Advanced Search
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.02.00] [in to NPACT studio commentary in progress, Martin DIAMOND discusing the hearings] Says that the liberal DEMOCRATS must take care not to delegitimize the proceedings by seeking to impeach NIXON because they disagree with his policies. Ulitmately, the committee will likely acquit itself well, DUKE asks what the men think of NIXON'S chances on the HOUSE FLOOR. WILLIAM VAN ALSTYNE says that he thinks his chances are not good. Notes that many in the committee who were undecided were clearly swayed by the evidence in favor of impeachment, in spite of the efforts of the PRO-NIXON members. DUKE/LEHRER give preview of the debate, hour-by-hour, in the videotaped action from the afternoon session. [00.06.35]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.59.45-- NPACT logo, start of videotaped coverage of July 30--daytime session] [split screen--photo of JUDICIARY COMMITTEE at bench and very ugly photo of NIXON looking dour] [LEHRER v.o.] LEHRER states that the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE began its final vote on ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT just after 10 o'clock that night. [cut committee room, pan to each member in turn as the roll is called] [title sequence with 3-D rotating Capitol Dome image--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER introduces the videotaped replay of the early session of the committee, states that the committee has reached its final recommendation that three ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT be sent to the HOUSE FLOOR for a vote on IMPEACHMENT. [screen behind LEHRER shows the same photo of NIXON as before] LEHRER summarizes the thrust of the charges against NIXON--OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ABUSE OF POWER, and CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS by dishonoring subpoenas. [01.04.02--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.31] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* [LEHRER, DUKE in studio, LEHRER standing at "scoreboard" with small square photos of each member arranged in groups by predicted vote] LEHRER asks LEWIS and DUKE what would happen if these scenarios pan out, speculating it would lead to a 25-13 vote for impeachment on the SARBANES article. DUKE says that regardless of the combinations, a majority will favor. One interesting thing, is that the 7 southerners on the committee all but one favor the impeachment, excepting Republican Rep. LOTT. LEHRER says the swing of Rep. MANN (D-SC) is critical DUKE notes that at the start of the proceedings, there were about 12 undecided or uncommitted votes, and almost all of those have gone to the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side. LEHRER adds that in terms of debate, not votes, that the REPUBLICANS who are already on record against impeachment are the ones leading a fight to make articles more SPECIFIC. [Points to Rep. SANDMAN'S photo] DUKE calls the "die cast" inside the committee, although the conclusion is in doubt as to when it will be finished. Impeachment resolution to get to HOUSE FLOOR approx, mid-August, for a likely 1-2 week period of debate. DUKE says there was action at the FEDERAL COURT, following SUPREME COURT ORDER for White House to turn WHITE HOUSE TAPES over to SPECIAL PROSECUTOR JAWORSKI. White HOuse has pledged compliance, but not followed through yet. Introduces White House correspondent Chris GAUL to comment. GAUL says that the tapes have been promised by the next Tuesday, with rest as speedily as possible.. Says that there was a hearing with Judge Sirica requested by JAWORSKI to force a timetable for the surrender of tapes. Sirica instead chose to force an agreement between JAWORSKI AND ST. CLAIR, NIXON'S attorney, resulting in deal for 20 initial tapes, ruling by the Judge on remaining tapes, LEHRER asks what the possibilities are of the tapes ending up with the Judiciary Committee, the House, or the Senate as evidence for impeachment GAUL says this was not discussed. LEHRER mentions a press conference in Calif. wherein a NIXON admin official claimed no intention of turning tapes over to the judiciary committee. Was subject of a delay vote that failed, GAUL says that the judiciary committee's expectation to get the tapes fast is unrealistic, DUKE says that many members feel the President should not be given any more time to turn over remaining tapes, that it's totally clear the President is not going to be forthcoming GAUL says that the implication that the withheld conversations may be "missing" some of the key parts was advanced by St. Clair, citing tapes running out or "mechanical failure". LEHRER says it's key to point out that the 64 tapes subpoenaed by JAWORSKI were for use in the Watergate OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE trial, 63 of those under subpoena by Judiciary Committee, with the Judiciary Committee subpoenaing another large batch of tapes DUKE says it may be a propitious time to mention a newly surfaced tape which indicates that NIXON threatened to fire Secretary of Treasury Schultz if he resisted the IRS enemies plan. LEHRER mentions the story, says that to anyone's knowledge, the judiciary committee does not have that tape yet. LEHRER says that the IRS figures in the process at a later time when the ABUSE OF POWER ARTICLE is debated. Today's debate is on OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. [00.25.02]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee U.S. Representative Peter Rodino (D-NJ) recognizes Representative John Conyers (D-MI) at House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings against U.S. President Richard Nixon. Rep. Conyers discusses his support of Rep. Robert McClorry’s (R-IL) article of impeachment, citing the historical significance of the President Nixon's refusal to comply with investigations. Conyers presses the importance of the Judiciary Committee not forgetting its role in the Impeachment process, pointing out it is the job of the Committee to draft the Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
