Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.37.31] The CHAIRMAN. The 3 minutes of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Father Drinan. For 3 minutes. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This fiasco called the Plumbers had three names. It started out as Project Ellsberg. David Young named It the Plumbers, and the President, 18 months later, gave it the name of Special Investigative Unit. It was political and covert and unlawful from the beginning. Patrick Buchanan had the good sense to decline the good job that had been offered to him to be head of the Plumbers, and so on 'July 1971, he gave the best description of the purpose of the then Project Ellsberg. He wrote in a memo to Mr. Haldeman that "This is a project for a 3-month period to link the Pentagon Papers with the left-wing newspapers and people of America." There, was no national security involved. Mr. Pat Buchanan had an alternative which he thought was better. "Let us undertake, a major public attack on the Brookings Institute." Everyone had hysteria over the Pentagon Papers except Mel Laird. Ten days after they were released he said that 98 percent Of the Pentagon Papers could have been and should have been declassified. The hysteria, I assure you, was created months after when the of the Plumbers came out. In Mr. St. Clair's brief on page 94 he, said that the Special Investigative Unit was created "in an entirely legal manner," And I doubt if he can support that because this is an entirely outside of the ordinary that the executive branch of government operates. Mr. St. Clair concedes at, a moment in time that there was a shift in the Unit's way of acting. But, he, said that the purpose, was legitimate. He failed to tell us why they had sterile phones whatever they are, in this little cubbyhole in the Executive Office Building and needed Special passes to enter this section and why, in total defiance of the law of the CIA, they regularly violated that prohibition any internal security matters of the CIA. Henry Petersen testified before this committee on July 12 that he said there is no area of violation of Federal criminal laws which was not covered by existing statutes and that if there is any residual jurisdiction it goes to the. Department of Justice. I suggest therefore that this was political and unlawful from the beginning and the names came later. If the President says that there is an epidemic of leaks, that is substantiated by the evidence. And let me quote you one justification that has come out today in a minority report from this committee that demonstrates the hysteria that is still going on and with that I close. And the statement in justification of the Plumbers that "Foreign espionage agents read English and they can read the New York Times." Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, I recognize the. gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen, for 3 minutes. Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct my attention to the final sentences of this paragraph whereby the President attempted to prejudice, the constitutional rights of the accused to a fair trial. Several days ago the gentleman from New Jersey made a statement that we must view the totality of the evidence, and I happen to agree with Mr. Sandman. He is absolutely correct, because only by viewing all of the evidence can we trace the threads of attitude and action that are a pattern of spirit and conduct that is the very basis of our investigation, And I want to call your attention to the September 15, 1972 conversation between the President, and Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Dean whereby Mr. Dean indicated he was talking about Edward Bennet Williams, at which time the President says "We are, going after him." Haldeman says "This is the guy we have got to ruin." And then I am skipping on to page 10 where the President says "I think we are going to fix," and I am paraphrasing "the SOB, Believe me. We are going to, we have got to because he's a bad man." Now. I think this statement is relevant that respect to the Ellsberg matter because Mr. Colson told Us, as he told the court, that on several occasions the President urged Colson to disseminate information about Ellsberg and also his attorney, and this is the same act for which Colson pled guilty to corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the criminal trial by devising and implementing a scheme to defame and destroy the Public image and credibility of Ellsberg. Now, Ellsberg, in my opinion, and I agree with Mr. Hogan, he should have been prosecuted, but his trial should have gone, to its full conclusion according to the due process of law. What was done in Ellsberg reminded me of what Commodore Vanderbilt said to his adversaries: "I won't sue you, I'll ruin you." The administration did not seek to sue. or prosecute Ellsberg for his wrongdoing, they set out to ruin him, and that, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, is not only contrary to the spirit of our Constitution, it is also contrary to the laws as stated in the cases of United States v. Krogh and Colson. A man cannot set attack dogs loose on general instructions to stop and destroy leaks at any cost, and then say he is not responsible when the constitutional rights of citizens are shredded in the process. [00.42.42]