Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.57] ought to get ahold of the transcripts and look at them. The two preceding speakers forgot to relate a couple, of important events. The President of the United States, who was interested in finding out about the involvement of Haldeman and Ehrlichman his two top aides, had specifically assured Henry Petersen, the new top law enforcement officer investigating the Watergate situation, that he would not divulge any information given to him, and he said it something like this: ""You are talking only to me, and there is not, going to be anybody else in the White House staff. In other words, I am acting counsel and everything else." The President then suggested the only exception might be Moore. When Petersen expressed some reservation about information being disclosed to Mr. Moore, the President said "Let's-better keep it with me then." At that meeting Petersen supplied the President with a memorandum which he had requested on April 15 summarizing the, existing evidence that implicated Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Strachan. Later that same day, April 16, there was a telephone conversation. Even more specifically the President told Mr. Petersen this, He said; he asked Petersen if there were any developments he should know about and he reassured Petersen that, "Of course, as you know, anything you tell me, as I think I told you earlier, will not be passed on because I know the rules of the grand jury." Now, it is true that some of the information that was given to the President by Henry Petersen was not, strictly grand jury information, although as the gentleman, my friend that spoke before me said, that this was in a treacherous area. Let me just say that what the President did is significant because in examining Henry Peterson myself and this has not come Out, Henry Peterson said in his opinion there wouldn't be, anything wrong with relating the charges to the two top aides so that they would be apprised and he could get somebody else to take their place. I specifically asked if he, differentiated between the charges and tell them to take some positive course of 'action. Henry Petersen Said, "DO you mean tactics?" And here was the conversation. "Now, in light of this," and I am examining Henry Petersen, "you testified earlier this morning I think, and frankly, I agree with what you said, that it is not, improper for you, I don't think it is improper for you to divulge this to the President. What concerns me so much about this is that the President didn't seem to be revealing charges. He is stating information, and possibly even making suggestions to them what they could do." Now I am referring specifically to what the President told to two professional criminal defendants on the morning of the 17th. The President told Haldeman that the money issue was critical. "Another thing, if you could get Strachan and yourself to sit down and do some hard thinking about, what kind of strategy you are going to have with the money, you know what I mean?" And my recollection is that Mr. Haldeman said, "Yeah. "And then he goes on and he takes up after some material deleted, and he goes in to Kalmbach. "What does Kalmbach know. What is Kalmbach going to say? In addition, the President instructed Haldeman, "Well, be sure that Kalmbach is at least aware of this, that LaRue had talked very freely, He is a broken man." When Henry Petersen said he didn't think, there was anything wrong with advising of the charges, he was not talking about the President trying to get them to engage in some kind of a tactic. 'Not only was that true, he differentiated between advising even of charges to the top aides and advising Kalmbach, who had already been implicated and it was suggested to the President earlier that Kalmbach was going to have to be called as a witness. I suggest that when Henry Petersen said in response to a question by Mr. Eilberg that we were not talking about Federal Rule 6E that relates to the grand jury but we were talking about section 1503 of title 18 -which has to do with the impediment, the obstruction of the due administration of justice, and I suggest that it is up to each one Of us members to look at the facts that have been related by the President's own transcripts and make up their minds whether they think that the President was simply relating to Haldeman and Ehrlichman the charges that had been leveled against them, or whether he was telling them what they should do. Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentleman yield, briefly? Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes, Mr. HUNGATE. I think in evaluating this testimony which you have So ably delineated that you recall the conversation of April 16, 1973, in the President's transcripts, GPO page 941, where Nixon says "Well, let me say I have got Petersen on a short leash." Ehrlichman says "OK." I thank the gentleman. Mr. RAILSBACK. That is true. Let me just say in closing, in fairness to my friend, Mr. Wiggins, who has just slipped me a note, Henry Petersen further suggested after this kind of examination that dealt with the difference between charges and tactics. and somebody like Kalmbach who is not a top aide, who he also told Haldeman to notify, he suggested it is a question for this to determine whether there - was corruption in the mind of the President. In other words, -what were the President's motives, and that is the issue. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time has expired, and the question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Alabama. All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes have it, the noes appear to have it and Mr. SANDMAN. On this I demand the yeas and nays. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey demands a rollcall vote, and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye, and all those opposed, no. [01.09.57]