27.21 Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that what we are going through here today is, I recall the statement I believe the Vice President made, impeachment is what this committee says it is or what the If House says it is. Many people have disputed that, including some members of this committee. We started out in this process, as was pointed out. We could not, as a committee, come to a conclusion as to what was an impeachable offense by definition. We never decided by a committee what the level of proof, the burden of proof should be for us. Whether it should be clear and convincing, as many of us agree to, or whether it should be beyond a reasonable doubt as some of the individuals thought. We never settled that.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
U.S. Representative Robert McClory (R-IL) asks Representative Tom Railsback (R-IL) to yield his argument at House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings against U.S. President Richard Nixon; Rep. Railsback yields. Rep McClory argues that President Nixon has had the right all along to quash subpoenas if he wanted to, adding the Committee has decided they are not subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Railsback mentions Constitutional expert Alexander Bickel, who said the Committee should have gone to court with Nixon over the subpoenas in question. Railsback argues the Committee is now trying to impeach Nixon because of a mistake the Committee made. U.S. Representative John Seiberling (D-OH) cites argument by Nixon legal counsel James D. St. Clair in United States v. Nixon in which the Court should not rule on behalf of the special prosecutor (Congress) because doing so would inject the Supreme Court into the impeachment process; Railsback interjects, argues that Congress is not a special prosecutor. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Representative Peter Rodino (D-NJ) tells Railsback his time has expired.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.27.40] Mr. SARBANES, Will the gentleman yield? Mr. HOGAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think, as my colleague from Maryland has stated, that, these are helpful and valuable perfecting amendments. I appreciate the legal scholarship that has gone into these amendments 1 de think they help to improve the, proposition that is before us, and I would hope that the members would recognize and accept these amendments to the substitute. Mr. HOGAN. Chairman , 1 move the previous question on my amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the from Maryland, and I understand that these are being offered All those in favor of the amendments, Please say aye [Chorus of "ayes]. The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [No response.] The CHAIRMAN. And the amendment is agreed to. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, 1 have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading] Amendment to article I offered by Mr. Danielson. On page 2, subsection 4 strike the word "and" in line 3 and strike the semicolon after the words "Special Prosecution Force" in line 4 and add at the end of line 4 the following : and congressional committees; Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, the thrust of subparagraph 4. as is apparent, relates to the interference by the President, or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice the FBI the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force. I should like to add to those agents Congressional committees, have in mind specifically the House Committee on Banking and Currency under the chairmanship of Hon. Wright Patman. You will recall, a couple of days ago, during the early stages of our debate, I quoted at some length from the September 15, 1972, tape transcript of the conversation in the President's Oval Office in which was apparent that the President, his Chief of Staff, Mr. Haldeman, and Mr. Dean were planning on how they could possibly prevent the House Committee on Banking and Currency from conducting investigating into the whereabouts, the source, the transmission of certain that -were found in the possession of the people arrested in the Watergate on. June 17. The plan was rather elaborate. The President first offered todo so himself, and then he suggested that Mr. Ehrlichman or Mr. Mitchell or some other person contact and enlist the aid of Gerald Ford, who at that time was the minority floor leader and various other Members of the House of Representatives, to prevail upon Mr. Patman to to desist from conducting his investigation. In all fairness, I want to point out that Mr. Dean's testimony later was that the Members of the House who were being prevailed upon to in turn prevail upon Mr. Patman were not aware of the fact that they were being used for this purpose. The guise of the argument wa's that what if the trial forthcoming of' the burglars and maybe. I shold say the unlawful entrants, that a congressional hearing into their activities, might prejudice their case, and might interfere with their civil rights. This was explored at some length. I do not wish to reiterate it here because you have all heard it. In addition, they had a plan whereby they were to contact Mr. Rothblatt, who was the attorney for four or five of the defendants, and Mr. Bittman, who was the attorney for or Mr. Hunt, and have them in turn call upon Mr. Patman and urge that he not. conduct the investigation because it might interfere with their clients' civil rights, Other testimony before this committee is that