Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.25.51] I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback. Mr. McCLORY. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes, I will be happy to yield, Mr. Chairman, 2 1/2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Railsback. I certainly want to agree with the views expressed by some of MY' colleagues that the original intent of the special unit, or the Plumbers, was to try to seal up leaks but I also would like to call attention to the fact that in, July 1971, just a few weeks after the Plumbers were set up, the break-in of Dr. Fielding's office was recognized by the President and Mr. Ehrlichman in his personal notes made while in conference with the President, that there wasn't any espionage or national security question involved at all. And this effort to draw in the CIA and the FBI were resisted, of course, by the head of the CIA and the head of the FBI. You know, some years later, as a matter of fact, in April 1973 when Henry Petersen was in charge of the Criminal Investigation, the Department of Justice was investigating the whole subject of Watergate and the coverup, he brought to the President's attention this Dr. Fielding's office break-in -in, the President in the taped conversation that we had here before the committee said to Henry Petersen: "I know all about that. That is national security." You see, the real facts are that while the Plumbers may have started as a legitimate, valid organization, it was soon converted by Hunt and Liddy and Ehrlichman and the whole group there into something quite different, and something that the President knew about; and it was wrong, and it seems to me that that is why this belongs in this part of our impeachment proceedings, why it is appropriately put in article II which relates to the question as to whether or not the President was indeed taking care to see to faithful execution of the laws, and that is why I think it is appropriately there as well as some of the other paragraphs that we have which question whether the President was fulfilling his obligation, and it is something that we should send to the House of Representatives to have considered there. In my opinion, there is clear and convincing evidence with respect to each of these paragraphs, that these actions were wrong. And I am hopeful that this article will be supported. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wiggins. has asked for about 30 seconds because he thinks there was an error made by Mr. McClory. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. I don't think the record should remain. I am sure it was an unintentional mistake. The Fielding break-in occurred in September 1971. It did not occur prior to that. There is not a -word in the Ehrlichman notes of July 1971 indicating prior knowledge of any break-in in Ellsberg's office. Mr. McCLORY. No. While-- No. It was not the Ellsberg break-in in July 1971. The Ellsberg's theft was regarded as not being a question of national security. If I said break-in, , I didn't mean that. It was the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, if I have any remaining time, I would like to yield it to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1, minute and 50 seconds remaining. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to whether that time could be yielded to me when I seek my own 5 minutes? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minutes and 50 seconds re- remaining of the gentleman from Illinois' time and he has the time if he so desires 5 minutes. Mr. COHEN, Can I take them consecutively? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6 minutes and 50 seconds. Mr. COHEN. Thank you. There is a -word that has been used here for the past 2 days and I am constrained to call upon myself to repeat it-amazing. Isn't it amazing? And I find it amazing that the fine lawyers on this committee have, somehow overlooked the concept of an attempted wrong act. All we have heard about the IRS is, well, what happened? It wasn't accomplished. It failed. It reminds me something of the words We have seen in the transcripts--a dry hole. I would like to direct a couple of questions to the staff now and ask you about the criminal penalties involved under this section. I assume it is a crime for anyone, any officer, or employee of the United States, to breach the confidentiality of the income tax returns of the citizens of this country and I further assume that, under title 18 the President and his subordinates fall within the definition of all' employee of the U.S. Government. Is that correct, Mr. Jenner? [00.31.00]