UNITED STATES SENATE U.S.S. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510 PUBLIC DOCUMENT OFFICIAL BUSINESS 0 rat //atm/ 9r,tied) v ,‘..t. m, "i4....,A.c asr-c. 7),1) /1, R79 7;14L,64,4&.0%..24.1 i 0 A/61- 17 tie a d..4.ti NORTH CAROLINA. ey-ae blic 2 ,„1--epiuL,A) 60-u, Astre.t iv i•e" VWYGE INTERVTEW /144,4414t BOYCEr- / 2_2 2 I'm originally from-C1 monrSamson County, North Carolina. I grew up in Raleigh and went to college at Wake Forest and/en wt on to Wake Forest Law School, finished there in 1956, went into the armypand was in the Army Judge Advocate General Corp for three yearsae.awhen I finished that tour, went to the army law school A Y.01241 and did court ma-rs-Ite4-1 work, mainly down at Fort Bragg for the last two yearscand,knew SeRator Morgan to some extent from Wake ic-v, 544r Forest and got to do}ng^a little bit better during the latter part of my army tour when I was trying to make up my mind whcthorx to practice law. I had been associated with Justice Lak.;,,elfabOut cij nine months, and when I got out of the army, I sublet an office from him when he was running for Governor and that's when Senator Morgan was active in his campaign and I got to know Senator Morgan theq; he was practicing law in Lillington;worked with him some on litigation-an. he was also involved in the campaign.a C I practiced by myself for a while and went into a partnership. ,Worked with Judge Lake and his son for severalln went on to the Supreme A Court and the Attorney General's Office, I started my own firm in 2 Raleigh) continued to work with Senator Morgan from time to time, to politicallytto some extent altd-t-eyAttorney General matters when he was the Attorney Genr.4) my office was located next door. In 3972, I managed Ike Andrews' campaign for-Congresstl when he was elected, ."-) came to Washington in the early part of J973 to help him set up his Ervin officePk became involved with Senator i and his staff in t.i.e-t r-- early BV73,took a leave of absence from the law firm in Raleigh and was Assistant Majority qbunselor for the Watergate Committee. In ff 3073 on until November 1373, stayed up here in D.C. during that A period of time and worked a number of phases of that Senatorial hearingl, then went on back and resumed practicing law in Raleigh. Then in April of this year, I was involved in a security fraud case P0.1 down in Floridal, lasted about six weeksp during that time Senator Morgan tried several times to get in touch with me. He was moving back and forth,and so was I. Finally.I finished down there on April 23.1-&, the jury trial in Florida was concluded on April 23e‹-I came back to Raleigh April 24teand finally got in touch with him and he told me what he had been after me about a.4.4-4641aL-ba-a4a,P44,ebia--.4„ wirh aiet /ilea fast. to talk t4si. me about. So the very next day4I came to Washington with ,A him and we began hearings the following Monday. My wife still doesn't (t' atteadl believe that. The investigation basically had Abeen done pretty much,p Talmadge's lawyers and his investigators'', the work they had done we had gained access to that. The Ethics Committee staff had done an investigation and then the special proscutor, Mr. Erdley and his staff had done an investigation,and there was a high degree of cooperation with referrence to sharing those materials. I was denominated counseler"Ito the committee assigned to Senator Morgan specifically. Another lawyer from Raleigh, Bren Adams,who had not had any congressional investigati* experience/but who was very much interested in it,joined Senator Morgan's staff and paticipated right much in a lot of the legal research and a good bit of the review of the investigation that other people had done. We also had Dbn '-da.41e-Sanders' working with use Don was a regular member of the Ethics Committee staff,and he had worked with Senator Morgan on the Intelligence Committee. Don and I had worked together in CD73 on the Watergate Committees in fact, Don was the Minority Counsels and I was the Majority Counseltar on the investigative team that did the had' we access to the FBI investigation to some extent, we had access to -2- Butterfield Interview. __P4g-TE DANIEL_, Were you there? BOYCE Don and I both were there. PETE DANIEL How did you react to that? BOYCE red V, Absolute astonishment, some fear, to*, s ePrINA PETE DANIEL nka After you found that, how did you translate to the Committee. A BOYCE I was in the room right here on the next floor. We worked in teams, here each investigative team had a majority counselar', a minority counsel, a staff investigator, and usually a stenographer op-r either a court reporter or just one of the staff stenographers who would just not take it down verbatum but just paraphase the questions and If answers. It was a two hour interview. I set up the interview/and cam e e 1 Butterfield attempted to councc4 out a couple of times because of commitments0 5 in fact the interview was on Friday the 13th which was a hard day to forget all by it self. It was the date after my birthdate,so it was a very significant time thereand I was anxious to get back to North Carolina because it had been my birthday and I had been away from home a lot. So he broke the appointment a couple of times that morning and was going to reschedule because he was due 04' to go to Moscow(Monday. So he said, well I'll come