They worked on Watergate. Here鈥檚 how they see the Jan. 6 hearings.
| Washington
They were practically kids back then 鈥� most of them at least 鈥� when the Senate Watergate committee was announced, and they wanted in. One, a young Senate elevator operator, closed the door on a senator鈥檚 arm and wouldn鈥檛 open it until he agreed to pass along her r茅sum茅. Another got a job by promising to help a senator clear out a backlog of 10,000 letters. Others landed positions when their former Georgetown law professor Sam Dash was named chief counsel. Few had robust experience.
They photocopied $100,000 worth of bills to trace their serial numbers, interviewed witnesses in a windowless room dubbed the 鈥渄ungeon,鈥� and听encountered countless dead ends, such as calling every Miami locksmith in the Yellow Pages to find the one who had changed the lock on a safe 鈥撎齩nly to have him say he couldn鈥檛 recall whether he鈥檇 seen stacks of cash.听
From May to November 1973,听as many as 80 million Americans tuned in to watch their committee unravel a web of misdeeds that started with a 鈥渢hird-rate burglary鈥� in the Watergate office buildings and led to a broad pattern of corruption within the White House.听
Why We Wrote This
T鈥媤o presidents. Two investigations. Two very different eras. We talked to people involved in the 1973 Watergate hearings about 鈥媡oday鈥檚 Congress and the pursuit of facts in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack.
Today, the staffers who cut their teeth on Watergate are in the twilight of their careers or retired. Nearly a dozen of them talked with the Monitor about how they see the Jan. 6 hearings. They bring a unique perspective,听given their roles on听a bipartisan investigation that persuaded a nation that the president who had just been reelected in a landslide was not fit for office.听
Some of these former staffers see in the Jan. 6 hearings听a group of lawmakers who have carefully studied 鈥� and emulated 鈥� their own committee鈥檚 work, often held up as the gold standard of congressional investigations. They praise the Jan. 6 House select committee for doing an admirable job in a far more divided era. One of Congress鈥� functions is to inform 鈥� and this committee, they say, is informing the public, as well as legislators and other officials, on a matter at least as grave.
鈥淵ou can always nitpick,鈥� says James Hamilton, an assistant chief counsel on the Watergate committee, acknowledging criticisms that snippets of video are being selectively presented and some of the testimony is hearsay. But he adds, 鈥淭he overall effect and import of what they鈥檙e presenting should not be outweighed by these criticisms.鈥�
Others, however, would have preferred more of the Watergate committee鈥檚 impartiality, with more GOP participation and robust questioning. At stake is not only the outcome of this investigation, but also the ability of the legislative branch to serve as a check on the executive branch.听When that wanes, it鈥檚 not good for either party, says Searle Field, who worked for Sen. Lowell Weicker, one of three Republicans on the Watergate committee. 鈥淎t the end of the day, Congress loses its credibility.鈥�
Even if the Jan. 6 committee could have done more to project fairness amid the current polarization in media and politics, former House historian Ray Smock says it would be unreasonable to expect it to overcome those forces.听
鈥淭his committee is not going to solve the deep divisions that have been in our country for many, many years,鈥� says Dr. Smock, co-editor of a two-volume tome on congressional investigations. 鈥淎nd in fact, they may exacerbate those divisions.鈥澨�
Long-running soap opera vs. Netflix special
For 20 hours a day, former elevator operator Emily Sheketoff buried herself in the Watergate investigation. When the young investigator for the GOP minority wasn鈥檛 in Miami calling locksmiths, she was working in a converted Senate auditorium with dozens of other staffers from both parties.听
Despite the long hours, and the stream of celebrities like John Lennon and Yoko Ono attending the hearings, she didn鈥檛 fully realize the impact the committee鈥檚 work was having until the end of the summer when Fred Thompson, the top GOP lawyer on the committee, took a group out for drinks before one staffer headed back to college.听
鈥淧eople started applauding us as we walked in,鈥� she recalls. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 how many people were watching this every day. It was like a soap opera.鈥�
The Watergate hearings were broadcast for 237 hours. The Jan. 6 hearings, by contrast, have aired for fewer than 20 hours so far. The June 9 opening night attracted 20 million viewers 鈥� a quarter of Watergate鈥檚 peak audience.听
Part of that is America鈥檚 reduced attention span. But in a way, the story of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol is also an easier story to tell than Watergate, since much of it unfolded in public. The committee has been able to incorporate videos from that day, along with selected clips of depositions, police radio recordings, screen grabs of Twitter and texts, and other multimedia components, all woven together with the help of a former ABC News producer.听
鈥淭o me, this is choreographed almost like Netflix. Ours were much messier. ... We were discovering things as we went,鈥� says Gordon Freedman, a college student from rural Michigan听who left before final exams to stand in line for the hearings each day and later got himself a job on the committee.
