political person, but he called one day and said you know, there was a man named john doar who worked for president kennedy and works for senator kennedy who was -- who during president kennedy's administration was a very well-known civil rights lawyer, and was one of the people that the justice department then robert kennedy was attorney general sent south to -- to help work on the civil rights issues that were there at the time and was very highly respected. so i took that in.

great. so we began the search. well, where's john doar? no internet. no computer. i didn't know how to spell his name. so i had d-o-r. d-o-r-e. i just couldn't find him. so finally i get ahold of my brother, i said, you have to call somebody in the kennedy family and -- so, anyway, turns out we found him and he was i believe at the time the head of a corporation, which was a, i think a community help organization founded by robert kennedy. i believe. but i think that's where he was or had been there. anyway, clearly then we did -- clearly he started to catch our attention. certainly caugatntion d others, because of his background. turns out he was, he was appointed by president eisenhower. hired by president eisenhower. he was a republican from the midwest. he had this incredible reputation while at the justice department. so he started to get on our list. and i started to feed these

names to the congressman as -- and there were maybe ten that we decided that had reached the place where they would meet congressman rodino's criteria and that it was time for him to start meeting these people and we began the interview process. i think john doar remembers that -- i think i called him. i think that's how he remembers it. that i'm the one who called him and had him come in, and i can't remember the time. i think i talked to him first. you have to think about that for a minute, for people who are watching this. here was this young staff person. not a lawyer. very low experience. i'm interviewing sort of the icons of the civil rights movement for this job, but clearly, i'm just a clearing house. anyway, we present the names.

he interviewed the various candidates, and he came to the conclusion, he thought that john doar was the person that he wanted, that would meet his criteria. we called john doar. i think i made the call to john doar. of course, you never want to put a person in this position. i called john doar to say, if you're going to be asked, would you accept it if you're asked? and he said that he would. so i told the congressman that he would and he called the congressman and he was hired. >> after the judiciary committee approved the three articles of impeachment, the "new york times" wrote a story about the history of the committee and made the argument that -- that congressman rodino had a hard time making up his mind and that in order to push him to make up his mind, somebody leaked to the press the names of john doar and a few other people.

it's true that the -- is it true that the congressman had a hard time? >> i don't think he a hard time. he was extremely judicious. where you are in your point of history, that became one of the great aspects, because, again, he had a conversation one night. he said -- of course, i was this very young sort of let's get going staffer, and he said to me one evening, he said, you know, i don't know how this is going to come out. this inquiry, and he took it extremely serious. he said, there could be nothing more serious in this country than the potential removal of

the president of the united states. and he said, you know, once you begin this process, you can't stop it. it will go to a conclusion. i don't know what that conclusion is, but before we begin, i want to make sure that we're on the right path, and we have done the right thing, and i think that was always utmost in his mind, that -- that once the process began, it will follow a course, and there will be -- and he was right. you know. once an inquiry opens, once you get your staff, he said to me, i don't know what it's going to be. so i think he was very judicious, some say had a hard time making up his mind. i think he probably did because there was no -- he had nothing to fall back on. there's no history here. as you well know. there's -- i remember we put a book together. i still remember it. a thin little book with a tan binding that was sort of the

history of impeachment that we as the judiciary staff, we will go back to johnson's time to go back to the 1860s to find out if there was any history of, what do you do? and there was no history. so this was all very uncharted. and he was not about to go into this in a way that was not judicious. he was under a lot of pressure, because many members of this committee, as it is today, were very liberal, and, again, he did not have standing. he was not -- you know, he didn't have the respect when he took over the committee that manny had, and he to earn that respect. so the same time he'd been given this extraordinary task, he has to build credibility with his committee. he has to hold them off.

