Q. This afternoon, in answer to my question as to what extent in the Lopata case you were bound by the decision of the Reich Supreme Court, you answered that you had discussed that question this morning. However, this morning you only spoke quite generally about the extent to which the courts were bound by the decisions of the Reich Supreme Court. I want to ask you to what extent, you were bound by the decisions of the Reich Supreme Court, or the opinion of the Reich Supreme Court in that particular case.
I wanted to put that question to you in connection with the decision of the Reich Supreme Court in the Lopata case.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object, Your Honor; that is repetitious and cumulative, and that answer was given to the Bench in response to a direct question on that point this morning?
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, this morning it only concerned the extent to which the courts were bound in general to the policy involved which was apparent in the decisions of the Reich Supreme Court, and not the extent to which they were bound in an individual case which was subsequently brought before it. That is a different matter than the question of being bound--
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer the question.
THEY WITNESS: In a case of that kind, where the lower court received a decision from the Reich Supreme Court by which objection was made to the sentence by that lower court, and by which the Reichsgericht, so to speak, commissioned the lower court to reexamine the case--in that case, of course, the lower court was bound by the decision of the Reich Supreme Court. However, the decision of the Supreme Court did not go to far that it would direct the lower court as to what it should consider proved and to what conclusion it would have to come in the application of a certain principle. That was a matter of course. The way it happened was this.
The lower court was bound to apply the legal principle which had been established by the Reich Supreme Court in the re-examination of the legal facts, and to consider that legal principle as correct. Therefore, it could not arrive at the conclusion that the principle which the Reich Supreme Court had established was not correct; that of course, the lower court could not do. It had to accept that legal principle as a dogma and make it the basis for its new decision. However--and that was very decisive--it was not bound to establish certain actual facts to support that principle.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have made that clear.
DR. KOESSL: I now want to deal with the Platzer case. The Platzer case is mentioned in Exhibit 476, and it was mentioned during the cross-examination of the witness Wilhelm Hoffman, at pages 3941 to 3946 in the English transcript.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit number again, please?
DR. KOESSL: Exhibit 476, Your Honor. That is the affidavit by Wilhelm Hoffmann, who mentions that case.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. The witness Wilhelm Hoffmann criticizes that in the Platzer case, in his opinion, mitigating circumstances were not evaluated sufficiently and the opposite too much. Witness, will you please look at the file and tell us what file of the Special Court it is?
A. These are the files of Platzer, Fritz, for a crime relating to Article 1 of the Decree Concerning the War Economy. File note SG 42, from 43; 42 from 43.
Q. Will you please look at the opinion and tell us what the basic facts were in the Platzer case and what principles were of importance for the extent of penalty?
A. The Platzer case was the most serious case of an offense against the war economy which had occurred in our district. I believe the witness Hoffmann himself stated that here.
It was a case where fabrics were removed which had an over-all length of more than 100 kilometers. One could have paved the railroad from Nurnberg to Wuerzburg with that cloth. What a large quantity of that kind means in time of war and testile shortage I believe does not have to be further explained. The defendant committed the offense so that in case of a bad ending of the war he would be left with good merchandise rather than bad money. He himself did not really need to do things like that because he had made so much profit from the German people that one could be of the opinion that during times of stress he could do his duty. Therefore, we drew the logical conclusion, and I believe that in every nation which found itself in the same situation as we did, the same thing would have been done.
Q. Please read briefly Section V of the opinion, Roman numeral five, where mention we made of the reasons for the extent of the penalty. Page 70.
A. I will restrict myself to just giving the contents. It is stated here that the man lived in comfortable circumstances, that he was not affected in any way by the war, that his business could continue without any restrictions, and that therefore he was not endangered in any way. He was one of those of whom we could and had to demand that they fulfill their duties in every respect without fail, that is by taking into consideration in particular that he was at home while others were in combat. However, instead of keeping this in mind, he took advantage of the emergency situation of war-time and made it the basis of business transactions for his own personal gain. It is further explained that in the case of this man it was surely the case of a racketeer who was out to take advantage of the war. The extent of his offense is stressed further, and on the basis of all these considerations the conclusion is drawn that parasites of the type of the defendant, in the interest of creating a deterrent, should be punished by the most severe penalty.
