Advanced Search
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). Now, I have always believed that any man elected to the highest office in the land would rise to the occasion. Like every American I want to believe the best of my President and I ve tried to do so as I studied the evidence before us in this proceeding. And having done so, I must sadly say to my friends on both sides of the aisle and in the country: He let us down. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). Now, let's just take a look at where we are today. Certainly some good soul who makes up his mind, as we have heard so many say, the way his conscience would make him believe would give us a vote on this one. Because if every one of these things should be stricken, it is No. 9. Such hypocrisy in this charge. This says that The President Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Would the gentleman yield? Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). I cannot yield in my limited time. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). I tried, the gentleman is so persuasive... Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). The President has tried to give favored treatment to some people to keep their silence, made false Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Would the gentleman from New Jersey Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). Maybe when I am finished please. Let me try to get some votes on this one, I am reaching out. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Well, you persuaded me already and, you know, you may talk me back out of it. [laughter.] Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). All right. I will get, to you in a minute. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). I m going to vote with you on this one. Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). It sounds like I m reaching you. So I will give you my last 30 seconds if you let me get underway.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). I would like to have unanimous consent to yield 30 seconds to my friend from Alabama. I think he is going to vote for this one. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). This is over and beyond the 20 minutes, but without objection, it is. The gentleman has 5 more minutes in support of the amendment. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). The gentleman from New Jersey persuaded me. I was actually persuaded. I might add, on this particular subparagraph.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Flowers. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Mr. Chairman, I have a motion at the desk. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The clerk will report the motion. The Clerk [reading]. Amendment by Mr. Flowers, strike subparagraph 9 of the Sarbanes substitute. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on my amendment be limited to 20 minutes, with 10 minutes being allocated to the proponents of the amendment and 10 minutes to the opponents. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Walter Flowers (D Alabama). And I yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Hungate. William Hungate (D Missouri). I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we have had complaints concerning the lack of direct evidence and complaints concerning circumstantial evidence and I want you to know there are people in jail today on circumstantial evidence. Ordinary citizens, their lawyers and the courts throughout the land act on circumstantial evidence every day. The President had and has agents, confidants, and employees. In this debate, we have been shown the problems of agency and respondeat superior. I sometimes think that we might he convinced that the head of General Motors does not make motorcars. But yes, Virginia there is a law of agency and it applies to the President as it does to you.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). Now direct from the President's own transcripts and in his own words. This is at 8:55 a.m. this conversation began on April 14, 1973, in the Executive Office Building, the President, Haldeman and Ehrlichman. The President speaks, "Lovely wife and all the rest. It just breaks your heart. And say this, this is a very painful message for me to bring, I've been asked to give you, but I must do it and it is that. Put it right out that way. Also, I would first put that in so that he knows I have personal affection. That's the way the so-called clemency's has got to be handled. Do you see, John?" Ehrlichman replies, I understand.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). Later in the same day in a conversation taking place at, beginning at 11:22 p.m., the President says, One point. You are going to talk to Dean? Ehrlichman, I am. President, What are you going to say to him? Ehrlichman, I am going to try to get him around a bit. It is going to be delicate. The President, Get him around in what way? Ehrlichman, Well, to get off this passing the buck business. President, John, that s Ehrlichman, It is a little touchy and I don't know how far I can go. President, John that is not going to help you. Look, he has to look down the road to one point that there is only one man who could restore him to the ability to practice law in case things go wrong. He s got to have that in the back of his mind. Ehrlichman, Uh, hun.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). Later in the same conversation in response the President says, Well, with Dean I think you can talk to him in confidence about a thing like that, don't you? He isn't going to Ehrlichman, I m not sure. I just don't know how much to lean on that reed at the moment. President, I see. Ehrlichman, But I will sound it out. President, Well, you start with the proposition Dean, the President thinks you have carried a tremendous load and his affection and loyalty to you is just undiminished. Ehrlichman, All right. President, And now let's see where the hell we go. Ehrlichman, Uh, hun. President, We can't get the President involved in this. His people, that s one thing. We don't want to cover up, but there are ways. And then he's got to say, for example? You start with him certainly on the business of obstruction of justice. Ehrlichman, That's right. President, Look John, we need a plan here. And so that LaRue, Mardian and the others, I mean. Ehrlichman, Well I am not sure I can go that far with him. President, No, he can make the plan up. Ehrlichman, I will sound it out.