First year, maybe. Work with her,to and moved to cambridge began working, doing investigations and litigation around issues like the incarceration of juveniles with orlts in adult prisons efforts to give tax exempt status to private segregated academies so they didnt have to pay taxes. Expanding childcare, Getting Better conditions for migrant workers, that is the kind of work we were doing and thats what i started doing when i went right to cambridge to work for her. Call. L us about the this is a funny series of actions. I was visiting bill in arkansas i think right after christmas, either right before or after. Rang and he got a call from john doerr. , i have been asked to put together a team of lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether there are grounds for impeachment of president nixon, and i have a list of people and you are at the top of the list if you would like to come to work. Bill said, im going to run for congress. Bill said, who else is on your list . Conway andmike hillary. Bill said, hillary is standing right here. I wanted to gof for thein washington impeachment inquiry staff. I said yes, im very honored to be asked. Sometime after the first of the year i left my job and went to work for john. How long did you think this was going to last . I dont know that i ought like that. When you are young and starting out, how long did the job take . I didnt know what the job was. I had no timetable at all. Concern on they future president s part you are doing this to affect his ability to run . He was running for congress, a race that he lost. He had not been running for congress, i believe it would have been very likely he would have said yes. Doerrce to work with john on a historic assignment like this and you are a young out of law school lawyer, hard to say no to that. Bill never gave it a Second Thought about my doing it. Aboutt he talked are this . I have no idea. In january, you arrived. Joe thinks it was january 19. You are among the first . Those of us from yale who were going to be the youngest my memorye team as we got there at about the same time. It was a start law firm. There were a group of Senior Lawyers that john knew or knew of that he had recruited. There werent very many lawyers. N the middle john doerr and richard gill, people like that had experience already in the law, some of them government. Us newly minted lawyers. This may surprise people, there was an effort to make this a single committee. Thee were people chosen by minorities. One of those that admit you right off the bat was was a serious effort that mostly succeeded. The minority hired bert, who started this massive law firm. They were experienced lawyers. They had done really complicated cases, either civil rights or other challenges. He was one of the first people i met and got to know and worked with. It was a great team. Have the feeling there was the my new the majority and the minority staff. They were hired by different members, but we worked very hard to overcome any sense of separation. Sayeople looking back will there was a certain inevitability about what happened. When you started out, you were supposed to look for grounds from impeachment grounds for impeachment. John wasnt asking for prospect oriole there are several aspects historians and per and citizens, particularly young people, understand. There are three big challenges he wanted us to meet. One of them was, what are the grounds for impeachment . Johnson, been andrew there had been a number of judges who had been impeached. That, and iking at was a small part of that that team was looking all the way back to Early English precedents in the founders took the idea from the common law. There was the issue of how do you proceed . How do you set up an appropriate to consider all of these issues . There was a team working on grounds for impeachment, how you described what high crimes and misdemeanors were. How it needed to relate to abuse of office and power if it were in keeping with precedent such as they were. Then there was the process standard that i worked on a lot. It, do we do, how do we do and what is our role compared to the role of the committee . And finally the facts. Method used in the Justice Department and probably in his law practice in wisconsin. Asy were not characterized evidence, because we concluded it wasnt our job to make a prosecutorial case and present the evidence that supported that case, but rather to prevent the and ao the committee, committee would form their own conclusions. These little notecards and we were supposed to put one fact on a note card. I remember we were working on this and john said go right to the beginning, where is who is Richard Nixon . Richard milhouse nixon was born on you have his date of birth, then in whittier, california. He said those are two pieces of information. One card for the year he was born and one card for where he was born. He would usectice these cards to find patterns. If you didnt have enough of the facts he couldnt deduce the patterns. Thats why we had these little cards. They attempted some method in the library to organize and sort them. Computers were not in common use, and i think john preferred his system anyway. We spent a lot of time doing these cards. And looking for anything that could be a piece of information that might go into the presentation we would make to the committee. I think it was a shortlived experiment. You took the fact, which was predominantly handwritten. Then it was transferred onto a punch