At that time that sentence did not meet with any criticism on the part of the population; and here, for the first time, I am told that the man who filed the indictment with us on that basis has a rather critical view of these matters today.
Q I want to talk to you about the Schosser case - S-c-h-o-s-s-e-r. The Schosser case is mentioned in the English transcript on page 1743 by the witness Ferber; and in the English transcript on page 3021 through 3066 by the witness Schosser. Witness, in this case the main charge against you is that you displayed special initiative. In addition to that the charge is made repeatedly that Schosser was "prosecuted because he buried a Pole. Between what proceedings does one have to distinguish when the name Schosser is mentioned?
A This is a case of two proceedings in fact. The first case had to do with the funeral of a Pole, but I want to state right now that naturally the funeral itself was not considered a punishable offense. That is the more recent case. Then, another proceeding is of importance here which has to do with the sermon on a Sunday in church. That case, the first case, in connection with the funeral of a Pole did not lead to a main trial or a sentence, but this sermon on the Sunday did. Those are the first things between which one has to distinguish because in this connection the charge is made that I had started or initiated the second case after I had failed with the first one; and my aim is now to prove to the Court by submitting evidence, submitting documents, that I was not the initiator in this case, and in general I object against that charge.
Q Did you also deal with the first case that you find in the file before you? Look at page 6 of the file attached to the main file. It is the case SG-948, from 1942.
A There are two cases, and it would probably be helpful to mention the file designations to avoid confusion. The first case (the case of the funeral of the Pole, if you want to call it that) has the file designation 1-C SG 948, from the year 1942.
Q What was the cause for that case?
A That case was initiated on the basis of a denouncement which the Kreisleiter of Amberg on the 12th of June, 1942 sent to the public prosecutor- at the Special Court Nurnberg-Fuerth.
In this report it is set forth that by the behavior of the accused Schosser in church, particularly by making an announcement about the funeral, and by guiding people to the cemetery, the German population to a far-reaching extent was caused to attend the funeral; and that that behavior was considered an offense against the measures which were prevailing at the time concerning the separation between Germans and Polish people.
Q What did the senior public prosecutor do?
A In this connection it may be necessary to point out that there was a definite regulation which I find in the official gazette for the diocese at Regensburg, published by the Bishop's office, Regensburg. In this publication, periodical, is a, re-print of a decree, an official decree, concerning the spiritual care of civilian workers employed in Germany of Polish nationality. The Bishop's office reprints that decree by the Reich Defense Commissar in the defense districts 7 and 13. Our area was in that district, and this was published for the information of the priests. The decree deals in detail with everything that had to be done. Figure 5 is of importance. It says the internment of Polish civilian workers, male or female, can be taken care of by German priests. Participation of the German population has to be reduced to the absolutely necessary minimum. No sermon may be held. That decree contains eight sections. I do not know if the remainder is interesting to the Tribunal. I could just refer to them if it is desired.
Q If the Court is interested, will you please refer to them.
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
A First, on Figure 1 it is stated that participation of civilian workers of Polish nationality in the church services of the German population is prohibited. Then it is stipulated that church services for Polish workers, male or female, have to be conducted separately. Where there aren't enough Poles living, individual spiritual care is Permitted, but under all circumstances it should be avoided, that Poles and Germans should be together in the same room for that purpose.
Services should only be conducted in the German or the Latin language. Publication of newspapers, periodicals, or Sunday magazines in the Polish language is prohibited. The priests had to restrict themselves just to the spiritual care of the Polish people. It ends with the words as follows: It is expected that the German priests should always be conscious of being Germans and of the duties arising from that fact and that offenses will be punishable.
Q Was it made clear whether Schosser knew anything about that regulation?
A That at first could not be seen from the report received, but after he was interrogated, he referred to the fact that he had not known anything about all these circumstances and that that was what had got him into this trouble.
A Now, we want to find out what happened after that report was made.