they have to believe the path he has taken is a correct path, and that it is a balanced path, and that it's not a partisan path, and this was very difficult. so it took him -- he took his time and what almost amazed me, it never bothered him. i used to get very nervous. pressure never bothered him. he just -- bothers all people, but he was just very calm about it. >> i'm going to jump ahead, because you raised something. what about the time when he thought he was having a heart attack? remember in february? gets sick. this is the time when they're discussing the -- >> i remember that. it doesn't -- it doesn't come to. he rip as such a -- i think he got sick, and they thought maybe he some kind of heart -- but it was not -- at least internally it was not considered, oh, my god. i think he was under a lot of

pressure, and i think he what everyone has, high blood pressure or whatever, but i don't -- it's something i don't remember much about. >> okay. by the way, did -- did melvin, the former secretary of defense, play any role what so ever in the selection of john doar? >> i think had supported it. i think there was -- in other words, once doar's name came to the floor, and once it started to surface, i think -- maybe laird and others, true the back-door messaging said that they thought that was an honorable choice. >> was there any pushback from the more partisan democrats on the committee because you had chosen a republican? >> yes. there was a lot of -- there was

a lot of displeasure in the more liberal elements of the committee and i think in the house that -- here's a republican. this is an incredible undertaking, and why would you ever pick a republican to do this? and i think there was that. there was a lot of criticism. everybody had an opinion. because this was such -- so, again, my amazement is, how the congressman dealt with that. he just sort of, you know, he was always in his three-piece suit, also very calm and he just -- he just absorbed and just moved on. >> francis, was there pushback from more partisan republicans because you selected somebody who was associated with the kennedys? >> yes. well, that was the argument you could see right away. on the one side you had -- here's some big, liberal left wing person and then democrats saying, here's some republican.

in the congressman's mind -- this is all said many years later, he's thinking, this is about right. in other words, because he knew in his mind that the pathway would not be either one of those. it would not be -- if the conclusion was to be made that president nixon would be found guilty or not guilty of charges of impeachment, that it's not going to be made by that partisan element or that partisan element, then he felt it had to be made, the conclusion had to be made out of this what he called this middle. >> do you at a certain point say to mr. doar, once he's hired, now it's up to you to recruit the rest of the staff? or do you participate? >> well, i had to sign off as the chairman. i had to sign off.

there's a back story. there was a time -- because that's all i did. i was chief of staff, but i didn't do any of this rather house work. you know, a lot of thing, committee meetings were taking place, and, you know, normal business was taking place, but i was only doing this. so a number of times i asked him, did he not think i should go on the committee staff? because there are certain things where only members of the committees or staff of the committee could participate in certain meetings, and he always, he said, no. he said, i don't think -- i'd rather keep you here. and it was -- it was difficult a lot of times, because, of course, it sort of restrained my activities, but then it became clear later that no committee member could get to me, because if you're on a committee staff, a ranking member could have you fired or, you know, could do whatever, but you can't do anything to a personal staff.

so he said -- i didn't realize this until much later, as he had me do various activities within the -- with different members and that. but one of the things was signing off. so john, this was up to him. remember, of course, the minority had picked a, a counsel who, by the way, was on our list, was on the chairman's list, for chief counsel. and it was mr. jenner from chicago. i can't remember his first name. >> burt. >> burt. >> did the congressman rodino interview jenner for the job? >> i don't remember. i nope he was on the list, because i remember talking to him one night saying this is a great choice. again, he met the criteria from rodino's point. he thought he was honorable.

he thought he was not partisan. he was republican. you know, strong republican roots, but out of chicago, but -- and he thought he had the intellectual heft. so he was very pleased with that choice when they picked -- so that was done. then a lot of politicking, because this is a political process. take place in picking the staff. because the counter -- to satisfy the more liberal members of the committee, they wanted their person on the staff. who came in the name of cates. >> dick cates? >> yeah. dick cates from wisconsin.

i believe he was -- and -- that was challenges because that wasn't john doar's selection, because he didn't meet -- but politics play as very important role here and so he was chosen as a very high ranking, could be deputy counsel at the time, but -- and then -- but john essentially had the job of interviewing and assembling the staff that became over 120 people, and i think he had a fairly open or control over that. in other words i think he was given a free hand is what i'm trying to say doing that. there were political choices we had to make. his members would have their choices, that john would have to

interview, but i do remember one in particular. brooks was a very powerful member from texas, and you're a populist liberal and not happy with sort of the -- i think he selected -- he didn't have the fire that jack brooks had, and certainly john doar didn't have the fire that jack brooks wanted, and jack brooks sort of led a -- the group that actually involved jerry szekely and a whole team that we had to deal with over the whole course of the inquiry. but i remember one day i got called up from congressman brooks' office, asked to come

over. so i went over, and jack brooks had a resume in front of him. jack brooks says, boy, he said -- and he said this gentleman's name who i can't remember at the time. he was on the staff. a young lawyer from yale or something, and he said, do you know so and so? i said, yes, sir. chairman assigned -- he's a member of the staff. he said, boy, do you know where he's from? i said, i'm not sure what school he went to. he said, no, sir. he said, do you know where he was born? i said, no, sir. he said, he was born in beaumont, texas. he says, does that mean anything to you? i said, no, sir. you have to think, this is another generation, and i was dressed in a little three-piece suit, a thin tie. jack brooks reaches across the table, grabs my tie. and starts pulling me across the desk. big desk. he said, boy, that's my district. he said don't you ever hire

somebody from my district without getting my approval. my neck tie was very tight at that point around my neck. and he dropped me. i go, yes, sir. so i went back. jack brooks -- i had the approval. john doar hired this person. highly qualified, congressman said, fine, i signed off on it. just a normal procedure. i think jack brooks many times called the congressman and want immediate fired, because, you know, i had done this, and this just can't happen. this is, you know a breach of protocol, you just never do this, and the congressman, being a good politician said, jack -- he said, sometimes i just can't control the kid. he just does things that i just can't, you know -- i just don't understand. then began the great

relationship between the congressman and myself understanding my role and the role of everyone. and, anyway, he was hired. and i think he's a very well-known lawyer today. i just can't remember his name, but, anyway, to your, you know, making the story long for you. just john essentially -- john, mr. jenner and others picked the staff. they had -- they had a pretty good, 90% of the staff was their choice, and i think they picked some of the best people, and you'll later see, in the country. >> do you remember any of the republicans pushing for their -- >> pushing for staff? >> yes. >> oh, absolutely. oh no. everything was -- it was very -- it was very easy.

this was very partisan, yes. very tense, yes, but there was a cordiality and respect between the two parties. the ranking member was congressman hutchison who was quite eloquent, and had the deep respect of chairman rodino, but hutchison was up in age and this obviously was very stressful for him. so the second ranking republican was a gentleman by the name of mcclory from illinois, i think, and he became very important. in other words, he -- congress was in constant consultation with him, and there was that relationship where you, you know, that you respected each other. it was a lot of partisanship. there was a lot of people out on the fringes but a deep institutional respect between the two parties and there wasn't i think some of the rancor that

exists today, even though this is an unbelievable story, undertaking, with enormous amount of partisan input here. >> can you help us understand that? because as you said, it was a partisan time and yet there wasn't the rancor. >> yes. >> so how -- was it just the wa rancor. so was it the way the congressman interacted with each other? >> i think institutionally, the institution was still very strong. the congress, both the house and the senate, had very strong leaders. i think there was a lot of respect on both sides of that aisle. and the one i remember being there all of those years ago, it was time to be partisan. it was time to bring these different bills up. and, yes, there was a lot of name-calling. but it was all within boundaries. it was always within a boundary. but i think personality -- we forget our personalities. personalities make a great deal

of difference. contradina knew all of these people. they spent enormous amount of time together. a lot of the times in the gym, actually, where they all went to the member's gym. congressman was a daily participant. i think he played handball in the gym. but they ate lunch together. you know? they went to the members' dining room. there was just a lot of, if not socializing in terms of not going out to dinner, but there was a lot of -- people knew each other. and when you know somebody, there's a lot of respect for the other person. so i think the personalities really helped. of course, you know, as you look back at history now, it's so many of these members on both sides of the aisles came up. it sort of makes me proud about the house. these are just sort of unknown people and they rose to the occasion, which is just -- it's chilling.

in fact, when you think back of the story of how these sort of average members who, you know, most citizens never heard of stepped up and took this as an extraordinary duty. as a public servant. and that it rose above -- yes, it was partisan. but felt very strongly that if you're going to conduct this inquiry, it had to be a fair inquiry. and i think there was a core that believed that the question was would this be a fair inquiry? i mean, that was always the overriding question. >> well, one of the first challenges for the congressman was to decide the debate that was happening among the staff as to whether these proceedings would be viewed as a grand jury where the president's council could not be involved. and at least from my reading of the story, mr. doher really felt

there should be a grand jury. but the congressman overruled it. >> right. >> do you remember that? >> um-hmm. >> could you tell us -- >> well, i just remember -- i remember saying, you know, i'm not a lawyer, but i remember saying whatever happens, just about every evening during the week, the committee was housed in the building on capitol hill. but john and some staff would come over and sort of review the day. and i remember this discussion taking place, amongst many others. but i think in the end, the congressman said, you know, this is not a jury. this is not a courtroom. this is congress. and he didn't feel -- again, he was a great institutionalist. that's not their role. this is not a grand jury. it shouldn't be thought of as a grand jury. i remember, again, he always said things and it took a while

to figure out. it just didn't feel right to him. that's the way it should be conducted. >> you know, again, he had enormous respect for john and for everyone in the committee. but there's where you sort of underestimate it all of the time. you wouldn't say well, you know, when you defer -- he doesn't defer to anybody, actually. he just took it all in and then he laid on his -- what the institution should do. you know, what's the role of this house? what's the role of these people? and then he'd make the decision. but, yeah, i have made those conversations. >> the other issue was whether you had to find the president guilty of a crime to impeach him. and ultimately, the committee decided no. do you remember what role the

congressman played in that? >> he played a very important role. but there were other members that were very critical. this is like a staff thing and then, you know, they come and deliver. very important to the congressman thinking. he became a senator and now retired. strong intellectual. became very important to advisor. and more than an advisor, as a co-member. but very influential to the congressman in terms of his thinking, his sort of putting this intellectual thought into this. don edwards, a very liberal congressman from california, very important in -- because he was -- he was a very reasonable person. very liberal. but he was sort of the

congressman's gate door to the liberal wing of the committee and the party, don. but don became very important. so there was a group that the congressman reached out to that became -- that were very influential in these decisions. these were not sort of a john doehr and that's all it was about. there's a lot of discussion. a lot of, i think, memos and a lot of -- they used to pack every friday the congressman went back to his district in newark and they'd pack a big binder with all of these memos and all of this thinking. and then he'd read them over the weekend and all of the discussion would take place with the various members. he couldn't do this without the

consent of his fellow members. he had to have the process work and at the same time, he couldn't feel excluded. it was pretty extraordinary that they had allowed this inquiry to go on so long without their input, without their involvement. and to get there, there was a lot that went on behind the scenes. both in the committee, behind the committee room, in the congressman's office. there was constant out reach about what various members thought on these various issues. >> tomorrow, a congressional gold medal ceremony for the first african american marines known as the montford point marines. about 19,000 marines were stationed at a camp in north carolina.

john baner. see the ceremony at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the life of a sailor includes scrubbing the deck in the morning, working on the sales, climbing aloft, whatever the duties assigned. gun drill practice. but by the end of the day, you're ready for some rest. but you don't get a full hour's sleep. aboard a ship like constitution, it's four hours on, four hours off. >> this weekend, the life on an enlisted man aboard the u.s.s. constitution. >> the sailor lived in fear of always being whipped by a cat of nine tails. the thing the officer never wanted to see is petty officer ready for a flogging. it's a phrase we still used to. "don't let the cat out of the bag."

>> also this weekend, more from the contenders. our series on key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. sunday, 1928 democratic presidential candidate, former new york governor al smith. >> and we continue now with the or oral history of francis o'brien. he served as chief of staff and helped to investigate president nixon after the watergate break in. it's been 40 years since the political scandal. this portion is about an hour. >> given how important this was in history, was the congressman -- did the congressman present his -- it was a famous speech, but did he show emotion? >> o, yes, there was emotion here.