Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.14.55] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding. It had been my intention, Mr. Chairman, to use my 5 minutes to discuss the historical meaning of the "take care" clause because I think frankly this committee has not shown the degree of scholarship the House has the right to expect from us with respect to that Clause and its probable misapplication to article II. But I will reserve that to a later time and probably will include it in the report when ,we go to the House. I want to take this moment, to just lay out a few facts because charges .are easily made and now we have to take the time to shoot them down ,even though they are really without substance. It has been said that President Nixon attempted to subvert, the processes of justice by somehow improperly interfering with a Federal judge. We know we are talking about the Matt Byrne incident and the Ellsberg trial out in California. Let me tell you what happened. It is a relatively short story. Everybody knows that the, nomination of Pat Gray was in trouble and the President -was going to have to nominate a new director for the FBI. The President sought the advice of his Attorney General as whom that nominee ought to be and the Attorney General suggested "two names. He suggested Matt Byrne, a judge in California, and he suggested Henry Petersen. Given that, Mr. Ehrlichman, who was acting as the President's agent, sought to inquire -whether or not Judge Byrne was interested, and this is what he said to Judge Byrne: "Judge," he said, "I have been asked by the President to call you. have been asked to discuss 'with you a Federal appointment which is not judicial in character. I do not know whether this is an appropriate time for us to have a conversation like this because I do not know what the present situation in your trial is." Given that, Judge Byrne said, "I see no reason why we couldn't talk right away. Thereafter they met. They met down at San Clemente and they 'Walked out on the bluff, away from the office complex in San Clemente, and Ehrlichman said to the judge as follows: [quoting] "I am sensitive to the fact that you are now trying an important lawsuit. I Propose that we walk out toward the bluff from this office. if at any point a subject arises that you feel in any way impinges upon your ability to fairly try the case, You just turn around and walk away from me, and as I said before, this is not something that needs to be discussed right now. we can talk about it later, And the judge said, "Fine. Let's proceed on that basis." [end quoted section] Then they walked out on the bluff and an offer was made to be Director of the FBI. Judge Byrne saw no impropriety in that. he didn't report instantly to the Judiciary Committee as a result of that conversation. The President came out during the conversation and he said as follows: "I have not been following your case very closely. it appears that it may take as long to get the case tried as it took me to end the war in Vietnam, and that is all he said. Now, that is all he said. These sweeping statements that the President, was trying to prejudice a trial are unsupported by that sort of record and we ought to be more careful in our language. That allegation, at least, ladies 'and gentlemen, has no substance to it whatsoever. I yield--whatever I have got, I yield to my friend. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute and 15 seconds. Mr. WIGGINS. I yield that to my friend from Indiana. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. I may just say in the short time remaining that I think we ought to keep in mind--I could go over the surveillance again, the Plumbers again. Is it suggested that there is a law broken because of' the creation of the Plumbers? No one has told me what the law was. Is it suggested that because a unit is created and set up to take legal-to do certain things that you are thereby automatically responsible if it takes illegal action? It is perfectly obvious that the President knew nothing about the break-in out in California because of his remarks -when it came to his attention. It is perfectly obvious he knew nothing about, it and he said again in the record, I told all these fellows to obey the law and there isn't any evidence to the contrary. We have talked before about impeding the investigation. That came under article I and I said then and I say now that it is a debatable question -whether he legitimately felt that there, might be a CIA involvement or didn't legitimately feel it, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And finally, what we need to remember is -we, are. not accusing the President because of his general moral character or whether he is moral or amoral or what our personal opinion of him may be. We have got to find evidence or proof of a high crime or misdemeanor and if -we try to impeach him for anything else, then -we are not doing Our duty and we are violating our oath and our conscience. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, I am not seeking recognition at this time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. sought recognition ? Mr. SANDMAN. don't seek recognition at this time. I would like to at another time, Mr. Chairman, but not at this time. [00.20.36]