on over and lets get it over with. So we set the appointment up again about 2 o'clock '11 in the afternoon. We interviewed him until about 4:30 or so. It was -3- well into the interview when Don,(the investigator spent about two hours asking his questionsl,then we took turns, and Don was second he asked his questions,and there were a couple of things that would take too long to tell you, for this, I'll tell you some other time how it developed, it was not an accidental discovery as part of the investigative procedures that we had set upoaaec'he was on our hk witness list from the very begining. jit was on my part of the witness list. He came and was very frank and readily admitted what we were seeking when we got to that subject matter; he open up pretty quickly. odye fe if -6 He said he figured you all would' get around to this, so here it is." no We were mainly interested in Ataping system in the Oval Office and were really suprised by the disclosure of the extensiveness of the taping systemAbeing in the cabinet room, being at Camp David, being in the EOB. It was much widespread thing than we thought. So Don 01 L.gdiwirs '01 and I were involved in that. .Fret we immediately reported that to the A Chief Counsel and to the Assistant Chief Counsel. We figured that it would be a news leak over the weekend. That was the only significant thing that happen on the committee that never was leaked to the press ahead of time. We put Butterfield on the witness stand at‘ O'clock Monday afternoon and put him under subpoena right away, and he immediately had to counsel his trip to Moscow for a couple of dayse PETE DANIEL Yes, I remember. BOYCE I was sure it was going to be in Sunday'st I scared it was going to be in Sunday's paper from North Carolina, and I knew who would get blamed for the leak. But it did not leak. Woodney and Bernsteinj claimed in their book that they knew about it, but I don't believe -4- 101 it because anything of.significance, if they had known about it, it was the biggest news story of the preceedinqs and they claim after the fact that they knew about it. PETE DANIEL --14-2-st easy to do. BOYCE If I had known about and I was a reporter, I would have put it in Sunday's paper. But it was fairly well kept over the weekend. We told Senator Ervin about it. Decided to go ahead and put Butterfield on as quickly as possible out of turn(, the press knew something was going on when they found out we were pu-rd witness on out of turnp A they were just hooping all over this place trying to find out what on earth was going on. So anyway, Don and I really uniquely had an opportunity to team up together. We reviewed all of the materials which were quite extensive, allIthe investigative materials, which was quite extensive. We talked with a special prosecutor and found rpwa out what the real issues were, quickly solved WCPft a number of the chargestprobably unprovable, even though the Committee had decided to go ahead on the full set of, I think.were five charges although they just thought that it was best that we concur" and go ahead and cOre air the whole thing even though it was almost a conclusion 94,t pe several of the charges were not going to substantiated by them or any evidence that they had. It was very obvious in the early stages tA-4.10," even a day or two before the hearings laQ.L.oe I first got into it that the investigation had pretty much revealed what appeared to 99.77; the evidence,and it was going to be a lengthy process to present all that evidence in an orderly fashion. There were discussions*, oh, incidently the counselee)for Senator Talmadge, Jim Hamilton, also -5- worked on the Watergate Commitee, he was the Assistant Majority Count also. So Don and I were acquainted with Hamilton, who was coo'', 8 tr4 Talmadge's lead "1 from the past, andit gave us tbq opportunity to have an open door so .tilrawe could receive material that their investigation had produced, some of which was rather significant, none of which was of any great magnitude, but it kind of help clarif&4 sere ..of the issues and helped us to determine what direction the 4V hearing would probably go in. It appeared to me that there were some members of the committee who were more determined, or who had put more emphasis on negligent conduct in office and did not seem to have it in perspective .and that there was a difference between negligent mismanagement in your office and intenionally filing false claim It appeared pretty quickly and our discussions with the special prosecutor and their investigations and their conclusions indicated that there was an absolute lack of direct proof that Talmadge had any guilty knowledge of events, contemporaneous knowledge of events as they transpired. A lot of knowledge in retrospect as to what OhocAeW his assistant MinT44,had been doing. It was an obvious case of 0,4A failure to manage on his part,' but simply no real proof ar no real evtirvcircumstanial evidence that he had contemporaneous guilty knowledge. C Seeing that at that point, there was an attempt to have some serious discussions as to how we might save some time and money if everybody knew what the facts were, if everybody we-e satisfied that the /IAA/hod beer' investigation had been properly done andot....4x.l.c. an indepth investigation and no stone had been left unturned)2s14.ehat it was going to be a very lengthy and expensive thing. There were discussions, some of which f had nothing to do with, but -s4afp,e—e-fr which I am informed -6- occued and believed occurred agd. which Senator Stennis who had a good and long standing working relationship with Senator Talmadge and could apparently talkwith him on a personal basis and there was an expectation that the probability was that in the ultimate analysis if we went through a six week or three month hearing that owls the end result wou-141 going to be a characterization of the conduct -1--eyots in tittAA of some type of verbal punishment it was not a case for f)yaswa.) 