Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
[00.59.53] Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise, in opposition to the motion to strike and I would like to refer back to the statements earlier of the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, who, in debating this same motion was just to strike subsection 1 of this article to the effect that the President has made false and misleading statements to investigative officers and others. Mr. Wiggins again spoke of the celebrated June 22 statement by the President, in his press conference. to the, effect that there was no White House and no Committee for the Re-Election of the President involvement in the. burglary which had taken place 5 days earlier and he said that there was no clear and convincing evidence as to when the policy, this policy of obstruction of the investigation which is at, the, heart of the. Sarbanes substitute, that there is no clear and convincing evidence as to when the policy came into effect. I would like to state and then take you to several items of evidence which all Members are aware of, that that policy clearly came into effect sometime between the 17th of June and this statement by the President, on the 22d of June. I think the strongest, case can be made from inferences and from a reasonable application of what all Congressmen know is the procedure in all of Our officers. All the President's men. in essence, are aware from evidence that the Members are aware of. were aware prior to June 22 and several days prior. as a matter of fact, that Mr. Hunt then technically on the rolls of the White House. had been involved in the, burglary and that Mr. Liddy then, and who -was continuing to serve as chief counsel to the. Committee for the Re-Election of the President, everyone knew, that those two men had been involved in the burglary prior to this time and we know in our offices, I would say members of the committee, that, we, follow those things and it is impossible. to believe that the President could have, been aware of the burglary which we, know he -was and to have been aware that it could have involved people, in his campaign committee Or in the White House and not to have asked the question, but out, of the, President's own words we know that by June 22 he was aware Of Mr. Hunt's and Mr. Liddy's involvement, that in Mr. Colson's testimony to this committee be clearly indicated that on the 19th, 2 days after the burglary, that, he had a conversation with the President and the President's response, Was to throw--as reported to Mr. Colson--was to have thrown an ashtray across the, room in disgust when he learned that, the Committee for the Re-Election of the President was involved in that burglary, and we have the Presidents own memo to himself as has been Called earlier on the night of June 20 when he indicates that in a conversation With Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell had informed him that personnel from the committee had been involved in the burglary. And we know from Mr.--from the President's statement of May 22, 1973, in reference back to the days immediately following the Watergate burglary, when he says within a few days the name of Mr. Hunt Surfaced in connection with the investigation and he, uses that in reference to the time that he--that the CIA involvement became known to him which clearly indicates and is tied in prior to June 22. So clearly the President has indicated in the evidence available to this committee, and it has got to be clear and convincing, that he did know that Mr. Hunt had been involved, again technically on the rolls of the White House, and that Mr. Liddy, still the chief counsel to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, had been involved, both members had been involved, and yet with that background and with that in his conscience, with that in his mind--- [01.04.03--TAPE OUT]