One Saturday night, Mr. Freedman was heading to a party when he heard on his car radio听that President Richard Nixon had just shaken up听the Justice Department, and the young staffer had to make a detour to grab his files in case the FBI raided the committee鈥檚 office.
But while the Jan. 6 committee has more technology at its disposal, these former staffers say its job is harder in other ways.
鈥淲e weren鈥檛 fighting the head winds of Trumpism,鈥� says Ms. Sheketoff.
Whereas the Watergate committee was established with a 77-0 vote in the Senate, only two Republicans supported the formation of the House select committee on Jan. 6: Rep. Liz Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, both outspoken critics of former President Donald Trump.
Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger, the only two Republicans serving on the committee, have become virtual pariahs within the GOP. Neither had the support of Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who boycotted the committee after Speaker Nancy Pelosi vetoed two of his five nominees.
In contrast, Ms. Sheketoff and others who worked for Republican senators on the Watergate committee say their bosses faced no partisan pressure from GOP colleagues.听
Mr. Field recalls joining Senator Weicker for nighttime conversations in the street with the senator鈥檚 neighbor, John Dean, who had served as White House counsel until that spring and would prove to be one of Watergate鈥檚 most pivotal witnesses. Barry Goldwater Jr. also lived nearby, and his father, the Arizona senator, would sometimes join them. During one such meeting, Mr. Dean said he was going to have to refute the president, and Senator Goldwater encouraged him to go ahead, putting the truth ahead of partisan interests.听
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 imagine a senior Republican today saying to go after Trump,鈥� says Mr. Field.
鈥淩ight back in another Watergate era鈥� 鈥� but with a weakened Congress
As听much as the revelations of President Nixon鈥檚 behavior shocked the nation, many of the Watergate staffers 鈥� though not all 鈥� see an equal if not greater threat in the Jan. 6 attack.听
鈥淚 think this committee is doing a superb job of bringing to the attention of the American people the lengths to which the administration has violated laws and morals,鈥� says Bill Shure, who served as an assistant counsel for the GOP minority. 鈥淚 think what they鈥檙e doing is absolutely essential to alert the American people to how much danger democracy is in.鈥�
On the eve of a staff reunion last month, held on the 50th听anniversary of the Watergate break-in, some of the surviving staffers organized and signed a听听highlighting the threats to democracy today. They urged the nation to reflect on Watergate and consider what further reforms are needed. They see themselves as guardians of a special chapter in American history 鈥� one with renewed relevance today.
鈥淲e鈥檙e right back in another Watergate era; we didn鈥檛 learn the lesson long,鈥� says Rufus Edmisten, the committee鈥檚 deputy chief counsel and the most senior staffer living today.
For almost 10 years before Sam Ervin was appointed chairman of the Watergate committee, Mr. Edmisten had worked for the jovial North Carolina senator, driving him around in a rickety Chrysler and serving as his chief counsel on a congressional subcommittee on the separation of powers. Senator Ervin, who was tapped听by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield as a respected constitutionalist with no presidential ambitions, viewed Congress鈥� investigative role as central to holding other branches of government accountable.
Today, many Watergate staffers see a Congress that has been internally weakened by partisan polarization, significantly hindering its ability to act as a check on the executive branch.听In recent years, it has avoided thorough investigations of controversial issues, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to systemic problems in the economy.听
鈥淗ow are they going to be a powerful part of the separation of powers when they can鈥檛 even get their own house together?鈥澨齛sks Mr. Edmisten.听
The Jan. 6 committee鈥檚 credibility challenge听
The divide in Congress in many ways reflects growing polarization in the country, including in media. While MSNBC and CNN have provided hours of blow-by-blow commentary and analysis of the Jan. 6 hearings, Fox News opted not to even air the first hearing, held in prime time. And while Fox aired the subsequent daytime hearings, many of its viewers have responded by听.
Polls show that Mr. Trump鈥檚 popularity has barely been dented since the hearings began on June 9, despite extensive testimony from former Trump administration officials that he was told there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, and that blocking the counting of electoral votes would be unconstitutional.听
Since the first hearing, the former president鈥檚 average favorability rating has听听by fewer than 2 points, to around 40%. A听听conducted within two weeks found that a similar proportion, 38%, did not consider the hearings to be fair and impartial while 60% did.听
Nevertheless, some Watergate committee staffers believe a more open-ended investigation with more GOP members, a wider scope, and more robust questioning could have increased the committee鈥檚 credibility in the eyes of the American public.听
鈥�If that were done, you would get a broader understanding and acceptance of what is going on with these hearings,鈥� says Barry Schochet, an assistant majority counsel whose 鈥�70s handlebar mustache became a fixture behind Democratic Sen. Herman Talmadge of Georgia during the hearings. He would have liked to see the investigation examine not only Mr. Trump鈥檚 culpability but also whether his administration sought additional protection for the Capitol ahead of Jan. 6听and whether there are civil liberties issues involving a number of people arrested in connection with Jan. 6 who remain in jail a year and a half later.