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). Now, on page 115 of the transcripts of eight recorded Presidential conversations on the date of March 21st, 1973, the President says, "Well, another way, another way to do it then. Bob, " Mr. Haldeman is there, "is to, and John realizes this, is to uh continue to try to cut our losses. Now, we have to look at that course of action. First, it s going to require approximately a million dollars to take care of the jackasses that are in jail. That could be, that could be arranged." Haldeman or Dean, you ve got an option there, "Yeah." President, That could he arranged. But you realize that after we are gone, I mean, assuming these [unintelligible] are gone, they're going to crack, you know, what I mean? And that'll be an unseemly story. Eventually, all the people aren't going to care that much. Dean. That's right, it's President, People aren't going to care. Dean, So much history will pass between then and now. President, In other words, what we're talking about is no question. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment. Robert McClory (R Illinois). Will the gentleman yield to me for 1 minute? Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Robert McClory (R Illinois). I hope that this part of Article I will be stricken. I think that this above anything else perhaps demonstrates the contradictory evidence which is presented here and with the supposition that somehow this is clear and convincing proof. The President in this conversation to which Mr. Hungate referred used the expression "best wishes and gratitude" and that s going to be inferred and interpreted as clemency. I think the only true subject of clemency was the one with Colson following Mrs. Hunt's death which is perfectly understandable when Hunt's wife had been killed and he was suffering from that loss and about to go to jail. The subject of clemency would be discussed with Mr. Colson and in that context. And it seems to me to stretch that into an Article of Impeachment against the President is completely unsupported whatsoever. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). I can only assume from what I have heard that we are speaking here of possibly executive clemency. I only know that from what I have heard presented here, not by an amendment to the Articles of Impeachment which I certainly would be satisfied with, but with a recitation of evidence of information that I suppose in due course is expected to be set forth to prove the allegation. And this is the problem we ve had here for 2 days. I am sure that, as I said previously, as lawyers we know exactly what we are talking about here and what the difference is between allegations set forth in the Article of Impeachment and the evidence and the proof.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Tom Railsback (R Illinois). Would the gentleman yield to me? Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). I will in just a moment. I do not know if I have enough time and I would like to finish my presentation. And let me say that s what we should be doing, amending the Articles of Impeachment. But let us go to the facts that have been discussed and I think that since they have been discussed that it is only proper that we who may not agree should have an opportunity to answer them. Yes, it s true that the President has on a number of occasions discussed this subject, as other subjects have been discussed, and we know how he has carried on his activities as has been evidenced by the testimony here and the other information we have. He meets with his staff and he throws out ideas and suggestions and he wants alternatives, considers alternatives, and then suddenly makes up his mind and says yes or says no. And I think it is very clear that he has rejected, and he rejected clemency on a number of occasions.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 more minutes William Hungate (D Missouri). Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield two minutes to gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding and I d like to briefly address the questions asked my Mr. Maraziti with respect to the last sentence in this paragraph about rewards to individuals who had perjured themselves. Mr. Maraziti said, what individuals and what rewards? And I asked my friend from New Jersey, and he is my friend, what the reasonable and prudent man would conclude from the facts which I m going to recite.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Jim Magruder testified that he had in January 1973, told HR Haldeman that he would commit perjury in the trial of United States v. Liddy which he did. On February 19, 1973, Dean testified that he prepared a talking paper, he testified that on that date he prepared a talking paper for a meeting between Haldeman and the President at which Haldeman would discuss with the President an administration job for Magruder. The paper said that Magruder would be vulnerable if nominated for a position which required Senate confirmation because Sloan was going to testify against him and reveal a number of things. Now we tried to subpoena the tape of that conversation between Haldeman and the President and it was refused. But we do know that after that meeting between Haldeman and the President Magruder was offered the highest paying job in the government which didn t require Senate confirmation. He got a $36,000 at the Department of Commerce. And he retained that position for even a month after Dean had discussed with the President on March 21, 1973, that Magruder had committed perjury. I submit an individual who was known to have committed perjury was rewarded for the perjury.