it's already done. >> wait a second. i thought it was a fact finding mission. >> it was already -- it was being built. okay? >> i'm sorry. i shouldn't -- there were -- they were -- >> i got yelled at. there's no doubt about it. i got yelled at. okay? i got really yelled at. >> what did the, what did the, what did the committee members think? >> i never asked them. >> what they didn't know they were going to be on tv? >> i don't know. i can't remember -- >> we have to tell the audience, they won't know this, because this is a c-span world. >> right. >> congress wasn't televised. >> no. there was nothing on television, ever. watergate, the watergate hearings were on, right? and, and again, all the congressman kept saying to me all year, he said to everybody, it wasn't like he said it to me was, this decision, whatever it may be, had to be approved by the american citizens. i'm thinking how else would you do this? i mean they had -- they had to be a sense of opens.

there had to be a sense i mean he had me going out every day and meeting with all these press people, you know, and keeping them informed without talking about the proceedings. you know, so there had to be some extraordinary trust that i had to build up with this generation of reporters, number one. because clearly things were said that never got -- you had to give people context. so, and there were important institutional papers. "the new york times." all these papers that set the tone. you had to deal with them and you had to give them context to constantly, so there were great reporters like jim naughton, bill cavage, actually the citizen post was not one of the major -- they were the major paper on the watergate but they sort of missed -- they didn't quite understand the -- this wasn't an investigation. in other words, they, they sort of missed reporting on the -- on impeachment because it wasn't an

investigative. so it wasn't a bob woodward bernstein kind of investigation. weren't uncovering facts. it was a process. so you're -- the reporters, and organizations stepped forward were -- were people who understood process much better. again -- >> so you -- >> you know, you had, again, congressman kept saying, you had -- you can't leave people in the dark. you have to, in proper time, keep people informed. keep the members informed. in other words you had to move everybody along at the same time. there so my job wound up sort of dealing with that outside world. and his job was to deal with the inside world. >> did you deal with woodward or bernstein? >> no, rarely. two or three times. never came. bob came and told me you know, whispered those things in my ear and i said i have no idea what he's talking about and so he went away. >> there was a list one of the people you asked for recommendations for -- >> i don't remember. >> but -- >> it could have been. it could have been. still a very close friend. mary mcgrory, i might have asked

mary. she was a great reporter in her time. >> daniel? >> no. no. he was too -- he was too investigative reporters for -- i grew to like dan shore a lot but he was -- no, there was a whole group of jack nelson who was a great civil rights report -- it wound up there was a generation of reporters, and that's why john doar became so important. there was a whole generation of reporters, bill cavage, jack nelson and others who went south in the -- in the early '60s and covered the civil rights movement, who then became bureau chiefs and senior reporters and those are the people you -- there was a -- developed a great rapport with them. but the point is, it's not -- that's irrelevant. what's relevant is you had to keep the public informed as you moved along. >> i'm going to move so some things that might not have been o'brien decisions. >> thank god. >> the decision not to investigate.

to actually base the whole proceeding on the work done by the watergate special prosecution force, the senate watergate committee. >> i don't know -- i remember that was a decision made. >> yeah. >> but that was a decision made, i mean i was sitting there, but sort of that was way above me kind of thing i didn't understand but that was a decision made within the committee, within the leadership of the house, and with the staff, and with the -- i mean, that's -- they came to that conclusion. but i don't -- i think they thought they had everything. first of all, i don't think they had the manpower. i don't think we had the wherewithal to do original investigation. i believe. but that's -- >> but you could have hired more people. >> could have. i just don't remember now. you'd have to ask others who were in a better position than i was. >> the decision to issue a subpoena based on, that must

have been hard. for some people that did not want -- >> very hard. it was a very -- i remember, again, that was -- i would be an observer in the situation like that. you know, and those discussions took place extremely intense, i think some of the members and the lawyers that you'll interview or have to interview, we'll talk about that, just very intense. again, not arguing, but just, didn't know what to do. i mean, this is, you know, these are -- and that's how rodino treated everything. everything was momentous. i mean, again, you had to respect the presidency. you had to respect the institution. and you had to respect the person who held that job, was president nixon. so everything was dealt within that context. he set the tone. so you just don't willy-nilly just send a letter to the president or subpoenas or whatever. you just -- you just don't do that without a lot of thought. a lot of forethought. >> do you think he was reluctant? >> sure he was reluctant.