9.xpas4aza and it was not a case for a mere slap on the wrist, y--- you've been a bad boy,--so don't do this again, type of thing. It was more serious than that, but it simply did not rise to the level of conduct w41o4.9. was crooked, criminal, fraudulent; it did not reached that catagory. So there was an exchange of some correspondence) and I think e I preserved all that, in an effort to come to some resolution by agreement to avoid the expense,,from the committee stand- J % point the time.,, the/expense and the time that the Senators were obvious going to have to utilize away from their regular duties which -..,-.1fizaire tremendous to start off with. I suppose from4Talmadge's side to avoid the attcmpted.humiliation and continued press and also because rko elrAA. he had some staff members .se admittedly hadtsome things wrong -was. still with him and who merri'lapparently had no prior record of any kind of misdeeds or anything. They were apparently pretty good peoplewi got into the custo m practic4 trap as they explained 9 - A wovidk in it. Also, it was apparent that Mrs. Talmadge all liklihood wee}-<- be involved and they were, I think from Talmadge's side, they were WOt anxious to net7fan the fires of that domestic controversy. My dA prsonal conclusions were,A I think Senator Morgan agreed with me or I agreed with him I think probably was a mutual conclusion based on what he read about the investigation and the way he studied it 44.41.4) -7- and the way I Sacs studied itTwas it would probably be best if that a2 was was going to happen to go ahead and work something out that would be a proper conclusion in a short time. We exchanged ideas on that and so far as I know, the Senators kicked it around rx&Y among themselves. My best information wasrSenator Schmidt had pronounced the opinion that a Senator was guilty until he proveA himself innocent a which kind of went against the grain of the lawyer types involved,•bu-? even though I think there is an idea of a higher , standard on the part of lawyers involved-4n displanary proceOure4 or Senators involved ite r--tlae.y.-datthey shouldn't sit back and wrap themselves in a cloak of innocencejand-thatthey have a duty to the public() a-nd-t4a.t9they are not an average citizen, and if they do something criminal, they are not an average criminal„,„ se- /3)ere lS h)*- _±.4.47rak-ve-some justification -64 treating them differently, but Senator Schmidt, being a geologist hadno reservations about and did 7Anotappeartohavethebackground 1nraining to pceive that there was a difference between negligent oo tac'bk and intentional conduct. 14oNtour feeling was if there was proof of intentIthat t cue was not c. 42,v,S uY e. 6.4. a QeaoLttproceeding, its,-vacs a question of explusion and I'm satisfied Senator Morgan, if he had been satisfied that Talmadge knew everything A MiriehQ t-itett---4,44-rrsiimr+t-rt was doing, then Morgan would not have voted for repri- caNA%00-k mand aearatimm. or anything else; he would have said, he has no place in the United Senate.' So we were trying to be objective, the staff, we had a lot of difficultiesA aFft--Z--twlki No, just go on, this-is great. -8- BOYCE 0 We had -E*emi-what I p eived dufficulties with the staff although we related well to them, there was a prosecutorial atmosphere that I " ilk perceived without any question0 p reservationD there were those who did not like Talmadge, who made fun of him, who made jokes about it, who tended to put everything into light most unfavorable to him,a,19A. I think admittedly that created some defensive attitude on our part, my part, Don Sanders' part, Brent Adams' part,and perhaps Senator Morgan's part, but he would have to answer that for himself. A, 1e attempted to look into the possibility of resolving,,on what apparently wfts-the true facts., there was some resentment and opposition to thata, the special wfolA Minx, prosecutor/I at that point was being very objective about it,but the Ethics Committee, some of the staff people, seem to be more inclined to go through with the hearing. Right at first there wow a was a considerable issue ai&etetwhether it Oitet144/t be televised or not, and generally speaking, ,I;festaff people in Washington/ love A things to be televised. They build their career like some of the Watergate people did. They build a career around the television exposure, which is good for them in Washington. The way things work up here, it could help a career. It appeared that there were forces that were hell bent on having a hearing, and they were being That very optimistic about how quicklyAit could be done. I think probably Neve, more out of being anxious to have the thing/ Lhtit being objective about their estimate of how much time it would