Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
[01.10.30] Mr. BUTLER. Specifically, on or about June 28, 1972, Jeb Magruder met with CRP Director of Scheduling Herbert Porter and asked him to prepare false testimony concerning the purposes for which cash had been' disbursed to Liddy. Specifically, on July 19 and 20, 1972, respectively, Porter and Magruder falsely told FBI agents that the funds obtained from CRP were for legal intelligence gathering activities. Specifically, on August 10, Porter testified falsely before the, Watergate grand jury as to the purpose of the $199,000 in cash paid to Liddy. Specifically on August 18, Magruder after discussing his false story about, the Liddy money with Dean and Mitchell, testified falsely be-- fore the Watergate grand Jury. Specifically, on September 12 or 13, 1972, Magruder met with Mitchell and Dean to plan a false certain meetings among -Mitchell, Magruder, Dean, and Liddy in early 1972, Specifically, Magruder thereafter testified about the meetings before the Watergate grand jury. Now, I would direct your attention to page 86 of our transcript of the testimony in which it shows that on March 21, during his morning meeting with Dean the President was told of' the perjury by both .Magruder and Porter. Dealing with the top of page 87, the President says, "Who?" and this deals -with something preceding it, and I won't burden you with that. It talks about Mitchell, and then Dean says: [quoted] Mitchell, I don't know how much knowledge he actually had. I know Magruder has perjured himself in the grand jury. I know that Porter has perjured himself, uh, in the grand jury. [end] And the President says, "Porter [unintelligible], who is that, in effect, and "he is one of Magruder's deputies." And the President "Yeah." Then on March 13, 1973, "Dean told the, President directly that Strachan's denial of prior knowledge of the Liddy plan was, false and that Strachan planned to stonewall again in the future. And I call your attention to page 70 of our transcript, the one prepared for the committee. Dean says: [quoted section] Well, Chapin didn't know anything about the Watergate, and-- PRESIDENT. You don't think so? ,, DEAN. No, absolutely not. PRESIDENT, Did Strachan? DEAN. Yes. PRESIDENT. He knew? DEAN. Yes. PRESIDENT. Well, then, Bob knew. He probably told Bob, then. He may not have. He may not have. DEAN. He was, he was judicious in what he relayed and, uh, but Strachan is tough as nails. PRESIDENT. What'll he say: Just go in and say he didn't know? DEAN. He'll go in and stonewall it and say, "I don't know anything about what you are talking about." He has already done it twice, as you know, in interviews. PRESIDENT. I guess he should, shouldn't lie., in the interests of--why? I suppose we can all that justice, call we? We can't call it [unintelligible]. DEAN. Well it, it-- PRESIDENT. The point is, how do you justify that? DEAN. It's a-- it's a personal loyalty with him. He doesn't want it any other way. He didn't have to be told. He didn't have to be asked, It just is something that he found is the way he wanted to handle the Situation, PRESIDENT. But he knew? He knew about Watergate? Strachan did? DEAN. Uh-huh PRESIDENT. I'll be damned. Well, that's the problem in Bob's case, isn't it? It's not Chapin then, but Strachan--'cause Strachan worked for him. DEAN. Uh-huh. [end quoted section] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has already consumed 5 minutes. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman. may I have 5 minutes more to speak in opposition to the motion? The CHAIRMAN. I thought the gentleman was speaking in opposition to the motion? Mr. BUTLER. I was, but I thought I was on Mr. Flowers' time, and I thought he is the. proponent of the motion. Mr. Chairman, I will take my 5 minutes wherever I may, but I would-- The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman is seeking 5 more minutes, the gentleman will be recognized for the 5 minutes, and that will consume the 10 minutes in opposition to the amendment. Mr. BUTLER. Well, we will have to live with that, Mr. Chairman. Returning now, if I may, I would like to emphasize that the procedural aspects of these proceedings are not -without their levity, and I consider this an extremely serious matter, and there is, indeed, extensive evidence which I would, given the time, enlarge upon. I am going through my prepared remarks, and I will conclude, and I will let you know when my time has run out. But, it goes for, at this moment, some 13 pages, and it extensively develops, with specific, whatever that word is, the point which this, paragraph is addressed to, the approving the condoning, the acquiescence in and the counseling of witnesses with respect to false testimony. It is a grave matter, and I regret that we have, chosen to limit time, but I will do what I can with what I have. [01.16.04]