he was very reluctant. he was reluctant, yes he was reluctant to do it. because it was -- it was precedent setting. it was -- it was a larger decision. he was very reluctant. >> do you think that mr. doar had to convince him? >> yes. i think he -- john had to present the case. he had to, as a good lawyer would, he had -- he had to present why this was critical. yes, absolutely. >> do you remember the decision to retranscribe some of the tapes because the transcripts weren't very good or it was felt they weren't good? >> i don't remember that but i remember it happened. >> tell us, since you did not know how the process would go, tell us about the effect of -- of the supreme court decision, the unanimous decision against the president -- >> i think it was a jolt to the committee. this is more of a member issue,

in other words i think that w was -- that was like a wild moment. wow, w-o-w, wow, i mean it just -- and i think it had a powerful impact on the republicans. that's how i remember. >> do you remember ever playing the smoking gun tape? >> no. >> do you remember the effect of the transcript of the smoking gun? >> mm-hmm. mm-hmm. >> do you remember the effect on the chairman? >> nothing. there was -- i mean, he absorbed it. i remember we talked about it one evening. it was just, you know, it was rather a matter of fact conversation. i remember that kind of thing. i was like sort of flabbergasted. i can remember myself. i'm sitting there thinking man,

wow, they're just reporting this. and it was all, i can remember, my vague memory that was all very matter of fact. in other words john and i think a couple of the lawyers, it was just, it was a matter of fact conversation. that's all i remember. but in my mind i'm thinking, wow, this is -- this is really important. >> you didn't know, nobody knew, the president was going to resign. >> no. >> so you had to think about presenting to the house -- >> we -- >> what was the next step supposed to be for you? >> actually, i had already started. i went over and met with mr. mansfield, you know, sort of what does this mean? you know, what's the -- he sent me off just to meet with -- >> you mean to talk with the senate? >> yeah, to talk with the senate. i went over there a couple of times. i think there was preparation. i mean i know there was

preparation. i was not involved in those conversations. for some reason he wanted me to go start talking to the senate. before his staff did, or the committee, and i remember i had a couple conversations with mr. mansfield's staff. >> can you recall any? >> just -- just procedural. you know, what's the -- again, what's the process -- and i was sent over on a matter of fact finding. you know, what's -- how are you going to go about? you know, if this comes here, what does it mean? that kind of thing. and just -- and i think he -- he didn't want any sort of connection from the staff to be because he didn't want to give the impression all of a sudden you know this is a done deal and we're over in the senate. so he wanted some very informal conversation. i think he was just looking for knowledge. what's -- >> this is before the votes? >> yeah. this was -- >> was there a timetable? when would the house -- when was the house supposed to vote? again, it never happened because the president resigned. >> sometime that fall.

>> so it was going -- there were going to be a few months, because, of course, your votes were at the end of july. so you were going to go in to an august recess. >> come out in the fall. >> oh, my goodness. this would have been a drawn out process. >> so we didn't know. in other words, we just aassumed that. again, nobody had been through this before so we don't know what the house would have done. in other words, if -- once it left our hands -- it's like that. it leaves your hands. in other words this goes to the full house, then, and other people start taking control, you know, speaker -- you know what i mean, this is now that timetable is no longer the chairman's timetable, so we just had to start making assumptions, and preparing, but what conversations did -- and there was a lot of conversations, by the way, with the speaker, and with mr. o'neal about they had to start preparing for this, that this was going to happen. but i sort of never thought,

