Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.31.00] Mr. JENNER. Congressman Cohen, section 7212 of the Criminal Code provides expressly that attempts to interfere, attempts to obtain information with respect to income and IRS materials shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 3 years, and then is supplemented by section 7213 which makes it unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States to divulge any of the contents of an income tax return and be fined $1,000 or imprisoned not more than I year and if the offense be by an officer or employee of the United States, he shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment. Mr. COHEN. Shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment- Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. COHEN. Not yet, and I assume for purposes of this section, -we are talking about those who attempt to use this information for improper purposes and specifically refers to-to attempts, does it not? Am I correct, Mr. Jenner, that it is not necessary to have a specific act carried out as such, the actual accomplishment of the act? Would it be sufficient, for example, if the President were to direct or ask or inquire of John Dean to obtain certain information, would not the act itself or the intent come from the direction to Mr. Dean as a matter of law? Mr. JENNER. The direction would be an attempt. Mr. COHEN. And it -would not be necessary to have the particular direction completed in order to be a violation, would it? Mr. JENNER. 'That is correct. Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I would also like to direct some comments to statements made by the gentleman from California. I found those statements -were also rather amazing because on the one hand, where the gentleman from California pointed out that Henry Petersen, recommended Matt Byrne as FBI Director, in response to a question that I asked Mr. Petersen during our questioning of witnesses, asked him whether or not he felt that Matt Byrne should be contacted while be was sitting as a judge on the. Ellsberg matter, to he replied, "'No." Even though he made a personal recommendation, be specifically indicated that Matt Byrne should not be contacted during the, Course of that trial. And the answer is quite clear as to why I asked him why not, and he said-in response to my question, wouldn't this be grounds for a mistrial--he said, some, of us felt that it would. I think as a matter of law that there would be a mistrial declared upon such a disclosure. I think that the act in contacting a presiding judge on a case of that magnitude, and I find it a little bit amazing once again for Mr. Ehrlichman to say that he didn't know what the present situation was in the Ellsberg matter, this was the major case of the decade prior to our deliberations on Watergate, if you will just go back a few years. But he didn't happen to know -what was going on at that time and there was no impropriety in the conversation. I happen to feel that the position of a judge is one of the most delicate in our entire system because he has to retain an absolute and scrupulous neutrality and that neutrality is destroyed as a, matter of law in my opinion when the Chief Executive, through his subordinate or subordinates, offers a position of an FBI directorship to the judge. And I suggest to you that if the counsel for the defendant or the defendant himself in such a case offered the presiding judge or even a juror a job with his firm upon the completion of the case, that man would be held in contempt, or would be in jail, I just simply want to conclude my own remarks in this regard and I know what the gentleman from California will say, that this might preclude any Federal judge from ever achieving a higher position, but I only call the gentleman's attention to the manner in which this was carried out. There was never any publication of it. There was never any nomination or word leaked out that there - was-they were considering the judge. As a matter of fact, it was covertly carried out, a second meeting in a park near San Clemente. But it seems to me that Of all Of the allegations we have been dealing with, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, investigation of Daniel Schorr, the fabricated statements about what would happen, we would hire Mr. Schorr as consultant to the White House, it seems to me what we are really saying here is that all of these activities raise the faint specter of an American Gulag Archipelago. When the Chief Executive of the country starts to investigate private citizens who criticize his policies or authorize his subordinates to do such things, then I think the rattle of the chains that would bind up our constitutional freedoms can be heard and it is against this rattle that we should awake and say no. Now I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. I only wish to comment with respect to your theory that a mistrial was appropriate by reason of the contact with Judge Byrne, well let me just tell you that Judge Byrne was a participant in that contact and he doesn't agree with you. He did declare a mistrial and he should know; quite the contrary. Mr. COHEN. He didn't think anything was improper. Mr. WIGGINS. The judge disagreed with you. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman. from Maine has expired. [00.36.23]