Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.57] Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Danielson, says that it is all right even if you can show that, the President did not know about it or that he did not direct it. No other human being can be held responsible for the acts of his agents in any kind of a criminal conviction unless he has one or the other of those conditions present. Mr. DANIELSON. Would the gentleman yield for a response? Mr. SANDMAN. When I am through if I have some time. Now, I have asked that we make a simple sentence out of each charge. The opposition have danced around that request for several days. Now, this is I think points to precisely why you will not do it. Through some mistake I suppose I got some of the arguments that the staff gave fellows on that side to use, but one of these things starts out with early 1970. Mr. HUNGATE. Pardon me. Mr. SANDMAN. Haldeman directed Mollenhoff. It is my time. That Does not say that the President did it, it says that Haldeman does. That was in 1970. 'The next thing that you have here on page 2 is John Caulfield, a member of Dean's staff, he did something at the request of Haldeman. It does not, say at the request of the President. Now. are you talking about the incident of March 13? We are entitled to know because if that is the one you are, concerned about you are not going to have much of a case. And then You have another one here in the spring of 1972, Ehrlichman wanted some information on O'Brien, but there is nothing in the information in front of me here, that was handed to me by the staff that that involves the President. Another time Ehrlichman---- Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. SANDMAN. Not yet, Ehrlichman told Shultz. It does not say the President told Shultz. Then we get down to Ehrlichman told Kalmbach. The President did not tell Kalmbach. Ehrlichman told Kalmbach, and this is another date September 1972, Is that the one that you are going to rely on? We should know. Now, in addition to that,, the biggest one of all that you are relying upon, apparently is the conversation of September 15. 1972, where if you listen to that tape there is no question that the President is extremely disturbed on what Dean is telling him, and it is there that he explodes about Shultz. And these are ugly words taken by themselves, they are terrible. But, the important thing about that conversation of September 15, 1972, there is no proof that has been presented by this committee or any other committee that shows that the President followed that up by talking to Shultz or anyone else. And in addition to that, why don't we for the first time, admit that not a single audit was made on a single soul on that list. This is important. This again is why you would not agree on specifics. You will nail down one date, that one act, and now low and behold, you are taking away the right of requiring that the President have knowledge of the wrongdoing or that be direct it. You are entirely wrong and you know it. This should be adopted. The CHAIRMAN. The, time, of the gentleman has expired. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. recognize the gentleman from Maine. Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sandman just indicated that the motion of Mr. Wiggins adds just two things. But, he failed to state. that it omits one very important a thing, and that is the question of ratification. And I notice that the gentleman from California was rather reticent about expressing this word "ratification" in his proposed amendment. Now, there. are two major areas which are of concern to me in this subject, of abuse of agencies under the Internal Revenue Service and the FBI. Now, for example, we do have direct evidence, before committee, taken before this committee and given by John Dean, that on September 11 he did have a conversation With the Director of the Internal Revenue Service during which time, he presented a list political enemies for the purpose of having those enemies audited. Now, there is no evidence, before this committee, in my opinion, would justifying saying the President knew in advance of Mr. Dean's activities. However, on September 15, the, conversation to which Mr. Sandman just referred to, we do have direct evidence that the President was indeed interested in having this matter pursued. Mr. Sandman forgot to indicate that or failed to point out, I should say, that we were missing 17 minutes of this September 15 tape which was not presented to the, committee, which we have Subpenaed. This is the portion of the tape, according to Mr. Dean, whereby the President directed Dean to go back and see George Shultz and if he did not get cooperation to let him know. Now, the question is, is Dean credible? Well, we have direct evidence from the, Internal Revenue Commissioner who testified before the Senate select committee that, indeed, Dean did come back to him on September 26, just several days after his conversation with the President, presenting a reduced list and again asking for audits. Now, I suggest and submit to this committee that the President's activities on September 15 would, indeed, constitute a ratification of the, prior act, which would make him responsible for- such activities. With respect to the FBI abuse, I am referring specifically to the investigation of Daniel Schorr. that there is evidence before this committee that Daniel Schorr- did criticize one of the President's speeches, and that while aboard Air Force One, Mr. Higby and Mr. Haldeman asked the FBI to conduct an investigation. Again we have no evidence before us to say that the President knew that they had called while aboard Air Force One, to ask for that investigation. but we do have direct evidence before the committee taken from the lips. Of Mr. Colson, and Mr. Colson told this committee that once that FBI investigation was exposed by the press, that he then came to the President and said we've got a problem here, we are in a jam, what do you think about sending out a statement that indicates that Mr. Schorr is being investigated because we are considering him as a consultant to the White House, to which the President approved. I would submit to this committee that that in turn would constitute ratification of the prior activities on behalf of the FBI, which I think were an abuse. And for those reasons, I cannot, without express wording in the motion offered by Mr. Wiggins, support that without the word ratification. And I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler. [01.10.45]