Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

on, I think it was, March 27 of that previous month, there was a meeting in Atlanta, Ga., which we both attended. And Mr. Burstein-I called Mr. Burstein and I asked him to bring the check along with him. And he handed it to me. And I put it in an envelope he handed me. And I brought it back to Washington.

And we deposit our checks every Friday. And the next date we made a deposit the check was deposited. And it happened that April 7 was the date that the check was deposited.

Mr. Moss. The reason I asked is that the check bears a cancellation stamp on the bank of April 6, 1970.

Mr. GENOVESE. Then I could have missed it by a day. If we could determine whether the sixth or seventh was a Friday—because we deposit our checks on the Friday every week-for example, we collect checks during the week, and then on Friday we make our deposits.

Mr. Moss. April 6 of this year was a Monday, and April 7 was a Tuesday. The Friday would have been the third or fourth.

Mr. GENOVESE. Then it would follow that I deposited it when I returned to Washington from the meeting in Atlanta, Ga. Then it must have been deposited off schedule.

Mr. Moss. Was it a special deposit?
Mr. GENOVESE. I do not recall

, but I could certainly determine that, whether other checks were deposited with it.

Mr. Moss. Would that be reflected in the records you have supplied to the committee?

Mr. GENOVESE. Yes, it would.

Mr. Moss. Then counsel will check the record for the confirming material.

Do you have any other questions? Mr. MANELLI. No. Mr. Moss. If there are no other questions Mr. MANELLI. There is one other item. When you conferred with Mr. Rebein and Mr. Smethurst in your office, I guess it was in December, and you were asked then whether Mr.-on January 7—you were asked if Mr. Garson had reimbursed the association for this hotel bill at the Puerto Rico convention, and you mentioned-you told them that he had not; is that correct?

Mr. GENOVESE. Was that as late as January 7? I do not recall. I thought that was in December.

Mr. Moss. Can you get the statement? It should be available immediately in the files.

Mr. REBEIN. We did not put that in the form of a memorandum, but we do both specifically recall that.

Mr. Moss. And you have a record to support that!

Mr. REBEIN. We do not have a record. Mr. Lishman had previously referred to our conversation in this respect as being mid-December, but it actually occurred on January 7 when he made available records in answer to the previous subpena.

Mr. Moss. And then you had a return of records?
Mr. REBEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANELLI. Let us assume for the moment that it was January 7or I guess we cannot assume that—but they did ask you at one point in one of the visits whether Mr. Garson had reimbursed the association, d you said that he had not. Do you recall that question and answer!

GENOVESE. Yes; I do.

[ocr errors]

Mr. MANELLI. Did you have any explanation as to why you would give that answer? If it turns out that it was, indeed, provided on January 7, would that have been correct, or not?

Mr. GENOVESE. I do not recall whether this was prior to the time that I had gotten the check back from Mr. Burstein or not.

Mr. Moss. He is referring to the fact that your statement says:

Finally I on or about January 7, Mr. Garson delivered to me a replacement check dated November 18, 1969. I indicated to Mr. Garson that I could accept the check only upon advice and consent of general counsel, and then communicated with Mr. Burstein, who repeated his prior advice. However he suggested that we accept the checkso he did not really repeat it, he modified it, which I forwarded to him at his request to review the matter with my executive committee and me at a convenient time.

And that was apparently done at the Atlanta meeting?

Mr. GENOVESE. The date that Mr. Smethurst and Mr. Rebein visited me, was that on January 7 specifically?

Mr. REBEIN. Yes.

Mr. GENOVESE. And at that time I had received the check, but had not deposited it, and it was in the hands of Mr. Burstein, I would assume, from those dates.

Mr. MANELLI. The record shows that there was a subpena in force at that time calling on you to provide the subcommittee with a number of documents, one of which would have been this reimbursement check.

And that subpena was returnable January 7. And you say that you had the check, or Mr. Burstein had the check on or about January 7. And it seems that that should have been do you have any explanation as to why that was not given to the subcommittee, since that was one of the items that would have been covered by the subpena?

Mr. GENOVESE. By the original subpena.

Mr. MANELLI. The subpena was returnable on January 7, and I think that was the date that you appeared here, but you did not have the records, and the staff had the records made available in your offices; do you recall ?

Mr. GENOVESE. That is correct.

Mr. MANELLI. This check that was in your possession or Mr. Burstein's possession should have been made available—it would have been one of the items covered by the subpena?

Mr. GENOVESE. If in fact we had the check, it should have been part of the subpenable items.

Mr. MANELLI. The other question I would have is, if Mr. Garson had been continuously requesting to be allowed to reimburse the association since the previous March and had even gone so far as to give you a check in November which you gave back to him, when you were asked in January by the staff whether Mr. Garson had reimbursed the association, it seems that you would have at least mentioned the fact that he had been

Mr. Moss. I think counsel has made an error. The witness has testified that Mr. Garson started on or about November 18 requesting the bill and requesting the right to pay, not in March. There was a period of approximately 7 months where he did not make such a request.

Mr. MANELLI. There was a substantial period before you had been asked that question where Mr. Garson was allegedly earnestly attempting to make reimbursement. Why did you not at least mention that fact when you were asked whether he had reimbursed the association ?

Mr. GENOVESE. I do not recall-first of all, I do not recall being asked whether or not Mr. Garson had made his payment. As a matter of fact, I do not think Mr. Garson's name was brought up in our discussions when Rebein and Smethurst visited my office.

Mr. Moss. Now we are getting into an area that is going to confuse the record. Because earlier in your testimony, when asked how you were aware of the fact that this committee was investigating Mr. Garson, you stated that it was in connection with the call upon you at your office of the two investigators from the committee.

