I would think that it would be practical if we had copies available for inspection. If the members want it, we, of course, can do that, but we would call attention of the committee members to the relevant portions of the material and indicate

Mr. BROOKS. Will counsel yield?

Mr. Chairman?

Mr. McClory, do you ask to make that a part of the record? That is what you were doing, but you were just talking about

Mr. McCLORY. I would be interested in having the relevant materials made a part of the record and made available to the committee members. I don't want to insist on having 38 copies

Mr. DOAR. We will make it a part of the record, we do make it a part of the record, ask that it be made a part of the record.

Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. I think frankly that this item that is being called to our attention is very pertinent for the reason that here we have before us materials which were sent to us by the White House after we had subpenaed those items and the materials that were furnished to the prosecutor, but on examination-and I don't suggest that we in any way again attribute any motivation or anything of the sort, but on examination, there are a number of blank pages in the items-in the set of notes that we have received and I have examined some of the notes.

I might say that on examination, a very cursory examination, I think that some of those matters are rather pertinent and relative to this inquiry. Yet they are not contained in the set of notes furnished to us, but they are contained in the set of notes which the Special Prosecutor has. And I think that this ought to be a matter that the committee ought to properly examine.

Mr. McCLORY. But, Mr. Chairman, how are we going to get this? I want to look at this material. How am I going to look at it? Mr. DOAR. It is available to you over at the

Mr. McCLORY. OK.

Mr. DOAR. Or we could furnish it to you.

Mr. McCLORY. That is satisfactory to me.

Mr. BUTLER. I would like to ask counsel, were either one of these things accompanied by a covering letter?

Mr. DOAR. The material that Mr. St. Clair gave to us was accompanied by a covering letter and the other material was accompanied by a covering letter.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Mr. Chairman

Mr. BUTLER. I am sorry, I yield to Mr. St. Clair, if that is appropriate.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. May I, sir?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. ST. CLAIR. As I explained to Mr. Doar and I think to Mr. Jenner, the production of materials to Judge Gesell was essentially in two phases. The first phase was handled by Mr. Buzhardt. When he had his heart attack, which was very sudden, we were unable to ascertain precisely what he had furnished. For that reason, we asked the Special Prosecutor's office to give us copies of what they had so that we could furnish the complete set to this committee. Somehow or other, that

material or that message got confused. They sent it here, we have no objection to that. All I want to do is be sure we have a copy of everything you have. Our intention of asking the Special Prosecutor to give us a copy, and we have done this before, in connection, I think, with some of the plumbers documents, is to be sure that you have what they have. When we did that, we did that for the purpose of getting the complete set to send to you and keeping one for us. That is the explanation for this. They apparently just sent it over here. As I say, we have no objection to that. Except I want to get a copy of whatever they have.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be made a part of the record.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I thought I still had the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, Mr. Butler.

Mr. BUTLER. I am satisfied with that explanation of how this error arose and I would think that it would be appropriate for us as a conmittee to proceed with the examination of all the evidence that has been brought to us from the Special Prosecutor in regard to this. I would like to request counsel, for my purposes, it would be far more appropriate to have the benefit of a digest or a summary in as concise a form as you can, hopefully participated in by a member of the minority as well as Mr. Doar's staff. And so that we can be assured that the digest meets our requirements of objectivity.

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Edwards.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask counsel, Mr. Doar, did the letter of transmittal from Mr. St. Clair explain that this was a partial distribution to us and that the White House was awaiting the material from the Special Prosecutor so it could supplement the delivery to us so that we would have the full amount delivered to the Special Prosecutor?

Mr. DOAR. No, it did not. It said that

Mr. EDWARDS. It inferred that this was a final delivery to the Judiciary Committee?

Mr. DOAR. Yes, it said, "We are furnishing those parts of Mr. Ehrlichman's notes that were furnished to Mr. Ehrlichman pursuant to Judge Gesell's subpena."

Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you.

Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta, I will recognize you. Then I think we have to recognize Mr. St. Clair so that he won't be interrupted by any of the proceedings of the House.

Mr. LATTA. I recognize that fact, Mr. Chairman. But apparently, this is of such importance that it has taken up quite a bit of the committee's time this morning. I feel as one member of this committee that I have had enough deletions and so forth that I want to see the entire thing. I think the American people want to see the whole thing. So I would hope that we will not get any abbreviated summary from anybody, that it will be inserted verbatim, word for word, in the hearins of this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be made part of the record, part of the hearings.

Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to proceed now.

Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman, on the procedure, may I be recognized on the procedure?

The CHAIRMAN. No, I am going to recognize Mr. St. Clair, out of deference to Mr. St. Clair. He is going to take at least an hour and a half. We will be going to the floor-I understand there are plenty of amendments

Mr. MARAZITI. I want to be heard on this procedure of listening to Mr. St. Clair.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is out of order.

Mr. MARAZITI. I want to be heard on this procedure. I raise a point of order.

The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry, the point of order is not in order.

Mr. MARAZITI. I want to raise a point on the procedure of Mr. St. Clair going first. I want to be heard on it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maraziti, I am sorry, but you are out of order. Mr. St. Clair has been invited to present the response. There is no other order than the invitation of Mr. St. Clair to make this response. Mr. MARAZITI. May I ask one question, Mr. Chairman, on the procedure

Mr. SARBANES. No, no, regular order.

Mr. MARAZITI. I think I am entitled to be heard.

I raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the point of order?

Mr. MARAZITI. The point of order is I want information on the procedure that this committee is going to follow on listening to counsel, counsel for the President, counsel for the committee. I want to know if Mr. Doar is going to make a presentation to the committee following Mr. St. Clair. That is all I ask.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the case. Mr. St. Clair is making a response this morning.

