Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.40.46] Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, I would yield my time to the gentleMan from Illinois if he needs any more time there. Mr. RAILSBACK. I appreciate--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized-is he Yielding 5 minutes? Mr. FLOWERS. I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois and I want to reserve 2 minutes to ask a question of counsel. the CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In addition to that particular statement by the President, then there, was a sizable-there was some material deleted and then the converstation picked up and it went to Kalmbach and in this particular case the President's own edited transcript shows that the President instructed Haldeman to call Kalmbach to attempt to learn what Dean and Kalmbach were going to say Dean had told Kalmbach regarding the purposes of fundraising. In addition the President instructed Haldeman, "Well, be sure that Kalmbach is at least aware of this, that LaRue has talked very freely." These statements that involve Henry Petersen were between the President and the man that was really in charge of the Watergate investigation Then on April-he believed it was 25th and 26th the President Instructed Haldeman, a man who had been implicated, a man who had been implicated by John Dean on March 21, to get hold of certain taped conversations that took place in February and in March and Haldeman carried out his responsibilities and reported to the President. On April 26 he met with the President for 5 hours and reported to The President of the United States about what he had heard on those tapes. This committee has subpoenaed that 5-hour taped conversation and this is one of the tapes that we have not been able to get our hands on. Then I think it was April 27 the President again met with Henry Petersen. Henry Petersen at this point indicated that Dean's attorneys 'were threatening to implicate the White House. The President assumed that it meant him as well. And that is when he referred, and this is also in the edited transcript, the President said the only thing he could be referring to is that famous March 21 conversation and he did not tell Henry Petersen that he had had Haldeman listening to the tape. He didn't tell him there was a tape and this was just the day before but what did he do? He told him that they had talked about hush money, $120,000, and I think that his final quote was that he had turned it off totally. Mr. Doar, if you want to get into false and misleading statements I can't think of a better place to begin and I feel so strongly about this particular aspect of the whole Watergate incident that 1 would refer your attention to those conversations. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, in my remaining time I would ask counsel if this is the kind of evidence that counsel would have put under this heading. Is this the kind of evidence that falls into this place in the article? Mr. DOAR. This is the proof, yes, that we would offer. Mr. FLOWERS. Do you have any further items that Mr. Railsback has not mentioned? Mr. DOAR. Well we have the item. that Congressman Waldie mentioned about the President's statement on June 22 following the President statement by John Mitchell on the 20th of June. Mr. FLOWERS. To whom was that statement made 2 Mr. DOAR, To whom was what statement made? Mr. FLOWERS. The June 22 statement Mr. DOAR. It was made, in reply to a question at a press conference. Mr. FLOWERS. That wouldn't fall under this heading, though, false and misleading statements. Mr. DOAR. That is true. Excuse. me. Mr. FLOWERS. Well, I ask again are there any further items? Mr. DOAR. Yes; there Is. There is one other statement. That was, well, I believe that this one falls under the next paragraph because this relates to information to the President with respect to a statement that one of his subordinates made to officials of the Department of Justice. Mr. FLOWERS. Well, the items that Mr. Railsback mentioned and which he centers on, the dealings with Assistant Attorney General Petersen. is it your purpose, then, that these items of information". would fall under the first subparagraph there. is that correct? Mr. DOAR. That is correct. And I would also say. Mr. Congressman, that the statements that were made by Gordon Strachan to the FBI to the Department of Justice in connection with their investigation, in furtherance of the plan-- Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Strachan was Mr. Haldeman's assistant. Mr. DOAR. Yes; Would be some of the proof under this paragraph: Mr. COHEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you. I yield to the gentleman from Maine. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Doar, would the failure to disclose- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this motion strike and I think we have had a good number of hours here on debate about whether these plea pleadings are detailed enough. I think we have examined counsel searchingly'. We have exchanged our views. I am going to call for the previous question. I think the time--unless there are other members that feel Very strongly about this. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman? Mr- MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman? Mr. CONYERS. I see--well, then, I will withhold the previous question but it seems to me that it is about time for us to consider the first Vote of these proceedings. I don't know now how many...[page obscured several words]... to have to spend to determine whether or not we are going to observe the notice pleading of the Federal rules that have been in existence throughout the country since 1938. Now, if we are going to insist upon drawing an impeachment proceeding based on the last one, from 1868, I think that after we have examined the counsel, we have established facts, we made it very, very definite now that there are two views here. and I presume there is nothing left to do but for us to vote this out. Now, might I inquire, Mr. Chairman, is it possible for us to begin to consider setting some kind of time to close debate to vote on these? I understand there are a number of these motions to strike reaching to some nine of the sections within the Sarbanes substitute and I am very anxious that we resolve this after we have examined it. We have been examining it for several hours. Mr. RANGEL. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I will yield to my friend from New York. [00.48.25]