Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.46] Mr. FLOWERS. Let me turn to some specifics which may be just the tip of the iceberg. There was a two-pronged attack on a well-known political Figure who is now the Governor of my State, and a great and courageous American, a belief which is shared equally by those who agree or disagree with him. In the spring of 1970 George Wallace was not Governor of Alabama, but engaged in a heated contest with the then Governor Brewer who had succeeded Governor Lurleen Wallace on her death in 1968. The decision was made, by whom I don't know, but I think you be certain it was in the highest councils of the White House, that the success of Governor Wallace in the Democratic Primary in the State of Alabama was somehow incompatible with the interests of the Nixon administration. So, what did they do? Well, at the specific instance of Mr. Higby, primary assistant to Mr. Haldeman, Chief of Staff to the President, $400,000 in funds left over from the 1968 Presidential campaign was funneled to Alabama in a devious and undercover manner in on unsuccessful effort to defeat Governor Wallace. There is direct evidence to this from Mr. Kalmbach before this committee in this room. Then in early 1970, H.R. Haldeman, directed a special counsel to the President to obtain a report from the IRS about. the. investigation of George Wallace and his brother. Haldeman gave assurances that the report was for the President. A report from IRS Commissioner Thrower was requested on this basis, received and given to Haldeman. Material contained in the material -was there, thereafter transmitted to Jack Anderson, a syndicated columnist, by Murray Chotiner, a White House employee and personal confidant of the President. Portions of the material potentially dangerous politically to Governor Wallace were published nationally on April 13, 1970, several weeks before the primary election. Now: both of these foregoing, actions were gross abuse of the IRS as an agency of Government And incidentally, a violation of Federal law. Now, I ask you, my friends, who -was it that maintained a political enemies list in an effort to get back at them? It was the administration of Richard -Nixon. Who was it that released potentially damaging tax information about. The Governor of Alabama? The aides of- Richard -Nixon. And on another subject of gross abuse, who was it that frustrated the ultimate date with justice that awaited Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. and which I trust would have come to them at the hands, of a jury? Was it some left-wing radical liberal group ? No, my friends, it -was the administration of Richard M. Nixon. However you describe yourself and wherever you may be., you ought to be vitally, concerned here. because if this President, with whom -you perhaps agree politically, can get by with the abuses described in this article, then so can succeeding Chief Executives, including those with whom you may not agree, thus imprinting in our highest office a standard of conduct that is certainly unacceptable to me. The, CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, The gentleman from New Jersey has 3 minutes remaining. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, I think now we have the whole case and if we could rest all Of it on this one, this lawyer would have asked for a directed verdict because these are the facts and now you know why they will not be specific. All they have are generalities, groups Of dates and each one, include about 3 months. All they have is in 1970 Haldeman told Mollenhoff. All they have is over sometime in 1971 and 1972 Caulfield did something' that Dean told him to do. All they have is in the spring of 1972 Ehrlichman told someone else something. The, only thing left is that magic date, September 15, 1972. Why don't you say that is all you have? "Why don't you let this count, rest on that date, because you know you cannot hold up. That is why you don't do it and here is why it would not hold up. All you have is a conversation which anybody that listens to that tape can tell why and how it was arrived at. Mr. Railsback now has brought Something and this is a majestic case to say the least. Modern times has done away with the fifth amendment. We heard that a day or so ago. And what did Mr. Railsback just say? Do you know what he said ? Nothing happened. not one of the five were audited. -Not one of them. But you have got to look past that. Impeach the President of the United States for a thought, not a deed? That is what he is saying. When did that happen before? And what kind of law is this going to make for every Man that sits in the White House from now on?, This is what I am concerned about. This can be a, stage show from now On for any majority party to manipulate against any man that becomes President of the United States that is not a member of his party, and such actions as that cannot be in the best interest of the Government and the country we all love so well. This is the thought we, have to prove to 220 million people. This shows beyond all reasonable doubt you cannot prove this count. You know it and the people know it, and why don't you pass this motion to Strike? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.26.24]