Mr. MARAZITI. The point I wanted to make is I think it is not the logical procedure for the negative side to make a response until the affirmative has come forward and stated its points and its programs. Then there is a response to that. That is a recognized method in any kind of procedure, any kind of debate

Mr. BROOKS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. I demand regular order. I am tired of this. Let's get with it. We have got this man here. Let's hear him and quit arguing and squabbling. I am sick of this.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. St. Clair.

Mr. St. Clair, you take the time that you want.

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

The CHAIRMAN. I would hope that the members of the committee would not interrupt Mr. St. Clair until he has completed his response. Mr. DONOHUE. Do I understand when you say a response that this is not going to be a summation of all the evidence or an argument as we usually have connected with a trial?

Mr. COHEN. Regular order.

The CHAIRMAN. We have invited Mr. St. Clair to present an oral

response.

Mr. St. Clair, will you proceed?

Mr. ST. CLAIR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the com

mittee.

I think I would be less than candid if I didn't indicate to you the enormity of the responsibility that I feel in regard to this matter, representing as I do the President of the United States in a proceeding that, fortunately, is reasonably unique in our history. Frankly, the enormity of this responsibility sometimes seems to be, to me at least, somewhat overwhelming. I doubt very much if I can adequately, in the time that I comtemplate using or in fact, in any time, fully acquit my responsibility in such a tremendously important proceeding. I hope you will bear with me. My only consolation is that I think that the enormity of this responsibility is even greater on your shoulders. After all, when I am through, I can get up and I can walk out that door. But you are going to have to sit here and you are going to have to make some very important decisions. And you are going to have to be counted with respect to those decisions and they are not easy. And they are not solely legal decisions. They are as much political as they are legal.

I would only say this. I am not a person that is skilled in the art of politics. I can only say this, that I think the American people will expect that this committee would not vote to recommend any articles of impeachment unless this committee is satisfied that the evidence to support it is clear, is clear and convincing. Because anything less than that, in my view, is going to result in recriminations, bitterness, and divisiveness among our people. And this will not be good for the United States of America.

So when I say I feel an overwhelming responsibility, I can only say, well, at least I can walk out that door and I think that you have even a greater responsibility and as we have been here in the last 9 or 10 weeks, I have seen nothing to indicate to me that you are not well aware of precisely what I am talking about.

Now, in the next hour or so, and I hope not to run much over an hour, Mr. Chairman, I am going to try to summarize briefly my views with respect to the evidence and what it means as I see it. Obviously, I am not going to try to cover every piece of evidence on each of the major areas covered by the staff report and our supplemental report. To do so would take days, not hours.

Furthermore, I fully recognize that each one of you is a lawyer and that we can engage in a great deal of shorthand between us so that I don't have to fully elaborate all of the matters. Everyone has sat through virtually every session, running sometimes late in the evening, so that I am sure that you will understand in substance what I am trying to say in the course of this response.

Of course, evidence, or, as we call it, information is the basis upon which any decision can be made. No political decision, in my view, can be made divorced from the fundamental facts. This committee properly, in my view, has seen fit to publish the great mass of material that your special staff has gathered together. The full impact of that will not really reach all of the American people or, to that extent, the American people who will have no awareness, for several weeks. So you have to sit here, really, as the surrogates for the Amer

ican people. You know what this evidence is. You have to frame a judgment with respect to it, knowing full well that the American people may well second-guess you.

An inference piled on an inference will not do, ladies and gentlemen, in these proceedings, any more than they would in any other proceeding. An inference drawn one way where the opposite inference is just as logical will not do. You know that and I know that. The information in my view, must be clear and it must be convincing before the major surgery that would be tantamount to a vote to recommend an article of impeachment.

For example, a major effort has been made by the staff-and I am not at all critical of them; that is their duty-to suggest to the committee that everything that Mr. Haldeman knew, ipso facto, the President knew. Well, that is an inference. I would suggest there is no evidence to support it, and in fact, the weight of the evidence would seem to contradict it.

First of all, consider the function of the principal aide to a President. Is it simply to regurgitate and pass through everything he gets! If that is the function of the principal aide to a President, he doesn't need one. This particular aide was one that, as Mr. Colson described him and I think it was confirmed by Mr. Mitchell-was in the habit of filtering out information he thought not appropriate. And in fact, Mr. Colson said that was not uncommon for other aides in the White House. We may have our views with respect to the propriety and the wisdom of this, but the fact is that Mr. Haldeman did not pass everything to the President that he was aware of.

For example, Mr. Butterfield, I think, was the first witness. He testified that by virtue of his position with respect to the flow of information in and out of the Oval Office, he felt that he had a very good reading, as I think he put it, on the information that was passed to the President by Mr. Haldeman. Despite the relatively short time that he said he spent with the President, nevertheless, he indicated to you that he felt he had a good feel for it.

Specifically, as it relates to the issues, then, in this case, you will recall. I am sure, that Mr. Butterfield testified that despite this feel for the informational flow to and from the President, he never heard of any alleged coverup of the Watergate break-in. Well, now, if he had such a feel and he never heard of that, then it is obvious that Mr. Haldeman did not pass any such information to the President, even if he had it.

Furthermore, if we assume, just for the purposes of this argument. in fairness to Mr. Haldeman, he was involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, what objective would be served by informing the President of that fact? In fact, I think as Mr. Henry Petersen indicated in his testimony, that would probably be about the last person that should be told. And this record is replete with conversation with respect to keeping it away from the President, getting him out above it, words to that effect. As I recall, John Dean, himself, on April 16, in discussing matters with the President, said, in substance, "I have never passed anything to you, Mr. President, that would involve you personally."

So I suggest to you that if you in your deliberations conclude that it is essential to making out a case that would justify a vote recommend