he ends up getting elected to the state senate where he serves until he dies. his major downfall was that he wasn't a good enough leader. i don't think he was able to be the voice of his party like he was the face of his party here in kansas. i don't think he controlled what his party did enough for him to really make some strong reforms that he had advocated for. >> i also feel like it is part of listening to the moderate voice that the extremes, no matter how passionate they may be, sometimes it is the moderate voice that wins over in the long-run. this weekend, american history tv is featuring wichita, kansas. our local content vehicles recently visited wichita to learn about its rich history. learn more at c-span.org-localcontent.

next month we will feature jefferson city, missouri. a selection of the interviews will be televised for the first time on american history tv this june. over the next hour we will hear from francis o'brien. mr. o'brien describes the work and internal politics of the judiciary committee impeachment staff including the surprising search for a special counsel to lead the inquiry.

mr. dor presided over the hiring of a mostly young staff of lawyers and researchers including future of secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. mr. dor administration i shalled his staff not to talk about the proceedings. a warning he did for four decades. and now plan sis o'brien. francis o'brien. >> thanks for doing this. >> you are very welcome. >> give a sense of what you were doing before you started working with congressman rodino. tell us about your work with john lindsey. >> i'm from ohio. when first started i was a school teacher in washington, d.c. i was lucky enough through my brother who was -- working in

new york to get an interview and to be hired by john lindsey, john lindsey administration, to be on a crisis task force. a lot of disruptions in the various communities. i was assigned to brooklyn. and there were a lot of community boards and a lot of disruption in the schools. in the communities. and we felt if we set sent these folks out to mediate conflicts you could get there before police. it was an extraordinary experience, for someone like myself. we dealt with school disruptions, we dealt with community disruptions, and at one time there were five -- prisons in manhattan -- in the city of new york, taken over by the prisoners, i was signed to

negotiate with a team. this is all way beyond any life experience hi before then. that was-that was my john lindsey roughly speaking then. then i -- housing agency at one time for a short time before i went to washington. >> how did you get recruited? >> through a friend. a friend of his new me and they -- they called and said, you know, congressman is looking for a chief of staff for congressman rodino. would you like to go down and meet with him. i did. i went down to meet with him. i didn't have any other hill experience. we had this conversation. i'm sure others will tell you that -- congressman rodino is not the most forthcoming person in a conversation. you are never quite sure what he was saying to you. when i left the interview. i had no idea did it go well,

not well, was i hired, not hired. it turns out i was heard during the interview. >> this was during the agnew proceedings? >> before. probably in the spring of '73. because -- i start ed when congressman -- i remember this individually. congress was in recess. so i had come to washington. congress was not here because -- they are all on recess in august. and -- all of a sudden the agnew story broke. time washington, my first experience is all of the stories of agnew started coming out. that was my first weeks in washington, d.c., starting with the agnew situation. >> do you remember the day that

agnew came to the house? >> i certain dloy. >> could you tell us about it, please? >> one of the most handsome men i ever met. it was an odd impression. he is tall, very stately. kind of impressions of people. i saw -- katie couric on the plane and i was thinking she is not as tall as i thought. anyway, he came. he came to the house, the office. we were all sitting there. he was very dignified, stately. certainly my first time of meeting sort of a -- such a high-ranking member of the government. that was -- it was just -- it was a visual impression i had that day. separate from what we were going to do. that was my impression. >> do you remember -- again a long time ago. do you remember some of the challenges that congressman

rodino faced regard agnew process? >> we faced challenges. he faced challenges from day one. remember, he -- he came to the chairmanship after a 50-year reign of seller who was in those days, you know, most important people in the civil rights movement, judiciary committee. had been a member of congress for 50 years. for many, many years. and -- was one of the giants of the house, obviously. and through this plfluke electi out in brooklyn, we are used to those now, upsets. she upset this icon. and this -- fairly unknown sort of party line congressman from new jersey -- his -- all of a sudden put into this position.

