Many of the Watergate hearings and almost all of the impeachment hearings weren't televised

[StarfishSaver]

Just saying.

[brush]

1. A lot of them were.

And we had real, functioning newspapers in every city then and the three TV networks covered the story. There was no cable fragmentation of the TV audience so the country was well educated of the missing 18 minutes of tape, and Nixon, and Halderman, Erlichman, Mitchell and Dean's (sorry , John) and the plumbers guilt.

[StarfishSaver]

2. Can you name one witness in the impeachment hearings whose testimony was televised?

[Me.]

3. John Dean

[cynatnite]

4. *mic drop* n/t

[StarfishSaver]

6. Better pick up that mic - dropped it too soon

John Dean didn't testify in public in the impeachment hearings.

Please check your history before you throw any more mics around.

[cynatnite]

8. I thought everyone was talking about public testimony in general. My bad. Still...

[StarfishSaver]

5. Wrong

He did not testify in public at the impeachment hearings. Those hearings weren't televised.

You're thinking of the Senate Watergate hearings that were held the year before.

[Me.]

14. You Are Correct

Though I would say that his testimony was so pivotal to the proceedings and I think it is the reason Mueller should testify. The only reason for him not to is if he would be more honest and open in private.

[pnwmom]

48. In private he wouldn't have to worry about inadvertently disclosing classified information

because that could be redacted.

[Trumpocalypse]

46. John Dean testified to the Senate committee

Which was not an impeachment hearing.

[brush]

15. Everyone saw Dean. What are you trying to prove?

[StarfishSaver]

18. You may have seen him, but you didn't see him testify in the impeachment hearings

The impeachment hearings were closed to the public and they weren't televised. And those turned out just fine.

[brush]

25. His testimony on TV was a big part why there were hearings...

which is why we need them now on TV. I still don't get your agenda. Are you trying to discourage hearings?

[StarfishSaver]

35. There was also important testimony off camera that led to the hearings

Including information for some of the investigators on the case who didn't testify in public.

Dean was the bright, shiny object but there was a lot more going on than people seem to realize.

And no, I'm not "trying to discourage hearings." I'm all about hearings and more hearings - one of the reasons I think it's a mistake to consolidate everything into a single impeachment pipeline right now is that it would constrict the ability of various committees to bombard this lawless administration with oversight investigations and hearings from every direction.

If I have an "agenda" it's to help educate people about the law and process, to try to focus my fellow Democrats on what's important and to try to avoid needless distractions, and to discourage knee-jerk, keyboard quarterbacking that does nothing but stir up a lot of angst and threatens to undermine the Democrats who are trying mightily to hold this president accountable and to do it in a way that will actually stick and not just be some visceral feelgood exercise whose most cathartic moment will occur the day the impeachment inquiry opens and then go downhill from there with no discernable positive outcome in the end.

And, in my view, throwing fits because Mueller prefers to provide his testimony in private where he can be more open and not have his appearance turn into a media and political circus but be a more thoughtful, in-depth and thorough presentation of critical and useful information that's likely not possible sitting in a committee room with Louis Gohmert and Jim Jordan smearing him, twisting his words, firing stupid, incendiary questions at him and showboating for the cameras while they run out the clock.

[brush]

39. Well finally you explain yourself. I'm with Pelosi on this as well.

Get all the testimony, investigations, subpoenas and court judgements giving access to documents financial and otherwise to get trump's crimes out in the open to educate the public and shame the repugs. Once we get there, move into impeachment inquiry territory which could give accelerated access to even more documents.

From there onto impeachment hearings if trump hasn't resigned by then.

Now is too soon.

[StarfishSaver]

41. I agree

But I'm not "finally explaining myself." I've been saying exactly that for weeks.

[pnwmom]

50. You apparently have missed StarfishSaver's very informative posts. n/t

[pnwmom]

49. Thank you, StarfishSaver, for your educational posts on this matter! n/t

[wryter2000]

43. The point is

You don't have to have impeachment hearings to make important progress. We all think the hearings that sank Nixon were part of impeachment. They weren't. They were more like the hearings that are going on now.

[malaise]

55. But Mueller is not being asked to testify at an impeachment hearing

This is for a House hearing

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. The impeachment hearings, except for the opening statements, were not televised.

The witnesses we think of, like Dean and Butterfield, testified during the Watergate Senate Select Committee hearings the previous year, and a lot of that committee's testimony, though not all of it, was televised.

