STATEMENT OF SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON JUSTICE DOUGLAS INVESTIGATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010011-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 29, 2002
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: August 5, 1970
• Content Type: PREL

Approved For Release 2002/05/07 CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010011-9
EMANUEL CELLER
(D.-N. Y.)
NEWS RELEASE--
FOR RELEASE
P.M. NEWSPAPERS
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1970
STATEMENT OF SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE
ON JUSTICE DOUGLAS INVESTIGATION
Representative Emanuel Celler, Chairman of the Special Subcommittee on H.
Res. 920, and of the Committee on the Judiciary, made the following state-
ment on behalf of the Subcommittee members with respect to the activities
of the Special Subcommittee and the procedures applicable to this investi-
gation. The members of the Special Subcommittee on H. Res. 920 are:
Emanuel Celler (New York), Chairman; Byron G. Rogers (Colorado); Jack Brooks
(Texas); William M. McCulloch (Ohio); and Edward Hutchinson (Michigan).
"Since its appointment on April 21, 1970, the Special Subcommittee, and
its staff, has worked carefully and assiduously to examine each lead
and to ferret out all pertinent facts that are relevant to the charges
that have been made on the conduct of Associate Justice William 0.
Douglas.
"A comprehensive report on the status of the Special Subcommittee's in-
vestigation was made on June 20, 1970. Since its First Report, the
Special Subcommittee has pursued this investigation in the Department
of State, theCentral Intelligence Agency, as well as the Department of
Justice. In addition, numerous conferences have been held with repre-
sentatives of the Internal Revenue Service, the Central Intelligence
Agency, with Ed Levinson, and with individuals related to the leads
to information that previously had been provided by Representative
Gerald R. Ford. Further, the Special Subcommittee has continued its
examination of the files of Justice Douglas.
"The Special Subcommitte has not delayed or hesitated in any respect
in its attempt to collect all relevant documentary and factual materials.
"The Special Subcommittee, however, has not received full cooperation
from some of the Executive Departments. Such cooperation is essential
for expeditious resolution of the issues. This lack of cooperation has
impaired the ability of the Special Subcommittee to complete its as-
signed task.
"On June 20, 1970, the Special Subcommittee requested the Department of
State to provide relevant documentary. and factual material. As of Aug-
ust 5, 1970, no information had been supplied by the Department of State
pursuant to this request.
"The CIA was requested on June 22, 1970, to provide relevant documentary
and factual materials. On July 15, 1970, Richard Helms, Director, wrote
a letter in response to the Special Subcommittee's request, but declined
to furnish any documentary or factual materials from the CIA's files.
Three conferences have been held with representatives of the CIA in an
effort to arrive at a mutually satisfactory accommodation by which ma-
terials and information in the files of the CIA could be made available
for this investigation. The CIA has to date furnished nothing from its
fi]I proved For Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010011-9
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010011-9
"Department of Justice cooperation is in essentially the same pos-
ture that was described in the First Report of the Special Subcom-
mittee. There have been further conferences and correspondence
with Attorney General Mitchell, but as of August 5, 1970, the Depart-
ment still has not supplied the documentary and factual materials
the Special Subcommittee has requested.
"r4ese delays and obstructions have hampered the Special Subcommit-
tee in this investigation and hindered the completion of its task.
In the light of the lack of cooperation from the Executive Branch,
criticism of the Special Subcommittee is not justified.
"A brief summary of the procedures that have been adopted by the
Special Subcommittee in this investigation is appropriate. Impeach-
ment of a member of the United States Supreme Court is a serious
matter and should not be undertaken irresponsibly or in the absence
of complete knowlege of all relevant facts. In this investigation,
the Special Subcommittee seeks to avoid any criticism of partisan
politics. Every effort is being made to pursue this investigation
in a professional, objective and orderly manner.
"As the First Report makes clear on page 1, the Special Subcommit-
tee on H. Res, 920 has been appointed and operates under the Rules
of the House of Representatives. During the initial stages of this
investigation, the Special Subcommittee will operate under procedures
established in paragraph 27, Rules of Committee Procedure, of Rule
XI of the House of Representatives. These procedures will be fol-
lowed.
"Phase I of the Special Subcommittee's investigation is a prelimi-
nary inquiry to collect all of the documentary and factual materials
that bear upon any of the charges within the scope of H. Res. 920.
To this end, the Special Subcommittee has requested information
from every other known source who may be in a position to provide
relevant materials.
"In Phase I, the investigation is ex parte. The purpose of the
preliminary inquiry is to enable theSpecial Subcommittee to deter-
mine what course of action it can recommend to the full Judiciary
Committee on the basis of the facts. The preliminary inquiry is
analagous to the investigation that is necessary to make a deter-
mination that sufficient facts exist to warrant bring a matter to
the attention of a Grand Jury.
"Phase I is not yet completed. Sources, primarily in the Executive
Branch, that possess relevant information thus far have not complied
with the Special Subcommittee's requests. Until these factual ma-
terials are supplied to the Special Subcommittee, the preliminary inquiry
stage of this investigation cannot be completed.
"Phase II is the next step in the investigation. When the Special
Subcommittee is satisfied that the facts indicate that an impeach-
able offense may have been committed, a recommendation will be made
that the Judiciary Committee authorize the formal proceedings that
look toward the impeachment in the Senate of a United States Supreme
Court justice. Public hearings would be in order in Phase II.
"Prior to public hearings, the Special Subcommittee would adopt
procedures appropriate to the particular facts and circumstances
ofA 9v@g eo.r LqxRf1HN4B"41 Of 0 I b 4 eh
questions, among others, as:
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010011-9
"The role of counsel for the parties;
"Whether public hearings should be conducted by the Special
Subcommittee or by the full Judiciary Committee;
"Applicable hearing procedure rules, including the right to
cross examine witnesses;
"Whether hearing sessions should be open or closed.
"During public hearings in an impeachment investigation, of course,
testimony would be under oath. Attendance by relevant or material
witnesses would be compelled by subpena.
"Phase III would come at the conclusion of the Judiciary Committee's
investigation. In Phase III, the Judiciary Committee would render
its report to the :louse. The Report would contain a recommendation
on H. Res. 920. If warranted, the Judiciary Committee Report would
contain a specific statement of the charges to be submitted to the
Senate.
"This statement reflects the current status of the Special Subcom-
mittee's investigation and the procedures that are being followed.
All of the members of the Special Subcommittee hope that greater
cooperation will be forthcoming and that delays that impair the
Special Subcommittee's progress may be removed so that a definite
recommendation shortly may be made to the Committee on the Judiciary."
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP74B00415R000600010011-9
 Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP74B00415 900600010011-~
STATINTL