consume. There were hundreds of documents, a very good investigation I thought. I think they did a very good job in investigating it. Most of the substantial -9- v w1/4"-- leads were followed up0i5y—erer—eromi Senator Morgan, During the hearings the record will show that therewere i few things that they dropped the ball on but nothing of any great consequence. We started to follow up on the Riggs Bank investigation, l .t wIoa all the Riggs bot Thcl.t Bank account part of became apparent that 4.11 was a dead end street because nothing erf°1))9k*ofh. the documentation was available and that spoke for itself. The bank people were not privy to any Minc4e information from • 11,W14491,.QZ apparently Talmadge had no contact with the Bank whatsoever at any time„a-nd we were looking for that possibilityibut it did not materialize. So anyway, while some e4—itm discussions were going on about a resolution of the thing, the hearings began,and there were several points at which wekinquiring whether the prosecutor had come up with anything new or whether we were still sailing along,in effect presenting to the public what everybody already knew1which could have been presented in documentary form and investigative report type form rather than this. The hearings were very slow; they were on half,day hearings which stretched it out because of the other pressing business that the Senate had. The Senate was very busy during this time. There were a lot of floor votes, I can't remember the legislation butwe would recess two and three times a day for the Senators to go over to the floor and cast a vote,,adf there waza a lot of cranking up and cranking down involved. There was a pretty startling start when Senator Talmadge made his opening statement that was very dramatic and the television press people captured thatoam-d'he pretty much spelled out his defense in his opening statement. It was a suprisei that he made it himself/ rather than his counsel, which is the usual practicei for the attorney to make the opening statement. They introduced him as an attorney from -10- Georgia. PETE DANIEL Who? BOYCE Senator Talmadge. They said the opening will be made by the distinguished attorney, pause, pause, from the state of Georgia, the Honorable Herman Talmadge. PETE DANIEL Well, was anybody expecting that? BOYCE Nobody was expecting that. Nobody that I know of was,and Hamilton knew it of ereiselandchad the press release ready. PETE DANIEL When he made thatpfrom the news releases I read, I mean it was just a bomb shell. He came out very aggressively) in defense of himself. BOYCE It was very aggressive, it was very well done, it was very well delivered from a speech-making standpoint, it was a magnificent job oratory. He did again for the television cameras,as I recall,outside, parts of it. The prosecutOr started presenting the case.and there was an early phase in there that Senator Morgan and I along with the others that were working with us)concluded that the initial Xirbter a6st4t- evidence,A, there could be no real consenses of et working out by stipulated facts, both sides agreeing that this is,apparently what, h•a.elhappened and this is the result. These are the conclusions and this is what the opinion of the committee is as to punishment. We were going to go the first phase of the evidence and get that in Save t-oda- rha.rdo and then perhaps, at least 2/3c of the time by resolving it at that point. We never gd the feeling that there was, or we could -11- not develop a feeling of uninimity about tha-qaiildthere were still PNak p Wink jyt,41 people who wanted to go wiLthe hearing* they wanted to erg with this process. PETE DANIEL This was mostly staff? BOYCE I. on tvilovbsk, MeC-4-1-14,1m, special Yes, most!rdthe staff. I think once prosecutor and his assistant, once they got cranked up, they were I think,less inclined to try to work anything out. Senator Talmadge's attorneys were always interested in trying to work something out. I think from their view 'point they saw the ultimate probable end that it was a type of hearing that somebody in Talmadge's position, even if he had won completely, which was unlikely, he still couldn't win. It- --was the pol-±t±rTrirlt,...., you know the proceeding ,as I perceived it was an Ethics proceeding,a part of the Senate Self-Displanary process, and political ramifications should not be a consideration. How you would ever accomplish that, I don't know, particularly in Talmadge's position, him approaching an election year. The press was extremely interested in the case, although it didn't stay on-front page because it was not that dramatic, there was still really an optimum amount of press coverage, more at first, some of the national reporters started drifting away to the Salt hearings!alrethey got rather bored J because therenO new disclosures and nothing particularly dramatic. plooldeA. It just kind of plotted, along and unfolded one sheet at 'A time. As it proceeded, we continued those who were assisting Senator Morgan, we continued to study and investigate some of the minor points that were involved. We got heavily into the problem of the polygraph question. There had never, generally speaking, in the courts,tpolygraph is not -12- admissable, with the sole exception and possibly in some cases iaa,eit iirr-t'mtertnir parties, but even then it has not been recognized as