[ applause ] >> thank you. >> do you have sonya's e-mail? really? >> with congress away in it's 4th of july recess this week. we are featuring american history tv in prime time. tonight, it has been 40 years since the water gate breakin. francis o'brien describes the work by staff and search for special council to lead the inqui inquiry. this first portion is about an hour.

>> tell us about your work before you were recruited? >> i worked in a small town in ohio. i first started out as a schoolteacher in washington, d.c., in a high school. and then i was lucky enough through my brother to be hired by the john lindsey administration to be on a crisis task force. to deal with a lot of

communities. there was a lot of disruption in the schools. he had a plan you could get there before the police. it was an extraordinary experience and we dealt with school disruptions. that was my john lindsey experience and then i went to work for the congressman.

a friend knew me and they said would you like to go down and meet with him. we had this conversation and congressman deals were not the most forthcoming person. turns out i was hired in the interview. turns out i was hired right in interview. so that's how the job came about. >> was this interview about the time of the agnew proceedings? >> before. this was -- it was probably in the spring of '73, right around that time, because i started

when congressman -- remember this vividly. congress was in recess. so i had come to washington and congress was not here, because they're all on recess in august, and all of a sudden the agnew story broke and i'm sort of in washington, sort of my first experience is all the stories of spiro agnew, vice president agnew started coming out. that was sort of my first weeks in washington, d.c., starting with the agnew situation. >> do you remember the day that agnew came to the house? >> i certainly do. >> could you tell us about that. >> i thought he was one of the most handsome men i ever met. tall, stately. the impression i saw katie couric on the plane i was taking. she's not as tall as i thought. well, he came to the office, we were all sitting there, and he was very dignified, very

stately, and it was sort of 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. in terms of interviewing, the process, but that was my first impression as i remember back all these years. >> do you remember -- again it was a long time ago -- do you remember some of the challenges that congressman rodino faced regarding the agnew process? >> we faced challenges -- he faced challenges, from day one. remember, he -- he came to the chairmanship after a 50-year reign of manny seller, who was in those days one of the most important people in the civil rights committee, on the judiciary committee a member of

congress for many, many years and was one of the giants of the house, obviously, and through this fluke election of this holtzman out in brooklyn -- we're used to those now kind of upsets. she upset this icon, and this fairly unknown sort of party line congressman from new jersey is -- is all of a sudden put into this position, and so there were challenges all around, which obviously we'll talk about more as we get into the thing, but we didn't know what to do. in other words, this was all uncharted territory. i mean, here is -- here is the vice president of the united states being accused of, you know, of serious issues, and,

you know, the word impeachment started to come up. and this is something that none of us, certainly i had -- i had no knowledge of this. you know. and no members of the judiciary committee had any knowledge of this, or was it ever a part of conversations or anything. so there was a lot of scurrying, there was a lot of staff -- i remember just trying to put things together, and, you know, how do you question the vice president? what do you talk about? you know, what's our jurisdiction? so i remember all of that going around, and i'm not a lawyer. so there were things i was not involved in on the legal side, but clearly, as we will talk later, these are political events. not legal events in the sense when the house and the senate deals with impeachment or that these are -- these are at the core.

it's a political solution. so there was a lot of political discussions sort of 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 -- and, of course, the environment, unlike today, was extremely partisan. i mean you know, president nixon was a very -- he was a very 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 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. >> just to give the viewer a sense of these months. so the congressman rodino knows what, october he's going to be running this. >> correct. >> so october, november and december, you and your brother.

>> and anyone else we could get. >> running the search? >> correct. correct. and actually, the viewers won't see this but i showed you today one of the many files that has not been touched in 30 years, it was the file i kept of all the recommendations and research we found saying all of that out of just frustration, again to my older brother. one day he said, you know -- my brother worked for bob kennedy at one time. and he says, you know, there was -- he did not work in president kennedy's administration, but he worked for senator kennedy. both when he ran for the senate and then after. >> what's your brother's name? >> john. john o'brien. >> what did he do for the senator? >> a political aide. he worked in the '64 campaign. that's how he did it, and he was