would have been august break. we just didn't know. but you know, so we thought it would be pretty soon after the vote. but i -- we always thought, you know, september. >> and then it would go to the senate? >> yeah. by the end of the year. we were -- what conversations we had he always thought this would be done by that year. >> you mean the trial would occur in the senate by the end of the year? >> if, in fact -- if, in fact it -- you know, the steps move forward, he was found charged, you know, and then tried, that the process he thought would be over, he guessed, we were just, that was just random conversations. no one knew. >> did anyone know if the -- in the -- the inquiry -- your staff would play a role of the -- >> don't know. i don't remember those conversations. i don't -- you'd have to ask the staff. >> did -- did the congressman

edit the statements of information? did he actually go through and make suggestions to -- >> mm-hmm. beyond the charges? you mean on the -- >> well, first of all, i meant just the -- the material -- >> mm-hmm. mm-hmm. >> did he edit the articles of impeachment? >> mm-hmm. he did. and he can't -- because i don't know. but i remember, yes, they'd bring over and they'd talk and he would -- he would talk about this, and this wording, that wording, what did this mean, and that kind of, yeah, there was that. and other members, too. i mean, he was not -- >> did he, did he, did he did, did he want to get rid of a few of these articles? >> he thought some were -- again, he put it through the political prism of -- of the process. and i thought he -- and i can't remember what -- i mean he was stronger about some than others. >> i'm afraid to want to -- the

secret following of -- which was the fourth article and the fifth taxes. >> he thought that was too plate cal. >> the cambodia one? >> yeah. >> what about the taxes and the president's -- >> i don't remember. i remember the cambodia thing came up we thought we played right in to a partisan kind of anti-war -- doesn't matter what we were or the members of the committee, he just thought that was outside -- he wasn't comfortable. >> but he couldn't prevent it? >> no. he couldn't. but you asked me what he thought. >> so this was -- do you think it was something he did to appease -- >> yeah, he had to. it was -- but it's a vote. i mean, his -- his judgment would be not to do it. but that -- that wasn't his call. >> part of the pressure on him, and you mention this to me off camera, we talked -- you said that the white house tried to mop it up. what do you mean? >> right. -- new jersey.

you know, it's -- it's the cliche, that you know, kind of mob connected, political member. there was a lot of corruption out of newark. his roommate congress mavn who became mayor, went to prison. there were a lot of politicians out of the wards of newark and surrounding area who went to prison. and found have connection to organized crime. so the white house immediately upon once the process began started putting stories out that he was -- he was influenced or in some way connected to the families. the crime families. of new injurypy jersey. and this was -- we had to answer this on a regular basis. we had to deal with this issue almost every day in the early

days. and papers put major investigations upon this. and i do believe it was finally "the wall street journal" came forward with a story just ending this. there actually was a tape that -- there was a series of tapes. there was a tape that they uncovered, must have been fbi tape or some tape that they uncovered that where he is brought up in the tape, and the clear and i don't remember the exact word, but the clear implication of the tape is, that he's not one of us. and that was it. and there was a story in "the wall street journal" and others but that -- very, very intense from sort of summer starting with the fact -- vice president agnew right through the fall in to the winter, we had to deal with these constant stories of -- of his -- his reported

connections to organized crime. >> how did you become convinced that the white house was behind some of this? >> who else would be? i mean, it's sort of logic. i mean who else, i mean, where would these -- and reporters would come to you and say, this is we just heard this you know, et cetera. and they just, you know, we knew where it was coming from. they just -- there was nothing you could do about it. you just had to stand up, say here, here, here, this is who he is. this is his record. these are his finances. this is you know, you just had to, you had to put your palms up as we say and say, you know,. >> one of the other decisions that the chairman had to make was whether to call witnesses to be interrogated, interviewed. nine people -- >> mm-hmm. >> judge colson. do you remember how that came about what what role the chairman played besides making the call? >> well, he made the call to do

it. i think this was a strong staff, i think feeling that they had to call these people. i never partook in any of those because it was a committee issue. i wasn't permitted to be in those, there's no reason to be in those hearings so i don't remember any of the meetings themselves. >> where were you when you found out that president nixon was going to resign? >> we were sitting in our office. and in the building, with the congressman, and the old tv set right there. and we got a call. i believe from saint claire, got a call from someone, that president was going to go on television and trying to remember, 9:00, i forget, and resign. we were just in utter shock. i guess we were sitting there. that night just -- we didn't know what to say. nobody said anything. we were just -- it was just shock. it never entered our minds. ever.

at least none of the people i've -- >> you thought he would -- the president would fight right up to the trial? >> why wouldn't he? didn't show any signs, and there was just, there was nothing. it sort of took our breath away. >> did you ever have a conversation with congressman rodino about the -- >> mm-hmm. he understood it. but he didn't think it was right. that he was -- i understood it. he understood president ford's motivation. most of this -- let's get the country healed. but again, you go back, what i've said often in this conversation, he was very much much a process person. he thought, he thought you let, you let the system carry forward. but he wasn't strong. he didn't have a -- in other words, i had a much more visceral reaction than he did.

i can remember this conversation we had. he just said i understand what -- again, he knew very well, and had a good relationship with president ford. he said i understand. i understand how we have to move on. but he -- being institutionallist and a process person he thought that was not the right decision. >> by the way, since we're talking about -- the vice president ford later president ford before that congressman ford you remember the politicking around the selection of the vice president by the president by president nixon and the fact that john connally was his first choice? >> mm-hmm. >> what do you -- >> it's all in the -- and you know a lot of the conversation was which we had to sort of filter out. a lot of conversation he picked president ford because who'd want him as president? it was a very common sort of thought at the time. it was irrelevant to us.

but i remember rodino, he liked gerald ford. he thought he was a fine, decent man, he knew him for years. but that was sort of the -- that was sort of the common wisdom p?

did they have more respect for him afterwards? >> oh, yeah. he had a very wonderful rest of his career. he was honored. he loved it. you know, as a congressman in new jersey. lovered the attention. he'd go to speak. yeah, he was deeply -- you know there was an aura about him that he carried for the rest of his career. again all the members then honored him. i remember i went to his funeral, and there was charlie rangel, people who had long gone, you know, in their own -- had all their own distinguished careers, et cetera, and came back. and so, yeah, he was -- he liked that. >> can you give us a word picture, of course he died relatively young, what was barbara jordan like?

>> she was -- i have no more to add -- she was just like wonderful. you like to be with her. in other words she'd come in a room, she'd fill a room. you think, wow, there's some kind of -- she'd just fill a room. she had -- she had the voice, and all of that was wonderful. but she was -- she had a lot of energy. she was big. and so you'd like to be with her, because she was funny. and you know, she was, again, she was just a freshman. so it was that sort of distance but again the chairman. the chairman liked -- why wouldn't you like to be around barbara jordan. she would just fun. and she was smart. and he thought, you know, this is -- he thought, wow, what a wonderful career she had ahead of her. he always said that. my goodness, he said, this member's going to go far. >> did -- did -- did the chairman do anything at the end of the process special or or just to -- to thank the staff?

>> yeah. he thanked the staff. i don't remember -- he thank thanked -- i think he went down, because remember he spent, this sort of all went back to normal in the sense that all of a sudden 125 people went away or whatever that number was and there it was. >> did he go to the congressional hotel to see them to see their offices? >> yeah, he went over. he went over a number times. he went over often during the process. bought, again, there was a lot of bitterness. you've read the books and the stories of people who were unhappy on the left with the process. jack brooks and others were still -- others were, i guess, for years carried on that they were very unhappy with the way this was conducted. >> but they wanted five articles? >> i don't know. you'd have to go back -- toy just -- they were unhappy -- they just didn't feel he -- he,

