Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.31.39] Mr. DRINAN. 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 relevant to this inquiry because it was the President of the United States himself who ask that Mr. Stans be given this unusual situation, and I yield back Mr. Hogan. Thank you. Mr. HOGAN. 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 testily under oath as he did, in the offices of the Department of Justice. He was 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. And I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. LOTT. 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 up and it has been passed over. All of us have been speaking to press conference of the 22d, talking about the President's public Statements. 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 offices 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? Mr. DOAR. Yes, that is correct. Mr. LOTT. SO, the point is that the very first argument made in support of this section, in fact, is not applicable. Thank you for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson, for 5 minutes. Mr. DANIELSON. 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, 1 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. Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will not take long. This is a very simple section, 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. 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. Mr. DANIELSON. 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 I'd and I yield back to the Chair the balance of my time. [01.35.40--TAPE OUT]