[Shell_Seas]

7. Did they have CSPAN back then?

[cynatnite]

9. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

12. CSPAN started in 1979.

But PBS and the networks covered the televised hearings live. The impeachment hearings weren't open. I don't believe they even released transcripts until much later.

[cynatnite]

16. Yeah, I remembered. I'm not even drunk, too. LOL

My bad all the way around.

[StarfishSaver]

10. They had PBS, which televised all of the public hearings and would have shown these hearings if they

were open to the public and cameras. But they were closed and no cameras were allowed.

[True Blue American]

54. 1979

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-SPAN

[sheshe2]

11. Nadler has called for a full transcript to be released.

Frankly most of us do not have the time to sit through eight plus hours of testimony. I know I don't.

I want to know the facts. If there is a transcript I have no issue with a closed door hearing. Pisses me off to hear Mueller called a traitor. From what we have learned of his investigations he is anything but. Plus no one knows what information he has given the State of NY.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Keyboard quarterbacks need to see Mueller so they can decide if what he's saying is true because

they are experts at reading body language and assessing credibility - but don't seem nearly as interested in actually reading the facts.

I'm learning that kneejerk reactions are all the rage on DU.

[sheshe2]

24. Ummmhmmm.

Yep.

*sigh*

[emmaverybo]

52. Thanks for your comment. I'm all in on all of it. nt

[GusBob]

13. I was 8 years old. First time I took to the streets marching

My and my mates, arm in arm,

WE HATE WATERGATE!

we wanted to watch gilligans island

[Honeycombe8]

19. In Watergate era, there was no C-SPAN.

C-SPAN brought the televising of government hearings to the public. I guess they were on regular television sometimes before then, but I can't imagine they'd interrupt regular program for an entire day to show Congress deliberating.

The Senate decided to deliberate in private for the Bill Clinton impeachment. They voted against it. I'm not sure about the House of Rep. I remember watching something all day on C-SPAN about the Clinton impeachment. I was obviously off work that day.

The Iran-Contra investigation was televised. I saw part of that. It involved allegations about Reagan. I remember hearing Reagan testify by phone, on television.

I imagine it's pretty sensitive for Congressional politicians to be on television talking specifically about the President and having their words played on a loop throughout the country in soundbites. Things would be taken out of context, too.

But in the case of Bill Clinton, the whole report was released to the public. So a hearing on the facts in that report wasn't really necessary.

In this case, the whole Mueller report has NOT been released to the public. And the issues are much more complicated than the Clinton impeachment case. But I'm sure Mueller is afraid of slipping and saying something that's confidential, or doesn't want his words taken out of context and played in the media around the clock.

[procon]

20. Different era; the public now expects much more

information and government transparency in the age of the 24/7 news cycle.

[Brother Buzz]

21. The Watergate hearings sucked, they never called their key witness

[Celerity]

23. Nixon Impeachment Hearings Pt 1 (1974) almost 5 hours, just from this part

[StarfishSaver]

27. The portion of the Watergate hearings that were televised were the very end when the Committee

debated and voted on the Articles of Impeachment.

You will note that the date on this clip is July 29, 1974.

The hearings actually began on May 9, 1974 and the first 20 minutes of the hearing was televised before the the committee went into closed session and, for the next two and a half months, took all of its testimony and conducted all of its business in private with no cameras and not members of the public in the room. They opened back up in late July after they finished all of their evidence gathering.

You will see no witnesses in this (or any other) clip because no witnesses testified in public or on camera in the impeachment hearings.

[Celerity]

34. cool, thanks for the info!

I am still going to watch some of this, I find it fascinating. I do not really have anyone in my family who was old enough to remember and also living in the US back then. My parents were young children then and not US residents.

[StarfishSaver]

36. You're welcome

[C_U_L8R]

26. I was home sick for a week

and those hearings were all that was on TV.

[StarfishSaver]

28. You didn't watch anyone testify in the impeachment hearings on tv because none of the testimony

was televised.

You're probably thinking of the Senate hearings the year before.

[C_U_L8R]

29. Yes. The Senate Hearings.

You didn't really specify which hearings you meant. The Senate hearings had some real bombshells... like Dean's testimony... that shifted the nation.

[EffieBlack]

37. True. But the impeachment hearings gathered very important information, as well

Everything doesn't have to be a bombshell to be relevant.

In fact, at this point, Congress is trying to gather information; if you're expecting bombshells, you're probably going to be very disappointed. This isn't Perry Mason.