Counsel is shaking his head, but the Chair has a very excellent recollection, and would be personally willing to go through the notes of the reporter and have them read back. But that is precisely the testimony of Mr. Genovese.

Mr. MANDELL. Mr. Moss, I am not shaking my head because I disagree with your statement, I am shaking my head because I am a little confused by the dates that you are talking about.

Mr. Moss. Yes. But I say, that is what your client indicated to the committee as being the contact which alerted him to the fact of an investigation of Mr. Garson, was the visit. But he has just now testified that he does not recall on the occasion of that visit that they discussed Mr. Garson. The Chair is not attempting to entrap or be unfair. But the witness cannot have it both ways. He either does recall it in connection with that contact by the two staff investigators, or he does not recall. Earlier he did recall.

Now, you say that you do not recall. Mr. GENOVESE. Generally, I thought the investigation had to do with all these invitees or appearances before our convention. I had no idea at that point that it was one specific person that they were investigating.

Mr. Moss. It was not one specific person. But we were talking about one specific check. And that was the check of Mr. Garson. And I asked you, were you aware, and had he informed you, that he was under investigation on this matter when he offered the check to you. And


knew that he was. And I asked you how.

And you stated that it was in connection with the contact with the two investigators, for one thing.

And then later on you indicated that Mr. Garson had also discussed But your initial response was that it was as a result of the contact of the two investigators for the committee. And that related directly to Mr. Garson and Mr. Garson presenting to you or leaving at your office a check for the reimbursement of the hotel expenses.

So I think counsel now should repeat the question as to the discussion with the investigators.

Mr. MANELLI. Let us try and see if we can get at that maybe in this way.

You recall the January 7 occasion when the staff members came back with you to your office to review the records, you recall that visit?


[ocr errors]

you said

it with you.

Mr. MANELLI. And do you recall them raising the question with you about Mrs. Garson's participation in the convention, do you recall that subject coming up at all?

Mr. GENOVESE. No, sir.

Mr. MANELLI. You do not recall the staff asking any questions about why her ticket was not paid, or you saying anything to them about Mrs. Garson's ticket not being paid? that subject coming up, the Garson's hotel bill, and whether they had conversation we had at all.

Mr. MANELLI. Do you recall the conversation covering the subject of whether or not Mr. and Mrs. Garson's hotel bill has been paid! I am repeating myself, but just to get this on the record, do you recall that subject coming up, the Garsons' hotel bill, and whether they had reimbursed the association?

Mr. GENOVESE. No, I do not, sir.

Mr. MANELLI. My recollection is that earlier-and this is where the record may be confused-I asked you if you did recall that question coming up. Do you recall ever being asked whether Secretary Garson or-let me just put it that way-do you recall ever being asked by the staff whether Mr. Garson had reimbursed the association ?

Mr. GENOVESE. No, sir.
Mr. MANELLI. You do not recall ever being asked?
Mr. GENOVESE. No, sir.
Mr. MANELLI. On January 7 or at any time?

Mr. Moss. Then your only knowledge of the fact that the committee was investigating Mr. Garson came from Mr. Garson himself, is that correct?

Mr. GENOVESE. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Moss. I remember this modifies earlier testimony by you.

Mr. GENOVESE. Well, I am a little confused, Mr. Chairman. I know that Mr. Garson discussed this with me, but I do not recall the name of Mr. Garson coming up in the conversation we had with the investigating staff people at all.

Mr. Moss. Of course a copy of this transcript will be supplied to you

Mr. MANELLI. Not for an executive session.
Mr. Moss. That is right. This is an executive session.

We will review the transcript. But you will want this latter answer to stand ?

Mr. Moss. Whatever the previous testimony was.
Any further questions?
Mr. MANELLI. One last one.

You mentioned that you had prepared the statement with the idea that it would be transmitted to the subcommittee as a result of a conversation you had with Mr. Burstein. Did he tell you at the time that Mr. Garson was going to make use of this statement as part of his own statement, that this was what was going to be done with the statement ?

Mr. GENOVESE. Yes, I knew that it was going to Mr. Garson, yes.

Mr. Moss. That is not totally responsive, because the question goes to the fact that did you know that beyond going to Mr. Garson it would also be transmitted to this committee.

Mr. GENOVESE. To be truthful, I did not know what disposition Mr. Garson was going to make of it. But I would assume that he would be using it in his own defense.

Mr. Moss. Did you assume that at that time!
Mr. GENOVESE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANELLI. Would it be accurate to state-let me ask this: Is it your testimony that you specifically recalled independently all these dates and circumstances that are in this statement, or would it be correct to state that you relied on Mr. Burstein's recollection for at least part of it?

Mr. GENOVESE. I am sure that I relied on Mr. Burstein, too; yes.

Mr. MANELLI. So you cannot independently vouch for everything in the statement necessarily!

Mr. GENOVESE. No. Mr. MANELLI. Some things you can, and your personal recollection will verify, and some things you cannot ?

Mr. GENOVESE. That is correct. Mr. MANELLI. Just to make this clear, the November 18 date again of the check, you testified before, but maybe it should be made clear, you say that Mr. Garson left that check at your office at a time when you were away from the office at lunch?

Mr. GENOVESE. Yes, sir.
Mr. MANELLI. And you are sure that was on or about November 18.
Mr. GENOVESE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANELLI. You could not be mistaken by more than a few days, then ?

Mr. GENOVESE. I do not think so; no.

Mr. MANELLI. What is it that makes you so sure of that? You testified before that you had no records you could look at, and no materials in your office that would specify that.

« AnteriorContinuar »