Advanced Search
Church Committee Hearings - CIA Director William Colby
Co-host PAUL DUKE conducts an interview on the hearing's room floor with Church, among a milling gallery, Duke asks Church if there was a direct refusal not to follow orders on the part of the CIA, if there was any wink by White House administration not to destroy the CIA toxins, if the CIA might have kept the poisons to use in assassination plots, what's to prevent this from happening again, why the committee is not conducting the CIA assassination investigation in public.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Bruce A Kehrli, Special Assistant to the President United States Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Bruce A Kehrli, Special Assistant to the President United States Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (2/2)
[01.09.23] Senator MONTOYA. Well, you attended quite a few budget meetings with your budget committee to determine how the, money would be spent. This did not deal with contributions. Mr. STANS. No; it, did not; it dealt, with the spending of the campaign Senator MONTOYA. Now, did you discuss at these budget meetings the big expenditures that were being doled out to certain individuals such as Mr. Liddy? Mr. STANS. Senator, from the time I came, the expenditures so far as I know, were not big, were not large., except on the one occasion when Mr. Sloan came too me and said that, Liddy wanted a fairly I substantial amount, of money, and I went to John Mitchell and determined that Magruder had the authority to tell Sloan to make payments to Liddy. I was not aware of large amounts of payments. Senator MONTOYA. Did '.Mr. Mitchell at that meeting tell you what this money was going to be used for-, the money that, was going to be disbursed I to Mr. Liddy? Mr. STANS. No; Mr. Mitchell and I did not discuss an amount of money. We discussed only the principle of whether Mr. Magruder had the authority to direct Sloan to make payments. Mr. Magruder said he did not, know what it was about-- I mean, excuse me, Mr. Mitchell said he did not know what it was about, that it was 'Magruder's responsibility. Senator MONTOYA. Did you make any reports about the state of the finances and also the state of disbursements to anyone in the White, House while you were with the finance committee as chairman? .Mr. STANS. I made no reports of any kind on cash transactions, if that is the nature of your question. Senator MONTOYA. No disbursements--total disbursements--cash or otherwise. Mr. STANS. Total disbursements? I had several conferences with Mr. Haldeman on the subject because I was, as I said earlier, very Much concerned, almost irate, about the level of spending in this campaign. I thought originally that, in the President's position, he Could he be reelected for $25 or $30 million. And when they came to me -With budgets of $40 million which were incomplete and higher amounts I objected very strenuously I insisted that, there was overkill in the, budgets in the sense that they were spending money for massive amounts of direct, mail, massive amounts of telephoning, amounts of advertising that, just, were duplicating each other. And with that feeling of frustration, which was pretty constant every time we had a meeting, I went to Haldeman a couple of times and asked whether he couldn't get some help for me from the President in holding down the level of spending--not in term-, of any One Category, but just let's ran this campaign with less money. I don't know what Mr. Haldeman did. I didn't see any significant consequences as a result of those several meetings. Senator MONTOYA. Did he ever get, back to you? Mr. STANS, I don't recall any specific report. He would take it up and talk about it, but that was it. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever discuss 'With Mr. Haldeman any expenditures with respect to any of the activities chargeable to the White House? Mr. STANS. NO, I don't recall any discussion with Mr. Haldeman about that. Senator MONTOYA. Were you aware that expenditures were being made for activities which were emanating from the White House? Mr. STANS. I was aware that the Republican National Finance Committee was reimbursing the White House for fairly substantial amounts of money for matters which were believed to be political, such as mailings and things like that. And when the President became the official candidate of the party, I was aware of those amounts in considerably greater detail, because I also became chairman of the Republican National Finance Committee, Yes, the two committees were paying substantial amounts of money for mailings by the White House, for traveling expenses of people 'in the White House, and for the President's political travel. Senator MONTOYA. And how was this money disbursed to the White House for these purposes? In cash or by check? Mr. STANS. Oh, it was all by check, I don't know of any case in which the money went by cash. Senator MONTOYA. SO, do I understand that the cash disbursements about which you are aware are as follows: $350,000 to Mr. Kalmbach' which eventually went to the White House to Mr. Strachan, and $75,000 to Mr. Kalmbach directly, comprised of $45,000 from your safe and $30,000 from the contribution by the Philippine National then $89,000 to Mr. LaRue on one occasion Mr. STANS. $81,000. [01.14.53]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (
****SEE RESTRICTIONS/RIGHTS FIELD BEFORE USING**** IN 00.02.00 OUT 01.04.28 [00.02.00-NPACT title-view of John DEAN making a closing statement of his testimony, claiming malice for none, and professing to have tried to hide nothing of his own involvement. States it has been difficult to speak against friends, former colleagues, and the President, and that he decided to go to the prosecutors to help remove "the cloud over the Government"-image of page bearing Senate Resolution 60, Robert MacNEILL v.o. reads resolution-title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES] [00.03.56-MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that today is the end of the longest week of the hearings thus far, a week that consisted entirely of the testimony of John DEAN, former White House counsel. States that the foundations of DEAN'S testimony were laid out in DEAN'S 245 page statement on Monday, and since then, Senators have sought elaboration, and to test the truth of his story. States that other witnesses will address the incidents and facts that DEAN has addressed, and that in this days hearings, DEAN seemed rattled only when he had to admit that he sometimes confused two downtown D.C. hotels. Other than that DEAN stuck to his guns and his story came out intact, which has, to many opinions, weakened the White House position. [00.04.49-Jim LEHRER] LEHRER states that not a single member of the committee has demanded that the PRESIDENT come before the committee to testify, but there have been suggestions that NIXON should perhaps tell the committee his side of the story. States that Sen. BAKER pointedly noted today that Pres. WILSON invited legislators to meet him when considering the LEAGUE OF NATIONS, and Sen. ERVIN noted that Pres. LINCOLN appeared voluntarily before a committee investigating treasonous news leaks, and Sen. WEICKER read from Carl SANDBURG'S biography of LINCOLN the portion where LINCOLN appeared before a house committee to defend his wife against charges of treason. [00.05.46-clip of WEICKER reading the passage of SANDBURG,] [00.07.13]
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Walter Flowers
Now, one of our colleagues has quoted President Polk in 1846 this morning and I think that is carrying it a little bit too far too. President Polk was talking in the abstract about a matter and it seems to me like he was trying to avoid the issue. You couldn t seriously argue that if President Polk were about to be impeached that this language would mean that he was going to go ahead and comply with the subpoena. That was not the case that was put to him and I just do not think we can carry it that far. This situation may be what I was talking about the other night when I said that some people think there are too many lawyers on this committee and I appointed myself without objection as the representative of the non-lawyers and the public. I have heard somebody say since then that I was best qualified to do that. In any event, my friends, please reconsider what you are doing here. Does it stand on its own as an impeachable offense? I think not. And I firmly oppose this article of impeachment offered by my friend from Illinois. Robert McClory (R Illinois). Would the gentleman yield? Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired.
U.S. House Subcommittee : Shreddergate Part 1
U.S. House Representative and Chair of the Investigation and Oversight Subcommittee, Elliott Levitas (D-GA) asks if Environmental Protection Agency Chief of Staff John Daniel has the original purchase order for those shredders; adult Caucasian males seated in BG and Rep. Norman Mineta (D-CA) sitting next to Rep. Levitas. Daniel does not, but he will get it and provide it to the committee; EPA Director of Waste Programs Enforcement Eugene Lucero next to Daniel. Rep. Levitas asks about a memorandum regarding paper shredder use within the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) Superfund Office, specifically referring to where the shredder was located, and its open use without any records being kept. Public Works and Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. James J. Howard (D-NJ) interjects and asks who eventually paid for those shredders; Daniel replies that the OERR office most likely did. Lucero steps in to comment on the previous question. He states that while it was possible for people to have access to the shredder in the OERR office, since the subpoenas have been issued, they have kept all enforcement documents locked away.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Charles Rangel (D - New York). There are more than enough people ready to deal with some of the problems we have with the President. It s difficult to think in all of the criminal terms suggested by Mr. Dennis because Mr. Dennis would forget the fact that the President is an unindicted coconspirator. If you want to deal with the criminal law, there is plenty of opportunity to deal with that. Unfortunately, in our Constitution the burden falls on us because the President can t be indicted. If indeed the writers of the Constitution wanted to use the criminal law they would have not given the President that protection as to not being indicted. It is a little surprising, however, where the President says that the Watergate grand jury has all of the information that it needs to indict the guilty and exonerate the innocent and then when he comes close to it Mr. St. Clair says that they did not have enough evidence.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Charles Rangel (D - New York). Nevertheless, if you really want, to deal with the false and misleading statements then I ask my colleague from Maryland why don't you walk with me through the President steps, walk with me using his language as he went to bed the night of March 21st and talked to himself self on a dictaphone. And this was March 21, 1973. You don t have to pick these things at random, they are all over. And then on March 27, the words that he says to Ehrlichman as to what to tell the Attorney General. It is false, misleading and expletive deleted. Now, what did the President say to himself? The President dictated his recollections of the day. He said Magruder will bring Haldeman down. This is the language that he heard from Dean. If Hunt wasn t paid, he would say things that would be very detrimental to Colson and Ehrlichman. That Mitchell had been present when Liddy offered his political intelligence proposal. That Colson with Hunt and Liddy was in his office. That he had called up Magruder. That Colson had pushed too hard. That Ehrlichman sent Hunt and his crew out to check into Ellsberg psychiatric problem and Krogh was in a straight position of perjury. This is not what he is saying is true. This is what he is saying that Dean told him and Strachan had been a courageous fellow through all of this and that Strachan certainly had knowledge of the matter and that he was going to call Mitchell. Now, he calls Mitchell and of course that's when they talk about stonewalling it.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given 30 seconds so he can yield 15 of it to me. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Without objection, it is so ordered. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Would the gentleman yield? Charles Rangel (D New York). I yield. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). The gentleman misunderstood my criticism. If it is criticism. I would be happy to walk hand by hand with him through the evidence and pluck out the things that are germane to our articles of impeachment. But I think we should reject those that are not. That was the only point I was trying to make. Charles Rangel (D New York). Would the gentleman agree that the gentleman from New Jersey is not concerned with the fact you and I agree. The American people should know? Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). I will let the gentleman from New Jersey speak for himself. But I abhor the commendatory things about Strachan. And in fact, I was responsible for putting into the Sarbanes substitute the language about rewarding those who have committed perjury. Given a $36,000 job to Magruder after he was known to have committed perjury is even more damaging. And I want all of those things to be brought out and specified. But I also think we should reject the things that are not germane. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time has expired.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
00.03.17 Lawrence Hogan (R - Maryland). And now I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Robert Drinan (D - Massachusetts). Thank you very, much for yielding. In early August 1972, the President himself asked Mr. Ehrlichman to arrange that Mr. Stans not be compelled to go before the grand Jury. What I said about Mr. Stans is totally irrelevant to this inquiry because it was the President of the United States himself who ask that Mr. Stans be given this unusual situation. I yield back Mr. Hogan. Thank you. Lawrence Hogan (R - Maryland). The point that I am trying to make and I would again remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that there is nothing unique or unusual about that. It is totally proper for a man of Mr. Stans' prominence, and the position he played at that time to testify under oath as he did, in the offices of the Department of Justice. He was put under oath, and there is not anything more improper about that there was for exactly the same procedure which was done for former Speaker McCormack of the gentleman's State.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
04.19 Lawrence Hogan (R - Maryland). And I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Trent Lott (R - Mississippi). One brief point and I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Since we are going to talk about the facts, I -would like to make one point before we go any further. I think Mr. Flowers brought it out and I think it has been passed over. All of us have been speaking to press conference of the 22d, talking about the President's public statement. Mr. Wiggins spoke to it, Mr. Sarbanes. I think the important point is that this first section says making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States. I think Mr. Doar said that this particular date and statement would not be applicable to that section. Is that correct, Mr. Doar? John Doar, attorney. Yes, that is correct. Trent Lott (R Mississippi). So, the point is that the very first argument made in support of this section, in fact, is not applicable. Thank you for yielding.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
05.09 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson, for 5 minutes. George Danielson (D - California). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been rearguing evidence and facts all day and the evidence closed on Wednesday of last week. I suggest that we get back to discussing the pleadings. No. 2, I wish to make it clear in the record that I do not concur with the opinion of my colleague from California, Mr. Wiggins, on constitutional law as applies to impeachment proceedings. I yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Edwards.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
05.50 Don Edwards (D California). I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will not take long. This is a very simple section one, making false and misleading statements lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, has provided us definite information, time, chapter, and verse, and in depth, some very definite testimony about where the President made the false statements to a lawfully authorized investigative officer, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Mr. Henry Petersen. And in addition to that, false statements made by the President to Attorney General Kleindienst. Mr. Wiggins says this does not count because Judge Gesell made some sort of a ruling the other day in a criminal proceedings and I'm sure Mr. Wiggins really did not mean that to apply to this case. We are certainly not dealing in a criminal proceeding. I really do not know what more, Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to do in this modest section. It seems to me that we have provided the information, the evidence, to comply with it. And I think we ought to move along.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
