Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.50.50] [Senator ERVIN responds to STANS' request not to be required to testify for the committee] I note in your statement that the only effect of requiring the witness to testify would be to prejudice his rights. I do not think that is the only effect of taking his testimony, because taking the testimony Of this witness and the testimony of other witnesses will enable this committee to determine whether the activities suggested took place, whether those activities imperiled the integrity of the process by which the people of the United States select the occupant of the highest office within their gift--that is, the Presidency of the United States--and whether any new legislation is necessary or advisable to punish or prevent a recurrence of any activities which the committee may find were illegal or unethical or improper. Now, the people of the United States certainly have a paramount interest in whether those who exercise high governmental power discharge or fail to discharge their duties, they have a high interest in learning whether or not electoral processes for the nomination and selection of Presidents have been polluted. And I do not think, and I think the committee does not think that, we should put off investigation of these matters until they can be determined by the court, because the Constitution gives, the Senate not, only the power but the duty' to make investigations of this character. The courts have had approximately a year to deal with these matters and justice has a habit, of treading on leaden feet, so I certainly think it would be manifestly unfair and the committee concedes this to be true, and the, committee has authorized me to state that in the unanimous judgment Of the committee, no questions should be directed to the witness in respect to the matters alleged in the indictments in the U.S. District Court, in New York. I would like to advise you and the witness at this time that if any question should be put to the witness which inferentially would require any testimony about the matters involved in that case, that, it be, called to our attention so we can be certain that it, will not be answered. Of course, the defendant has a constitutional right under the fifth amendment to refuse to if his testimony Would tent to incriminate him, and I can understand the reluctance of the witness to invoke that right. The committee, as I say, has had--fortunately out gave advance notice to the counsel and we considered this matter fully and it, is the judgment of the committee first, that the witness will not, be, asked any questions relating to the -New York case; second that the witness or his counsel will be privileged to call attention of the committee to any question which might invade the field covered by that case; and third, that it is the duty of the committee in the absence of all Invocation of a constitutional right not to testify, to interrogate the witness. So the committee will require the witness in the absence of an invocation of constitutional privilege. to testify, [00.55.13]