To some, it seems as though the Jan. 6 committee knew where it was heading from the outset and pursued a single-minded line of inquiry to get there.听听
鈥淭hey were working toward a conclusion that they already anticipated and expected and hoped would be the conclusion, instead of proceeding with 鈥榃hat is the truth?鈥� and doing examination and cross-examination,鈥� says Gene Boyce, who was brought on for his trial experience in the courtroom and was part of the interviewing team that got White House scheduler Alexander Butterfield to reveal that President Nixon had a secret taping system.听
But at least one witness brought before the Watergate committee doesn鈥檛 feel that those hearings were an impartial search for truth, either.听
鈥淲atergate was really aimed in a political sense against Nixon,鈥� says Donald Segretti, who was recruited by White House aides to execute political 鈥渄irty tricks鈥� against the Democrats. It was 鈥渕ore of a political show than the Jan. 6 hearings, which are much more of a factual presentation.鈥�
Is real bipartisanship still possible?
The Watergate committee has often been held up as a paragon of bipartisan comity. In reality, however, partisan divisions and suspicions caused significant turmoil, particularly in the early days. GOP Sen. Howard Baker was seen as too cozy with the White House, and GOP Sen. Edward Gurney was accused of being听a Nixon apologist. But听Chairman Ervin and Vice Chairman Baker made a pact that in public, they would present a united front. In one instance, Senator Baker reamed out chief counsel Dash behind closed doors for leaking information, then walked out and told reporters he had full confidence in Mr. Dash. Many of the committee鈥檚 decisions, including to subpoena the Nixon tapes, were unanimous.听
Mr. Edmisten says Senator Ervin would be disappointed by the animosity between the two sides today. 鈥淚t is impossible to set up a Watergate-type committee,鈥� he says.听
鈥�I would wonder whether Senator Ervin would have ever听put on the hearings were cross-examination not allowed,鈥� says Mr. Schochet.
One of the GOP picks whom Speaker Pelosi vetoed was Rep. Jim Jordan,听a Trump ally who was in touch with the president and senior White House officials on Jan. 6, and could be seen as having a conflict of interest. Some on the right see his tough questioning style as just what is missing from these proceedings, while critics say it would have derailed them.听
鈥淚 understand why Pelosi vetoed Jordan,鈥� says Mr. Hamilton, author of the forthcoming book Advocate on his 50 years in law and politics, which included representing retired Adm. Mike Mullen during one of the 2013 Benghazi hearings. 鈥淛ordan was disrespectful to Mullen and interrupted most of his answers.鈥澨�
鈥淭he听good part is that we don鈥檛 have what I鈥檒l call flamethrowers on either side [who are] just grandstanding,鈥� says听Mark Biros, an assistant majority counsel and Dash student who went on to teach at Georgetown Law School for decades. 鈥淵ou鈥檝e got what appear to be very serious people, thoughtful people, attempting to get at the facts as best they can.鈥�
It is highly unusual, if not unprecedented, for the majority to reject the minority鈥檚 choice of committee members, especially in such a public way, says Mr. Smock, the former House historian who now听serves as interim director of the Robert C. Byrd Center for Congressional History and Education at Shepherd University.听And two of Speaker Pelosi鈥檚 own picks are seen by many on the right as highly partisan: Reps. Adam Schiff and Jamie Raskin, who oversaw the first and second Trump impeachment proceedings, respectively.
Still, many disagree with Mr. McCarthy鈥檚 decision not to participate, with some calling it a deliberate ploy to undermine the committee.听
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 take your marbles and go home and then complain that you weren鈥檛 allowed to play,鈥� says Ms. Sheketoff.听
As much as these Watergate staffers would like their committee to be held up as a standard for congressional investigations, there is a resigned sense that, for now, its bipartisanship would simply be impossible to replicate in today鈥檚 environment.听
鈥淚t brought independent views, without any sort of animosity,鈥� says Donald听Burris, an assistant counsel for the Democratic majority, who recalls shooting hoops with Mr. Thompson, the minority counsel. 鈥淚t鈥檚 like nothing else I鈥檝e done in my life. It seemed like a kind of civic service.鈥�
