Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.58.28] Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [quoting] QUESTION. And you testified, however, that had it, in fact, been technically grand jury testimony that., in your legal opinion, you had a perfect right to transmit it to the President? Is that right? ANSWER. Yes, sir. QUESTION. Arid I think you testified also that had it, in fact, also been grand jury testimony that in your legal opinion it would be entirely proper, correct and legal for the President, in the discharge of his administrative function in determining whether or not to fire Haldeman and Ehrlichman what he should do about them and so on, to inform them of the charges against them, is that correct? [end quoted section] ANSWER. Yes, sir. Now, similar answers were given by this distinguished public servant and to a number of Congressmen who questioned him on the subject, it seems clear that much ado is being made about nothing in this particular paragraph insofar as it related to the testimony that the President did transmit information received from Mr. Petersen. Mr. RANGEL. Would the gentleman yield'? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman Mr. MAYNE. I yield back my time to Mr. Dennis. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for the remainder of the time---3 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayne has made my speech for me and made it very well. I am very happy that he recalled that colloquy that I had with Mr. Petersen and called it to our attention, because it is the answer. Mr. Petersen said in the first place that it was not grand jury testimony although some of it was, some of it wasn't. In the second place, if it had all been grand jury testimony he would have had a, perfect right to tell the President of the United States about it, as he, did. In the third place, the President of the United States had a perfect right to take up with these people the general subject matter with which they were charged for his administrative purposes and in order to determine whether or not they ought to be fired or retained, and "I expected him to do that when I talked to him." And there was not anything illegal about it. Now, that is the Petersen testimony. And now we are going, to hang somebody because of that transaction when that is the man involved has to say about it and it- is very, very difficult to see. Mr. Petersen has no complaint and I would not think that this committee would have any complaint either. Now, that is adequately covered and I hope everyone here understanding exactly the procedure we are going through. Yesterday we gave these people a little hard time because they would not file an ordinary charge which as Mr. Latta said, would be granted to any jaywalker in the land. So today the have concocted a scenario and we have a series Of motions which nobody intends to vote for, even including the charming gentleman who makes them, just so they can talk about Specifies that they were not willing to plead. That is all right. It is good, clean fun, I guess. A little bit farcical, I think, for such a serious Procedure. I am afraid some of the bias against the President is showing here and there in this kind of an operation. I am afraid so, but really there is not very much more to say about this particular charge because the man who was involved and whose information was supposed to be transferred has no complaint and. said that it was perfectly 'all right. I think the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, wanted Me to yield to him, and I will be happy to do so. Mr. SANDMAN. Thank you. My only Purpose in seeking this 1 minute is, I have a question for my friend from Alabama. On my motion to strike, you voted no, On' the second one, of course, we had no vote. On three and four, you only voted present. Five and six, we had no vote. NOW, On seven, I am Curious: Are, you going to vote for your own amendment or are you going to Continue to call on people to defeat your amendment? The CHAIRMAN. the time of the--- Mr. FLOWERS./ Mr. Chairman, may I answer the question? Mr. SANDMAN. Could I have unanimous consent to have the gentleman answer? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. [01.02.58] [DEADPAN] MR. FLOWERS. Well, the caliber of the debate is so outstanding, Mr. Sandman, that it leaves me undecided at the conclusion. [cut to SANDMAN laughing] [DISORDER in the room] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order and I think it is important that we try to maintain some decorum in this chamber. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. MR. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we have spoken to this issue before and I regret the need to have to go back into it. But, I guess this is what we have decided to do today. Let me just say that I think the American people, if they want to suitably apprise themselves of the facts surrounding the events of April 15, ought to get ahold of the transcripts and look at them. The two preceding speakers forgot to relate a couple, of important events. The President of the United States, who was interested in finding out about the involvement of Haldeman and Ehrlichman his two top aides, had specifically assured Henry Petersen, the new----- [01.04.16--TAPE OUT]