Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Don Edwards (D - California). But Mr. Chairman, overriding everything else is our responsibility in connection with the Constitution. And these proceedings we always get back to this basic document that is supposed to determine how we behave ourselves in this country and how we are supposed to govern this country and how Congress is supposed to behave, and the executive department is supposed to behave. It gives to Congress alone, not to the executive department, not to the President, not to the Pentagon, the power to make war. And the Presidents are not supposed to make war without going to Congress first and getting permission by an act of Congress.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Don Edwards (D - California). And I am going to support the amendment and the article offered by the gentleman from Michigan. He has been a leader in this important area of our national life for a long time. I compliment him for his leadership, and I urge an aye vote. Yes, I yield to the -
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
49.38 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a reward for your patience, I shall not take my full 5 minutes. I take this time to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Doar. If we do not strike this item, it is your intention, then to leave it in these general terms and to go to the statements of information for the details? John Doar, attorney. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). Is it your intention if the item is not stricken as proposed by Mr. Sandman, is it your intention then to go to the statements of information for the details that will have to be spelled out specifically in the charge the President? John Doar, attorney. No; Mr. Latta, it would not be my intention to do that. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). Where will you get the information? John Doar, attorney. You would have the statements in a report that would go along with the article to the Floor. And in the report yon would be keyed to the summary of information that you were furnished last week. And that in turn would also be keyed back to the statements of information. But what you would have, as I would envision it, you would have a report that was maybe 15 or 20 pages long that would summarize these facts, these ultimate facts and relevant facts. And that would be keyed if someone wanted further information to the summary of information that was about 150 pages long and had it all keyed to statements of information where you could see the documentary, the evidence, the testimony, if you needed to see that.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
52.58 Delbert Latta (R Ohio). Well, then the question is how would the President know the charges being made against him if we left this charge "making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States." Now you just outline how he would know what those charges are so he can defend himself against them? John Doar, attorney. Well Delbert Latta (R Ohio). He would go then to the report from this document. John Doar, attorney. He would go to the report, and if the report, then he would look at the summary of information. That is the document we furnished, one notebook. Then in the one notebook that s keyed to the statement of information. He could go to that and the actual testimony, for example, or the statement that a particular person made, or the press release, or whatever else was relevant on that subject. That is not unusual with respect to modern civil or criminal practice. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). It might not be unusual, but in cases, in criminal court these days we don't 38 or 39 volumes of statements of information. And I would just like the American people to know what we are talking about. (To demonstrate, Latta piles the Statements of Information, each the size of a phonebook, on top of each other on the table) Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired. [Laughter] Delbert Latta (R Ohio). I don't believe they need any more time, Mr. Chairman.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 26, 1973
[00.30.32] Senator WEICKER. Mr. Chairman? Senator ERVIN. Do you wish to use one of these documents? Senator WEICKER. I would very specifically like to use, the document, Mr. Chairman, which Is the letter sent by Mr. Dean to Mr. Mitchell. Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Chairman, is that one of the national security documents? Senator ERVIN. Yes. I might state for the record that yesterday Senator Baker and myself, by authority of the unanimous vote of the committee, sent the following letter to the White House: JUNE 25, 1973, The PRESIDENT, The White House Washington D.C. DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: A former White House employee, John W. Dean III delivered to his honor, Judge John J. Sirica, Chief Judge of the U.S. District' Court. for the District of Columbia, certain documents. Judge Sirica Subsequently ordered copies of these documents delivered to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. These documents may be briefly described as follows: 1. A document which is entitled "Special Report Interagency Committee Intelligence," which constitutes a review of I he systems by which foreign and domestic intelligence is collected by the FBI, CIA, DIA and NSA. This document is 43 pages long, and is signed by the then heads of the four intelligence gathering agencies. 