mr. sinclair was arguing that this was basically an internal dispute in the executive branch between the president and the department of justice, and it was not a question that was fit for judicial resolution. the special prosecutor was arguing that because he had explicit independent authority to seek this document, these documents and tapes, that this was a proper question for the court to decide. the third issue was whether under the applicable rule, governing the subpoena, called rule 17, the standards for the issuance of a subpoena had been met. and the president's lawyer was arguing those standards had not been met, and the special prosecutor was arguing that they had. then after all of that you reach the $64 question or maybe $64 million question, what is the scope of executive privilege? the president was arguing through his lawyer that he had absolute privilege that the court did not have any right to demand information about presidential conversations, they were governed by executive privilege, period. the special prosecutor was arguing that there was no absolute right of execu

mr. sinclair had gone through all the tapes that were still not provided us pursuant to our subpoena and came up with one shred of exculpatory evidence, tapes that the president had heretofore said borno evidence to watergate, one shred evidence that was not exculpaer to at all in examination it dealt with hush money. now the president made a big point of determining what use the defendants would put the money to which he was paying them. to determine its legality or illeg illegality. that isn't the question. the question is for what purpose was it paid not to what purpose it was put. common sense tells you that a president of the united states does not condone the payment of over $400,000 to seven people occupying a d.c. jail cell because they have committed a burglary unless he wants something from them. that isn't compassion. that isn't a charitable institution, particularly when it's done surreptitiously. it bought their silence. you can't look at this case without feeling a deep sadness, but a deeper anger, a deeper anger that this country was jeopardized to the extent it has been i

mr. sinclair. the other thing i would mention in order to have a more civil tone to our response going on along with what i said at the beginning up under paragraph 3 on page 4 where we say disagree partially we say this assertion is not completely true i ask we use the term not completely accurate to say something it not tell you there's an implication the grand jury is being false and i think that would be unfortunate unfortunate for us to do so i ask that change. those are my observations as to four and five >> thank you commissioner keane any other comments from the commissioners? i have a question about both of those. and i confess is made me i maybe deficit in my technical capacities but i find it surprisingly we can't find those searchable especially filed out electronically i'm not sure i follow the idea we're not going to do it because there's state recollections later on that may possibility focus how their researched so maybe some help would be appreciated >> shu a technical officer. so

mr. sinclair concedes that at a moment in time there was a shift in the way of acting but he said the purpose was legitimate. he failed to sell us to tell us why they had sterile phones whatever they are in this cubby hole of the office building and why you needed special passes to enter this section of the building and they regularly violated that prohibition against internal security matters of the cia. he said there's novi allocation of federal criminal laws which is not covered by existing statute and that if there's any residual jurisdiction it goes to the department of justice. i suggest, therefore, this was political and unlawful from the beginning and the names came later. if the president says that there's an epidemic of leaks that is not substantiated by the evidence and let me quote you one justification that came out today in a minority report from this committee that demonstrates hysteria is still going. with that i close. this statement says in justification of the plumbers that foreign espionage agents can read english and they can read the "new york times." thank you very much

mr. sinclair? >> mr. chief justice and members of the court, my learned brothers approached this case, i think in the traditional point of view. namely, an attempt by a special prosecutor to obtain what he thinks is desirable evidence in a criminal prosecution that he has responsibility for. not once, however, have i heard him mention what i think is really involved, at least, in significant part. and that is the copendency of impeachment proceedings before the house of representatives. and the realistic fusion that has taken place with respect to these two proceedings. and the promise of continued fusion as i understand my brother's position. may i quote from page -- i think, sir, they really are. first by way of factual background. >> in the house -- >> that's correct. >> in the senate. >> right. and the court shall not be used to implement or aid that process which is what is happening in this case. this case wouldn't be here on july 8th. >> how is this done? how is this case implemented? >> i'd like t

mr. sinclair had gone through all the tapes that were still not provided us pursuant to our subpoena and came up with one shred of exculpatory evidence, tapes that the president had heretofore said borno evidence to watergate, one shred evidence that was not exculpaer to at all in examination it dealt with hush money. now the president made a big point of determining what use the defendants would put the money to which he was paying them. to determine its legality or illeg illegality. that isn't the question. the question is for what purpose was it paid not to what purpose it was put. common sense tells you that a president of the united states does not condone the payment of over $400,000 to seven people occupying a d.c. jail cell because they have committed a burglary unless he wants something from them. that isn't compassion. that isn't a charitable institution, particularly when it's done surreptitiously. it bought their silence. you can't look at this case without feeling a deep sadness, but a deeper anger, a deeper anger that this country was jeopardized to the extent it has been i

sinclair was properly allowed to sit in this presentation of evidence and eventually to participate on a limited basis. his was the only argument on behalf of the president until the last presentation by mr. garrison. however he was the president's counsel not the committee's counsel, not my counsel. there was not a staff structure for a balanced presentation, in my opinion, and perhaps i share the blame for that. interesting aside is the fact in a get into procedures is that last night at 7:30 we received a proposed articles of impeachment the night the debate began. quite often we've been faced with being hit at the last minute with what we were fixing to vote on. regardless of that we're preparing to vote on articles of impeachment. i tried to maintain a restrained position because i think it's been incumbents on every member to listen and keep his mouth shut until he had enough to make his decision. but i must also be frank in saying i've approached this task from the standpoint that the president was innocent, like any man, under such proceedings should be presumed innocent until there was clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. you can't impeach a president because you don't