Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.25.38] *SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION***** Senator INOUYE. You advised the committee that Mr. Magruder, told you that he perjured himself 12 times. Did he tell you about, 12 times he perjured himself? Mr. PORTER. No, sir, he did not. He made that comment the afternoon-the same afternoon, on April 14. Senator INOUYE, I am just-as a mutter of curiosity, you have' indicated that you were moved to take certain actions because of fear of ostracism; you did not want to be ostracized by the team. Mr. PORTER. I am not--- Senator INOUYE. I think that is the phrase you used. What team are you talking about? Mr. PORTER. It is just a generic term, Senator; not any particular squad of people. I used the term generically, I think. Senator INOUYE. People like Mr. Haldeman? Mr. PORTER. Probably. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Mitchell? Mr. PORTER. Probably. Senator INOUYE. The President? Mr. PORTER. I don't think that ever crossed my mind, no, sir. Senator INOUYE. I have other questions, but they relate to the, dirty tricks and I have been advised we will take these up later on. So, Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time, Thank you very much. Mr. PORTER. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. If there is no objection, we. have some more votes coming up very quickly and our time is running out. Can you come back Tuesday? Mr. PORTER. Sir, I am going to California in the morning with Mrs. Porter. It will require me to fly back on Monday. If that is what the committee wants me to do, I will certainly be willing to do it. Senator ERVIN. I don't think we can finish this afternoon. I hate to inconvenience you. Mr. PORTER. No inconvenience. Senator ERVIN. The committee will stand in recess until Tuesday at 10 o'clock. Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir, I -will be here. [00.27.50--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER discusses the sum total of testimony thus far, saying that it's clear that some bigshots are involved, but not clear how far up into the White House the trail leads. Calls on David AUSTEN, guest commentator and Georgetown University Law Professor, to discuss his view as a lawyer of the proceedings AUSTEN says that PORTER'S testimony was the most interseting, legally speaking, having admitted to two instances of Perjury. States that PORTER'S memory appears outstanding, remembering exact words from old conversations, which will make it easier for cross-examining attorneys to use the transcripts to pick at his testimony word for word. Adds that PORTER did not come across as well as SLOAN, who exuded honesty and candor, while PORTER testified that he only came forward with his story because MAGRUDER's decision to testify put PORTER in the position of having to testify to protect himself, while SLOAN did so out of no apparent self-interest, making his testimony much more credible to a jury. AUSTEN adds that the legal profession took some lumps during PORTER'S testimony, in that there were allegations of improper action toward clients, including even falling asleep during a consultation. Lastly, says AUSTEN,, it seems that the verdict is in on the legal profession, and it seems to be unfavorable. MacNEILL states that PORTER could presumably still be indicted for PERJURY, would he be able to claim some mitigating circumstances by virtue of coming clean for the committee? AUSTEN states that PORTER'S indictment is up to the prosecutor, so he may exercise discretion and can't be forced to indict PORTER, but in the case of conviction, the question of punishment and mitigating circumstances would be up to a judge. MacNEILL states that the deposition of H.R. HALDEMAN had been released that day, in which HALDEMAN said that John DEAN was never asked to investigate WATERGATE for the White House, raising doubts about NIXON'S statements that DEAN had investigated and found no involvement by White House personnel. [00.32.30]