Page images
PDF
EPUB

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Executive Session

FRIDAY, JUNE 28, 1974

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr. (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Rodino (presiding), Donohue, Brooks, Kastenmeier, Edwards, 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, Froehlich, Moorhead, Maraziti, and Latta.

Impeachment inquiry staff present: John Doar, special counsel; Albert E. Jenner, Jr., special counsel to the minority; Samuel Garrison III, deputy minority counsel; Fred H. Altshuler, counsel; Evan A. Davis, counsel; Richard H. Gill, counsel.

Committee staff present: Jerome M. Zeifman, general counsel; Garner J. Cline, associate general counsel; and Franklin G. Polk, 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. The committee will come to order. And we resume where we had recessed last night. At that time I believe Mr. St. Clair had concluded with the presentation of the second volume. Mr. St. Clair.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to, if I may, Mr. Chairman, make one brief comment regarding the very end of yesterday's presentation. Due to the quorum call, I merely summarized the intendment of our presentation, and I would like to, if I may, just add one further thought to that summarization. And that is we included in our presentation what we feel were representative press clippings of the events with respect to the Kleindienst nomination hearings, which clearly indicate that the subject matter being reported in the press was allegations of a connection between the settlement of the antitrust cases and the contribution of the Sheridan-ITT Corp. to San Diego, the city of San Diego Convention Fund, or whatever it was called. So that the press reporting was in the context of whatever relationship of whatever there was between that contribution and the settlement of the case.

Thank you. If I may then, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Referring now to book 3, this book deals entirely with the dairy investigation. Tab. 1.

Mr. McCAHILL. The President was invited to address the Associated Milk Producers, Inc.-AMPI-annual convention in Chicago in September of 1970. The President was unable to accept the invitation, and Secretary Hardin spoke in his place.

The President placed a courtesy phone call on September 4, 1970. to the general manager of AMPI, Mr. Harold Nelson. He also spoke with Secretary Hardin who was with Mr. Nelson. During that conversation the President invited the dairy leaders to meet with him in Washington and to arrange a meeting with dairy leaders at a later date.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. The tabs in support of this is a memorandum retyped from an illegible copy to Bryce N. Harlow from Under Secretary Campbell. The significance I think that I would like to call to the attention of the committee is the date at which initial discussions about the President's talking with or meeting with dairy people began, and that is certainly by June 29, 1970, which is the day of the first memorandum, tab la.

Tab 1b is further evidence or information rather, relating to contacts with the administration and leaders of the dairy industry on the subject of a meeting with the President. And in Mr. Hardin's memorandum of January, I think it is the 25th or 26th of 1971, reference is made to a phone call by the President to Secretary Hardin and Mr. Harold Nelson, president of AMPI, extending an invitation to Mr. Nelson and other leaders to meet with the President in the White House. Again, the date now is January 1971.

Tab c is a portion of the deposition of Mr. Nelson relating to the same subject matter of the telephone call he had with the President. He describes the substance of that call at the bottom of page 61 and running over to the top of page 62 in his deposition, relating to the fact that the President told Mr. Nelson as follows:

"Also that he wanted to meet with us. No specific time was set. And that he would discuss such a meeting with Secretary Hardin. And he asked, and he asked me to tell the convention. He regretted being unable to attend and," the sentiments as he just described as being concerned about agricultural affairs and the like. Again, this relates to events as early as January 1971. Tab 2.

Mr. McCAHILL. Harold S. Nelson and his special assistant, David L. Parr, paid a brief courtesy call on the President on September 9, 1970, during a Presidential "Open Hour." During the Open Hour of September 9, 25 other people in addition to the AMPI representatives visited the President, including a group to encourage servicemen to exercise their votes, a group of concerned citizens from the State of South Dakota, and a contingent of the Gold Star Mothers. Mr. Nelson's and Mr. Parr's pictures were taken, and the President told them he understood they had had a successful annual meeting, and that he would like to attend their next one in 1971. They had what Mr. Parr described as a "very light veined" discussion of their orga

nization and activities. There is no evidence that campaign contributions were discussed.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. In this tab, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, again attention is directed to the date of the call, that being September 9, 1970.

Tab a, for purposes of context, is repeated here, although I believe it was presented by the special staff in its presentation.

Tab b is a portion of testimony in executive session in the Senate select committee which Mr. Parr describes: "The first thing we did. was to get a picture taken with him," and indicates that Mr. Colson was not part of the picture.