a exc c „1", L74A14.4 4-DOI +-rek , 4---0 satisfactory and exeeptalale investigationAte or reliable te7 be .p. 144 universably exo-epted and some courts will not even except back and cc otaN,Pite Jpemt of both partiesf, but Erdly, "e1A4Mt though the polygraph evidence wad detrimental to his case, he did not attempt to oppose itT e+1-1.t-matter of fact Erdly was very open about letting any evidence in. His attitude was, I think I know everything that happened and I think we turned over all the stones and rather than object to anything sense there is no real appeal or anything and don't have a record to protect like a lawsuit, I am just to let everything in,and I don't care what it is. If it comes close to being pertinent, let it all in. So that is what he did on the polygraph. PETE DANIEL Could you go into detail on that? BOYCE vid The polygraph part of the hearing was this0 when M-i-Trzi part a-41d -,th,e testimony was challenged, he made a statement that,t I forgot how rot he had put it, butAyou'll see in the transcript, was a very smart person and very clever with words, really a dynamite sharp mind, scheming, but smart,was my impression. For example, he would never in any of his testimony( admit that he had lied, that word was not in his vocabular,7) or that he had not told the truth, and he got by even on cross-examination with the phrase that I was less than 01, Edam re, demostrated to me that Minschultz prowess was playing with words without much emphasis on the morality of the situation or the right whA2 S or the wrong, 7n one of the instances of evidence they had against candid about that', and time and time again he would only go so far as to say)-bitett-I was less than candid. But the thing that really -13- ..dit involved an obvious case of embezzlement of funds. He cheated a partner in a real estate deal. and he spent money that was embezzeled from the Senate on his own real estate projects and? the abuse was so clear,- it was obvious what kind of person he was to me. He characterized, when he was questioned about the embezzlement, he would not use the word embezzlement or theft or any of those harsh descriptive words, his phrase for embezzlement was his self, let me see, embezzlement was his self help reimbursement proceeding. That's in the transcript somewhere. Senator Morgan and I just about feel out of our chair when he came out with that one, as he referred to it as a self help reimburse- -) toir ale V,/ ment proceeding. A phrase similar to that. When P4.14.4chultz' lawyers first got into it, Talmadge was represented by an Atlanta attorney, who cy.,1 withdrew the first day of the hearing,by the way,and-we never", the l',161PrrK c inte ‘-gfai ,fit story of that. His loeke—a.2.4..ke/ Atlanta lawyer non-D.C. type lawyer, I think had a conflict with Hamiltorba-nethey parted company for some reason and Talmadge stuck with Hamilton,r anyway Minschultz was represented by a lawyWer from Atlanta and a lawyer from D.C. -and one of the first thing\ his lawyers did was* well, the FBI,treI understand .requested an interview) se— /5T ,-141ttLtz1 lawyers got a private polygraph examiner down in Atlanta to test rni atop.? vrt PA o' :ifilTm-L'+mt.14-E1-, mainly the idea was whether or not 41.1asclanl.hal, was telling the truth when he said that Talmadge knew of the fraudulent vouchers and knew of the secret Riggs' bank account. They put some questions to him and'according to the examiner, he passed the lie detector test. omAdas wet. how 44.4 which was really the_atonclusion no deception -a-s--too.. instead of saying they lie. The result was he was not being deceptive when he said that Talmadge had knowledge of these things. The questions -14- were very cleverly or carefully worded and were not really the right way to ask the questions, they were not put in the proper form to get the proper answer according the FBI polygraph people later on. YOu have to be very careful about how you phrase the questions on titer- polygraph. So thinking that41.4,%G.144 had passed with flying colors, they bought him to Washington and said sure, we'll submit him to the FBI polygrapist,e they did and in what apparently was an impartial polygraph examination, he flunked. At that point the FBI and a private polygraprs+, got together and said something is wrong here. So they m,',-,44ava did a third test, in/which M+Treeiveleitz was, in effect deemed to be deceptiveoamej.t was a joint test between the private guy and the FBI.and the private polygrapher on the third test agreed with the FBI that their conclusions were correct. So then, after that, he had, iy7ci, p vv rrrsui0X 6-"S lawyers, had a fourth examination done by a third polygraLAst 1,0.4 who was/from D.C. all of these private polygraphers were apparantely reputable polygraph experts, but the fourth exam by the D.C. private (c7.0r)us,fr expert resulted in aAfavorable to 14449,5411,4, but on that one, the questions very carefully avoided,144/the Atlanta Constitution was involved in that polygraph examirre'which disturbed us and disturbed Senator Morgan quite a bit. They had offered to pay for one, they had submitted questions, they had offered to pay for it, if they 40xe,r-e te- ask their questionsc2and9there was a very unique and strange involvement of the constitution in that. We had also heard that the laAj who owns .the .Atlantti. Constitution and