[00.07.07] George Danielson (D - California). I submit that we should get on with the work which is cut out for us, to vote on some articles of impeachment. I submit at we should quit setting up straw men and knocking them down and I yield back to the Chair the balance of my time.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
09.08 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from Virginia Mr. Butler, sought recognition. William Cohen (R - Maine). I yield to Mr. Butler if I have any time remaining. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman has time on his own. Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). Mr. Chairman, when you asked that question, I was just seeking to protect his right to speak and so I have nothing further to contribute except that I would yield to the gentleman from Salt Lake City.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
11.43 Robert Drinan (D - Massachusetts). Would the gentleman yield? Lawrence Hogan (R-Maryland). What was the question? Wayne Owens (D Utah). That -was a rebuttal. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The question is Jack Brooks (D - Texas). Mr. Chairman? Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. Jack Brooks (D - Texas). I move the previous question on the Sarbanes substitute as amended. Walter Flowers (D - Alabama). Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for minutes. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). Will the gentleman withhold? Jack Brooks (D - Texas). I withhold the motion until that time, yes sir. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
Walter Flowers (D - Alabama). In this regard, Mr. Chairman, let me say just a few words. There are many people in my district, who will disagree with my vote here. Some will say that it hurts them deeply for me to vote for impeachment. I can assure them that I probably have enough pain for them and me. I have close personal friends who strongly support President Nixon. To several of these close friends who somehow I hope will hear and see these proceedings, I say that the only way I could vote for impeachment would be on the realization, to me anyway, that they, my friends, would do the same thing if they were in my place on this unhappy day and confronted with all of the same facts that I have. And I have to believe that they would or I would not take the position that I do.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
Walter Flowers (D - Alabama). And I agree that Congress should exert itself. That s what we re doing here. But we will and should be judged by our willingness to share in the many hard choices that must be made for our Nation, such as allocation of scarce resources, such as management of the forces of inflation and recession, such as balancing priorities and controlling the spending of the taxpayers money. In the weeks and months ahead I want my friends to know that I ll be around to remind them when some of these hard choices are up and we will be able to judge then how responsible we call be with our newly found congressional powers.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, is recognized for 5 minutes. John Seiberling (D Ohio). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the gentleman, the other gentleman from Ohio, has put his finger on one of the very fundamental issues which brought about this proceeding which is whether under the guise, the phrase national security, the President has a blank check to violate the law. Because that is what this issue is all about.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). When Attorney General Ruckelshaus declined to fire Special Prosecutor Cox after Elliot Richardson had resigned because he declined to fire him, you remember what General Haig, the President's aide, told him. He said, "Your Commander in Chief has given you an order." And Mr. Ruckelshaus had to remind him that he was subject to the law. And that the Commander in Chief could not give an order that violated the law. Now let us take a look at that law. Point 5 of this Article talks about the disregard of the rule of law by the President of the United States. And among other things, he disregarded it when he, fired the Special Watergate Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, or ordered him to be fired.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). Now the law had already been long established by the Supreme Court in the case of Accardi v. Shaughnessy in 1953 that as long as the Attorney General's regulations remained operative they had the force of law and denied him or any other member of the executive branch the right to violate those regulations. And such were the regulations under which the Special Prosecutor was operating. And that principle was upheld again as recently as last week when the Supreme Court reaffirmed it in the case of United States v. Nixon.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). Now we all remember the shock that we all experienced last October when in quick succession two Attorney Generals and the Special Prosecutor were fired on order of the President because they had the temerity to carry out an order of a Court of the U.S. Government which order had been appealed and affirmed by the Court and ordered the President to turn over the tapes which he subsequently was forced to do by public opinion. And it was that act which brought about the creation of this special proceeding.