Then he said: "The second thing that happened, he," I take it being the President, "got on his yellow cabinet." Which I don't understand. It must be a garble in translation, and I think it is really a tablet, yellow tablet, "and we all sat down and he said, you people must have real good organization. I have heard some very good things about it. I know you have tried every way in the world to get me to come, and I understand you had a successful meeting. And when is your next one? I want to be there. I believe was the right word."

And then Mr. Parr says:

I believe we told him our next one would of course be 1971, and that we did not really want him to come. Then he said, well, I do not understand that. We said we want you to come in 1972, and we will have it in Los Angeles, and we will have it in the coliseum, and we will have 100,000 people. And if you don't come we'll get the Democrat. And when he said, no, I want to come in 1971. Now, we were sort of joshing with him then.

And then later on Mr. Parr says:

Well, I think we were there about 15 or 20 minutes. We tried to give him a bird's eye view of the cooperative, of what milk was, and I just do not remember all of the discussion we had. In other words, it was a very light veined type of discussion. It was the first time we had ever seen him, the first time I had ever seen him.

This is on page 17 of tab 2b.

Our marking is in the right-hand column. The special staff marking is in the left-hand side of the page. Tab 2c

Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. ST. CLAIR [continuing]. Is further testimony respecting this meeting, and I would suggest we commence at the bottom of page 53. I think it would be best to include in the marking the question that precedes the first answer at the bottom. The question was:

So you and Mr. Nelson flew to Washington to meet with the President, and now when you met with the President at that time, did you discuss anything else besides the question of his setting up a meeting?

Answer: I just remember he got out his yellow pad and started saying, "When is that meeting?" I was impressed with that.

Then he was asked: "How long did the meeting last?"

And he said: "I do not remember." And he says he was asked: "You don't remember what other subjects were discussed?"

And his answer was:

The only thing that impressed me was that he was very complimentary of what he had heard about our annual meeting. That is what we had just had. And he expressed an interest in meeting some of our people, which we thought was good,

and it sounded like he wanted to come to our next meeting, which he ultimately did.

Question: Was that the only thing that you talked about with the President about at that time?

Answer: I am sure we talked to him about the plight of the dairy farmer, because we never missed an opportunity to talk to anybody about that. But, I don't remember anything specifically.

Then finally in 2d, a portion of the testimony of Mr. Harold Nelson, and this relates to the conversation on the telephone, his description of the subject matter, and the question about halfway down on page 61 is:

What was the substance of that telephone

Answer: He was expressing his regret at being unable to attend, expressing his awareness of the importance of argriculture to the economy of the United States, and to the health and well-being and that sort of thing.

And he goes on to repeat that the President expressed concern about the wellbeing of agriculture producers, and he wanted to meet with members, that no specific time was set, and that the President wanted to express his regrets at being unable to attend.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. St. Clair?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Yes, sir,

The CHAIRMAN. Might I ask, this is just to make reference to what was called to our attention yesterday. In your reading the statement of Mr. Nelson as to his conversation with the President, I do not know how important this is except to point out the accuracy of your statement of information. You describe it in tab 1 as a courtesy phone call, and then we get language which, in my judgment, of course, while you may call it a courtesy phone call, is a phone call which talks about reassurance and talks about awareness and concern for the well-being of agricultural producers. Now, I do not question the fact that that may not have any significance. I question the description that you place in concluding that this was such a courtesy phone call. Would it not be more appropriate that it was a phone call, and then allude to the information?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly you and the members of the committee are entitled to draw any inferences you want. We felt this was a fair description of it. It may not-you may not agree, and if you do not agree, of course, you will ignore it. If you don't agree, I suggest simply you ignore the suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. No, I think that what I am trying to say, Mr. St. Clair, is that you are not presenting detailed information, but you are drawing conclusions because you are describing, in my judgment, and as I say I am not going to belabor it, but this crops up in various instances, and I do not know if this is the way you want to present it, by having such conclusions that in my judgment, at least, may not be quite the thing that one would expect of a detailed informational presentation.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, it is conclusory in a subordinate sense, of course. And I do not want to belabor the point either, except I would think it would be almost impossible to avoid making a subordinate conclusion from time to time. I do not think that is a critical description, and I would be just as happy to have the committee disregard it. We are simply trying to portray what is an accurate picture supported by the facts, and if this is not so, then the jury is not persuaded on this point. That is all.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »