Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.21.36] Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I move an amendment The CHAIRMAN. No the, gentleman is not recognized at this time. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Chairman, I will yield-- CHAIRMAN. . You are recognized for 5 minutes. MEZVINSKY. Thank- you. Will yield 3 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California to continue his presentation. Mr. WALDIE. Well, I do want to make clear about John and Martha The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. WALDIE. The reason I do that is that there is no question and the Public knew that John Mitchell and Mrs. Mitchell were having some difficulties. Mrs. Mitchell in fact told him that if he didn't leave Public office she would leave him. But, that wa the excuse given, and in the conversation when they' discussed this they all agreed that that was the excuse because the public would understand that and as the President said, anybody would dare criticize a man for leaving this office because of his wife demand. Well you know they just wouldn't do that. He put it in More' blunt terms, but what they really wanted to do was to get John Mitchell out of the public eye. That was coverup. Now, I just think, you see, that through June 30 there was just no, question that there was a policy which was to protect the election of the President by concealing the involvement of the White House and'! the Committee for the Re-Election people in the burglary of Watergate because once their involvement had become known they would go back to the Plumbers' activities involving that break-in of the for Dr. Ellsberg, or Dr. Fielding's office and they would go back to the forging of these cables, designed to implicate John F. Kennedy in the assassination of Diem in South Vietnam. They would go back to the investigations of Senator Kennedy, They would go back to all kinds of very ugly things that 'were always describe mind you, as national security. That is the other key phrase you find through the coverup scheme When you want to keep something covered, when you don't want people to inquire, You put a label of national security on it an they always talked about Hunt's activities being national security. Nobody has ever pointed out to one single thing Hunt has ever don that had anything to do with national security. Forging cables surely is not national security. Breaking into a psychiatrist office-, is snot national security, as John Ehrlichman can clearly tell you. None of, the things described by the special investigation unit were really in implementation of national security. What this plan was, right up through June 30, was to coverup, conceal, and to keep it contained. From June 30 on, the plan evolved into much more dramatic terms, where John Dean's efforts relative to the FBI, relative to containment by coaching witnesses, relative to really raising big money to pay off the burglars and---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes. Mr. WALDIE. Let me just leave the last line for the next chapter. We, will go on to at the next meeting the question of picking UP money. with gloves on because you don't want fingerprints when you are going to deliver it for a compassion purpose. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has I minute and 45 seconds remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I Will be very brief I think what is interesting is that we are having now the layout of evidence but when we listened to the debate this afternoon, I think a lot of the public may have wondered actually what is going on here. We are. supposed to be considering an article impeachment concerning whether Richard Nixon has prevented, obstructed and impeded the adminsitration of justice. Somehow it seems that some of colleagues have been more concerned about possibly starting a crusade to make the word "specificity," as common in our conversations as the word Watergate. Mr. MARAZITI. Would the gentleman yield? the Mr. MEZVINSKY. I think it is demeaning really to President to think that he cannot understand the meaning of what is in this Sarbanes substitute, I think it has been spelled out quite well and I think we understand the tactic as really being diversionary. I just want to say to my colleagues, the evidence that the gentleman from California and others have pointed out is overwhelming. And I also want to say that the evidence will not go away. Mr. MARAZITI. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The yenfleman has 10 seconds remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I shall yield back the balance of my time, .Nrr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey seeking recognition? Mr. MARAZITI. Yes Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature a motion to strike paragraph 1 The CHAIRMAN. Has THE gentleman an amendment at the Clerk's SANDMAN. Yes, sir. There are eight amendments, and mine is The CLERK. There is an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment Has the amendment been distributed? The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the amendment has been distributed, I understand, but it did not contain Mr. Sandman's name. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Sandman. Strike subparagraph I of the Sarbanes substitute. [00.28.07]