3

then it was incumbent upon you to sever the trial and have your man tried separately. The fact that you chose not to

meant that that tape in your opinion was not vital to the

Mr. Robinson. That is not true. Mr. Jenrette was in a

2 political dogfight.

3 on November the 4th.

He was going to the election process

We are in trial in October of 1979, or

480, whatever it was, 1980. We are in trial, and in the 5 first place I thought the judge would admit the document. Stowe was trying to get severances all through the trial.

8

7. thought he would let Stowe go. Maybe I was wrong. I was wrong. I don't have any problems saying when I am wrong. What bothers me is you have got to understand, surely this 10 committee understands, you are all politicians. You are

9

elected.

I

Mr. Jenrette had been smeared in Abscam. He had gotten through a primary and a runoff. We had to have him acquitted

or convicted before the general election, and we had confi-
dence that we would win, and there is a tape recording that
shows that he didn't get the money, and I just can't see how,
whether you are a former prosecutor or a congressional member,
and I have been both prosecutor and defense lawyer, we are
not here trying to prejudice any jury. We have 12 individuals
that are members of Congress that can give appropriate weight
to what is on this conversation, and if this is appropriate
and true and you have a conversation between the co-conspira-
tors in which Jenrette says, "I didn't get the money" and Stowe

doesn't rebut it and this committee makes any kind of decision,

I would say it would be the most uninformed, unfair decision

1

2

3

that could ever be made. You can call all that rhetoric. Without objection, if there is objection

The Chairman.

we will have to take a vote on it. But without objection

this will be admitted.

It is my feeling when a man is in a serious hearing, that he should be allowed to submit by his

6

own testimony and to whatever extent the committee can allow

7

the evidence that he has that he is innocent,

8 objection, it will be allowed in.

Mr. Robinson. Thank you.

I think that is the extent of

the exhibits that we have available at this time for purposes

9

10

11

of admission, sir.

The Chairman. All right.

Mr. Robinson. Shall I read the next motion? It is a one-page motion requesting the attendance of witnesses pursuant to Rule 11(a) (2) (d).

"Congressman John W. Jenrette hereby petitions the Commit

tee on Standards of Official Conduct, pursuant to its Rules, to require by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance of certain

witnesses.

"By way of letter to the Committee's counsel, dated November 17, 1980, the Committee was informed of Mr. Jenrette's

desire to call as witnesses the following individuals:

"William Webster, Federal Bureau of Investigation

21

22

23

24

"Benjamin Civiletti, Department of Justice

25

25

"Phillip Heymann, Department of Justice

3

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

"John Good, Federal Bureau of Investigation"

Mr. Good, by the way, is the one that is testifying before Judge Penn right now in the due process motion.

"Petitioner submits that it is only through the examina

tion of these witnesses that the Committee can properly conduct a complete and impartial hearing into the actions of John

W. Jenrette. The above named individuals were the architects

and guiding forces behind the investigative conduct which created the crimes for which John W. Jenrette now stands charged.

Any examination of conduct without these witnesses can only be judged as incompete and ineffective as a disciplinary proceeding."

I would be willing, sir, if you would like, to read the next motion before you take a vote, since the next motion is a

longer motion.

The Chairman. We will probably have a discussion in executive session about the disposition of these motions.

14

15

16

17

The Chairman. We don't want to be peremptory, so if you

19

would submit any statement you would like to make.

Of course,

20

23

24

key sentence is here, "The above named individuals were the architects and guiding forces behind the investigative conduct which created the crimes for which John W. Jenrette now

25

2

3

4

The testimony of these gentlemen are along the lines of

the due process hearings that are now being held in District

Court. They go to matters of governmental misconduct and

5 other matters which, if they properly belong in Congress at

6

all, should be before the Judiciary Committee.

7

They do not affect what is in these volumes. As a matter of fact, in my

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

own view you could take Mr. Jenrette's testimony alone in these
volumes, and come to some conclusion about his conduct, but
be that as it may, these gentlemen are obviously, if they were
brought here would be questioned about how Abscam came about,
about whether documents were missing, about all kinds of mat-
ters, which I submit to you are outside the realm of what
you should be considering in this very na-row type of hearing

that you are having today.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly I can state

that they are very important witnesses that go much deeper

than any kind of due process matter which, by the way, we of

course believe is pertinent to these hearings. We have had testimony from Mr. Good just last week that he knew in November of 1979 that John Jenrette, when they came at John Jen

rette for the Abscam undercover operation, that is the date

they give, they are wrong but we will accept that for the time

being, that he knew that Mr. Jenrette was under investigation

24

25

in South Carolina on an old problem of a place called

25