john doar, were -- were their choices and they didn't carry the process as they would have. i don't know what that means. in other words we go back and look at historically, i'm thinking, what other momentous event in our history has been sort of accepted by -- by the american public, and then that's how the process was supposed to work. but they, you know, listen, it was a very traumatic undertaking. so you're not going to get -- you're not going to get unanimous opinion on this. >> you think the process worked? >> i think the process worked. right on. >> you leave government, then you go on to the movie business. >> mm-hmm. >> you had something to do with -- >> yes. i want to leave. it doesn't matter what i did. i remember -- wonderful mentors. i had peter rodino. i had another wonderful mentor

named john gardner who was the founder of common cause, and i met him through this process and he was just a wise human being. and when this process ended i said what do i do with my life? you know, i said, you know, do i stay in -- and he's the one who says go reinvent yourself. he's constantly reinvent yourself. just this wonderful man and i decided i wanted to do something that was completely not -- this was it. i said, i love -- i mean, great respect for government, great respect. i just don't want to do it again. it was such a traumatic undertaking. and i said, so, i spent a year, john again john gardner was very wise, and he guided me through this year and i talked to all kinds of people. i went to ibm. up in new york. they all wore black and shoes and -- i fit in today, actually. but you know, and you try to interview with people and they'd say, what have you done? you know?

go to a business what have you done? wow, i just did something. but it didn't count. you know, i didn't have an accounting degree or a law degree, but then i got attracted to the movie business, barry diller was -- because they don't care who you are. it's sort of, you could -- they didn't care where you came from. that's what i loved about the business is just -- just -- it's true. you could work in the mail room one year and be president of the company -- i just loved the idea there were no rules in the movie business. and that so i thought what i wonderful way to sort of drain myself of this world, take a challenge, i had to know nothing about, you know, and go out, and i spent a number of -- wonderful years with, you know, barry diller, and michael eisner, katzenberg, a number of great people at the time, we had a great time. charlie bluehorn owned it. he was wonderful to deal with. then i went on and left there and said enough of that.

louis mal became a great friend. i was editing one of his scripts once, and again, like being in the impeachment, i didn't know nothing. so he looks up at me and goes francis, and we became great friends. he said because i had no idea what i was doing. editing louis mal's script. but anyway, i loved it. and then i -- i lift, i said, this is wonderful. and headed out to australia, because there was a lot of young, interesting, dynamic filmmakers coming out of australia, and i thought it would be fun. and then woo came across a story, and i had to go get money, had to get financing, and i got money from from, it was still alive, guy named bob who was manager of the bee gees and others, and he produced saturday night fever, greece and all those and then the half he told me now go find the rest of the

money, went back out to australia and i met this little newspaper man. who owned a bunch of newspapers, and, he thought movies were frivolous, and totally frivolous because he was a newspaper man, but i knew something that he knew but we never talked about it, but he gave me half the money because his father was the most instrumental person on telling the world about this tragedy, it was rupert murdoch. and so that was -- that was extraordinary experience. and i went on -- >> he knew that about rupert murdoch's father before you met rupert murdoch? >> we never talked about it. but when he said go find money, because doing our research, peter and i were doing research, we said this is how the story's got told because rupert murdoch was a reporter and he snuck out with all the dispatchers to london and times of london so you know we knew that. so when i went to pitch the story, told him it's col uply he

never said a word and i never said a word because why would he -- i mean he had such a big empire. why would he waste his time on just a frifl husband little film that was peanuts to him, but of course, what it was, i tapped in to an honor with him. >> peter weir is the one who brought mel gibson? >> yes. he found -- he found mel gibson. he was -- had an interesting career. he was -- he's an american, born upstate new york. went to australia when he was 10. and had been in a few minor films and we saw him onstage, actually, in a play and he actually could not understand. his australian accent was so thick we sort of had to give him american lessons when we did the film. but you could tell then, extraordinary potential. but peter found, yeah, peter, peter was also extraordinary direct director. wonderful person to deal with. so that was an