Contents (Click on index item to locate) Subject Page Foreword iii Introductory note vii Statement of information 1 Statement of Information and Supporting Evidentiary Material 19 STATEMENT OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PRESIDENT NIXON HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS SECOND SESSION PURSUANT TO H. Res. 803 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO EXERCISE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO IMPEACH RICHARD M. NIXON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BOOK II DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-ITT LITIGATION MAY-JUNE 1974 3'6-l03 o U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE W^ WASHINGTON 1 1974 For sale by the Superintendent of l)oculllellts, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.35 COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT JAMES D. ST. CLAIR, Special Counsel to the President JOHN A, MCCAHILL, Assistant Special Counsel MALCOLM J. HOWARD, Assistant Special Counsel (II) FOREWOR D _ . By Hon. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., Chairman Committee on the Judiciary On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives adopted by a vote of 410-4 the following House Resolution 803: RESOLVED, That the Committee on the Judiciary acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the Chairman for-the purposes hereof and in accordance with the Rules of the Committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper. On May 9, 1974, as Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, I convened the Committee for hearings to review the results of the Impeachment Inquiry staff's investigation. The hearings were convened pursuant to the Committee's Impeachment Inquiry Procedures adopted on May 2, 1974. (III) These Procedures provided that President Nixon should be afforded the opportunity to have his counsel present throughout the hearings and to receive a copy of the statement of information and related documents and other evidentiary material at the time that those materials are furnished to the members. Mr. James D. St. Clair, Special Counsel to the President, was present throughout the initial presentation by the Impeachment Inquiry staff. Following the completion of the initial presentation, the Committee resolved, in accordance with its Procedures, to invite the President's counsel to respond in writing to the Committee's initial evidentiary presentation. The Committee decided that the President's response should be in the manner of the Inquiry staff's initial presentation before the Committee, in accordance with Rule A of the Committee's Impeachment Inquiry Procedures, and should consist of information and evidentiary material, other than the testimony of witnesses, believed by the President's counsel to be pertinent to the inquiry. Counsel for the President was likewise afforded the opportunity to supplement its written response with an oral presentation to the Committee. (IV) President Nixon's response was presented to the Committee on June 27 and June 28. One notebook was furnished to the members of the Committee relating to the Department of Justice - ITT litigation. In this notebook a statement of information relating to a particular phase of the investigation was immediately followed by supporting evidentiary material which included copies of documents and testimony (much already on the public record) and transcripts of Presidential conversation s. The Committee on the Judiciary is working to follow faithfully its mandate to investigate fully and completely "whether or not sufficient grounds exist" to recommend that the House exercise its constitutional power of impeachment. Consistent with this mandate, the Committee voted to make public the President's response in the same form and manner as the Inquiry staff's initial presentation. July, 1974 (v) INTRODU( :T0R,Y NOTE The material contained in this volume is presented in two sections. Section 1 contains a statement of information footnoted with citations to evidentiary material. Section 2 contains the same statement of information followed by the supporting material. Each page of supporting evidence is labeled with the footnote number and a description of the document or the name of the witness testifying. Copies of entire pages of documents and testimony are included, with brackets around the portions pertaining to the statement of information. In the citation of sources, "SSC" has been used as an abbreviation for the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. (IX) STATEMENT OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE PRESIDENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE -- ITT LITIGATION (1) 1. In December, 1968, Richard W. McLaren was interviewed . s for the position of Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, by John N. Mitchell and Richard G. Kleindienst. As a condition to his acceptance of that position, Mr. McLaren . insisted that antitrust enforcement decisions would be based solely on the merits of any given situation. v _ - Page la Richard W. McLaren testimony, 2 KCH 116-117 . 22 lb Richard G. Kleindienst testimony,.............3 KCH 1725.................24 (3) 2, In 1968, Mr. Nixon appointed a Task Force on Productivity and Competition to review antitrust policy and make recommendations. The task force, headed by Professor George Stigler of the University of Chicago, presented its report to President Nixon on February 18, 1969 and recommended against immediate legal action re: conglomerate me rge rs . 2a _ Stigler Report, 115 Cong. Rec. 15653, 15656 (1969). 26 2b White House "White Paper, " The ITT Anti-Trust Decision, January 8, 1974, 2. 5 2c Remarks of Harold S. Geneen, ITT Chairman and President June 26, 1969, Annual Meeting of ITT Shareholders, 8 •- - 33 (4) 3. Apparently, ill June of 1969, Mr. Geneen sought to meet with President Nix:on about certain financial and economic concerns of ITT, including, but not limited to, the antitrust ~~.|t~~'.~,. John BUT. D Mitchell, for one, thought the meeting would be ina.- ppropriate because of ITT's legal involvement with the Department of Justice. The meeting was not schedule. 3a Letter of June 9, 1969, fro,n LOI.^~~ A{. Berry to the President enclosing one co,), of a June 3, Page 1969, letter from Geneen to Maurice Stans..............................................36 3b Memorandum of July 14, 1969, from John .Mitchell to John Ehrlichman,-.-.-..............................................................43 3c Memorandum of July 16, 1969, from Dwight L. ~~ . ~~ . (5) 4. In March, 1971, the Solicitor General authorized an appeal to the Supreme Court from an adverse decision in the United States v. ITT (~rinnell) case because of practical difficulties in the future if the decision were left standing. The Solicitor General and his associates thought the case to be very hard; his chief deputy thought the government's chances of winning were minimal. Page 4a Memorandum from A. Raymond Randolph, Jr. to the Solicitor General dated March 2, 1971 46 4b Memorandum from Daniel M. Friedman to the Solicitor General,................................................... dated March 15, 1971; 1, 4-5- 4c Supplemental memorandum from A Raymond Randolph Jr. to Daniel M. Friedman, dated March 25, 1971; 1, 2, . 60 4d Memorandum to the Solicitor General from Daniel M. Friedman dated March 26, 1971 62 4c March 26, 1971, appeal authorization of the Solicitor .Ge!nP ral ........................- - - - - .....................................................63 (6) 5. - After the President's telephone call of April 19, 1971, to Kleindienst ordering him to drop the Grinnell appeal, Kleindienst met, in his office, with McLaren and the Solicitor General and requested the Solicitor General to apply for an extension. McLaren had no objection to the application for an additional extension of time. Page 5a Ervin N. Griswold testimony, 2 KCH 380, 388,..................................................66 5b Richard W. McLaren testimony, 2 KCH 327, 3288-............................................68 5c Richard G. Kleindienst testimony, 2 KCH 289, 292, 3 KCH 1680. 70 41-566 O - 74 - 2 (7) 6. On June 17, 1971, McLaren recommended to Kleindienst that the ITT suits be settled. K1eindienst approved the proposed settlement by writing: "Approved, G/17/71. RGK. " In affixing his approval, Kleindienst relied on the expertise of McLaren. Page 6a Testimony of Richard W. McLaren 2 KCH 110-113,,, ,,, 74 6b Testimony of Richard CG, K1eindienst 3 KCH 1732-1733,, 78 (8) 7. Settlement initiations had taken place in late 1970. ITT's settlement posture advanced included its keeping the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. McLaren rejected any settlement talk along that line. In early 1971, ITT began to formulate a plan, based on economic theory, of why it was important for ITT to retain Hartford. Eventually, on April 29, 1971, ITT made an economic presentation to the Department of Justice on national economic consequences if ITT were forced to divest itself of Hartford. As a result of that presentation, in combination with the Ransdem Report from his own independent financial expert, McLaren proposed a settlement offer enabling ITT to retain Hartford. 7a Memorandum of John