
done very much the opposite way. You get the impression that the shaky charges were shucked
off and that these charges are charges that the prosecutors in any event very much believe
that they have a good chance of proving.
You think, Fred, that some of the charges which involve perjury against people who said
they failed to recollect certain things are very strong charges?
Yes, I do. I think that, well, again, pardon me, Dan.
Well, I'm sorry. I think we'll have to leave it with yes, you do.
The Watergate case is not the first scandal in American political history and one dares
to say it won't be the last, but it is in some ways unique. One of America's premier
political historians is Dr. William Luchtenberg of Columbia University and we asked him this
week to make an effort at putting Watergate and related events into some historical perspective.
I think there are only two previous episodes to which the current developments might reasonably
be compared. One is the grand scandals of the 1870s and the other is the scandals of
the Harding administration of the 1920s, particularly the notorious Teapot Dome affair. In some
ways the three episodes are similar. All involve Republican administrations, all take place
in the aftermath of a war and all reach to the cabinet level. And yet, despite these
similarities, I do think that the current developments are unique. And in two respects
in particular. One is that there's never been a previous scandal that so directly affected
so many people within the White House circle itself. And the second is that the two previous
administration scandals were primarily involved with financial corruption of one kind or other.
Whereas the Watergate affair touches the very nature of the democratic process, the very
essence of the political process. In that sense, it's unique and a great deal more frightening.
For Daniel Shurer, Leslie Stahl and Fred Graham, Dan Rather, CBS News, Washington. Good night.
Steak tastes better broiled with butter. Mushrooms taste better sauteed in butter. And now bread
and rolls taste better because we've added butter, pure creamery butter. So home pride
and rich bread butter top and new soft rolls taste buttery even before you butter them.
We like the bread so much we tried new home pride dinner rolls topped with butter. Delicious.
Butter top bread and new soft dinner rolls by home pride. The boss is going to be here
and the house smells of fried fish. Your back loves it. But to eat not to smell. Don't worry.
Renews it spray takes the worry out of household odors instantly. We're expecting big things
from you Henry in your new job. Sarah, your fried fish. Oh, my cooking got you the job.
My talent with a little help from Renews it. Renews it spray air freshener takes the worry
out of household odors instantly. This has been a CBS News special report. The Watergate
indictments. This broadcast was sponsored by Bufferin, the headache tablet that gives
you fast relief and is easy to your stomach.
This is CBS.