Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.07.26] Mr. BROOKS. Now, gentlemen, I would at this time yield to my friend, Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Are you--are you establishing or trying to establish by reference to Butterfield that the President knew what Haldeman knew or--in other words are you trying to say that there was a, knowing conversion by reason of what Haldeman knew or, can you just explain that a little? Mr. BROOKS. What I am trying to establish is that very clearly these assistants and close associates and executives of the President did -what he wanted them to do and that Haldeman testified and Butterfield testified that he, the President made the decisions and that they implemented them. It is just that simple. It was not something that they individually thought up and did. These were implementations of the President's ideas, to quote his own people. Now, may I conclude--- Mr. RAILSBACK. Would YOU just yield? I thought that Ehrlichman was the primary participant in the San Clemente matter and not Haldeman. Also what about Colson saying the, President didn't want to know a lot? In other words, he left it to his subordinates. Mr. BROOKS. I am just quoting Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Butterfield -who sat outside the door all those years. And I would reserve my closing time, and yield--reserve that 6 minutes, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Mr. DENNIS. Can't do that under the rules. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. I can yield it back to Mr. Mezvinsky and then get it If that would suit the technicalities of the situation' The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6 minutes remaining and Unless the gentleman from Michigan wants to proceed, the gentleman is now to consume his time. -Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. Certainly I yield to my distinguished friend from "New York, Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. We have a real problem here as it relates to the President's involvement. The President did sign that tax form. We all sign a tax form and we say that to the best of our knowledge the facts in that form are true. The unique thing about this case is that when the Internal Revenue did finally review the President's tax forms, it said because it was the President of the United States that they didn't feel that they should approach the President. It appears now that when the, President saw fit to turn over all of his books and records to the Joint Committee the committee did what the Internal Revenue Service did not do, and that is contact the taxpayer, We know that is basic regardless of what office we hold. When there are questions in connection with a tax form, the very least that should be done is You contact the taxpayer and have him explain away the discrepancies. In this particular case we find the President's men, that is these tax experts, not cooperating with the Internal Revenue We find the President not cooperating and answering the questions of the Joint Committee. And, if these things were to be held in abeyance it would mean that any President 'Who is not subject to criminal indictment will never have his conduct as relates to payment or nonpayment of income taxes reviewed. Now, a lot of talk. has been said that because the word "fraudulently" was accepted as a part of this article that we have the responsibility to prove the President's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If this were so, I would not be able to vote for the article. But the President's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt involves criminal liability which at this time the President has immunity from. It seems to me that the buck has to stop somewhere. The IRS will not ask the taxpayer. The Joint Committee said that, it would not go into criminal liability because that was a question for this committee. And we are merely recommending to the House under a resolution which allows for a continued investigation that the President be made to answer for not paying the taxes when it is clear he should have paid it'. It seems to me that the President again will have an opportunity to have more information presented to the Members of the House of Representatives since it has not been presented to the Congress or the IRS and then the President, too , will have the opportunity to come forward at long last in the Senate Of the United States and if in fact he is not guilty he will have the opportunity to present the facts. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and I yield back. [00.12.52]