« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
with my friend from California, Mr. Waldie, and also Mr. Edwards. And I think we are getting the cart before the horse until we hear from Mr. St. Clair. I do not think that we are in a position to state what witnesses we ought to call, and I think we are probably stretching this rule of confidentiality completely out of proportion. I do not think it was adopted for this purpose.
We ought to be able to mention some of the names at least that we ought to have called before this committee without breaching the rule of confidentiality.
It has been stated that these witnesses might, will say things that they should not be saying. Well, if we know what they are going to be saying, we do not need to call them in the first place.
Mr. BROOKS. Question.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield briefly for a question ?
Mr. BROOKS. If I still have the floor.
Mr. Owens. I would like to ask a question of the Chair, if I might. I agree basically that we may be discussing and will be discussing gaps in information still under the rules of confidentiality and, therefore, ought to decide the question of which witnesses ought to be called I suppose in a closed session under our rules. But, will it be the intention of the Chair to decide whether, in fact, the witnesses to be called would be interviewed in executive session today also in this session?
The CHAIRMAN. The motion calls for the naming of certain witnesses, and the interviewing of others before a determination will be finally made as to whether or not they will be called. And I think that it would be appropriate, as a matter of fact, to address a question to counsel who have been interviewing some of these witnesses, who are potential witnesses, to determine whether there is not confidential material that they are going to be talking about.
Mr. OWENS. Would it not be the intention of the chairman to do as we did in the nomination hearings of Mr. Ford last fall, to decide on an individual case-by-case basis whether a given witness should be heard in a private session?
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is a matter for the committee to determine as to what the potential witness is going to be expected to testify to. And I think that an appropriate motion can be made accordingly.
Mr. OWENS. Would that be made today!
Mr. Owens. Then, Mr. Chairman, I will vote against closing the meeting, for what that is worth.
The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to address a question to the counsel. Is counsel able to advise us regarding the various witnesses who are listed on the various motions that are going to be before the committee, and as to whether or not in the discussion of these witnesses it is possible that there is going to be material that is confidential material that might tend to defame or degrade?
Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. JENNER. It is entirely possible that discussions with respect to these witnesses will elicit at least some references to matters that would tend to defame or degrade.
May I also observe, Mr. Chairman, for the consideration of the members of the committee, that the trial of the Ehrlichman plumbers case commences this morning and probably is now in course, and the selection of a jury before Judge Gesell, and that jury cannot be sequestered before some time tomorrow, and so that as of today there is a possibility of reference to grand jury material that Judge Gesell, as you will recall, afforded us with the professional representation made on behalf of this committee that we would not reveal
of that until Judge Gesell had sequestered that, jury:
And then Mr. Doar wishes to present in the course of the matter this morning, some conferences that we had with counsel for one of the witnesses, which frankly, we cannot reveal in open session.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Arkansas. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye.
[Chorus of “ayes.”]
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is in doubt and a rollcall is demanded and the clerk will call the roll.
All those in favor of the motion to close the session please say aye; all those opposed, no. The clerk will call the roll.
The CLERK. Mr. Donohue.
The CLERK. Mr. Thornton.
The CLERK. Twenty-five members have voted aye, 13 members have voted no.
The CHAIRMAN. And the motion is agreed to, and accordingly the committee will proceed in executive session, and other than staff, and committee members all others will please leave the room.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 26, 1974
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:25 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, 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; Bernard W. Nussbaum, senior associate special counsel.
Committee staff present: Jerome M. Zeifman, general counsel; Garner J. Cline, associate general counsel; and Franklin G. Polk, associate counsel.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated in the committee a few moments ago, I am prepared to offer the motion for the adoption of a resolution which is at the desk of the members. I would like to at this time to offer that resolution and
urge its adoption by the committee. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman have the clerk read the motion. The CLERK (reading]: Resolved that the committee call before it the following witnesses: Alexander Butterfield, Herbert Kalmbach, Henry Petersen, John Dean, Fred LaRue.
The examination of such witnesses before the committee shall commence on July 2, 1974.
The committee shall hear the testimony of these and any other witnesses within 7 full working days of hearings, concluding on July 12, 1974.
Resolved further, that counsel are directed to interview the following individuals in advance of determination by the chairman and ranking minority member whether to call them before the full committee as witnesses : Charles Colson, John Mitchell, H. R. Haldeman, Paul O'Brien, William O. Bittman.
The scope of the testimony expected of each witness before the committee shall be specified in writing as determined by the chairman and ranking minority member.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, we are now at the stage of proceedings where it is necessary to call witnesses in order to fill in certain evidentiary gaps which may be developed during the process or may have become apparent during the process of our examination of some 7,000 pages of documents relating to the materials which have been presented by our staff.
I think it is vital for us to recognize that we are at this time limited to the development of material which has not already been presented and that we should restrict ourselves from merely duplicating or repeating testimony which we have already reviewed, which has already been presented in sworn testimony before other bodies, and which would require nothing but the expenditure of additional time by this committee.
Accordingly, the list of witnesses which I have proposed I have tried to outline specific areas of information on which these witnesses might be expected to bring to the committee information which it does not have.
First, Alexander Butterfield is in a position to testify as to the organization and the procedures of the White House itself, as to the flow of the chain of command from the President of the United States through his chief of staff, through other aides to give an indication of the habitual methods of performance of the White House, what information goes into the President and the nature of the information and directions which return from the President.
We have had an outline by counsel of this chain of command, but we have not had any testimony to that effect, and Mr. Butterfield should be able to give a good presentation to our committee of this kind of information.
With regard to Mr. Kalmbach-
Mr. Lott. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have an opportunity to discuss these as we go along, or do you intend for Mr. Thornton to go through his list here and discuss each one individually, or if we have any questions, for instance, about a particular witness, are we going to withhold that until he gets through or should we address questions as he goes along here?
The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be more appropriate for Mr. Thornton to first present the basic reasons as to why he offers this motion.
Mr. Lott. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. THORNTON. Respecting the material, I will attempt to materially shorten my discussion of the following witnesses in order that we may open up for specific discussion on any name mentioned.
Mr. Kalmbach certainly is in a position to be familiar with a great deal of Internal Revenue Service information, and particular inquiry might be appropriate as to whether or not he has knowledge of the use of the Internal Revenue Service information with regard to depriving any American citizen of rights which he may have.