2. A document entitled "Recommendations" which relates 'to Operational restraints on intelligence collection, This document -was apparently prepared in June 1970, but does not bear the day of the month on which it Was finalized 3. A memorandum from H.R. Haldeman -to Tom Charles Huston dated July 14, 1970. 4. A memorandum from Tom Charles Huston to H. R. Haldeman dated August 5, 1970, which relates to domestic intelligence. 5. A memorandum from Tom Charles Huston to H.R. Haldeman dated August 7, 1970, which is entitled "Domestic Intelligence Review." 6. A memorandum from John Dean to the Attorney General relating to the Interagency Domestic Intelligence Unit dated September 18, 1970, which bears the notation that it was returned to John W. Dean by the Attorney General's Office on March 8, 1972. All of these documents are marked "Top Secret," except the memorandum from Tom Charles Huston to R. R. Haldeman dated August 7, 1970, which is marked "Confidential." The committee agrees that the first numbered document relates in substantial part to foreign intelligence, and ought not to be disclosed. It believes, however, that all of the portions of the other documents which relate to domestic intelligence or internal security should be released at the hearings, and for this reason, the committee has unanimously authorized and directed us as chairman and vice chairman to ask you forthwith to declassify them. In addition, the committee has authorized and directed us to request that You declassify two additional documents which have been printed in the New York Times and the Washington Post, insofar as they relate to domestic intelligence and internal security. These additional documents are as follows: 1. A decision memorandum dated July 15, 1970, bearing the title "Decision Memorandum, The White House, Washington." 2. A document entitled "Organization and Operations of the Interagency Group on Domestic Intelligence and Internal Security." The committee desires to interrogate witnesses concerning these documents, and for this reason, respectfully requests that you forthwith declassify them. Sincerely yours, SAM J. ERVIN. Jr., Chairman, HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Vice Chairman. [00.34.59]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.02.00--in to Sen. ERVIN questioning Hugh SLOAN about the aftermath of the Watergate Break-in] Senator ERVIN. And you got to talk to Mr. Dwight Chapin, the President's appointments secretary? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you told him that you were very much concerned about what had happened? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Chapin suggested that you take a vacation? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, he did. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chapin didn't suggest that you talk to Mr. Haldeman? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. I made the assumption that if lie felt that I was that, overwrought with the information I had given him, presumably he would convey that to Mr. Haldeman. Senator ERVIN. Didn't you think it was time for some honest man to be overwrought? Mr. SLOAN. I was overwrought,, yes, sir, Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chapin tried to impress upon you that it was necessary to take a trip Mr. SLOAN. He made that comment yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. After that, you talked to Mr. John L. Ehrlichman, didn't you? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you tried to talk to him about it? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you told Mr. Ehrlichman that it was evident to you that somebody external to the campaign should look into this matter. Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure whether I precisely said that. Certainly, my purpose in being here, which I think 1 conveyed was that there is a tremendous problem over here that somebody needs to take a look at, yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, the idea you -were trying to impress upon Mr. Ehrlichman was that somebody in the White House or somebody outside of the Committee To Re-Elect the President should make an investigation of this matter? Mr. SLOAN. Whether I put it in quite those strong terms, I was trying to express a, concern that there was a major problem in my judgment at the campaign, yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Which ought to be investigated by somebody other than the members Of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Ehrlichman told you that he didn't want to know anything about it. Mr. SLOAN. When I began to try to get specific as to details, probably in the area of money, I think he interpreted my concerns as being Personal concerns which I did have as well and suggested to me, that since I had worked at the White House, since I had a special relationship with the White House, if I had personal problems he would be, glad to arrange a lawyer for me or see that I had a, lawyer. With regard to his hearing any further information he stated that as far as he was concerned he didn't want; to know the details, that his position personally would he to take executive privilege on this matter until after the election. Senator ERVIN. So Mr. Ehrlichman at that time was what was known as the chief domestic adviser to the President, wasn't he? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, he was. Senator ERVIN. And so when you tried to tell the chief domestic. adviser to the President that there should be an investigation of this matter, the chief domestic adviser to the President said he didn't want to know anything about it, and if he did learn anything about it he was going to take executive privilege until after the election was over. Mr. SLOAN. Essentially, that is correct. I don't think I used the word "investigation"; I think it was more implied a problem one would assume he would want to look into. Senator ERVIN. Who did you see first on the visit to the White House which you say occurred on the 23d of June, Mr. Chapin or Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. SLOAN. My best recollection is I probably saw Mr. Chapin around noon and Mr. Ehrlichman around 2 o'clock. [00.05.17] Senator ERVIN. NOW, was it the same day that Secretary Stans suggested to you that $81,000 which was still left in the safes at the committee should be divided and you should take half home and he would take custody of the other half? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, that is my best recollection. Senator ERVIN. Then, it was as the same day that you had a conversation with Mr. Robert Mardian. Mr. SLOAN. The next day, Senator. Senator ERVIN. That would be the 24th? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Mardian gave you the impression that he had succeeded Mr. LaRue as an investigator on behalf of the committee of these matters. Mr. SLOAN. He was clearly looking into it. Whether I had the direct impression from him or other sources it was clear in my mind he had this authority at that point to talk to and investigate the matter among other staff members. Senator ERVIN. At that time you and your wife had been planning to take a vacation to Bermuda.' Mr. SLOAN, Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And when Mr. 'Mardian asked you something about the financial transactions and about how much money Mr. Porter and Mr. Liddy got, you told him approximately. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Then he advised you to go on your vacation? Mr. SLOAN. I think when I told him, Senator, at that point I had just completed the summary report the day before, I think I gave him a very precise figure. I indicated to him a concern because of the investigations going on at that point, in time whether I should in fact go on a vacation under these circumstances He did not, give me an answer at that point in time. but called me, at, home later in the day. Senator ERVIN. Pursuant to this advice you did go to Bermuda. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And returned on July 4. Mr. SLOAN. The 3rd. [00.07.16]
House Subcommittee Shreddergate Investigation
Committee Chairman U.S. Representative James J. Howard (D-NJ) questions EPA General Counsel Robert M. Perry at Public Works and Transportation Committee hearing on the shredding of public documents carried out by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), asks the number of documents subject to subpoena, citing a number in a New York Times article as more than 700,000 files; Howard also cites prior testimony given by EPA Administrator Anne Gorsuch. Perry confirms there are 780,000 documents subject to subpoena. Rep Howard questions EPA Chief of Staff John Daniel as to why he could not confirm the number of documents subpoenaed; Daniel says he does that the number of documents subject to the subpoena is approximately 787,000, confirms that to his knowledge two documents in question have been locked up and points out a number of subpoenaed documents are within EPA regional offices, not EPA headquarters. Howard states an attorney was able to break into the locked document box, questions whether this attorney was a Federal employee or an independent contractor. Daniel confirms that attorney was an EPA employee.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Church Committee Hearings - James Angleton
Senator FRANK CHURCH (D - Idaho). Now let s see, we are now at Senator Schweiker, please. Richard Schultz Schweiker (R-Pennsylvania). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Angleton, did you support the Huston plan in principle? At the time that this became a function of your decision making process, your administrative responsibility, did you support the Huston plan? James Angleton, CIA Counterintelligence. I did. Richard Schultz Schweiker (R-Pennsylvania). After the Huston plan was shot down, I guess by a combination of John Mitchell and J. Edgar Hoover, there were some other actions taken. First of all, John Dean was moved in and somewhat replaced Mr. Huston in his duties. Then he wrote a memo on September 18, 1970 [exhibit 24], within 2 months of the decision to abandon the Huston plan. And he set up a new committee. I quote now from his memo, "a key to the entire operation will be the creation of an interagency intelligence unit for both operational and evaluation purposes". You were a part of that new unit was that not correct? James Angleton, CIA Counterintelligence. I was present. Richard Schultz Schweiker (R-Pennsylvania). And as I understand it, the very first meeting of that unit was held in John Dean's office in the White House. Is that correct? James Angleton, CIA Counterintelligence. That is correct. Richard Schultz Schweiker (R-Pennsylvania). So in essence, by this move, did you not really begin to accomplish many of the objectives that Mr. Huston set out, but you did it in a way that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Hoover did not strenuously interpose their objection. Is that correct? James Angleton, CIA Counterintelligence. I do not have any evidence of that.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Senator SAM ERVIN (D-NC). Now who else was present at that time? Mr. ROBERT ODLE. Who else.... Senator ERVIN. Who else heard him ask for the shredder or saw him use the shredder? Mr. ODLE. I don't think anybody was there. Senator ERVIN. Were there any papers after that shredded by anybody else? Mr. ODLE. I didn't see nay shredding that day, besides that. Senator ERVIN. Yes. Subsequently, was Robert Mardian present at that time? Mr. ODLE. No sir, I believe he was in California. Senator ERVIN. And how long after this event was it before he returned from California? Mr. ODLE. I believe he returned the following week. Senator ERVIN. Do you know anything about any shredding of papers after his return? Mr. ODLE. No sir I do not, I have read in the newspapers as you have that he and one other individual shredded papers. I had no knowledge of that and I did not see them shred papers. And I, there was something called a referred to as a house cleaning. If that existed I did not see it. Senator ERVIN. Did you know nothing of any other papers being shredded after the break-in? Mr. ODLE. That's exactly correct. (MCU Senator Sam Ervin with arms folded, WS courtroom) Senator ERVIN. Do you know whether there was anybody kept a record in the committee for as to amounts of money that was dispersed to follow intelligence work? (MS Robert Odle seated at table with crowded courtroom BG) Mr. ODLE. No sir I don't. I assume the finance committee people whose job it was to keep records, kept records. I was not involved in that area. Senator ERVIN. Have you found, in your searches an assistant FBI, in the various committees you've mentioned, have you found any papers that which disclosed how much money was paid to G. Gordon Liddy? Mr. ODLE. No sir. Senator ERVIN. Or to Howard Hunt? Mr. ODLE. No sir I have not. Senator ERVIN. Is there any further questions? Senator Gurney.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.02.00--In to Hugh SLOAN questioned by Sen. GURNEY about CRP expenditures of the 1972 campaign] Mr. SLOAN. My first meeting with Mr. Raine was, I believe, sometime in February 1972, when he transmitted to Washington on behalf of Mr. Kalmbach several hundred thousand dollars in cash which were represented to me as being a carryover of 1968 funds. I think we had initially set up a separate safe deposit box from the one we already had for those funds. Senator GURNEY. Any of them had access to the lockboxes during the time Mr. Kalmbach was your boss; is that right? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Stans may have been in place at that point in time, but Mr. Kalmbach was still very active as a fundraiser and at one point in time in March was actively an officer of the committee. Senator GURNEY. Do you know whether Mr. Raine ever made any withdrawals of cash at any time? Mr. SLOAN. I know he has not, because I kept the records and eventually consolidated this all in the safe in the office. I can verify that no money that ever came under my control was ever taken out without my knowledge. Senator GURNEY. And who else had access to the lockboxes? Mr. SLOAN. I think just so there would be other people around, think Jane Dannenhauer, my secretary, would have been a signatory. Eveline Hyde, might have been. I think Judy Hoback, just as a function of having somebody who would be there if Mr. Kalmbach came to town and I was out, just so somebody would be in the office who could act as a second signatory. Senator GURNEY. Any withdrawals of cash from lockboxes were made by you, is that correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. How many were made? Mr. SLOAN. I have forgotten, Senator, precisely when we got the safe. The procedural handling of cash funds was the same throughout. I kept a cash-in and -out book, recording receipts and distributions, so that I kept an ongoing record wherever it happened to be at that particular time. Senator GURNEY. This is a record you later gave to Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. In summary form. In other words, the figures would be aggregated--Mr. Liddy, $199,000--not just the individual occasions. Senator GURNEY. With regard to access to the safes, who had access to the safes? Mr. SLOAN. When it was in. my office, I had the combination. I think- my secretary had it as well. When it, was moved into Arden Chambers' office, only Secretary Stans and I had the combination. Senator GURNEY. . Whom did you have the most contact with in the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Whom did you see most of, have transactions with? Mr. SLOAN. You mean within the political committee in terms of--- Senator GURNEY. Yes. Mr. SLOAN. Probably Rob Odle, because in our internal procedures in approving bills and so forth, he was really the central point for the political committee on where those bills came from. His signature was necessary to approve them; they would come through him and be sent down to myself. I would say he was the principal person I had any regular contact with I obviously saw some of these other people almost day-to-day, but not too of often in the business sense. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever have any contact with Mr. Haldeman? Mr. SLOAN. Not from the time I joined the committee until fairly recently. I have seen him once since I joined the committee. Senator GURNEY. When was that? Mr. SLOAN. I think it, was probably sometime in January, Senator. Senator GURNEY. What was the occasion of that meeting? Mr. SLOAN. I sought him out. At that point I had rejoined the finance committee as a consultant. Since he had gotten me into the campaign, I had made certain decisions. I wanted to, before I left town--and I was making plans to do so--I wanted to advise him essentially on the basis of the information that I had at that time, that I had totally supported the President of the United States and that my leaving the campaign was not intended in any way to reflect on that, but that essentially, I was unwilling to follow' the advice of some of his advisers at this time. I felt that having worked for him, on the way out, I just wanted to let him know what I had done and why I had done it. Senator GURNEY. What is this about following advice of someone? Mr. SLOAN. I had the feeling--I think the term has been used by some of your staff investigators-that, I was considered "off the reservation" as far as the White House and the campaign committee were concerned because of the actions I had taken. I did not know for instance--I knew that, Bob Haldeman had regular access to the President. I felt that any information on me quite probably had never gotten there, and that I felt, that I knew him well and that I just wanted to make one effort to put on the record there how I felt about things and why I had done them. [00.07.26]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Senator INOUYE. Was it your belief that people like Mr. O'Brien, Mr. McGovern and Mr. Muskie were involved in a conspiracy to plan violence? Mr. McCORD. No sir. Senator INOUYE. Where was the national security involved as far as these three men were concerned? (James McCord speaks with his lawyer again, long period of time) Mr. McCORD. Sir, I can restate what I previously stated before this committee in terms of violence that had already occurred, which involved bombings in a couple of states, which involved violence and demonstrations against our committee, which involved bomb threats against the committee to re-elect the president, which involved the evacuation of the building, which involved threats against the personal lives of Mr. Mitchell and Mrs. Mitchell themselves, I've recited those in considerable detail concerning the violence that was planned for the republican national committee and some of which was reported as early as December 1971 to be targeted against the committee for the re-election of the president. We had reports that there were within both groups, the McGovern headquarters and the democratic national committee headquarters some of the staff members who were working closely with some of the violence oriented groups and as I previously testified to that we, that part of the information we expected to obtain from the wire-tap itself would have to do with calls and conversations in coordination between such groups and staff members in the democratic national committee. That was not the only purpose of the wire-tap, I understood that. Part of the purpose was political intelligence. Political intelligence for the committee for the re-election of the president and the white house, out of the democratic national committee and out of the McGovern headquarters. But, in terms of my own motivation this was one factor.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle
Senator WEICKER. Thank you Mr. Odle. Now, the last question. Uh, in the subject of advertising, Mr. Daley, the approvement, the approving of advertisements. Was this done at the committee to re-elect the president or was the final say so given at the white house? Mr. ODLE. I think that uh, Mr. Haldeman um had an interest in advertising without a question, and I think that uh that in that case that both the campaign director, Mr. Mitchell, or Mr. MacGregor, and Mr. Haldeman jointly made decisions on advertising. I would say that that was the one area he had more interest more than others. Senator WEICKER. Would you also say that in the area of polling ... Mr. ODLE. Yes Senator WEICKER. That this again was a joint matter between Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman? Mr. ODLE. That I would think that Mr. Mitchell was the campaign director and he exercised final authority, I would say that, that, that was the second area in which Mr. Haldeman was most interested. That is my guess senator. Senator WEICKER. Thank you very much.....(unclear)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 5, 1973
[00.41.54] Senator GURNEY. Did Mr. Liddy spend a great deal of time with Mr. Magruder? Mr. REISNER. No- he, would have met with him, on several occasions, but not a great deal of time. Senator GURNEY. Did anybody from the White House contact YOU at any time after June, 17 and counsel you about any testimony You might be giving? Mr. REISNER. No, sir; I was never contacted by anybody in the Committee, or at the White House. Senator GURNEY. There were FBI interviews, as I understand, of Many personnel of the Committee To Re-Elect the President after June 17. Were you interviewed by the, FBI? Mr. REISNER. No, sir; I wasn't. Senator GURNEY. Are you aware of such interviews? Mr. REISNER. Oh, yes, There would sometimes be 10 or 15 FBI agents that would come to the office simultaneously. Senator GURNEY. There have been charges made, by some that the committee To Re-Elect, the President, did not cooperate with the FBI. can you shed any light on that? Mr. REISNER. No, sir. I think that there has been a news story saying that some of the agents may have resented the presence foreign Counsel at those interviews. I was aware that there was counsel sitting in on the interviews. But I testified as to anything else, I am not aware of anything else there, Senator GURNEY, But it would be your recollection that there was cooperation? Mr. REISNER. There was an extraordinary number or interviews, that was my impression. But I don't know anything more than that. Senator GURNEY. You mentioned reports and memos that went to the White House from your office. Did Mr. Magruder report directly at all to anybody in the White House regularly? Mr. REISNER. Well, concerning certain activities that took place in the campaign, there were individuals at the White House who were primarily concerned with those and Mr. Magruder would have unquestionably discussed things with those people just because they were the ones who were responsible for them. As to whether he reported to him, Mr. Magruder worked for Mr. Mitchell and Mr. MacGregor and the reporting relationship was one of coordination rather than reporting. Senator GURNEY. You mentioned a phone call in some detail That you had with Mr. Magruder on June 17. Did you have any other phone calls with anybody in California on that date? Mr. REISNER. No, sir. Senator GURNEY. That was the only one? Mr. REISNER. Yes, sir. [00.44.35--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states there will be more questions for REISNER about operations of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (CRP) [PBS Network ID] [title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [LEHRER introduces Sen. MONTOYA'S questions for REISNER.] [00.47.26--in to committee room] Senator ERVIN. Senator Montoya. Senator MONTOYA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to apologize for not being here during the course of the testimony, but we did have two rollcall votes and I had to be at two other meetings. Mr. Reisner, as administrative assistant to Mr. Jeb Magruder, you, of course, knew who he was going to meet everyday while you were there; is that correct? Mr. REISNER. I would say approximately, yes, sir. [00.47.58]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (1/2)
[00.30.17-Sen. INOUYE continues to question DEAN about the case of a fired AIR FORCE man who may have incurred the bad will of the WHITE HOUSE] Senator INOUYE. Did the President ever tell you why he was interested in the Fitzgerald case? Mr. DEAN. No; he merely said, he merely said that he, did not want Mr. Mollenhoff to keep reraising it at every press conference so would I work with him. Senator INOUYE. Do you know if Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman were interested? [00.30.37] Mr. DEAN. There is a rather extensive file in the White, House on Mr. Fitzgerald that was retrieved at one point by a member of my staff who was bringing the material in so I could at least read it all. There were the hearings and a book that Mr. Fitzgerald had written, and then there was correspondence and the like. I never got the opportunity to read those materials to make an assessment. Based on my conversations with Mr. Wilson of my staff I thought Mr. Mollenhoff frankly had a very good point and I thought it was something that frankly should be, looked into, and I thought there might have been errors that should be corrected. Senator INOUYE. You have indicated that this case -was assigned to someone on your staff. Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator INOUYE. Who is this person? Mr. DEAN. Mr. David Wilson. Senator INOUYE. Is he, still in the, office of the White House counsel? Mr. DEAN-. No, he has now gone, I believe to the Cost of Living Council. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman--- [00.31.41] Mr. DEAN. His departure, is totally unrelated to the Watergate. He went over there because he was looking for another job, he had grown in the Job he was in, there was a general staff reduction at the White House, I was also to tailor some of my staff, and it was an excellent opportunity for him. He, is a very bright, capable young lawyer and he is still there and I am sure, he may still have some familiarity, Or if he were to reexamine, the records he might be able to be of some assistance to the Senator, on this matter. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Fitzgerald's reputation has been unjustly injured, and if this committee can in any way assist Mr. Fitzgerald in regaining his reputation- [00.32.28] Senator ERVIN. Senator, I do not believe this matter falls within the jurisdiction of this committee under the resolution I think is alien to what we are authorized to investigate. Senator INOUYE. I brought this up because we were discussing all day the, matter of friends and enemies and I presume this man was on the enemy list. Senator ERVIN. I do not know, but we I do not, believe are authorized to investigate Mr. Fitzgerald's case here. Senator INOUYE. I thought it might be. well to invite Mr. Wilson to help clear Mr. Fitzgerald. Otherwise, once again, thank you very much. [00.33.08] Mr. DEAN. I would merely offer this to the Senator. I think- that if Mr. Mollenhoff reraises it at one or two more press conferences it may be given attention again. [Laughter], Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. sir. Senator ERVIN. Senator Gurney. do YOU have any further questions? [00.33.29] Senator GURNEY. Just one. Mr. Chairman, to clarify the record. In the, morning session, Mr. Dean. in Mr. Inouye's, Senator Inouye's questioning on pressure being brought to bear on any of the members of the committee, you did mention that you had had prior dealings with the, chairman, with Senator Gurney, and with Senator Weicker. Now, this came up in a context of pressure being brought to bear on members of the committee and also--- [00.34.00] Mr. DEAN. No, sir; as my recollection of the question was when we were assessing members of my the committee who I was familiar with on the