Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.53.25] The CHAIRMAN. time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired. The gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. I thank the chairman for yielding. The motion on the table is to strike the, language of the Sarbanes' substitute in subparagraph 2. That, subparagraph is directed to the withholding Of information by the President and I shall direct, my remarks to that subparagraph only. At the outset. Mr. Chairman. let's reflect what happened just a few moments ago, I think that we have pinned down absolutely that we are talking about Presidential misconduct and not the knowledge, the acts of others unless they were known to the President. Much of the material recited to us in Support of subparagraph 2 are not the acts of the President, at all but, rather, the acts of others. And I am -willing to concede that there are plenty of misdeeds by others, but, unless we attribute them to the President by the evidence they are. not relevant to this case. The evidence of Presidential action commences- Presidential knowledge commences, on -March 21, but, before I mention that, let's reflect about, some withholding prior to that time. on September 15, John Dean was up to his elbows in money payments. We all know that to be, a fact. Did he disclose, anything about, that, to the President insofar as our evidence is concerned on the conversations of September 15 ? Did he give the President any information at that time, upon which the, President could act? And the answer is no. What about, February 28? John Dean is deeply involved In a criminal conspiracy to obstruct Justice, according to John Dean, but, what, did he tell the President, speaking Of withholding on February 28? Absolutely nothing. What about March 13, now, the next, conversation with Dean? Well, there is One, on the 7th too, I will not march through these but just simply emphasize that there was some withholding here withholding by John Dean of information in his possession from the President, Upon which the President might have acted had that information been conveyed to him. Mr. SEIBERLING. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. I do not. think I am going to have the time, John, and will if I do have the, time. The conversation of the 21st has to be, read in its totality, morning and afternoon, and the full context of those remarks have to be understood, I suggest to my colleagues that the clear thrust of the afternoon conversation was that. all of this information had to be presented to a grand jury. That was a Presidential decision. He had many comments indicating that that was his preferred Course of action 5 inconsistent with the concept of withholding. On March 27 the President sought out as an option the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to hear all of these factual allegations of John Dean. You recall he said we will let Judge Sirica appoint the Special Prosecutor and say, "Judge, lets go." Those are the President's words. That option was rejected not to cover up but rather was rejected at the stance and request of Henry Petersen who thought it would cast unfairly upon the ability, of the Department of Justice. You recall that on March 27 or thereabouts, the President announced as his policy, inconsistent with this withholding consent, that everybody would go to the grand jury and fully without testify claiming any privilege. You recall that in the first week of April, when John Dean was contemplating going to the, U.S. attorney, the President's instruction to John Dean was, don't lie. John, tell the truth when you go before the grand--before the U.S. attorney. That is an important event, ladies and gentlemen. Presidential knowledge that John Dean was going to tell his story and was in fact telling his story to the 'U.S. attorney commencing in the first week in April. So was Magruder Those facts were known to the President. Now, that is the truth. Thereafter, when the President is alleged to have withheld information from Henry Petersen, the head of the Criminal Division, he is Withholding information according to the argument -which Petersen knows already by reason of the revelations of John Dean and Magruder before the grand jury. In terms of withholding information, ladies and gentlemen, recall that this President made a special effort to get John Mitchell, the big enchilada, as it were, to come forward and testify freely, fully, and fairly before the grand jury. This is--- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [00.58.44]