on april 16th, from 1:39 to 3:25, the president met with henry peterson. the president promised to treat confidential any -- the president emphasized that it peterson, you're talking only to me and there's not going to be anybody else on the white house staff. in other words, i'm acting counsel. the president suggested that only exception might be dick moore. when peterson expressed reservation, the president said, let's just better keep it with me then. in an afternoon conversation in that same day, a telephone conversation when the president called peter son, he said, henry, feel free to confide in me. i'm going to keep it confidential. i know the rules of the grand jury. what did he do with the information that henry peterson gave to him? henry peterson, who was taking the place as really the chief investigator in the watergate case, the president on april 17th met with halderman who had been implicated again by information that was given to henry peterson and henry peterson had revealed it to the president and the president advised at that point halderm

information that was given to henry peterson and henry peterson had revealed it to the president and the president advised at that point halderman that he better get together with john and map out some kind of a strategy on the money. then there's the big deletion. i don't know what the material deleted is. then he comes back and says what about calmback? what's he going to say about the money? he says, you better get ahold of calmback and tell him that larue is speaking freely. i just wonder myself, i'm concerned about the president's actions not so much -- not about the break-in or what happened earlier. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. i recognize the gentleman from missouri for purposes of general debate any. >> i yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague. >> he's recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me just try to finish very briefly. it was shortly thereafter that on april 24th and april 25th, and i believe on april 26th that the president ordered halderman -- that the president ordered halderman to listen to certain tapes that i

on april 16th, from 1:39 to 3:25, the president met with henry peterson. the president promised to treat confidential any -- the president emphasized that it peterson, you're talking only to me and there's not going to be anybody else on the white house staff. in other words, i'm acting counsel. the president suggested that only exception might be dick moore. when peterson expressed reservation, the president said, let's just better keep it with me then. in an afternoon conversation in that same day, a telephone conversation when the president called peter son, he said, henry, feel free to confide in me. i'm going to keep it confidential. i know the rules of the grand jury. what did he do with the information that henry peterson gave to him? henry peterson, who was taking the place as really the chief investigator in the watergate case, the president on april 17th met with halderman who had been implicated again by information that was given to henry peterson and henry peterson had revealed it to the president and the president advised at that point halderm

jawarski came over, he went to see hague and then came to see me and henry peterson. it requires background. when i came down from yale, a professor with a beard, i was suspect. i remember when i first got over there, i was standing at a reception with norm carlson, head of the federal bureau of prisons and henry peterson, head of the criminal division. they began talking about their days at good old camp lejeune. i said i was at camp lejeune and they said you were in the corps? right away their attitude changed. as long as i had been in the corps. jawarski came in and handed the chief of a resume, every position i can imagine, president of the aba, the travelers association and on and on. peterson and i read it and peterson looked up and said, bob, he wasn't in the corps. jawarski looked mightily puzzled. he thought we were talking about him. but he was the ideal choice from our point of view, not from the white house's point of view. >> why was he an ideal choice from the department's point of view? >> he had a lot of prosecuting experience. he prosecuted war crimes

henry peterson 27 times to discuss matters related to watergate and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information mr. peterson was receiving, the words are, if the president is connected in any suspicious manner with any person, and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached. just a story. impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power, acting for the whole people, is put into operation to protect their rights, and rescue their liberties from violations. we know about the houston plan. we know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. we know that there were absolute complete direction on september 3rd, when the president indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in dr. fielding's office after having met with mr. ehrlichman and mr. young. protect their rights. rescue their liberties. from violation. the carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria. those are impeachment who behave amiss or betray their public trust. beginning shortly after the

because on the one hand where the gentleman from california pointed out that henry peterson recommended matt burn at fbi director, in response to a question that i asked mr. peterson during our questioning of witnesses. i asked him whether or not he felt that the fbi, that matt burns should be contacted while he's sitting as a judge on the case of the ellisburg matter. to which he replied no. he indicated that matt burns should not be contacted during the course of that trial. and the answer is quite clear, so why not, and i asked him why not, and he said in response to my question, wouldn't this be a mistrial. some of us felt that it would. i happen to think as of matter of law that there would be a mistrial declared upon such a disclosure. i think that the act in contacting a presiding judge on a case of that magnitude, and i find a little bit amazing once again for him to say that didn't know what the present situation in the ellisburg matter. this is the major case of the decade prior to our deliberations on watergate if you'll go back a few years but he didn't know what was going o