Mr. Bittman acknowledges that he was contacted and was requested to get in touch with Mr. Patman, but that he declined to do so. Records of the, House Committee on Banking and Currency reflect that there was a, letter from Mr. Rothblatt, making the same argument. Carrying on, 1 have also in mind the Senate Select Committee on Campaign Activities. I might add going back, that the Banking and Currency Committee was not able, due, to these efforts, to muster enough votes to pass a, resolution to conduct the investigation, and the investigation was postponed. The fear in the minds of the. President, Mr. Haldeman, and Mr. Dean while they talked in the Oval Office was that if Wright Patman was able to issue subpenas and call in the -witnesses, he. might uncover almost anything. It was a can of worms and they didn't know what"" might happen if Patman were given a chance to conduct the investigation he wanted. Their fear was the disclosure of the fact that the $3,200 in new consecutive numbered bills found at the Watergate did in fact come through a Florida bank account, could be traced back to a Minnesota donor that had been laundered in some kind of a operation down Mexico. [00.33.38]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.49.19] DUKE asks WILL about unconfirmed reports that some REPUBLICANS have been asking NIXON to allow a Pro Forma vote for IMPEACHMENT in the interest of saving REPUBLICAN PARTY credibility down the road, as a "recognition of reality". WILL says that such a course of action is not going to happen, because "recognizing reality is not the White House's strong suit." NIXON should not be concerned about "getting REPUBLICANS off the hook". LEHRER interrupts to call on LEWIS with Rep. SANDMAN LEWIS asks SANDMAN if he has any idea who will manage the debate for each side in the HOUSE VOTE. SANDMAN says he has no idea, that the speaker will appoint the managers on the recommendations of both parties. LEWIS asks if he has any suggestions on the matter. SANDMAN declines to comment, it's not his role. LEWIS turns to the coalition behind ARTICLES I and II. Asks how/when the bipartisanship fell away to allow the Pro-NIXON side to win a vote. SANDMAN says that Rep. RAILSBACK would be in a better position to say since RAILSBACK worked with the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side on the first two articles. LEWIS asks for an assessment of the President's chances in the HOUSE. SANDMAN says if the vote was today, NIXON would be impeached, but at least 30 days lie between now and the vote, and a lot could change. LEWIS asks what kind of things could happen to save NIXON. SANDMAN says that there could be a realization that the committee has been rushing to judgement on shaky evidence, and that the stakes are too high to justify a vote for impeachment on "circumstantial" evidence. LEWIS mentions that the WHITE HOUSE referred to the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE as a "KANGAROO COURT", asks for his opinion on that matter. SANDMAN says he does not think that attack is justified, in fact it disturbs him, because he truly believes in the effort made by Chairman RODINO to conduct fair hearings. Although he's not happy with the results thus far, he accepts that as the course of events in politics. Notes that NIXON's lawyer was given a chance to present a defense to the committee, and did a good job of it, and that witnesses favorable to NIXON were called. Says it's a shame that the testimony of the witnesses was not public, as the political outcome may have been changed. LEWIS asks if the article on TAX FRAUD is legitimate grounds for IMPEACHMENT. SANDMAN says emphatically not, and that he hopes an IRS memorandum absolving NIXON of any FRAUD penalty is made public through the debate. LEWIS asks didn't the IRS ask the Grand Jury to investigate NIXON'S taxes? SANDMAN replies that the IRS could ask a grand jury to investigate anyone's taxes, that does not amount to proof or to an impeachable offense. [cut DUKE/LEHRER in studio--cut committee bench, DUKE notes the committee seems about ready--cut MURPHY and WILL in studio] DUKE asks WILL what he sees as the White HOuse strategy. WILL replies that as far as he can tell, the strategy is to delay the process until after the election, in hopes of favorable changes in the political waters, or perhaps the procedural issue of whether a BILL OF IMPEACHMENT that sits in the SENATE can be sustained after the CONGRESS that voted it changes, or whether the BILL would have to be scrapped and a new one debated. WILL says he doesn't believe that it will go so slowly. The WHITE HOUSE'S dilemma is clear in the words of Rep. SANDMAN, that if the vote were held right now, NIXON would lose, but that there is time for something to happen to change the situation. New tapes are coming out, but no one believes that NIXON would have fought so hard to keep the evidence hidden unless it was extremely incriminating. Further, the trial in September of WATERGATE defendants EHRLICHMAN and HALDEMAN will not help the President's case. It's possible that faced with long prison terms, one or more of the defendants might start to squeal. Finally, states that DC is crawling with investigative reporters who all think there are more "smoking guns" to be found. WILL says that he agrees with SANDMAN that things could change, but he can't think of any possible POSITIVE change that could happen from NIXON'S standpoint. LEHRER says it must be pointed out that the WHITE HOUSE TAPES, numbering 64 which are to be given to Judge Sirica, will be turned over to Special Prosecutor Jaworski after inspection by SIRICA, and may or may not ever be given to the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. DUKE says this is true in a legal sense, but the whole history of WATERGATE has been a history of LEAKS to the press