[StarfishSaver]

38. When I was a new lawyer, my father taught me not to try to go for the dramatic moments in court

He actually said "You're not Perry Mason"

He said "Your job is to get information into the record point by point and then to pull the story together for the jury in the end. The jury isn't looking for a lot of drama. They need the story and it needs to make sense and it needs to be complete. The only way to do that is to get everything in the record however you can and then tied it all together at the end when it matters.""

People looking for bombshells and drama are seeking the wrong thing here. The important thing is for Mueller to give Congress what they need to help put the pieces together. The bombshell will come when it's time to tie the whole story together. Mueller is just one source of information.

[C_U_L8R]

59. True it's not Perry Mason. But it's also not a courtroom.

Public sentiment and opinion drives the (senate) jury. Bombshells or not, we all agree the evidence needs to come to light in away that tells the complete true story.

[StarfishSaver]

60. Often the best way to bring evidence to light in order to tell the complete story

is by eliciting the information out of public view.

This seems less to me about people wanting information and more about people being overly impatient and wanting every piece of information right this minute ("Why can't I hear everything that Congress is hearing at the same time Congress is hearing it?!".), even if it won't be helpful to their ultimate understanding of the facts.

[C_U_L8R]

61. I think the answer is both.

Look at the Mueller Report. Great information (we think). Totally hidden from view. Now I have no problem with Mueller testifying in private as it will prevent Republicans from turning the hearing into a shitshow. But still that information needs to be presented to the public in a powerful and convincing way.

[PoliticAverse]

30. But the ones that everyone remembers were.

And there was no C/SPAN then.

[StarfishSaver]

31. But some of the most important and impactful ones weren't

Congress is trying to find facts in order to do its job. That means more than just putting on a show for the public.

[spanone]

32. That was 45 years ago...just saying

Someone said the other day that few will read a 400 page report, but many would watch the movie.....(paraphrasing)

[StarfishSaver]

33. True. But people can't have it both ways

They can't keep pointing to Watergate as the model for how things should be done now, and then when it's pointed out to them that it didn't actually happen the way they remember, claim that it was too long ago to matter.

[Retrograde]

40. The Watergate hearings were broadcast

at least on radio: I remember listening to them at work back in 1974. Didn't have a TV at the time, so I don't remember if they were aired or not.

[StarfishSaver]

42. The Senate hearings were but the impeachment hearings weren't

And much of the testimony in the Senate hearings was done in closed session.

[wryter2000]

44. I watched a lot of the hearings

But they were on live during the daytime

[Trumpocalypse]

45. Yes they were.

They kept on pre-emptying Match Game. I was pissed.

[Meowmee]

47. The public testimony(250 hrs) was crucial to what eventually happened

[link:

|


Watergate began with a burglary in June 1972 and ended with a president's resignation in August 1974. In between, during the summer of 1973, a special Senate Committee held hearings, co-chaired by Sens. Sam Ervin (D-N.C.) and Howard Baker (R-Tenn.), to investigate the Watergate scandal. Public Television broadcast all 250 hours worth of the hearings, gavel-to-gavel.

[True Blue American]

53. We had very few TV stations

Back then. Today it is different. Mueller needs to testify publicly after the lies we have heard fom Trump, Barr and the rest of the enablers. We deserve that much.

This is a thousand times more serious than Watergate, a third rate burglery!

[beachbum bob]

56. didn't have CSPAN back then

[DeminPennswoods]

57. Watergate had 2 phases

The first was the Senate Select Committee on Watergate. This is what everyone remembers watching on TV. After the Senate gathered all the facts and special prosecutor got the WH tapes released, that is when the action moved to the House Judiciary Committee. I remember watching the votes on the articles of impeachment, but not much else. By the time the House Judiciary voted articles of impeachment, it was pretty obvious Nixon's presidency was not going to survive.

A more interesting aspect was that during the same time, Agnew was under investigation for taking bribes to influence government contract awards back in Maryland. Very little of that was known to or by the public until the very end when Agnew resigned.

[StarfishSaver]

58. Exactly.

And you're right about Agnew. Did you listen to Rachel Maddow's podcast about him, "Bagman"? Fascinating!

[DeminPennswoods]

63. I did listen to "Bagman"

It was really good! Maybe American Experience will pick up the story some upcoming season.

[LanternWaste]

62. Many of the Watergate hearings were hopwever televised.

Just Sayin': a phrase used to indicate that we refuse to defend a claim we've made---in other words, that we refuse to offer reasons that what we've said is true (urban dictionary)




Many of the Watergate hearings were hopwever televised.

Just saying. Part Deaux.