card. The idea was it was so primitive that if you took a knitting needle and had a stack of these cars and were looking for his childhood experiences or the committee to elect the president , you would take a knitting needle and pick up the cards that had a hole in a certain place. I think its a lot easier if you cap cards in front of you and shuffled them around. I would see the Senior Lawyer talking about that. How is it said and what does it tell us . When both of you arrived john said on a friday, please produce a memo that is ground for impeachment on tuesday. Would take the lawyers a long time. How did you approach this problem . Bill is right. We never had a weekend. Worked 18 hour days. We would leave the building to go to dinner but then go right back. This first assignment was just the beginning of what would be onemost intense effort could imagine. Impeachment that were part of the research i contributed to the procedures, is this a trial . Thetrial is really in senate. What is at the house does and how do we set up ourselves to serve the house . On what with joe woods the procedures are. There is a picture of me sitting at the table with john doerr and woods appearing before one of the subcommittees of the Judiciary Committee to present ideas about process. Help people understand what the difference between the committee and a grand jury corrects a grand jury is first and foremost part of the executive ranch of our government, grand jury in a federal matter is convened by the justicey or by department for the purpose of presenting evidence to determine whether the grand jury will bring in information or thectment against whoever target of the potential prosecution might be. Proceedings are supposed to be secret. The person does not go in with a lawyer. You go in by yourself and you are there with whoever the prosecutor has investigators has, investigators, fbi. Madethere is a grand jury up of citizens from the area. The Judiciary Committee as part of the congress, and the congress has the Sole Authority to determine impeachment. Healthsprings the articles of impeachment if they so decide, the senate conducts the trial. For us, we were asked, and this probably came from others on the committee to recognize they were the authority. Job to present an article of impeachment. To present the legal standards in whatever process we agreed upon. Then it was up to the committee to determine whether it would move forward. To what extent were you involved in the debate whether the president s lawyer should be in the proceedings . I knew about it. That was really among the Senior Lawyers and the house members. My memory as they were very in permitting sinclair to be privy to information, to be part of the process information to be part of the process. I dont recall doing that, because we were in a position to negotiate. The Watergate Committee had already subpoenaed and obtained a wealth of information. Part of the process is to work out an agreement with the to Share Committee what they have already gotten either voluntarily or through subpoena. I dont recall us, but i dont have perfect knowledge. We had to work out agreements and may be part of that we there was a subpoena that either had to be issued or quashed. You are in your 20s and part of a move that is trying to figure out an issue that this country hadnt looked at for a century. Some people started out thinking and Impeachable Offenses a crime , then he changed his mind. Can you remember how the research for did this . Research,had done the it seemed clear to me that the president was not above the law, the president did have certain standing. S, certain their be aequire crime charged in order there to be in order for there to be an Impeachable Offense. Was often keyed to what we think of as criminal behavior. Obstruction of justice is a crime. A president is charged with obstruction or obstruction of justice or not, the obstruction investigation can represent abuse of power that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, and that would be the basis on the articles of impeachment. Do you are never thinking about the standards of probable cause . The constitution didnt say anything about that. Thats why i think john doerr in what hereful eventually presented to the committee. I think he believed that the really turnedse sufficienting evidence, not necessarily to the forl of a reasonable doubt but certainlyter enough to be persuasive, clear and convincing. This was in effect the charging mechanism. If there had been a trial then i to pivotwould have had toward a more explicit reliance beyond a reasonable doubt, theuse that would be how public would perceive it. No real guidelines for that. What did that mean and who got to determine it . The trial was held by the senate and they had the right to impose their own understanding of what an Impeachable Offense was. The debate some of the defense had was should you argue for impeachment if you think the senate will vote to remove . Should i think that is one way of looking at it. Isther way of looking at it if you are persuaded that the ,resident has abused power committed a high crime or misdemeanor, then it is up to the proof that has to be presented in a trial to determine whether the senate agrees with that. The senators could bring whatever assessment they wanted to this determination. You couldnt secondguess that. What were the surprises for you . It happened it hadnt in a president ial setting for over 100 years. What was a lot wrong with was done to andrew johnson. He was hardly a paragon of political rectitude. It is more than it should have been in our assessment. A proceeding based on politics, not on evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors. 100 years later you have a crime, a breaking of watergate. You have a vigorous investigation through the Watergate Committee. Impose anying to understanding of the law and history combined with a process ift would be viewed as fair articles of impeachment were decided. We try to rely on precedent as much as we could, but we are making it up a stop our best understanding of the law as we researched it. Secrecy is important. How did he enforce secrecy . I think there were no cell phones, that makes a big difference. Of character,ce he made it clear to all of us, we didnt know where this was going to end up. Anydnt come to it with preconceived notion that this was going to be easy, we are going to lay the stuff out and the house will be impeached and he is convicted in the senate. Because it was such a historic experience, we felt weed of that , and john made very clear that we would be our duty as lawyers and our historic obligation if we talked. We would occasionally go out for lunch, the building where we were working would be staked out by reporters who would be yelling at us. I remember Sam Donaldson had a route had a loud yell. He would say hillary, come here and talk to me. I remember when i appeared at before ie hearings went over there. I had done so much of the work and i appreciated it. Expressions,cial dont betray any opinion, we are just there to make a presentation to the members that be. It was a matter of honor that we would maintain the secrecy that was so critical for this whole investigation. Were a lot of leaks, but they werent from the staff. They werent. How many women were with you . Say dont know, i want to i can call the name and see the faces of five. There might have been more but those are the ones i interacted with the most. I think on joe woods team on his task force, you had david haynes, john davidson. May, mr. Woods leaves in is that when you moved to bernies team . I cant remember. I remember working closely with john on the with grounds of foreign impeachment along with bill wells. He was very focused on sure and recording the statements of information. I do remember starting in early summer, maybe through bernie, i began listening to tapes and began to listen to the tapes of to hisnt nixon talking staff members, talking to henry , talking to his filipino valet. I particularly remember what we call the tape of tapes, which was Richard Nixon taping himself listening to tapes. Of several people whose job it was to try to, and so far as possible, perfect the transcription. We would sit with the headphones on, listening, trying to make out words, some of the transcription had already occurred but some of it was and was not at all clear. Had no idea he would be taping himself, listening to tapes and coming up with rationalizations so he would call somebody into the room and say, i want to play this for you. It was a shocking experience. Concludedou think you that the then president was involved in a coverup . For me it was listening to the tapes and the socalled tape of tapes. Example ofxtbook trying to get stories straight. I tried hard not to have an opinion during the winter and spring. Then we would hear from john and bernie and others how they were facts. Together the there were facts that were particularly telling. I think that fact had an impact on members of the house committee. Information given that you expect but doesnt come out the way you wanted it to, so you pick up an ashtray and out of frustration and anger youd throw it. I had a fact that was placed in with Everything Else for the lawyers. That was a turning point. Either he didnt know and had been manipulated by staff or he was trying to cover it up. Thats how it came across. By day four the article was passed bipartisan majority. They went on and attack against a congressman. You dont have enough this effects. And you cant impeach a president without specifics. The staff worked tirelessly to put together every charge. Did you participate in that . I recall that. That was a necessary transition away from presenting the statements of information. I think the other Senior Lawyers were very aware they didnt want to get ahead of the committee. Was the rightk position for them to be in. Saying, iommittee was cant wait through all of this, you are going to have to tell me what it means. Articlee are looking at one, you have to tell me what are the pieces of information that either supported or disprove it. Pivot into we had to producing a much more detailed case. Do you remember the work done . I do. I dont know whether john knew him or marshall knew him. Board toought on provide some Historical Perspective and analysis. Worked with him, he produces his own material. I was available to do whatever needed to be done. I wanted to ask you a few more questions, if i may. Due member working with fred . Very closely. Fred is a meticulous lawyer. He had a very clear view about how to gather facts, how to evaluate them and present them. He worked incredibly hard. Was somebody i admired and valued as a colleague. Did you do any research on the abuse of powers issue . I dont know. I probably pitched in on everything but i cant remember. Where were you when the articles were being passed . I think i was in the office. Was it a surprise . Was it a surprise . Time they were voted on it wasnt a surprise. I think his Committee Staff had a pay had a fair idea of who is going to vote. What was your reaction to the Supreme Court case . About the tapes . I thought the outcome was really required because tapes were done in the course of his official role as president. I think having to turn them over and having to get them catalogued and be available for the public was the right decision. Just three more questions. Remember of president nixons resignation . Not at all happy or jubilant about him resigning. I thought the actual departure painful moment for him and his family. So i watched it on tv like everyone else did. It was an unfortunate sad outcome. What was it like to meet the president later . Him when bill was in the white house. I dont recall meeting him before. He had been to russia. House andthe white asked if he could come by and briefed bill about his trip to russia. Bill was fascinated by the idea. Despite his resignation and abuse of power, he was an incredibly experienced intelligent person who knew a lot about world. Chelsea and i and bill, he was brought into the white house and brought up the elevator to the second floor, because bill is going to meet him in his private study. , if i recall,ht maybe just right after he got back from russia. Chelsea will and i greeted him, welcomed him back to the white house. He obviously thought about what he had wanted to say. , i knowsaw me, he said youre working hard on health care, that is a big task. When he saw chelsea he said, my daughters are going to the school you are. Written a memo, but he and bill went off to talk about russia. I went to his funeral. One of the really few regrets i have about our eight years in the white house is i didnt go to pats nixons funeral. Were not well informed or understanding of the protocol. Things, and i think the schedulers and whoever was looking at this basically didnt appreciate the significance it should have had. I deeply regret not going to miss his nixons in all. We did go to president nixons funeral. Clinton gave a eulogy. How heu involved and described him . I dont recall. He probably talked to me about it. We probably bounced ideas off of each other. I dont recall any specific advice i gave him. Among people you had studied. How did it make you feel . More that time i was much familiar with the role of being first lady. And it was the right and proper , tog to be at his funeral as we werehe country all doing. Of thed to a number former president s whom i knew, former first ladies, and it was a beautiful day. Funeral very touching memorial service. What should the country have learned from the houses role in 1974 . I think it is such a serious undertaking. Trivialursue it for partisan political purposes. If it does fall to you while you to examinehouse president power by the , be as circumspect and careful as john doerr was. Restrain yourself from grandstanding and holding news conferences and playing to your base. Sidegoes way beyond whose is whose side they are on. Faithful purveyors of the history and solemnity of the process. Lesson wasntt learned. Learned. Esson was not thats why i think its important to talk about how serious this is. It should not be done for political partisan purposes. Those who did it in the late 90s, those who talk about it back thed go painstaking approach the impeachment staff took. You had a bipartisan barred you had a bipartisan staff and members of the committee reaching the same conclusions, that there were grounds for impeachment. Thank you for your time today. Thank you, good to talk to you. You are watching American History tv, 48 hours of programming on American History every weekend on cspan3. Follow us on twitter for information on our schedule and to keep up with latest history news. You can watch archival films each week on our series railamerica. Eastern on p. M. American history tv. At one of our at recent programs. Of war travels like a lost wind. There is no road left to honor our support honor our survival. Weaving the war party together, ringing news of sitting bringing in news of sitting horse of sitting bull and crazy horse. That the cavalry under custard was under march. Sharpening their eyes, their arrows and their hearts. The bright days that followed were stained by ominous smoke signals, bearing word of the approaching enemy. When the thunderheads of war gathered on the horizon. And on june 25, the combined forces met the United States bighornat the little river. Battle. X won the great the eagle fell before an even greater evil. You can watch archival films on Public Affairs in their entirety on the weekly series railamerica. Eastern here on American History tv. Former Massachusetts Governor bill welds recalls his time as a lawyer on the House Judiciary Committee staff during the impeachment inquiry of president Richard Nixon. Theinterview was from president ial Library Oral History collection and was conducted in 2011. Mr. Weld was hired by Committee Republicans who were in the minority. For therrently running republican president ial nomination. Hi, im director of the Richard Nixon president ial library and museum in yorba linda, california. September 8, 2011. I have the honor and privilege to interview william weld. Thank you for joining us today. Please tell us how you came to be involved with the inquiry . I got a call in the fall of 1973, an associate at a law firm in boston. Asking me if i would be in
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.