jawarski came over, he went to see hague and then came to see me and henry peterson. it requires background. when i came down from yale, a professor with a beard, i was suspect. i remember when i first got over there, i was standing at a reception with norm carlson, head of the federal bureau of prisons and henry peterson, head of the criminal division. they began talking about their days at good old camp lejeune. i said i was at camp lejeune and they said you were in the corps? right away their attitude changed. as long as i had been in the corps. jawarski came in and handed the chief of a resume, every position i can imagine, president of the aba, the travelers association and on and on. peterson and i read it and peterson looked up and said, bob, he wasn't in the corps. jawarski looked mightily puzzled. he thought we were talking about him. but he was the ideal choice from our point of view, not from the white house's point of view. >> why was he an ideal choice from the department's point of view? >> he had a lot of prosecuting experience. he prosecuted war crimes

and it's already been said by some that henry peterson called and he said initially in the conversation, well it's not going to go any further. i know i have to keep this secret. he had no sooner hung up the phone when he was telling the defendants about whom this damaging information was made. what they could do to counteract the case that the prosecution had against him. well i could go on and on and on. i'm surprised that some of my colleagues, the telephone call from pat gray. pat gray was a man who did many things wrong. he was loyal to his leader. but at some point his conscience bothered him and he wanted to tell the president of the united states that his aides were destroying the presidency- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. give the gentleman an opportunity to finish his sentence. >> i appreciate that, chairman. pat gray called the president to tell him that his aides were destroying the presidency, and instead of the president saying well give me more information about this, i want to know if my aides are doing anything wrong, i want to know, and pat gray says in his

and it's already been said by some that henry peterson called and he said initially in the conversation, well it's not going to go any further. i know i have to keep this secret. he had no sooner hung up the phone when he was telling the defendants about whom this damaging information was made. what they could do to counteract the case that the prosecution had against him. well i could go on and on and on. i'm surprised that some of my colleagues, the telephone call from pat gray. pat gray was a man who did many things wrong. he was loyal to his leader. but at some point his conscience bothered him and he wanted to tell the president of the united states that his aides were destroying the presidency- >> the time of the gentleman has expired. give the gentleman an opportunity to finish his sentence. >> i appreciate that, chairman. pat gray called the president to tell him that his aides were destroying the presidency, and instead of the president saying well give me more information about this, i want to know if my aides are doing anything wrong, i want to know, and pat gray says in his

henry peterson recommended him as fbi director in response to a i asked that i asked whether he should be contacted while sitting on the ellsberg matter. to which he replied no. even though he made a personal recommendation he specifically indicated he should not be contacted during the course of that trial. the answer is quite clear as to why not. said it wouldn't be a mistrial. some of us felt it would. i happen to think it is a matter of law that there would be a good -- there would be a mistrial declared on a matter of disclosure. i think the presiding judge on a case of that magnitude -- i find it amazing once again for mr. ehrlichman to say he didn't know what the present situation was. this was the major case of the .ecade he didn't happen to know what is going on at that time happen to fill the position of a judge is one of the most delicate in our entire system because he has to remain an absolute and scrupulous infallibly. -- and scriptless neutrality. destroyedality is when a subordinate offers a position to the judge of an fbi directorship. the defendant himself offers the

henry peterson 27 times to discuss matters related to watergate and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information mr. peterson was receiving, the words are, if the president is connected in any suspicious manner with any person, and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached. just a story. impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power, acting for the whole people, is put into operation to protect their rights, and rescue their liberties from violations. we know about the houston plan. we know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. we know that there were absolute complete direction on september 3rd, when the president indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in dr. fielding's office after having met with mr. ehrlichman and mr. young. protect their rights. rescue their liberties. from violation. the carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria. those are impeachment who behave amiss or betray their public trust. beginning shortly after the