Mrs. Talmadge were on a vacation on the Greek Islands at that time because of the domestic involvement, wit46,11t made us even more suspicious of just what the press was doing. We couldn't figure out how an independent press could get that involved to the extent of paying for polygraphor supplying questions or being present when the examination was takingt -15- It was news worthy but they seem to have gotten a stronger than natural interest in participating in the thing. So anyway that's what the polygraph evidence was back and forth and the fourth exam -19,e,-, the questions just didn't come close to zeroing in on Talmadge's knowledge of the fruadulent expense vouchers or the Rigas account. It skirted that issue completely, I don't remember the questions but they are in the record and you can read those for yourself. h OA) nutAl were not framed tog et to the issue. So we did some research and Senator Morgan made a statement in the record &lookriethat normally he would not put a great deal of reliance on the polygraph, but since it was by consent and since it would of some assistance that he would 2,f PL,;' go along with the Chairman in letting it in as a valid partAin the c. S proceedings,, but he would treat it with some degree of skeptaural, because of the lack of a high degree of reliability,andiso that I evidence came on 4— and it mostly favorable to Talmadge and I think at that point; it seemed that that was sort of the peak of the pro- ells alopti- ceeding because it was at that point you began to see what Minseinaltz was going to be like and how his accusations,being unsupported by documentary evidence, unsupported by any corrobative testimony with his and unsupported by the lie detector evidence for what it was I I worth,and-it was pretty much/ The battle was over trying to prove intent on the part of Talmadge, which had substantiate our earlier conclusions. At sometime along in there, the effort was revived to see if we could reach this very probable end result of some type of vcz-b-tt reprimand censure.something.and all during that time, the considerations were simply playing games with words. 44-4aaa 4,01 , -v 'orienated from the very first it out of which words were 7 going to appropriately describe what the true facts indicated. How do you characterize it, how can we characterize in our resolution A -16- that would be acceptable to the majority of the Senate and that the committee, hopefully could be unanimous and-the committee wanted to be unanimous if it could,because it was six people looking at the very same evidence and the very same witnesses.andthere were some disputes, the most inexplicable evidence against Talmadge, which we had trouble with, were the documents, are in the records, called Q-1, and Q-2 because it tied in some type of conduct with Mrs. Tisdale_ AZG.C.A4, who was the Senator's personal secretary. It was troublesome, we, /Nit me ',A s couldn't explainet+teral they didn't make sense. But even then it still didn't get that knowledge directly to Talmadge. It didn't tie it in closely enough to impute direct knowledge to him(and all the other evidence was that he was having a lot of problems during that period of time. Nothing much came out in the evidence at all about his drinking,but he was in the press, and everybody assumed that he had been an alcoholic or was an alcoholic and had a severe problem and everybody knew about his marital difficulties and that had already erupted and had been concluded in the civil court. So really you won't find much about drinking and what somebody referred to as womanizing in the private records. It never did come out in the et t tiAld • j hearings. Of course, i-t=s-ler—k,weiTe4.... sort of thing, generally/ris avoidedoarreyou really don't know how meaningful that sort of thing is. Talmadge had already really admitted his lack of exercis r moo- discretion in due care in the operation in his office,,a444 he did not keep his finger on things as any boss should. So he admitted his 94 indiscretions and admitted his short comings in that regardl. So we tried during that period of time to crank upiAthere again)no-w)Talmadge's attorneys were trying to hold the conclusion to a slap on the wrist, —an-d we were satisfied that the negligent conduct in letting things go -17- that far deserve more than just a rap on the Anuckleso,put it was still a question of words and how different people would look at them. We never strongly considered censure,mainly because censure had a historical significance,and it just did not seem, we did not view Talmadge's conduct to be in the same category as Joseph McCarthy's • ka•idi-di conduct. It was a different type of case,,,a different type of mentality, it was a different type of ethics or whatever you want to call it on the part of the two situations,and to haveataas.t.x.11•.a ...aeoft4ee characterize' thatdifferent conduct with the same word. Ljust did not seem historically appropriate or did not seem fair. So we were really still dealing with wordsomq4I.hen,the next phrase was when Mrs. Talmadge was going to testify0,vAee.