Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.49] The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson, has 39 minutes and 40 seconds remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 4 minutes to the, gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman, after the remarks of Mr. Sandman I think it would be just as well if I pass my time back and not try to add to it. However, I -want to emphasize again the. remarks that he wound up -with. This afternoon, quite to the surprise Of some Of US, we spent the part, of the, afternoon working on an article dealing with the bombing of Cambodia which - we, most of us, knew -would be defeated. Why? For a very good reason, so that, tonight -we would have an opportunity to talk about the President's taxes. It, is a good political issue. But is it one that you impeach a President for? We the people don't like the idea that our President has not, paid taxes commensurate rate with his income. But will -we not admit that he is entitled to make, those deductions which, according to his counsel and the law, are legal? You may not like it, but do you impeach a President for mere negligence in filing personal income taxes, The question, as has been mentioned by the gentleman before me. is willfulness, and In this case it turns on whether or not the President knew no gift of his papers had been made before July 26, if in fact, they had not already been donated by the actual delivery. I spent a good bit of time in 1969 personally working king on a gift of papers in a, similar situation and I know how it was because the law practically changed from month to month. You had to really stay close to it. Now let's consider Some Of the facts that have already been mentioned to some extent. At the end of 1968 the President made a much smaller gift to the Archives. $80,000 worth of his papers, and he personally was deeply involved in this unquestioned legal gift. He discussed the deduction with his attorneys was briefed on the alternatives, and personally signed the deed conveying the papers. In 11 1969 he did not give the same Personal attention to this gift. And for a good reason. He was President of the United States. Surely he, could rely on the advice of his White House counsel and a noted personal tax' attorney to see that it was properly and legally done. In fact, he apparently should not have relied on their competence. Now, here, is a chain of events I would like to go over with You. First, the President made a gift in 1968, Second, in late February 1969 the President told John Ehrlichman the counsel. that he intended to make a bulk gift of papers during the year. Next, John Ehrlichman wrote a memorandum to the President on the subject of the charitable contributions and deduction. Then the papers were actually transferred to the Archives on March 26 or 27, 1969. On June 16. Ehrlichman ill a memorandum to White House attorney Morgan who was handling the papers conveyed a number of the President's decisions and concerns respecting his income taxes and these papers. In November 1969 appraiser Newman wrote the President and advised him of the value of his papers. and I might add that this appraisal was substantially above the deduction that was actually taken. It is important to note that the President did not sign the gift. It was signed by attorney Morgan and with no written or oral power of attorney from the President, In April 1970, when the President signed his 1969 income tax return. hi,:-, tax lawyer told that he had a 5-year tax shelter here with this charitable deduction. This is in the evidence, This was clearly a strong indication to the President that all necessary steps had been taken to consummate this gift. This is tax lawyer talking to him. I think it can be effectively argued that a very confused manner the existed wit], regard to the applicable law, that Congress changed that Year, and I would like to go over just briefly the dates there. First Of all, there was no indication the law was to be, changed in February. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. Mr. LOTT. If I could just conclude with One sentence, mere mistake or negligence, by the President in filing his tax returns should clearly not be grounds for impeachment. Thank you very much. [00.33.33]