Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.19.11] Mr. DRINAN. Do I understand correctly Mr. Brooks that he has in fact paid the tax a assessed on the $94,000 ? Mr. BROOKS. He has paid a portion of that tax. A part of those improvements were made in 1969 and he has not paid the 1969 taxes 'although he, said in his news release, that he would pay them. Mr. DRINAN. But he is not legally required to pay the taxes? Mr. BROOKS. He was not then but he volunteered and said he would pay them. He did pay the taxes, as I understand it, in 1970, 1971, and 1972, a portion of which was that same type of emolument based on improvements to his personal properties. Mr. DRINAN. One last question, Mr. Brooks, if I may are these two items in your article inseparable, the items of taxes with which I and others here are obviously are having difficulty and the question of emolument? Are they so inseparable that they must remain together? Mr. BROOKS. Certainly either could be a separate article of impeachment. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa now has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Hutchinson, has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cohen is recognized. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, would you indicate to me When 2 minutes of my time have expired'? The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman will be notified. Mr. COHEN. First, I would like to say that I do not wish to ascribe any malevolent motives to the majority members of this committee and the timing of this issue. I think it IS an important issue which should be discussed and prime time is as good as any other. I would also like, to suggest to Mr. Brooks that it is my hope that this committee will, lit its good wisdom see fit to reject both of the ties that the gentleman has selected. Mr. Jenner, I would like to address a couple of questions to you, and if I could just have yes or no answers, because of the time limitation. My understanding is that the Joint Committee sent interrogatories to the President that were not answered, correct'? Mr. JENNER. That is correct. Mr. COHEN. Did this committee every send Similar interrogations to the President? Mr. JENNER. It did not. Mr. COHEN. Did this committee ever undertake any separate investigative work of its own on this matter? Mr. JENNER. Not of that character. Mr. COHEN. So even though the. Joint Committee said it did not deal -with the question of tax fraud, even though the Justice Department has not seen fit to prosecute the issue, and even though the Internal Revenue Service said it was civil negligence and not fraud, this committee has not done anything independent on its own to establish tax fraud is that correct? Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. We have undertaken some, interviews of course. Congressman Cohen, but we do not, have The capability to make the type of inquiry that a fraud investigation requires. Mr. COHEN. I understand that. Let me ask you this question. If the deed as to the 1969 papers had, in fact been properly executed prior to July 1 of that year that it became' effective, would the President's deduction have been allowed on the information that we have based it? Mr. JENNER. Yes, subject to the question of whether the deed was delivered. Mr. COHEN. Right. Now it seems to me that our investigation--the question before us is whether or not the. President had knowledge that the deed had not been delivered. Isn't that the real issue, as to whether the gift had been completed? Mr. JENNER. You are really asking two questions, To the last portion of your question, the answer is yes" as to whether the gift had been completed. Mr. COHEN. And he wouldn't necessarily know whether the gift had been---- The CHAIRMAN The gentleman has consumed 2 minutes. Mr. COHEN. he wouldn't necessarily know whether the gift had been delivered necessarily by looking at his tax return, would he? Mr. JENNER. That, is very difficult. It depends on What knowledge he had. Mr. COHEN. But not on the tax return itself? Mr. JENNER. 'Not from the face of the return, unless he, knew the return didn't correctly reflect what he otherwise knew. Mr. COHEN. Just one final point. I have heard the IRS praised day after day by my good friend, Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland, for its Integrity, that it did not bend and yield to the pressures' of the President of the, United States and the question I would ask, if in fact there was criminal fraud involved. ask yourself this question. Wouldn't this independent agency have asked the Justice Department to bring it before the grand jury for prosecution? Now I yield to my good friend from California. Mr. Waldie. [01.23.35]