-1,1.04.44414166t-aA,..4.4at -,tivre—mnd by then Senator Morgan and myself, I was living with him at that time,and we got to see each other every day and every night and *44,001 were really like 1:0- or 12. hours a day on the thing/ during the heavy part of it. We would get to one point andA conclude that its gone this far and really let's go ahead and let this evidence, you know, 1 let the public see it, let the press see it, that although it is aroatonAt L.ic Pt-4 pr t&ly wasting a hell of a lot of time. Its really silly to siir6144 go through all these things just to read the same thing that we Gan- say, here's what's already ha been said under oath. Still maybe the process, since it was the first real trial under the new Ethics rules that it would probably be best-a4d any effort to save ae.414,11" time ^and money might look like a whitewashualteso we finally reached ter6p conclusion te-that rather than trying to be conservative about tdtt that, just go ahead and waste all that time thatmaybe 4 it wouldAbe a waste of time, t4.1.t.-mpayb.G-4-4h would have some cleansing effect and that there were some defects in the tthics procedures -18 hc.4. as the rules l.haL originally IsfYbeen written we wanted to work on after the hearing was over because it became apparent than that there serious deficiencies in the Senators trying to discipline their own kind and not having an independant judge ruling on tilt evidence. 0`01- 54" There were a lot of procedures; we thought would come out better. So it carried on to a conclusion and when allAthe evidence was in, there was an effort to resolve it when the prosecutor said, I have no farther evidence, there were some motions made and then Talmadge said he wasn't going to testify an'a that upset all the committee members, ell fe..4o.0.1 because they were looking forward toh44,111. defending himself. Normally, when the prosecution evidence is weak a defendant says, well, I don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on you and that was true; the burden of proof was on the prosecutor,' ye followed the "mot usual court rules, the evidence had to be clear and con- vincing because it was an allegation of fraudthat's a usual standard.1, the burden of proof on the prosecutor, the defendant does not have to testify") the response to that was very negative and it was a kind of a little maneuver that Hamilton and Senator Talmadge pulled when they suddenly announced that they weren't going on to put on any others. otyi -19)..4.1waja.rpiii...ag,gam.Lacj. to dignify it with evidencet;herct It was a good legal maneuver, but it was a very poor public relations maneuver and it was totally unacceptablql I think just about every member of the committee felt that it was an inappropriate thing well like in a ,Leoi lawyer disciplinary proceear-e, a lawyer better testify I mean he pt. Celeciaes nob" doesn't have to, but sew , you got to be more than a criminal defendant down in the recorder's court .344.4 your wro- attitude in what your obligations are. So there a lot of hassle A -19- about that and we encouraged testify, in fact, we thought have gotten into it, through this.again,dramatic procedure a bit of heyday on Talmadge's his right not to. It is the Hamilton to go ahead and let Talmadge otere4A- if he we ahead and put him on, he would it/and by it much better than going 4011,01110‘ of not to f the newspaper had r.,t112 to testify, instead of exercising l 1:11°Y.t "' refusal to testify,, that hurt hirn-rIt was not a very smart manuever in my opinion . So then, they back tracked, trackede the committee wrote him a letter,A ineffect demanded that he McCarthy,i4ffect, told the committee that was investigating him to shove it, you knows ,Etrt? that was one of the, I think, three reasons .,sure 4, that McCarthy was cent tmetiF because of his attitude during his hearings in refusing to cooperate with the committee, aRa7I don't know that the staff and and the prosecutor intended to set up Talmadge for that, aftel I think that's what would have happened it he had not refused, they would have added that as an additional charge, failure to cooperate. So he fAird0701 came around and decided to testify. The Mi..,ffeeiya-14-ft testimony was the greatest area for Talmadge to make points, but it was, I think, as the record will showiat least for effect, it was a very weak cross-examina- rt);vidnolvii tiono Miiallac.hal.t.t was a very clever witness, a diffcult witness for any 4444,.. Col b ra e. lawyer to handle because he was smarm he was very cleverly evasive ; • in his answers, he had a way with words, he had his Stock expressions that he really did cling tooy10-4*ew he really got by with murder, and a more skillful and a better directed cross-examination would have disclosed a whole lot more about him then was disclosed. He was a very -volunable?, his actions, provable activities made him very very, volunable to cross-examination, but the cross-examination in my -20- 16-* testify^ there were some events in the McCarthy proceedings,-Xhen judgment as a lawyer did not go over particularly well. It was not / skilled cross-examination that I think would have been possible, because you had a lot to work with, a lawyer had a lot of meat to fni-64.4P*; really chew into the 4 ncch&1t4 because as Talmadge had characterized him, he was a crook, a cheat, and an embezzler, a liar, a cheat and reoic- embezzler. Virtually, it was documented. 1.