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Will you yield and give me an opportunity to answer? Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Well, it s not my time. The gentleman from Missouri has the time. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The 2 minutes of the gentleman from Maryland has expired and the gentleman from Missouri has 3 minutes remaining.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). I thank the gentleman and I yield briefly to the gentleman from Utah. Wayne Owens (D Utah). I had a point of clarification. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Will the gentleman yield. William Hungate (D Missouri). I had a prior request, Mr. Maraziti, I m sorry. Wayne Owens (D Utah). The statement that the gentleman read First it s going to require approximately a million dollars to take care of the jackasses that are in jail. That could be arranged. Is that the same group in jail that we re assured by the President s council the President justified payment of half a million dollars on the basis of compassion and concern? William Hungate (D Missouri). Mr. Owens, that may be but in Missouri the term jackass is not necessarily derogatory.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). Mr. Maraziti. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). That you very much Mr. Hungate. I appreciate your yielding. Now in reference to the question propounded by my friend from Maryland, if he has the information, and apparently has some of it, I d like to ask the gentleman why he has not listed these names? That is what we are talking about. In the Articles of Impeachment, the names and favored treatment and so on. We want the specifics. I m not talking about the evidence. The specifics and the allegations. Now, in reference to the charge you made. There s no evidence that the President offered the job to Magruder. Haldeman denies that Magruder says he perjured himself. It is his word against Magruder s. There s no evidence the President offered the job to Magruder. Thank you.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). I thank the gentleman. And it seems we end as we began, with a question. There are different views here and I widely respect them. And I think all of those here respect the different views because I think they help the Country to develop the truth. Some wise man has written that the truth is seldom pure are never simple. And I think we see that here today. I would apologize to some if they found occasional attempts at humor offensive, but I ve never thought a sense of humor need to destroy your sense of responsibility. And in my case I felt it better to have a sense of humor than no sense at all. But to close on a most serious note, because this is a solemn responsibility that weighs heavily upon all of us and upon the staff and the American people. We all seek to do the right and proper thing and I hope we can have Divine guidance in the difficult decisions we must yet make. And remember that I can see Omaha beach, the national cemetery there to the dead of World War Two and the United States and in stone above that monument to those men it says They endured all and suffered all that mankind might know freedom and deliver justice. And I hope our deliberations here will promote that cause. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.36.50] Senator GURNEY. First of all, did you talk to him at all when you were with the committee? Mr. SLOAN. In earlier periods with regard to advice on campaign law, particularly the old Corrupt Practices Act, prior to the time we had a full-time counsel with our committee. Senator GURNEY, I see. Now, then, go on about the other occasions. Mr. SLOAN. I do not believe I had any, other regular contact with him other than that context while I was at the finance committee. When I left, I saw him the day after I resigned, and after I retained counsel or thought I had retained counsel, because this had taken a considerable period of time and my car that was parked in the towaway zone of the White House had been towed away. It was sort of a frustrating day. Senator GURNEY. What was that? I missed it. [00.37.45--VERY FUNNY STUFF] Mr. SLOAN. My car, which had been parked in a towaway zone, that day lasted beyond 4:30 and -my car had disappeared following my resignation. Senator GURNEY. Did that have any connection with Watergate?, Mr. SLOAN. I do not believe so, Senator. I was somewhat frustrated at that, point and turned to John Dean, that he might be of some assistance locating where the Metropolitan Police Department might have placed it, and he was very helpful in that regard. Senator GURNEY. He certainly has a lot of contacts. Well, continue, now, on your contacts with Mr. Dean after you left the committee. Mr. SLOAN. Sir, he, Herb Kalmbach, and Maury Stans, throughout this period, would essentially call me every week or so to see how I was doing, take the temperature of the water, so to speak. Senator GURNEY. Could you tell us a little more about these conversations? Mr. SLOAN, I really can't Senator. They were very indefinite. Maury Stans occasionally would ask me advice on some of the civil litigation that had come up-- what do you think we ought to do about this, how is your family? It, was generally that kind of conversation. There a number, but I really can't characterize them in terms of any specific really substantive material. Senator GURNEY. But this was Dean calling you now? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; and at various times, I would call him. At that point, I understood that, he was handling an within thin the White House the investigation of this matter. I sought him out, surely, after I had resigned to give him the same information I had given everybody' else with regard to the money and the 'Magruder approach. Senator GURNEY. As I understand it, these are conversations generally by him to you to find out anything he could find out. Is, that it? Mr. SLOAN. Well, he generally would not--my judgment was that he was not seeking information from me with regard to what had happened after I had resigned and the money and the Magruder approach. I really had to force it on him. I went over and saw him one, day said, this is what I think happened; I understand You are doing an investigation. One day we had a conversation about, Mr. Magruder which continued On. I think this must have been later after --I am not sure Of the exact timing, but I expressed a feeling to him that I had felt, so strongly about what, 'Mr. Magruder had--not so much what he had suggested, but, what he had forced on me in the, way of a personal decision, and the -very nature of the suggestion, that I expressed to Mr. Dean the thought that if 'Mr. Magruder ever were presented before a Senate committee for confirmation for a high public office, I would personally seek out that committee and voluntarily testify against him. Senator GURNEY. What did Mr. Dean say to that? Mr. SLOAN. He, said, it will never happen. Senator GURNEY. How many phone conversations would you say you had with him and during what period of time? Just approximately. Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure, Senator. They might have come up 2 or 3 weeks apart, throughout the period leading up to the trial. Senator GURNEY. This is from July 1972 until January 1973? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator GURNEY. And is it, your impression, then, that he made these conversations because he was in charge of the, White House investigation the Watergate investigation? Mr., SLOAN. No; my impression more was that it was a, personal concern. He was just checking to see how I was. He was involved with-- Kalmbach, for instance, had offered to assist me in seeking private employment. We discussed my going to law school, he Suggested I see John Dean on that matter, if John had any suggestions. It was generally this kind of a conversation. Senator GURNEY, Has he ever made any suggestion to you other than the one you discussed with the chairman on the fifth amendment advice. as far as testimony in the grand jury or this committee is concerned? Mr. SLOAN, No, sir, I do not believe he has ever given me any legal advice in that context,. Senator GURNEY. In all of these conversations, did he ever mention the name of President Nixon? Mr. SLOAN. Not that I recall, Senator. Senator GURNEY. You testified that, you went, to California. That 'Was when you were asked to leave town for a while, I do not think you told us what you did in California. Would you describe to the committee what you did? Mr. SLOAN. Well, I forget where Secretary Stans was. I could not, join up with him until that Sunday night. There was a meeting on the California budget--- Senator ERVIN. There is a, vote on the floor of the Senate, so maybe we had better go over and vote and come back. [committee stands to recess, reporters/photogs mill around the front of the chamber] [00.42.58--LEHRER IN STUDIO]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.07.15-specter of Senate investigation growing stronger] It was learned in late December--early January that Senator Mansfield was pushing hard for Watergate hearings but there was, a debate as to who should handle the hearings. It was learned in late December--early January that Senator Mansfield had sent letters to Senator Eastland and Senator Ervin. regarding the holding of hearings. Before that letter became public, however both Wally Johnson and Fred LaRue had informed me, that they had talked with Senator Eastland. [00.07.45] The White House wanted Senator Eastland to hold such hearings because they felt that Senator Eastland would be friendly and that the White House had more friends on the Judiciary Committee than on Senator Ervin's Government Operations Committee. I was told that the White House congressional relations staff was doing what it could to get the hearings before Senator Eastland's committee. On January 11 of this year, the Senate Democrats formally voted that Senator Ervin would head the inquiry into the Watergate incident and related matters, and I must add, much to the displeasure of the White House. [00.08.19-shot of Sen. ERVIN smirking] On February 5, 1973, the chairman introduced his resolution to create this committee. An advance copy of that resolution was a was forwarded to me by Timmons and I was subsequently requested to attend a luncheon meeting with Ehrlichman Timmons, and Johnson to discuss the resolution. Ehrlichman -was tied up in another meeting and never attended. I was asked what I thought about the resolution and did I have any suggested amendments that the Republicans might offer. I had not had an opportunity to study the resolution closely so I reread it and offered a few suggestions off the top of my head: that it be broadened to cover other elections than the 1972 Presidential campaign; that the minority members have adequate staff', that it be bipartisan with equal representation of the Republicans and Democrats and that the minority members have the power to call for an executive session when they believed it necessary. Wally Johnson indicated that he could get someone at the Department of Justice to draft amendments and that he and Timmons would peddle them to friendly Republicans. [00.09.25] I later had discussions with Haldeman and Ehrlichman about the Senate hearings and they felt that it was time to develop a strategy for dealing with the Senate situation. I received what I interpreted as mild criticism that I wasn't getting the White House prepared for the forthcoming hearings and it was as recognized that we -were fast moving into an uncontrollable, if not hostile, forum. We had made it through the trial without any problems, but the Senate hearings were a new and possibly larger problem. Accordingly, I suggested that there be a meeting called where these matters could be discussed. I also suggested that we might call on Mr. Bryce Harlow. Ehrlichman, Haldeman, and Mitchell all agreed that, Mr. Harlow's counsel would be most helpful. Accordingly, I had my secretary schedule a meeting in Ehrlichman's office on February 6, 1973. 