A It is first asserted here that I had commissioned Ferber, or that I had told Ferber that he should issue an arrest warrant, but Ferber had told me that he did not know what reasons to give for it and that subsequently I had handled the matter myself with a vicious remark and had issued the arrest warrant. The background, history of that arrest warrant seems very dubious, but I don't think it necessary to enter into that. On the 15th of June, 1942, I issued the arrest warrant and that arrest warrant was based upon paragraph 2, section 1 of the Malicious Acts Law, and paragraph 130-A or the Penal Code. In the case of this paragraph 130-A, of the Penal Code, we were concerned with the so-called pulpit paragraph, the offense of abusing the pulpit. It is of importance that that paragraph alone which would have supported the proceedings, is a regulation which has nothing to do with National Socialist, but is a paragraph which emanates from Bismarck's time, the time of the Kulturkampf in Germany, and the then liberal democracy factious in Germany brought it about against clericalism.
This concept is found in paragraph 130-A. The arrest as far as facts were concerned was not based upon the circumstances that Schosser conducted that funeral for the Pole, but because as one could assume, and certainly can assume today, but on his knowledge of the German regulations and provisions and on announcing the intended funeral, and the transfer of the body from the morgue to the cemetery, in order to persuade the German population to a far-reaching extent to participate, and, therefore, to indirectly demonstrate its opposition against the regulations of the state. The funeral itself is not a matter for the church, but a matter for the state, for the government of Germany and the clergymen are only permitted to participate in the funeral and to perform the duties commensurate with religious custom to say the prayers and everything that belongs with it. But the funeral was actually carried out by the municipal office. The discussion of such a matter and the announcement, conscious of the fact that it would cause a disturbance among the population, that was against the provisions of paragraph 130-A; and if this is connected with the intention to demonstrate opposition against measures of the state, which was certainly the case here, then the prerequisites required by law are complied with and I do not know of anything further to investigate, but if all these elements are there, I have the obligation to issue the arrest warrant and on that basis I did.
Q Now, the witness Schosser has pointed out that he had already been a rested by the Gestapo, and that at that time he had been punished; he had been sentenced to fourteen days. Can you determine from the files whether you issued the warrant of arrest before you knew of the police measures against Schosser?
A. From tho files it can be seen without doubt that when I issued the warrant of arrest I did not know anything about the occurrences at the Gestapo office of Regensburg, which found its climax in the protective custody imposed upon Schosser for fourteen days. That can be seen from the following.
Q. When did you receive information about that from the Gestapo?
A. I was just going to say that because you have already asked me. On the 15th of June, 1942, the prosecution sent the arrest warrant to the secret state police, Gestapo, at Regensburg. Subsequently, on the 18th June, 1942, the secret state police, Gestapo, Regensburg, replied with the information that it did not want to carry out the arrest at that time because a police measure was imposed, that is to say the protective custody for fourteen days on Schosser, and returned the files together with the arrest warrant to the senior public prosecutor and that is the way he was informed in connection with that funeral. The secret state police already had taken measures. I was not informed about these facts, as can be seen from the file. Just the Same, that arrest warrant was carried out, and that was justified.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question. Would you tell us in a few words the specific provision of the Malicious Acts Law which was violated in this case? I don't understand that.
A. That was Article 2, Section 1. I can read it if you think it is desirable; I can quote it if you think it is desirable.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to hear that if it is brief; I haven't it before me.
A. This is the provision. Schosser-
Q. Give the legal provisions, witness.
A. Yes, that is what it is. It is suspected that Schosser made in public vicious remarks, derogatory remarks about the leadership of the state, the NSDAP, its provisions and institutions-
Q. Witness, will you please read the Malicious Acts Law itself? --Rather than-
A. -- Which are designed to undermine the confidence of the people in the leadership. In connection with that I want to mention that we always include the actual text of the law in the arrest warrant.
THE PRESIDENT: Give me the date of that law, please.
Q. The Malicious Acts Law.
A. The Malicious Acts Law is of the 20th December, 1934; 20th December, 1934.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all.
Q. And now will you please tell us-
A. The law speaks of statements, but the same applies to behavior which permitted a conclusion, that is to say an act which looked at on its own merits may be correct, but by the evaluation which it is given by others, may have the character of a malicious act. I have also explained that we were not informed about these matters. The defendant was arrested and was questioned before the local court in Weiden.
Q. Did he do anything against his arrest?
A. He filed a complaint against the arrest, he filed a complaint against the arrest warrant; a decision was made.
Q. About that appeal, did you have anything to do with that decision?
A. That decision, was formally not correct, but substantially it is very interesting because by that decision the complaint against my arrest warrant was rejected; and rejected by the one person who now charges me with having issued that arrest warrant.
That was signed-- it happens to be signed by Mr. Ferber, who assorts that I had pulled a dirty deal with my arrest warrant.
Q. You yourself had nothing to do with that decision?
A. I had nothing to do with that decision; the case went on and was soon suspended after the defendant had boon interrogated, and that was one thing we didn't know when we issued the arrest warrant, he explained that for quite some time ho was in the army and it was granted him that he might not have been as well informed about the entire atmosphere around the question of Poles in Germany as one would have expected otherwise. The case was suspended on the 27th August, 1942, with the reason that it could not be proved that the defendant intended to demonstrate his opposition against the measures of the state concerning Poles.
Q. You have been charged that because that case was not successful, you had initiated a second proceeding, the one concerning the sermon. Will you please first state what the prosecution had decided already, on the 9th July, 1942, that is to say, before the end of the first proceeding. You find it on page 12 of the files, a disposition made by the prosecution on the 9th of July.
A. That is the worst part of the charges which are raised against me in this connection. As I have said, I can refute it by documents, by just mentioning several documents in chronological order which will clarify the connections. In the file concerned with the funeral of the Pole, on page 12, 9 Jul, 1942, there is a short disposition on the part of the prosecutor "here he requests a list of previous convictions, and political record. Therefore, for that funeral case, one wanted to have the political record of Schosser from the party. The prosecutor shouldn't have done that really, but he was now there and he committed that blunder, and that was how the whole thing started. It was prohibited to request any political record of a clergy an because one considered--one know generally that the clergy was against National Socialism; that was no secret; but now inspite of that, the party reacted upon that request and sent a certificate of that kind, not to mo, but to the prosecutor who requested it.
Q. What did the senior public prosecutor do? On page 14 of the file you will find an order.
A. An order of That?
Q. Page 14 of the funeral case-- documents concerning the funeral case. Immediately after the request--following the request for a certificate of political record.
A. That request is on page 12.
Q. On page 14 you will find and order by the senior public prosecutor.
A. That is a mistake.
Q It is in the file 948.
A It is not in there. What kind of an order is that supposed to have been?
Q It is a communication to the presiding judge of the Special Court concerning the cancellation of the arrest warrant; and the arrest warrant was actually canceled.
A The following files which are concerned with that matter are in the subsidiary files referring to case 948 from the year 1942. There are four files clipped together in the sane manner now as they were made out at the time. One document bears the date of 28 July 1942 and is a political evaluation of Leopold Schosser, made out by an Ortsgruppenleiter Stubenvoll. In that political certificate, by which evidently it was not intended to initiate penal proceedings, mention is made that that Priest had given a sermon about the false prophets and had spoken about the wolves in sheet's clothing. It was that sermon which was of importance later. That matter? which got into the hands of the prosecution through other files and was Immediately put into their files, was the cause for Prosecutor Hoffman -- who was also been heard here as a witness -- to issue the following order with two attachments. That is? together with the political certificate by the Ortsgruppenleiter and the communication from the Kreisleitung at Amberg? he transferred that to the Gestapo at Regensburg, with the request that they investigate the occurrences mentioned in the attached documents. The attached documents themselves were to be considered inter-office material from the prosecution.
That request meant that the prosecutor, who had found out about these occurrences from other files, made that the basis of a criminal proceeding against the clergyman Schosser. He did not want these connections to become publicly known? but considered them and wanted them to be treated as internal matters of the prosecution. That is the reason why he writes, therefore, that the material should be considered as such and should not be attached to the official files.
Accordingly, those measures were taken, as can be seen from the files dealing with the sermon. There we find, on page 1, according to information received by the Gestapo Office at Regensburg, Father Leopold Schosser of Vilseck, some time ago, is supposed to have made some remarks derogatory to the state, and Mayor Stubenvoll is mentioned as a witness. And then we immediately have a record of the investigation.
However, the four documents which have been the cause of that second proceeding with which I am charged -
THE PRESIDENT: I think probably the interpreter is unable to see the documents that you are exhibiting to him. After all, you are addressing the Court and not the interpreter.
Go ahead.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, will you please briefly explain the following? By what you have explained on the basis of the files, you wanted to demonstrate that the case concerning the sermon had already been initiated at the time when the first case was about to end; is that correct?
A That is certainly correct, yes, yes. Before the first case was ended there was the first communication from the prosecutor, which was on 7 August 1942, yes, and. that was quite some time before the first case was concluded. However, the most important thing in this connection for me, because it has always been said that I had been the instigator for everything, is the following:
As to the institution of that second case, I did not know anything about it. I only got in contact with that case when, quite officially, the files were submitted to me in the same form as they a re here before us.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's go on to something else now.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q What was the course of the second case, the case of the sermon? In that case serious charges wore also made against you, con corning the treatment of the clergyman Schosser.
Will you briefly describe the course of those proceedings and will you please state whether the part you took in that case justifies the charges leveled against you?
A In the further course of the proceedings that charge cannot appear when that case came before me on 25 August 1942, I issued the arrest warrant. We did not go as far at that time as the confession or the statements made by Schosser in the trial would have permitted us to go. If we had assumed that his entire sermon from beginning to end was directed against the wolves in sheep's clothing, we could have characterized the case as one of high treason and we would have had to pass it on, for that reason, to the competent authority. We only assumed that in the course of the sermon various doubtful statements had been made which had nothing to do with God the Father, and that was how it came to trial.
Nothing further happened. Investigations were carried out such as in every other case, and there was a defense counsel.
Q As to the course of the trial itself, now, various charges were leveled against you by the witness Schosser. First of all, it is alleged that you had used expressions attacking the profession of the clergy. Furthermore, with reference to the book by Rosenberg, you are supposed to have attacked his denomination. Will you please comment on these points concerning attacks against the profession and the religion of Schosser?
A Naturally, because I have a normal human brain in my head, I can no longer give a verbatim account......
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The question is whether you made the statements which it is charged you made. Now, if you remember whether you made them or not, just tell us whether you remember, if you remember whether you did or did not make the statements charged against you. We are not concerned about your absence of any brain on your part.
THE WITNESS: Hr. President, may I be permitted to ask a question? I only wanted to explain that any statement or any expression only gets its meaning if it is seen in its context.............
THE PRESIDENT: We know that; we know that. Now just give us the context and the statement briefly.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, I didn't want to do any more than that.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you can finish in two minutes.
BY DR. KOESSL:
If you look at the opinion, you will find points discussed there concerning the sermon, and reference is also made to the malicious attacks of Schosser against loading persons in the State. That will make it possible for you to find a connection with the statements with which you have been charged -
THE PRESIDENT: The two minutes have already gone by without any question and we will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(At 1630 hours, 21 August 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 22 August 1947)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 22 August 1947 - 0930-1630. The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Barnickel.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Barnickel was excused for yesterday at his request, made through his counsel. There was no excuse for him for today. Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain why the defendant Barnickel is absent and report to the Tribunal.
You may proceed.
OSWALD ROTHAUG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. KOESSL (Defense Counsel for the defendant Rothaug).
Q Witness, yesterday you stated that the second case against Schosser was initiated by the prosecution. Please show us, on the basis of the files, the document and the report wherein the prosecution itself states that it initiated that second case?
A That is a report by the senior public prosecutor, signed by Wilhelm Hoffman, and addressed to the general public prosecutor at Nurnberg of the 17th of October, 1942, and it contains the following sentence: "The matter was started because the occurrence was mentioned in a political report by the Ortsgruppe Filsegg which the witness Stubenvoll attached to the report 1/C SG 948 from the year 1942.
Q Now we want to continue, where did the session take place in the second case?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A In the town hall court at Amberg.
Q What parts of the population attended that session?
AAll categories of people. The court room was right in the center of the town and when once people had found out that there was something going on, they just came.
Q What was the composition of these people, according to their denominations ?
A The great majority of the population was Catholic.
Q Did you have to take certain considerations on account of that?
A Of course. One had to avoid anything which could hurt the religious feelings of these people. Cases against clergymen required a great deal of caution and a great deal of tact so that no wrong impressions were made, because it was generally considered undesirable to make the impression, in any way, that it was intended to injure the religious feelings of these people.
Q What in brief were the charges against Schosser and how did he defend himself against them?
A The charges did not refer to the entire sermon, the subject of which was false prophets, but two basic thoughts were mentioned. For one, the thought that the leading individuals - meaning in the state - intended to take the Catholic faith from the people. In addition to that, the defendant also was charged with having attacked the principle, prevailing in Germany, of religious freedom. That was the charge.
Q Schosser asserts that his sermon itself was really not the focus of interest, but that you had dealt emphatically with the matter of a funeral and you had included that in the case. Is that correct?
A The matter of the funeral was not the subject of the indictment so far as it was not considered a basis for any legal facts in connection with it, but it was merely mentioned in the course of the trial. It is correct that this matter was discussed in connection with the matters Court No. III, Case No. 3.contained in the indictment, but not in the manner that it was the most important part of the trial.
It was quite legally admissible to mention it, as I have mentioned.
Q Can you prove, from the files, that the prosecution submitted the files concerning the sermon question to the court?
A That can be seen from the file.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that file in evidence?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, your Honor, it is not.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The case was only discussed by the witness Schosser.
A By an order in the file SG 948 from the year 1942 (matter of the funeral), the prosecutor decided on the 27th of August, 1942, under III "Filed without subsidiary file", that the matter SD 1312 from 1942 that is the sermon matter - after that file had been returned, was to be attached. By way of that disposition, these files concerning the funeral were submitted by the prosecution as material of evidence, together with the sermon file, with the consequence that I received that material and had to discuss it with the Prosecution witness at the main trial. That was legally permitted at all times. The judge was authorized to touch upon matters which had become either the subject of amnesty, or where an acquittal had occurred, or on matters referring to cases that had been suspended, or where a sentence had been passed. He could touch upon all these matters in a different case and discuss them for the purposes of the case at hand. Whether that became the basis for an evaluation for that new trial - that, of course, could only evolve from that main trial and the discussions therein.
Q What was the basic purpose of discussing that question on your part?
Court No. III. Case No. 3.
A The fundamental purpose of discussing these matters was to specify the obligation that all individuals and all offices had to heed the measures and regulations issued by the state, and the final purpose was to establish what basic attitude the defendant himself had with regard to that problem.
Q In that connection, you are alleged to have said that it is necessary to be able to hate. Did you say that?
A Of the expression itself - that is to say, as to the literal expression - I have no definite recollection any more, but I know that, in connection with discussing these matters, I touched upon that thought. The context was about the following. As is well known, these measures which had been taken against Poles throughout the Reich were measures based primarily upon reasons of security, but as far as a separation of these Polish laborers from the German population was desired, those measures certainly were also based upon experiences from historical events, events that had occurred at the beginning of the war. Primarily, mass murders which were said to have been committed on people of the German race in Poland and which were expounded in the German press as the reasons for certain measures. We, of course, considered these reports to be correct. In addition to that, the general attitude, due to political tension in the past, played a certain part such as, for instance, the insurgent fights after the first world war and other things of that nature. The burning questions, however, were those mass murders at the beginning of the war and, in that connection, I may have talked about this sacred hate which was a fundamental thing just like love. It was also certain - I do not assume that the witness tells the untruth in this case - that I have said that even the Bible speaks of a God that hates.......
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we'll not go into any quotations from Holy Writ at this time. The trial does not involve the correctness of any such statements.