Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
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.