1 recall that it was at some hardship that Mr. Harlow attended, in that - he was scheduled to fly to Arizona that day, but I explained to him that my superiors were anxious to focus on the problem and wanted his advice. Prior to this meeting, but after my meeting with the President in September when he had mentioned to me that Mr. Hoover had told him that he (the President) had been bugged during his 1968 campaign the thought of getting this information that had been discussed. I can recall discussing it with Ehrlichman and Haldeman and in turn, discussing it. with Mitchell. Haldeman, and Ehrlichman wanted Mitchell to get the, information from Mr. DeLoach, I so informed Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell informed me that he was trying to get the facts regarding the bugging from DeLoach whom he believed I would have known if it had, in fact, happened. -Mitchell had talked to DeLoach prior to the February 6 meeting and had received some information, but not much. The meeting assembled in Ehrlichman's office. Mitchell was late in arriving because of a delayed flight from New York City. Those present were Ehrlichman, Haldeman. finally Mitchell. Harlow, Moore. and myself, When. Mitchell arrived, he reported that there had been some Surveillance by the Johnson administration but DeLoach -was unaware Of a bugging or wiretap. I remember that I told Harlow that I thought he had been recorded when he was traveling with the Vice President In 1968. 1 based this on a conversation I had had with Mitchell earlier. The surveillance that DeLoach reported' to Mitchell was related to Anna Chennault and a foreign embassy. Also the telephone records from the, Vice Presidential candidate Agnew's airplane when he had stopped in Albuquerque, New Mexico, had been checked by the FBI. [00.12.19]
Tax Probes: Ex U.S. Prosecutor Faces Committee.
Tax Probes: Ex U.S. Prosecutor Faces Committee. While President Truman begins drastic clean-up of the tax department, ousted Asst. Attorney General T. Lamar Caudle faces House investigators and tells his story of the dealings that led to his dismissal by the president. Mr. Caudle is an unhappy, harried witness as he takes the stand. Dark shots of House subcommittee investigation. Caudle complains, says "No one on earth can feel at home in this place." Laughter. Off-screen man (Congressman Burns?) asks a question; Caudle replies that there are often quick conversations, memos that aren't thought through and other things happening so quickly -- questioner interrupts, "Well, that's a pretty sloppy way to run a department, isn't it?" Caudle actually pulls at his collar in his anxiety. Government scandal.
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
House of Representatives in Session
Speaker Pro Tempore George Brown (D-CA) seated at Speaker's platform in House of Representatives, introducing and granting request asked off-mic; adult Caucasian and African American male and female House clerks working at rostrum. U.S. Representative Thomas Bliley, Jr (R-VA) remarks: "Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce Committee began last night to mark up automobile domestic content legislation. Governmental quotas are never the best way to accomplish any objective. In the economic area they may be the most damaging of all. Quotas lead to inefficiency. They lead to higher prices. Most people who buy foreign cars, especially Japanese cars, buy them because they are less expensive than American cars and often because they believe they are higher of quality. Now, I own three American cars myself, but I am not sure that I want to go home and tell my voters, who drive Datsuns and Toyotas, that they cannot buy those cars anymore, or that their prices are likely to be increased by a set of government quotas. I was somewhat shocked that at least one national consumer group endorsed this legislation as an apparent payoff to a union that is one of its members. Every credible economist who has examined the issue detailed the harmful effects of domestic content quotas on our own economy and on the public. Beyond its direct effects, this bill could have serious effects on our international trade relationships. We should not adopt this legislation." Speaker Pro Tempore bangs gavel, noting time has expired; Rep. Bliley Jr. gives notes to adult African-American male House clerk.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Charles Rangel (D - New York).
Charles Rangel (D - New York). The President of the United States not only disregarded the law but in fact feared the law and feared the grand jury system in our Nation's Capital. On March 27th, 1973, the President in talking with Ehrlichman about the fate of Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Ehrlichman said, "I think we have to recognize that you are not going to escape indictment," talking about Mr. Mitchell. This is what they were supposed to tell him. "There s no way. Far better that you should be prosecuted on information from the U.S. Attorney based on your conversation with the U.S. Attorney than on an indictment by a grand jury of 15 blacks and 3 whites after this kind of an investigation." The President responded "Right. And the door of the White House, we are trying to protect it." Well, Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that while the President is protected from indictment at this time from a grand jury in the Nation's Capital. And while he has been denied his day in court as relates to the criminal courts, that I am satisfied that he would have had a fair hearing in the House of Representatives, that he will have a fair trial in the U.S. Senate. And for the American people and its Constitution, it would have had its day to prove that the system can work and indeed it has been a victory for law and order. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.