Pushing Ahead the Impeachment Inquiry

Struggling to offset the damaging impact of the Watergate grand jury indictments, which charged that a criminal cover-up conspiracy had permeated the White House, President Nixon last week took the rare step of holding his second press conference within eight days. Though he was grim and nervous, he came across forcefully in defending his own role in that ill-fated scheme. But before the week was over, there were more indictments of his men, and a determined House Judiciary Committee pushed tenaciously ahead in its impeachment inquiry.

Much of Nixon's news conference focused on a crucial meeting in his office on March 21, 1973, and on precisely what he had said then about the possibility of continuing illegal hush money payments to silence the original Watergate burglars (see box, next page). He also used the press conference to explain his current attitude toward the impeachment inquiry. He yielded ground to the Judiciary Committee--up to a point and only under intense pressure.

The President agreed to give the committee all the evidence that the White House had given to Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. As tallied by Nixon, that included 19 White House tape recordings and some 700 documents. Nixon would, moreover, be willing to answer written questions from the committee. If there were still issues to be resolved after that, he promised, he would answer questions under oath in a White House meeting with Chairman Peter Rodino of New Jersey and the committee's ranking Republican, Edward Hutchinson of Michigan. Nixon termed this "a very forthcoming offer."

Legal Sparring. But then he pulled some taut strings-- on it. The President said that he would not allow anyone "to cart everything that is in the White House down to a committee and to have them paw through it on a fishing expedition." Next day his lawyer, James St. Clair, sent a letter to the committee rejecting its request for evidence beyond what Jaworski had acquired. St. Clair complained that the committee seemed to be asking for "hundreds of thousands of documents and thousands of hours of recorded conversations covering the widest variety of subjects." He suggested that the committee "determine what is an impeachable offense" before demanding the evidence. Implicit was the likelihood that St. Clair would reject requests that did not fit his own limited interpretation of impeachable acts.

The St. Clair argument is that a President can be impeached only for crimes of "a very serious nature committed in one's governmental capacity." He refuses to detail what acts that definition would either embrace or exclude. Apparently, however, it would exclude the President's income tax problems, which are nongovernmental, and any campaign-funding violations, because running for office is not an official duty. Some top Washington lawyers consider St. Clair's contention to be merely legalistic sparring with the Rodino committee, which will in no way be limited by any White House definition.

Tax Problem. St. Clair's letter irritated some members of the Judiciary Committee. "You don't limit information received to the information the defendant is willing to give you," protested Texas Democrat Jack Brooks. Declared Father Robert Drinan, the Massachusetts Democrat: "To hell with him; we should subpoena what we want. Ye gods, we've got to move on this thing." The committee's chief counsel, John Doar, said that, "No one outside this committee should set the limits of this inquiry." In fact, the committee has not asked for "thousands of documents"; it has so far requested only six tapes in addition to those that Jaworski acquired, but it is looking into at least 52 allegations of wrongdoing against the President, ranging from his impoundment of congressional appropriations to his income tax payments. The President's tax problem is potentially so serious that Representative Wilbur Mills, a ranking member of the joint congressional committee investigating Nixon's income tax returns, predicted last week that Nixon would resign, largely because of the critical report that the committee will issue "in 30 or 40 days."

Heeding the advice of Doar and the Republican counsel, Albert Jenner, the committee agreed to delay subpoenas for a week or two; but there is no doubt that it will insist on getting whatever evidence the members think it needs. The committee staff first wants to examine precisely what Jaworski secured from the White House. It especially wants the evidence that was placed in a locked briefcase and given to Federal Judge John J. Sirica when the original Watergate grand jury indicted seven former Nixon associates for conspiracy. The jurors submitted a report summarizing the evidence of Nixon's alleged role in the conspiracy. They also recommended that both the evidence and the report be given to the Judiciary Committee.

Whether Sirica will comply with the request was the subject of an extraordinary hearing in his Washington courtroom last week. Assembled were 22 attorneys representing the seven indicted defendants and all three branches of Government. St. Clair surprised spectators by telling Sirica that the White House had no recommendation one way or the other on whether the grand jury's evidence should go to the Judiciary Committee. But John J. Wilson, the crusty attorney for former Nixon, Aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, promptly picked up the ball, vigorously opposing any such handover of the evidence. If his client's were named in the sealed report, he argued, that information would leak from the Rodino committee, and the resulting publicity would prejudice their case. Wilson insisted that a regular grand jury has no legal right to issue special reports: "It has no power other than to indict or ignore."

In the grand jury's behalf, one of Jaworski's top assistants, Philip Lacovara, contended that the situation was unique. "This is the first time in over a hundred years that the country has been faced with the prospect of an impeachment investigation. It would be unthinkable under our system of government for this court or any court to hold that this grand jury must remain mute when it feels it has heard evidence which is material to that question."

The Judiciary Committee lawyers took a careful stance. They made clear that their appearance in court did not mean that Sirica or any other judge had any jurisdiction over what evidence the committee can or cannot acquire--or for that matter, over any part of the constitutionally sanctioned impeachment process of the House. Doar said that impeachment was "an overriding constitutional responsibility" and that the House was entitled to relevant information from any source. Jenner said that in this situation Sirica was no different from any other U.S. citizen. The judge had evidence relative to impeachment and must surrender it. The source of the material did not matter.

Sirica asked a disturbing question: Had the committee considered delaying its impeachment investigation until after the trials of the President's aides? Since those trials have now been set to start on Sept. 9, delay until then would be an intolerable disservice to a public that is understandably impatient over the slowness in deciding Nixon's fate. Doar replied that the committee has not considered any such delay--a point that Sirica may merely have wanted on the record to express his concern about pre-trial publicity involving the defendants (see THE LAW). Sirica gave no indication of when he will rule, but he probably will do so this week and give the evidence to the House committee.

The fact that the White House has agreed to give to the Judiciary Committee all of the evidence that it gave Jaworski does not lessen the significance of the decision that Sirica faces. The grand jury evidence presumably applies directly to the President's role. Its acquisition could eliminate the time-consuming need for the Judiciary Committee staff to scour all of the material involving all of Nixon's aides to determine what is relevant to impeachment. Moreover, the grand jury material must also contain testimony of various Nixon aides who appeared before it--again possibly reducing the need for lengthy impeachment staff interviews.

Seeking Evidence. If Sirica decides not to give the grand jury evidence to the Judiciary Committee, the committee will issue a subpoena for it. In any event, the committee will certainly push on to subpoena other White House documents and tapes that Jaworski has not been able to acquire. Jaworski too is determined to pursue his own requests for such material in court. At his press conference, Nixon distorted Jaworski's position in declaring that the special prosecutor had agreed that the grand jury had "all the information that it needed in order to bring to a conclusion its Watergate investigation."

The grand jury had enough information to issue indictments in the coverup. But the Jaworski staff is still seeking tapes and memos about a variety of White House activities, including Nixon's relations with large campaign contributors, notably the milk producers and persons seeking ambassadorial posts. The prosecutors also want copies of Nixon's daily news summaries, on which he is known to have written instructions on Watergate developments, and files known to have been kept by Ehrlichman on the work of the President's secret group of investigators, called the plumbers.

One operation carried out by those White House plumbers led last week to additional indictments against Ehrlichman and Charles W. Colson, Nixon's former special counsel. For both, it was the second indictment within a week. The fresh indictments were for their roles in the burglary of Beverly Hills Psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding on Sept. 3, 1971. The aim of the raid was to grab the doctor's files on Daniel Ellsberg, who was then being prosecuted for his release of the Pentagon papers' history of the Viet Nam War.

Ehrlichman and Colson were charged with being part of a conspiracy to deprive Dr. Fielding of his constitutional rights. Also indicted as members of the conspiracy were G. Gordon Liddy, one of the convicted leaders of the Watergate burglary, and three Cuban-Americans: Bernard L. Barker, Felipe de Diego and Eugenic R. Martinez. The special prosecutor's case in the Ellsberg-related burglary is considerably strengthened by the fact that several persons named as coconspirators, but not as defendants, will presumably testify against the indicted men.

Ehrlichman is in great difficulty in the Fielding case. He not only was named a conspirator, but he also was charged with lying on four occasions to the grand jury or the FBI. The false statements, the indictment charged, include his claims that he had known nothing about the crime until after it had occurred. If convicted on all counts, Ehrlichman could be sentenced to up to 30 years in prison.

He was indicted six days earlier in the Wategate cover-up on charges that carry a possible penalty of another 25 years. He and the other six cover-up conspirators pleaded innocent to all charges last week before Judge Sirica. The others were Haldeman, Colson, John Mitchell, Robert Mardian, Gordon Strachan and Kenneth Parkinson. At the same time, Colson and Ehrlichman pleaded not guilty to the Fielding burglary charges. All were ordered to surrender their passports and to notify the court of any change of address.

False Testimony. The President at his press conference praised some of his former top aides for refusing in the past to use "the shield of the Fifth Amendment as they could have and plead self-incrimination." They had testified "freely," he said, and they had not sought immunity or engaged in "plea bargaining" with prosecutors. Actually, Colson had declared that he would take the Fifth Amendment if called before the Senate Watergate committee. Ehrlichman's lawyers did plea bargain but rejected Jaworski's final offer. Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Mitchell may have testified freely, but according to the grand jury indictments, they did so falsely.

The central issue in the continuing controversy over Nixon's own Watergate culpability was whether the President had taken part in some of the crimes for which his former aides have been indicted. He bristled when a reporter openly raised such a suggestion, replying coldly: "I've also quit beating my wife." Nixon conceded that such crimes as perjury and obstruction of justice are "serious crimes" and would be impeachable acts. After another dramatic Watergate week, a possible clarification of that fateful matter of the President's precise role in the cover-up conspiracy remained where it had been for some time--inside a sealed envelope and a dark brown briefcase in Judge Sirica's courthouse safe.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.