-ahhzazzlatiag-4o-le4-yeu though, we'll do some more later on. PETE DANIEL Yes, that'll be good. uwipteeNdL That's about how it ..ii ecl down at that pointe5a.methe evidence was over. There were several weeks of contemplation. Senator Morgan and I went back and reviewed the things t-lietwe had done from the very first in a search for the appropriate words Senator Morgan had taken the position that if he is guilty of what they had tried to prove him guilty of, he would have voted to expela'ed him in a second. No question, if Talmadge had knmeabout the secret Riggs account, if he had in any way directly or effectively authorized the submission of the fradulent vouchers, iut based on the fact that he turned his operation over to his staff members and did not follow up and did not manage it and it t did not oversee it, that was bad, but was no bad enough to show guilty knowlege and intent and therefore, we're still dealing with words rather than explusion,and now that was the line of demarcation . 1- ,...4.100/ Senator Schmidt was very strong on '4/e 11pecause I think he knew that it had a strong historical significance and it was the worst that could be done short of explusion, so that's what he wanted to do. Senator Helms, we had a minimal amount of contact . with him during the hearings t had appeared at one time and I can't remember what -6.4ple' evidence was being presented BOYCE -21- at the time,that he was leaning toward Schmidt's view, Senator Burdick went back and forth a few times, as far as we could tell on what his view on the thing was/depending on the witness at the particular time. Ultimately it Senator Morgan. independently of the same conclusion that it was appeared that Senator Helms and each other satisfied, came to just no evidence of intentional wrong doing, no reason to characterize that conduct as being comparable to being Joseph McCarthy's conduct. When we got into the deliberations, the staff and the prosecutor were pushing for Ca-y1,54,k00 gross negligence sand they were pushing for errrtittreior at least ,,,.„0.06,44VVLeD words almost as strong as ,a„ata.lx,e arnei. the Senators were consulting dictionaries, tharuses, synonyms a.R.4. anonyms books and all kind of things,, a-nd I remember one of the recesses, Senator Hatfield went back into the room with four books under his arms, two dictionaries, thysawus and a synonym a-nd aa anonym book. The pressaad'one of the reporters said, what going on Senator and he said,words. That's what LAji,e‘t- was going on, and that'sfthad been going on, and that's what went on from the very firstm I think that the records that we maintained will show the things that we had considered in the early part was about what the resultwaso only the Senators participated in the delibera- 1 , tion and the staff tried to worm their way into, but we sat there and outsat them until Senator Stevens asked everybody but the Senators to leave;, the staff members were trying to stay in the deliberations for me and Sam Curr,in and BreA Adams to leave the room, but we sat like pillows of salt and didn't move,..afte finally, they moved everybody out. So when the deliberated, L think that Senator Morgan had a great deal of influence in the deliberations because of the ultimatemj, 720* decision. He did it apparently in a very flu. 40 and effective pi, ( SiAlriiVe per-fee+e4 way and made them €e take a proper and objective -22- look at the evidence that they had. He was critized as being a defender of Talmadge. We didn't look at it that way, because we knew that if they proved the case against Talmadge, he would vote to expell him and that certainly would not be that partial toward Talmadge. We felt more like we were defending the evidence in the light of what we thought what the truth was rather than worrying about Talmadge one way or the other. Senator Morgan is very fw philisophical about Talmadge in, sense that he has made his bed and he will lay in it. and we couldn't properly help him out of bed unless he had hired us as his attorney, i we could have helped him present a better case, but being a member of the panel, Senator Morgan, all the way through /wanted to be as a juror and the way cs- /NJ, I 'wes" rt • some of the other members were reading newspapers and being influenced fi by outside things, was quite disturbing to him and to mew &flekt-iirere we thought that it ought to be more like a , JWbecause it was -attoo important thing to the Senate, to the Ethics Committee and to the individual who waiinvolved, Talmadge,lwas. not to do it on the up and up completely as a jury would and'Morgan was upset about some of the Senators was a little/Si-ow there at one times,: some of the Senators were missing some of the evidence,and I don't believe rEn vuo —that Morgan missed five minuets of evidence., now he may have missed some of the accounting evidence on one day that was all in writing S 4ritios, #14. anyway, but as far as the s+1-40,tanee of evidence, he was there every minute of the proceeding and felt like the others„and he read very few of the newspaper he stayed away from reading accounts and accusations and characterzations in the newspapers and tried to act as if he were a juror ,orr/in a criminal or civil case. I think the end result was to his liking and-he thought that the result was in line -23- with what the provable truth was Ad I think pleased that it was able to come out when it could have been headed in asi. different direction and a result that really would have been unfair and probably would have been set a dangerous precedent, -24-