Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.52.50] Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Much has been made here of the conversations between the President and Mr. Henry Petersen who was the Assistant Attorney General of the United States on the evening of April 16. 1 think that that conversation has to be taken In its proper context, and it is important in considering this to recall the extensive examination of Mr. Petersen when he appeared in person before this committee. Now, he is one of the relatively few live witnesses which we had. Unfortunately, that was a closed hearing. The, press and the American people were not privy to that at the time. I wish very much that his testimony could have, been seen, as well as later read. But, he testified that it was his understanding that under the circumstances it was entirely Proper for him to give this information to the President, He testified that in his opinion, it, was not grand jury information that at had already been testified to before the grand jury, but had been otherwise developed by the Government. and he said that certainly such information be properly used by the President in his capacity as' Chief of State, and that he fully expected the President to do so. He testified further that even if it were grand jury testimony, that it was his opinion, as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the criminal division, that there would be no impropriety in the President divulging that to subordinates in the course of his official duties, and specifically he said that he would be better able to determine whether or not Haldeman and Ehrlichman to be specific, should be permitted to continue in their very important duties if he could discuss, he the, President could discuss this information with them and determine whether he should keep them on or not. Now, it seems to me that Henry Petersen is certainly one person who has come unscathed through this ordeal as a very dedicated public servant. a professional of the highest standards, and that his testimony should be given a great deal of weight. He further testified that it is generally the practice within the Government for persons accused of wrongdoing to be confronted not only with the charges against them, but also the information on which those charges are based. And for that reason he felt that it -was entirely appropriate for the President to transmit that information to Ehrlichman Or Haldeman. Now, I think this testimony of his is so important that I want to refer to it in detail, and this is during the examination by Mr. Dennis of Indiana at page 142 of book 3. [quoting] QUESTION. Mr. Petersen, I think you testified earlier that the information which you transmitted to the President of the United States was not, in fact, grand jury testimony, but rather material in evidence -which you and the Department of Justice had accumulated and acquired by your own investigations. Is that correct? ANSWER. That is right, but, it is a treacherous area. At the, time I was receiving information, it was not grand jury information, but that some information maybe within a matter of a day, would become grand jury information. QUESTION. I understand that. However, at the time you had it, and at the time You transmitted it, it had not yet become so, is that true? ANSWER. Well, certainly at the time I transmitted it. Whether at the time---certainly at the time I got it. Whether or not it was at the time of transmittal it was grand Jury information, I was not keeping that close a track of it. QUESTION. OK. And you testified however--- The, CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. Will the gentleman yield to me 2 additional minutes? The CHAIRMAN. That will come out of the 10 minutes that is allotted. Mr. MAYNE. Yes, I understand. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2 more minutes. [00.58.28]