Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee July 27 1974 Footage

Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
This clip is not available for streaming at this time. Please contact WPA.	Tape Master:	10619
	Catalog #:	486231
	Clip Number:	486231-1
	Orginal Film:	205001
	Timecode:
	Location:	Rayburn House Office Building
	Year Shot:	1974 (Actual Year)
	Audio:	Yes
	Color:	Yes
	Headings:	GOVERNMENT: Hearings, Watergate
	Description:	[00.58.12] Mr. SARBANES. Will the gentleman Yield'?, Mr. DENNIS. Wait. I would like to see what, Mr. Railsback--- Mr. RAILSBACK. My thrust I guess is to get. away from the language of "policy" and I think I have answered your question as far as my own beliefs about not inferring, criminal responsibility. I do not, think I can answer it any more clearly. I do not impute any kind of criminal responsibility, and I think that the President should only be charged with direct acts or knowledge I think there has to be some, kind of Presidential knowledge or Involvement. I just happen to think there IS. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman for his answer and reserve balance of my time. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine is recognized. Mr. COHEN. Perhaps I can add to Congressman Railsback's response having discussed this matter with him at some length. I believe the word plan was used in his substitute, because this is the, exact language that the President used. Referring to the transcripts of March 22, 1973, when there was a discussion between Mr. Mitchell and the President, you recall the words that "up to now our plan has been one of containment and then there Was an additional reference to the fact that "we are adopting a new plan," and that new plan was going to the use and implementation of executive privilege to be asserted for some of the aides going before the Senate select committee. Now, that was the reason I think that you incorporated the word Plan. I yield back. recognition The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins, are you seeking recognition? Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. May I be recognized? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions. which I will be directing to my colleague, Mr. Railsback, about his amendment, I have it before me, and it seems to say, omitting the parenthetical expression, that Richard -Nixon engaged personally in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and do other acts in connection with all obstruction of justice charge, Now I want to understand does the word designed as used in your amendment. Mr. Railsback, mean that the President intentionally and corruptly acted for the purposes of delaying, impeding and so forth? Is that your intent Mr. RAILSBACK. Will the gentleman yield Mr. WIGGINS. Of course. Mr. RAILSBACK. I think that, the design can relate to the course of conduct, or the word plan, and I think that it clearly means that the action. that he took willingly Mr. WIGGINS. And to carry on, knowing the purpose of his acts, that is to obstruct, delay, interfere, and impede with the due administration of justice/ Mr. RAILSBACK. If my friend will yield, the answer is yes. Mr. WIGGINS. All right. Then that evidence which may be before us which does not suggest that the motivating purpose of Presidential actions was to obstruct, delay, hinder, and impede and so forth would not be covered by the language of yours in this amendment, is that so, Mr. Railsback? Mr. RAILSBACK. Well, let me make myself clear on that. If you are, suggesting that the litany or the recital of events that was made by Mr. Waldie yesterday, which referred to many acts about which we have, no knowledge of direct Presidential direction or involvement, the answer again is yes. I do not, I do not think there is, frankly, a proper again place to be considering things other than that which relates to the President. We are talking about the impeachment of the President of ,the United States. We are not talking about criminal indictments returned, unless they happen to relate to his knowledge or to his direct involvement. Mr. WIGGINS. All right now, I think it would be a fair summary of the gentleman's position, and if I err you are right here to correct me, that you intend by this language to put on the managers in the Senate the burden of proving that the President personally acted to corrupt the due administration of justice by intentionally engaging in a plan or design, a course of conduct or a plan which was intentionally designed to obstruct justice. Now. is that a fair statement? Mr. RAILSBACK. What I Intend by the amendment is to suggest that Richard M. Nixon, if it can be shown in the Senate, and if he can be held to account in the Senate, that he used his power of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful and covert activities. In other words, the words speak for themselves. Mr. WIGGINS. I understand. You mean what you said. Well, I am running out of time. I want to clear up the question, however, of the conduct of his aides. In order to have this be, President's acts, you would require, I am sure, that at least the knowledge of the acts of his aides, or that, he instructed them with the requisite corrupt intent to obstruct justice, would you not? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Excuse me. Mr. RAILSBACK. I would answer the gentleman by saying that the language still speaks for itself. But, it is my belief that to hold Richard Nixon to account and to remove him from office--- [01.04.14--TAPE OUT]