completely as we would like to see a gentleman act in every relationship of life or that he did not tell Henry Petersen everything he knew at some given point in the course of their conversation is something | else again. Let's not get too enthusiastic here. This is a case of circumstantial evidence and circumstantial evidence is all right, but it can be argued both ways and will be, and if you are going to have a case of impeachment that will stand up on circumstantial evidence, you have got first the problem that the prosecution always has. You have the burden of proof. Second, you have got the problem with the House and the American.. people that you are talking about the President, and they are not all going to take every intendment against him, you know, even if maybe some of us do. I just throw that out. Mr. SEIBERLING. Will the gentleman yield on that? Mr. DENNIS. Sure. Mr. SEIBERLING. I wonder if the gentleman recognizes the distinetion between the President and just any other gentleman, because it isn't the question of whether it isn't the kind of thing for a gentleman to do, but he is the President of the United States who is in a unique position, who is charged with administering and executing the laws. and yet he is withholding information. Mr. HUNGATE. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Dennis, if the gentleman will yield on that, I don't forget he's different, but I don't necessarily think it's a criminal offense, because he doesn't tell Petersen that he's listened to a tape. Now, maybe he should and maybe he shouldn't. I am talking about whether it is an offense. After all, he is the chief law enforcement officer himself, and he may be deciding whether or not to fire these guys and this and that. And just whether he didn't tell Petersen something at some point in time is not conclusive of anything. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SEIBERLING. The question is whether it is compatible with the constitutional mandate that he faithfully execute the laws, and that's really what we have to decide. The CHAIRMAN. We are going to have to say all this in 5 more minutes, because I am going to bang the gavel in 5 minutes. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? I think the gentleman from Indiana makes to some extent the same point that the gentleman from Ohio is making. The President is different, and we must recognize that the inferences will not all be drawn against him. They will be drawn for him in some cases, and for him because he is the President in some cases. It is a real problem. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to hear these people who know so much about this case, and I would like them also to go into the two areas where I think Mr. Doar said they wanted to cover. Did you? Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, maybe Mr. Dennis can get some of his Republican colleagues together when we adjourn and we might have an informal briefing to go over some of these more serious questions that we are considering. Mr. DENNIS. I don't see many of my Republican colleagues here. I am the most enthusiastic man you have got. Mr. DOAR. We had completed the matters we wanted to cover. Mr. DRINAN. Well, there are other areas. Have you touched upon every single item in the book? Mr. DOAR. No. Mr. DRINAN. I mean in this here? Mr. DOAR. No. Mr. DRINAN. Well, I have questions about some of the others, but we can defer them until another time. Mr. DOAR. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that any staff members here at the table over the weekend, and Monday and Tuesday next week, are available to meet with the members individually, in small or however the chairman wishes on any particular subject that the members wish. groups, Mr. FISH. Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are meeting Monday at 2 p.m. for a business session? The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are going to first meet at 10:30 on Monday morning to hear Mr. Garrison. Mr. Garrison will have his briefing to present at that time, and following that, in the afternoon, we will dispose of the business matters, and some of the matters will relate to procedures that will be adopted, and each of you has, I think, a set of the proposed procedural resolution that we intend to consider and hopefully we may adopt some form of this so that we have very orderly debate and together with that we may have to consider at that time, since it is on the agenda, if the House will have acted on the question as to whether or not to permit live television and that will be a matter that could be appropriately before the committee. Plus the releasing of the other materials, such as the political memoranda which has as yet not been formally released by the committee. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was particularly concerned as to we meet Mr. Garrison on Monday morning, and we all received quite a large brief from Mr. St. Clair late in the afternoon yesterday, and I found today and yesterday with counsel to be extremely helpful and was hoping that at some point prior to Wednesday, following our chance to read Mr. St. Clair's brief, and following Mr. Garrison's presentation, that we would have a chance to come back with the full complement of counsel, perhaps on Tuesday, to have further sessions such as this one. The CHAIRMAN. You mean as an informal group? Mr. FISH. Yes, sir. Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am sure that if it would be helpful, then, fine, we will do so. Incidentally, it was hoped that rather than this kind of a setup, we could have-and this was a suggestion by Mr. Mann, which unfortunately we couldn't at all implement, but I thought it was a good suggestion-we could have sat around the table and discussed this across the table, but we couldn't get a custodian and the microphone and the table, so we weren't able to implement that kind of a plan. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, we might still, Mr. Fish- Mr. MANN. I just wanted to agree with you that I found this very helpful and that perhaps certainly Tuesday as a minimum, we can continue this sort of thing, and the chairman has suggested, mentioned, if we could put a rectangular set of tables out here with proper audioand I don't know how we can do that we might have a very, very useful discussion. We might have a discussion that will actually lead us into a discussion of the multiple articles that we have. Otherwise, I see the more formalized television appearance of this committee as being somewhat chaotic and drawn out and I think that a discussion of the type that we are carrying on here, directed towards the articles that we have, could substantially narrow the issues and keep some rather extreme positions from being brought up, really. And in our formal debate, by eliminating them by consensus earlier-and I think Tuesday is late enough to do that, perhaps even Monday afternoon after our business we can do that, and to some extent do it after our session Monday morning, or Monday. The CHAIRMAN. Or Monday evening. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? Mr. RANGEL. In following that up, that we do it without the benefit of a stenographer, that we just get together informally where we can just make our exchanges as lawyers and members rather than abide by the somewhat formal rules of procedure. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Well, that's fine. I think that that can be helpful. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. I just wanted to find out whether we are going to get any presentation of the kind we have just been through with respect to the issues of the impoundment and the secret bombing of Cambodia, which we did cover inthe evidentiary presentation? Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. I just want to say if we are not going to go by the rules, I think we ought to all agree to leave all weapons before we come into . the session. Mr. SEIBERLING. Could we have an answer to my question, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair had not expected that there would be any further presentation other than these informal briefing sessions. had developed, and thought that we would highlight these now. I think that you are always free to request further briefings, and I think staff has already indicated that. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, the real reason I sought recognition is a housekeeping suggestion. At the end of each year the House gives us trunks in which to put some of our materials, and if we have any money left over from our budget, I would recommend that provisions be made for extra trunks for members of this committee to take care of all of the materials. The CHAIRMAN. I am sure that we can make an appropriate request of the Clerk of the House. Mr. HOGAN. I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. The committee now stands adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:03 p.m., the committee was recessed until Monday. July 22, 1974, at 10:30 a.m.] IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY Executive Session MONDAY, JULY 22, 1974 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:50 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (chairman) presiding. Present: Representatives Rodino (presiding), Donohue, Brooks, Kastenmeier, Edwards, Hungate, Conyers, Eilberg, Waldie, Flowers, Mann, Sarbanes, Seiberling, Danielson, Drinan, Rangel, Jordan, Thornton, Holtzman, Owens, Mezvinsky, Hutchinson McClory, Smith, Sandman, Railsback, Wiggins, Dennis, Fish, Mayne, Hogan, Butler, Cohen, Lott, Froelich, Moorhead, Maraziti, and Latta. Impeachment inquiry staff present: John Doar, special counsel; Samuel Garrison III, special counsel to the minority; Albert E. Jenner, Jr., senior associate special counsel; Richard Cates, senior associate special counsel; Bernard W. Nussbaum, senior associate special counsel: Evan A. Davis, counsel; and Ben A. Wallis, Jr., counsel. Committee staff present: Jerome M. Zeifman, general counsel; Garner J. Cline, associate general counsel; Alan A. Parker, counsel; Daniel L. Cohen, counsel; William P. Dixon, counsel; Arden B. Schell, assistant counsel; Franklin G. Polk, associate counsel, Thomas E. Mooney, associate counsel; Michael W. Blommer, associate counsel. Also present: James D. St. Clair, special counsel to the President; John A. McCahill, assistant special counsel; and Malcolm J. Howard, assistant special counsel. The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. As had been previously noted we were scheduled to hear Mr. Garrison and I understand that Mr. Garrison is ready to present his briefing, and as we did in the case of Mr. Doar, the Chair hopes that we would permit Mr. Garrison to go on and to complete his statement before any questions are directed. Mr. Garrison. Mr. GARRISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. Good morning. First, I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for giving me this opportunity to present views relating to the question of the impeachment of the President. I distributed to you a little cartoon that appeared in the newspaper this morning, and I did it for two reasons. One, frankly I think it is funny, but secondly, to the extent that one would take a serious connotation to the concluding frame of that cartoon, I would like to utilize that device to express a contrary view. As a member of the staff, having sat through just about every ses sion of the committee during the course of this inquiry, I would like to associate myself with those who have described these proceedings as eminently responsible, fair and indicative of an effort to establish the truth. To the extent that views have been expressed elsewhere to the contrary, I disassociate myself from those views. Now, with respect to the presentation of written materials that I had told you last week we hoped to have available today: in fact, for a variety of basically mechanical and administrative problems, which I am sure you can appreciate, given the short time we have had to work on this, we have simply been unable to prepare more than a small portion of those materials for distribution today. During the rest of the week, sections relating to the discussions of the facts and the law in such other areas of the inquiry as time and manpower permit will be distributed to the Members in the belief that so long as the committee is still in the process of deliberating on this matter, it is appropriate to provide views on the facts and the law. [NOTE. The material referred to above may be found in a previously published publication entitled "Minority Memorandum on Facts and Law" released by the House Judiciary Committee in July 1974.] In addition to stating my immense gratitude to the minority staff for their almost super-human efforts these several days, I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Doar's staff for the full cooperation which they have shown in assisting the minority lawyers in preparation of this memorandum. I would like also to say that this is indicative of the spirit of good will and principle which Mr. Doar has exhibited throughout this inquiry. The subject of my presentation this morning, I think could best be described as the role of politics, with a capital P, in the impeachment process. And by that I mean, ladies and gentlemen, of course not the role of partisan politics, but the role of politics in the sense of government policy-determinations of what is in the public interest. I would like to discuss the role of politics in the context of several topics. One, the nature of this institution; two, the House of Representatives; three, the nature of the impeachment process; four, the nature of this inquiry and finally the nature of the facts. As a previous member of the permanent staff of this committee, I have had and do have nothing but the ultimate regard and respect for the House of Representatives as an institution. I was delighted to have the opportunity to come to this committee's staff in December of last year to work on this project. But, it is important to note that this is a political body in the finest sense of the word. The House of Representatives is designed to function as a representative of people. It is essentially bipartisan, and not nonpartisan, in composition, and I think that any congressional enterprise should reflect the character of the institution It has a bearing on the question of the factfinding process here to discuss briefly the nature of the role of the staff in the conduct of this inquiry And if you will bear with me, I would like to do that for a moment. I think it would be absurd to appear here this morning, in whatever capacity I am appearing, without making any note of the evolution of the staff structure in recent days and weeks. A nonpartisan staff, which is the concept upon which this staff was founded in December and January, is not unprecedented in the history of Congress, but it is certainly atypical. Only where there is an area of inquiry |