committee, and the only people, that I knew by reputation or any personal dealings on the committee were you from your years in the House, Senator Weicker from my knowledge of him in the House, and that was about the extent of my knowledge. [00.34.30] Senator GURNEY. Well, I realize that but it did come up in context, this questioning about pressure on the committee of digging up dirt and I thought we ought to clarify what the prior dealings were. None of these prior dealings with the chairman Senator Ervin, or myself or Senator Weicker had anything to do with Watergate did it?' Mr. DEAN. No, sir. Senator GURNEY. My recollection of my own personal contacts with you is only one. although yours are two. One occurred in Senator Hruska's office during the Kleindienst confirmation hearings when you got with the Republican Senators, and I was among those, on the Judiciary Committee, and discussed the pending request to have Peter Flanigan, a White House counsel, I guess, his job is to testify before the committee in response to a request by our chairman, Senator Ervin on the committee. That was one of the occasions, and I recall that we, Suggested with our advice that the, White House had better send him up, this was a matter of executive privilege, otherwise he would not be confirmed. Is that your recollection of our meeting? [00.35.42]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). What we have seen here is an attempt by administration with the imprimatur of this President to bring retribution against those who seek to oppose the administration. And how many of have not quarreled with Presidents in the past, Democrats or Republicans, over agricultural policy or environmental policy or foreign policy or whatever. Does that give any President the license to burglarize our home, to wiretap our phones, to open our mail? I submit that if it does, we have gone down the long road to tyranny and that the blessings of liberty that we formed this Constitution 200 years ago to preserve will vanish very quickly. And I would like to remind my colleagues that under the Constitution of the United States we in the House of Representatives through the power of impeachment have been given the duty to preserve this Constitution and to preserve the blessings of liberty. And for that reason I feel that we are compelled to approve this article of impeachment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentlelady of New York has expired.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
Robert MacNEILL states that that is the complete story of John Dean, and the committee will not meet again until July 10, when John Mitchell will testify, and Mitchell's lawyers have already indicated that Mitchell will not implicate the President. States that it will be interesting to see what the White House does in the interim, since Fred Buzhardt's attempt to enter the fray was such a disaster that the White House had to state that Buzhardt's position was not an official White House one. States that next week, Americans will celebrate the second July 4th holiday since the Watergate, and it is still not clear "how many new techniques those under investigation have added to the American Political system."
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. John Conyers
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from Michigan for 6 minutes and 15 seconds. John Conyers (D Michigan). Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. We ve said here again and again during the course of these deliberations that the one power of the Congress that might, in fact, be even more powerful than that which brings us here, is the power to declare war. And I think that we might make an observation about the nature and importance of this proposed Article from the outset because as one who has worked with all of the members who have labored toward an understanding and a support of any of the Articles, I want to extend first my commendations to the chairman and then to those who composed the "fragile coalition" because I have been as concerned as any about putting it together and keeping it together. So far during these proceedings, no one has been required to make any compromises of conscience that have to do with those measures that should be considered as impeachable offenses. And I think that to do anything less would demean these proceedings and leave us open for criticism for all time in the view of those who will study in great detail our conduct during this historic event.
U.S. House Subcommittee : Shreddergate Part 1
Continuation of U.S. House Subcommittee Hearing; adult Caucasian female stenographer typing, adult African American male bends over to write something down, adult Caucasian males taking photographs in BG. Adult male, off camera, reads: "I would like to inform Mr. Lucero that the copying machine is not a Xerox machine. It's a 3M machine, and its been out of order for quite a period of time, and therefore was not a source of the documents being run through the shredder." Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Director of Waste Programs Enforcement Eugene Lucero, off camera, says that was not the only source of the documents. The statements provided to the committee acknowledge individuals who did use the shredder on occasion, but, "to the best of their knowledge, they have identified those documents." Adult Caucasian men and woman standing against wall listening; adult male, off camera, asks how the EPA was able to go so long without shredders.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Statement of John Dean.
When I returned to the conversation with the President, Mitchell, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman, they were still talking about dealing with the Ervin committee. The President told me that the White House should start directly dealing with the committee and that I should go up and commence discussions with Senator Ervin as to the parameters of executive privilege. I told the resident that, I did not think this would be wise because I was very much the party in issue with regard to the Judiciary committee hearings and that it would be unwise for me to go to the Hill and negotiate my own situation. The President agreed and Ehrlichman said that he would commence discussions.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Bob Dole : Chairman of Senate Finance Committee
U.S. Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) answering questions at press conference with Sen. John Heinz (R-PA). Adult male (o/s) asks question regarding the pending tax bill and possible actions by the U.S. House of Representatives. Sen. Dole is careful not to endorse any further actions until it is known what the House will do. Sen. Dole simply believes, and thinks Sen. Heinz does as well, that tax cut legislation ought to be passed before the end of the year; adult Caucasian male seated off to the side of Senators Dole and Heinz. Sen. Heinz adds that unless he had assurances of better terms for a tax package that could be passed promptly, he would advocate for passing the current legislation now, before the end of the year; adult Caucasian, predominantly males, standing behind cameras, listening to Sen. Heinz; Adult Caucasian male taking photographs as Sen. Heinz endorses Sen. Dole's Chairmanship for the Senate Finance Committee.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.02.00-NPACT letters on black screen-to committee room, Sen. INOUYE reading from the WHITE HOUSE memorandum blaming DEAN for the coverup and fiasco of Watergate, the audience laughing at many of the White House's pronouncements, DEAN responds very calmly, refers to his statement, that the White House's claims are inconceivable] [00.03.38-image of page bearing Senate Resolution 60, Robert MacNEILL v.o. reads resolution-title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"-00.04.20-MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that John DEAN, NIXON'S principal accuser, has weathered the third, the toughest and most dramatic, day of his testimony. After two days of silence, the White House issued, through Special Counsel Fred BUZHARDT, a memorandum that pinned the main blame for both WATERGATE and the COVERUP on DEAN. States that the committee treated the memo as a "cross-examination in absentia" by the President. MacNEILL states that a new version of the White House defense was revealed, in which it was claimed that Ehrlichman and Haldeman were innocent and "DEAN was the villain". MacNEILL states that before the White House memo was addressed, the bulk of the day was occupied by Sen. GURNEY'S attempts to defuse DEAN'S charges against the White House. Through all this, DEAN calmly stuck to his story. [00.05.18-LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that it was also learned today that former CRP staffer Fred LaRUE declined an indictment and pled guilty to a count of OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE. States that there were previously at least four charges against LaRUE, making it obvious that LaRUE struck a deal with the government to reduce his liability in exchange for testimony. States that LaRUE managed the 1972 campaign in the South, pleaded guilty to Judge SIRICA, who said that LaRUE would not be sentenced until all of the pending cases are disposed of, which should be a further incentive for LaRUE to tell all he knows about the matter. States that this was the first act by the Federal prosecutors since Archibald Cox was named SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. [00.06.06-MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that one question raised in the ERVIN hearings has been "who is the enemy", which at first meant a feud between the White House and its opponents in the Senate, but today it appears that there is a factional battle in the White House, but the testimony today, [in reference to the Enemies List] harkens back to the time when the White House was all together in opposing anyone opposed to Richard NIXON. DEAN's testimony revealed that there was a bureaucratic process of nominating and selecting the official "enemies" of the White House, to make a "top Twenty" deserving of special attention. States that reporter Peter KAYE was at the hearings when the lists of "enemies" were introduced. [00.06.48]
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
U.S. House Representative Dan Lungren (R-CA) thinks it is ironic that removal of the language and amendment would remove the very words that would prohibit a national identification card. Furthermore, to strike this amendment would be to deny Congress knowledge; that it is fearful of receiving information from an administration, Democrat or Republican. Rep. Lungren believes that Congress is “adult enough” to receive said information and make an informed judgement. He repeats that the study is for a period of three years after which the President will make a recommendation for Congress to review; that is all. Rep. Edward Roybal (D-CA) retorts that he is talking about the negotiating power now between the two houses of Congress, not the three-year study. Rep. Lungren yields to the Chairman of the Immigration Committee, Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) (o/s).