there were challenges all around. obviously we talk about more as we get into the thing. but -- we didn't know what to do. this is all unchartered territory. now here's -- here is the vice president of the united states being accused of serious issues. and -- you know, the word -- impeachment started to come up. this is something -- hi no knowledge of. no members of the judiciary committee had any knowledge of this or -- was ever part of conversations or anything. there was a lot of scurrying, there was a lot of staff, i remember, just -- you know, trying to put things together. you know, how do you -- what do you talk about? what's -- what's our jurisdictions?

i remember all of that going rinds. there were things i was not involved in. these are political events, not legal events in the sense when the house and senate deals with impeachment. these are -- at the core. it is a political solution. there was a lot of political discussi discussions behind closed doors separate from, you know, vice president agnew or later president nixon on -- you know, what's our role, what do we do? you know, how do you -- of course, the environment unlike today is partisan. president nixon was a very i d

divisive figure. in other words, there was pro-nixon, anti-nixon. we right in the middle of the war. i mean, there were very challenging times that were, you know, sort of the surround, coming out of the '60s and the early '70s. that's basically all i remember, sort of impressionistic from vice president agnew. >> interviews we did with former members of the white house staff, there was a sense, there was a fear in october of 1973 of a double impeachment, that both agnew and president nixon would be impeached. and carl albert would become president. >> uh-huh. uh-huh. there was a lot of that talk.

but, of course, that wasn't reality. remember, the house -- the house at that time in my own experience, was very -- you had very liberal members. you had very -- members of congress that were representing feelings in parts of the country, but really strong feelings towards president nixon and vice president agnew, and clearly, there was conversations about this, but when you sort of got to the core of certain leadership in the house, including congressman rodino, the talk sort of dissipated and -- >> how -- because there was nothing -- there's nothing in the constitution that mandates this. how did the leadership in the house decide the judiciary committee would be responsible for the impeachment inquiry? >> it was a much debated issue. and from my recollection, this is a tip o'neill decision, in the end. first of all, there was, there was the constitution issue.

what's the correct -- what's the correct mechanism within the house? do you, you know, do you go through the judiciary committee? do you set up a special committee? i mean, there was all of these discussions. looming over this was peter rodino. a lot of these discussions would have not taken place, i don't believe, had manny still been the head of the judiciary committee because of his historic stature. this is an unknown entity, peter rodino, and at the time, not particularly well thought of. i mean, people liked peter rodino, but he was a machine politician out of newark, new jersey, who was sort of, sort of followed party line, and was very quiet.

was not a forceful figure, and so you had -- you had a sort of a legal issue on, i mean, within the house. how do you deal with this issue? and then there was this issue of the actual human beings who would, and there was -- this was an intensely discussed issue. and, again, i'm very nevous at this. being the chief of staff at the time, and this is all unfolding for the first time in front of me, and i'm trying to read and figure out, obviously very loyal to congressman rodino, but i don't know. and would come back -- but interesting, he put up a very, very strong argument for going through the judiciary committee, he being the lead of this effort. and sort of, you don't realize that. i mean, people just don't say, well, geez, i'm surprised, and yet he a very close relationship with tip o'neill, this is the, they go back, i think the congressman came in in the late '40s.

so they came into congress around the same time, and there is a strong relationship there. there's a strong loyalty, and in the end, again, i was never part of the conversations that took place in the speaker's office or in mr. o'neill's office but in the end they made the decision and i've always believed that it was tip o'neill's decision in the end that said, it's going to go to the judiciary committee and it's going to go to the whole committee. >> what role do you think carl albert played? >> i think, again, i think carl albert's probably underestimated, because you tend to do those things because tip o'neill was such a large figure. i think he was considered a wise head. he understood -- he understood the institution. he had a great, deep knowledge of the house and the institution, and i think was an

institutionalist in the house, and i think his voice was -- was counted. i just think that tip was such a strong figure and that he was more visible and more dominant sort of in those conversations, but my recollection was that -- i mean, people respected carl. >> so congressman rodino gets this responsibility. now you have to build a new staff, and you're chief of staff. tell me what you remember of that process. >> well, my assumption was, you are know, again, just there a couple months now, there was --

i remember i was here in new york at the time of the so-called saturday night massacre, because there had been talk of impeachment all that fall. you know, there was, i think, you know, john conyers, the congressman from california. the more liberal members and others. there were -- were starting to talk about that. they may, in fact, have even introduced articles into the house and legislation, et cetera, but the congressman was very, he was a very measured person and just very, very slow. in terms of coming to any kind of decision. but i remember one night -- again, i'm working off assumptions of a new person, and once a decision was made to the judiciary committee, we sat down in his office one night, and my assumption is, the staff on the committee would do this, and we were sitting in his office one night. i can remember this very well,

and in an -- i would not attempt to imitate the way the congressman talked, but he was very measured, and he said that he would like to create a new staff, and i thought, okay. and he said, if i would mind heading up that search for chief counsel. i can't remember my exact words, but my feeling was, a pit in my stomach, my god. this is way beyond my capacity, is what i thought at the time, but i said, fine. i walked out of the office. so that was -- that's how i got the news, and there's obviously a back story of why that decision was made, but which he and i and others were engaged in this conversation about how to deal with this, but i didn't think he would arrive at that conclusion, nor did i think i would be the person that was going to be the point person on

this. i'm not at lawyer. this is a committee that's all lawyers. i didn't even know any lawyers. i mean, i just -- i mean, i came out of that generation where you didn't even like lawyers. so it was, you know -- but that's a decision he decided, and the counsel of the committee at the time was a guy named jerome, very accomplished, had been there for years, very intelligent, but the congressman, i think, came to two conclusions. -- why he wanted to do this. i think he felt that jerry was too partisan.

he was a -- he very strong views on president nixon. very vocal. and i think mr. rodino didn't think he the measured personality that he thought, that the congressman thought would need. certainly had the intellectual skills but he thought he wasn't the person. another issue that was very important to the congressman as is all politicians is loyalty. he never said this directly. i don't think he felt that jerry was going to be loyal to him in the sense that jerry had served other members of congress, other members of the judiciary committee before he became chairman, and i think he felt that, again, a very strong issue

with congressman rodino because he just didn't feel he would have his complete loyalty in this most difficult endeavor. so i think if you put those two together, as a generalization, that's why he said, i think we need to form a new group, and first we must start with a -- with someone who will lead them. and that's -- that's how we got there. >> okay. now -- now the tough part. how do you, a non-lawyer, not from the that world, start to collect candidates? >> sometimes you never want to know how history is done. i remember i went back to my >> okay. now -- now the tough part. how do you, a non-lawyer, not from the that world, start to collect candidates? >> sometimes you never want to

know how history is done. i remember i went back to my office. it was right next -- in the rayburn building right next to the congressman's office, i sat down. it was in the evening when i did that, and i remember, i said to myself, i didn't know what to do. i mean, and it was clear from that conversation, it was always with dealing with the congressman, the chairman, there was always, had you to understand what was not said, because that was the important part of the thing with the congressman. it's what he didn't say, but what he meant to have said in that conversation. he didn't want me to go back to -- normally i'd pick up the phone, call jerry or somebody on the judiciary committee say, you know anybody? that clearly was not in the cards, because jerry was a candidate. he was a strong choice of many

members of the committee, both for his intellectual ability and for his political position. so i couldn't do that. so what i did often in my life, i called my brother in new york. another non-lawyer. and i outlined my challenge. i said what do we do? so we said, starting to ask people we know, but i didn't know anybody in washington. you know. so we said, there's a book, there's a law book, because i've seen it here that has, like, all the lawyers in the country. actually i think it's called hubbell -- >> martindale. >> hubbell-martindale. so i said, let's get that book. first of all, we sat down, my brother and i, and we thought about this. now we're back to the congressman, and i said before

we get to who, with names what are we looking for? i mean, i went back to the congressman, i think the next day or so. i said, give me the criteria. i mean, what -- what do you want in this person? and he -- he said first and foremost, this person should be -- should not be partisan. he obviously should be a person of intellectual standing. somebody who -- must be honorable. then he laid out a series of criteria which reminded myself and relate what i related to my brother, going back to the not too distant past to the mccarthy hearings. sort of looking for the modern version of joe walsh. welsh or walsh? >> walsh. >> joe walsh who was the chief

counsel i think of that inquiry, who was thought of as above reproach. who was a person of honor. so that became our, our talking point. in other words, we wrote down whack we were looking for. it was that model. and we would like the idea if the person would be republican. in other words that would be even the best that could you get a republican chief counsel and the congressman made that point me a number of times. that that would be the best of all worlds, to show sort of a non-partisan. okay. so that was a criteria. so what we did is, we said, let's -- let's start with -- we had this book. we didn't use anything. so my thinking, my brother's thinking, was, we'd call -- let's call law deans, we said. you know.

law deans know people. and we'll call maybe -- you call ten and i'll call ten. and we'll get them on the phone, and we'll lay out this criteria. tell them what we're doing, and we thought for sure they'll come up -- they'll be a name. they'll all have a name. that will be the name. we'll circle 9 name and i'll go in, say, here, congressman, here of the three names all the law deans like in the country. so we started on that path and we just looked up law deans all over the country from here to california. from harvard to ohio state, from california, we covered the universe. we covered all sections of the country and we had these conversations and most of the deans were very responsive. they were honored that we

called. and we laid out the criteria, and we asked them to think about it, and they would come back with names. and we just furiously start writing all these names down. well, there was no consensus. none. there were a lot of names. and then we had to figure out, okay. so you put a name -- so we had to research. and these were the days before the internet. the days before computers almost. so we had to do all this manual research and find out how old these people were, what's their background? and then i'd get -- i'd get staff from the congressman's office. not the judiciary. the congressman's office to do the research and we would research these people. and some just -- didn't fear have enough experience. some were too old at the time. et cetera. so this kept going on for some time, and outside of that room there's enormous pressure building on the congressman for not forming this, the staff.

he had told the leadership he would form the staff. he had told the members of the judiciary the search was on. i do not think he told who was leading that search, but the search was on and he was interviewing people, and this went on for some time, and the pressure was just enormous on us at the time, and just on the congressman and on all of us on trying to come up with this, and the months passed. finally, we started -- and then i started asking -- i started asking everybody. anybody new. the chief justice at the time of the supreme court was. >> risker. >> sort of inexperienced.

my brother calls him up in the search and asked if he could come see me. try and think in this day and age, and said who he was, and what he was doing. and cop he come by and see him. this actually took place. he met him in back chambers. and my brother asked him. he didn't -- as my brother -- he didn't come up with any names, but he thought what we looking for -- i thought we way out of bounds, actually here. in terms of what we were doing,

because we just didn't know. but i don't -- i think justice berger just -- my brother's outline, this is the -- i think he agreed, and made some other -- but came up with no names. he felt it was not his place to name anyone, but he saw him. then i started asking, and to think about today if you did this, i started asking reporters. i didn't know any reporters but reporters started covering this, and there was a few i knew, and i started asking report first they knew anybody. these reporters who i thought -- >> jimmy breslin, was he covering this at that point? >> he was covering this. >> did you ask jimmy breslin. >> absolutely i asked jimmy breslin. >> why are you asking me? >> jimmy breslin -- interesting, no one ever said anything. no one thought this was new. meanwhile, they'd go out the next day and attack us, but none of these conversations were ever passed, and if they knew anybody -- again it was a very different era, but that didn't happen.