of information damaging to NIXON. LEHRER states that there is no question the first release of WHITE HOUSE TAPE transcripts hurt NIXON terribly, both as evidence and by revealing the petty, vulgar, venal tone of NIXON's White House m.o., but speculates that the next batch of tapes could not have the same shock value, but only be of use in terms of evidence. WILL concurs, saying that the shock value has eroded. However, says WILL, he doesn't think that public opinion matters at this stage, as many Congressmen have gotten better at reading the evidence. Increasingly, the majority of people who don't have access to the evidence leaves a gap between the people and the Congress in understanding of the issues. This may be dangerous, but it's inevitable. LEHRER asks if others have been struck by the committee members' grasp of points of fact in the evidence in heated arguments. WILL replies that the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE is not representative of the whole HOUSE, and a substantial portion of the HOUSE would be incapable of following the story at all. Offers a story for comparison, of how Rep. LOTT was in the past highly ignorant of the charges brought against VP AGNEW. Argues that LOTT is well informed about NIXON, because now it's his business, but other members of Congress probably don't take such care when they are not involved. [cut committee room] LEHRER [v.o.] asks WILL if it is not true that the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE will have an important role in the HOUSE VOTE because they will be far and away most knowledgeable about the case. WILL replies that most Congressmen are generally wholly unconversant with legislation prepared by Committees, so ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT proposed by the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE will have a certain momentum when they get to the HOUSE FLOOR. [RODINO gavels] [01.03.57--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] [in to NPACT logo-- to debate in progress in HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE on the adoption of ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT against President NIXON] A heated debate between two Representatives about the nature of admissible evidence results in fist-shaking and table pounding. {weird graphic of 3-D rotating Capitol Dome--title screen "Impeachment Debate"--Jim LEHRER seated in studio] LEHRER describes the morning's debate over a defeated motion to delay the proceedings until the remaining Watergate tapes could be obtained, and the committee turning its attentions to article I, the charge of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE against PRESIDENT NIXON. [cut Paul DUKE and LEHRER seated] DUKE says that it's clear that the REPUBLICAN defenders of NIXON will fight every point in order to delay the proceedings in hopes that the vote does not reach the HOUSE floor. It's also clear, however, that there is still a heavy majority for impeachment. DUKE says that the wrangling, acrimony, and pissfighting of a Congressional committee have emerged today after the civil speeches of the previous two days. LEHRER speaks to the morning's debate, saying the REPUBLICAN position was that the wording of the ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT as proposed was too general, with the pro-impeachment rejoinder being that the article was supposed to be general, with the specific counts enumerated below. LEHRER says that that general argument followed all day long. DUKE introduces Caroline LEWIS at the Rayburn Office Building on Capitol Hill LEWIS says she'd describe the day's proceedings as an introduction to the "niceties" of Congressional Committees and the way they work, the task of the Chairman to control, yet being out of control. [back to studio] LEHRER introduces the videotaped testimony of the daytime session of the hearings [cut to committee bench] [00.08.25--Chairman RODINO gavels meeting to order] DEBATE ON ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT Business Session, Impeachment Inquiry FRIDAY, JULY 26, 1974 HOUSE or, REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be, in order. And pursuant to the rule, we will proceed with consideration of the proposed Articles of Impeachment. Mr. McCLORY Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I have--- The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose'? Mr. McCLORY. I have a motion at the clerk's desk which I have distributed among the members, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the motion. The CLERK [reading] Mr. 'McClory moves to postpone for 10 days further consideration of whether Sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power of impeachment unless by 12 noon, eastern daylight time, on Saturday, July 27, 1974, the President fails to give his unequivocal assurance to, produce forthwith all taped conversations subpenaed by the committee which are to be made available to the district court pursuant to court order in United States V. Mitchell. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. I -am offering this motion, Mr. Chairman, to defer the conclusion of our proceedings for a period of 10 days, providing that we get assurance from the President by tomorrow noon that 63 of the. 64 tapes which the Supreme Court has ordered to be made available to the district court, to Judge Sirica, are also made available to this committee. Sixty-three of the. 64 tapes- which were involved in the Supreme Court proceeding were also requested by us. We subpenaed those, and the President has failed to make them available to us. It is my understanding that these contain highly relevant materials highly relevant information which will be valuable to us in coming to a, fair and a complete decision with respect to this impeachment inquiry. And it seems to me for us to conclude, our proceedings without having available to us, at least without having tried to make a available to us this additional information, would not be consistent with our important role here. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I would press more. vigorously for this if I had some assurance that these tapes would be made available. I might say that Wednesday, following the Supreme Court decision, I communicated directly and personally with Mr. McCahill, who is the associate attorney to Mr. St. Clair, and urged him to make this material available to us and give us some immediate response. Also I watched the TV press conference of Mr. St. Clair, and waited anxiously for Mr. St Clair to make some offer to make the materials available, to our committee, which the President is now compelled to do by the Supreme Court order to make available to the district court . I did not hear any such commitment on his part. And I have the strong feeling that there is no intention to provide the materials to this committee. I think, nevertheless, that this motion should be made, this opportunity should be offered. because later I expect to offer an article which would suggest that the President should be impeached on the basis of his contempt of the Congress in failing to respond to the subpenas that we have directed to him for relevant and necessary materials which we require for a complete and a Conclusion of our inquiry. And, therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption Of the motion. [00.12.20]
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Charles Wiggins
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Charles Wiggins ( R - California )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Jerome Waldie
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Jerome Waldie ( D - California )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Wiley Mayne
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Wiley Mayne ( R - Iowa )
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
U.S. Representative Tom Railsback (R-IL) speaking at House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings against U.S. President Richard Nixon, says many Republicans on the House floor have been impressed by the obstruction of justice and abuse of power charge against President Nixon. Railsback discusses the job of the Committee to impeach the President for refusing to comply with subpoenas when he has produced substantial quantities of evidence. Railsback discusses how Committee’s counsel has argued that first if Nixon should refuse to reply, stopping to say he does not like being stonewalled by Nixon, continues saying the Committee’s Counsel has said not to try to cite Nixon for contempt. Railsback says the Committee has been asked to make negative inferences based on Nixon’s failure to produce evidence, that the Committee has been asked to go one step further and impeach Nixon based upon his failure to comply. Railsback argues the impeachment hearings should be carried out differently. Railsback says the witness (Nixon) should be given the opportunity to appear before the full House or Senate and give reasons why he should not be held in contemp, adding that the Supreme Court has held that this kind of notice is required under the 5th and 14th amendments. Railsback says we are bypassing Constitutional procedure because we do not think we have time to follow it and refuse to go to court when there are many of us who think a President has the right to assert executive privilege. Railsback says there are two separate coequal branches, adds that it should be natural to ask the third branch (Judicial Branch), the traditional arbitrator, to arbitrate this dispute and determine whether the President’s assertion of executive privilege would fail. Railsback says he has no doubt the Court would have ruled in the Committee’s favor, that it probably would have been the only way we could have obtained the evidence to determine truth or falsity of the allegations against Nixon. Railsback discusses what the Committee will be examining under the articles of impeachment, mentions Cambodia, calls the proceedings “political overkill.”
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Recess
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
[00.04.38.--cut Chairman RODINO bringing hearing to order] The CHAIRMAN, The meeting will come to order. 3 months ago the House of Representatives considered H. Res. 803. The resolution read as follows: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and hi accordance with the rules of the committee is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper. The House adopted that resolution by a vote of 410 to 4. We are proceeding under the mandate of that resolution. I do not need to stress again the importance of our undertaking & the wisdom, decency, & principle which we must bring to it. We understand our high constitutional responsibility. We will faithfully live up to it. For some time we have known that the real security of this Nation lies in the integrity of its institutions & the trust & informed confidence of its people. We conduct our deliberations in that spirit We shall begin our hearings by considering materials relevant to the question of Presidential responsibility for the Watergate break-in, and its investigation by law enforcement agencies. This is one of 6 areas of our inquiry. We expect to continue our inquiry until each area has been thoroughly examined.First, we will consider detailed information assembled by the staff. This consists of information Mready on the public record information developed in executive session by other congressional committees information furnished by the Federal grand jury of DC & other information After today the committee will meet regularly, 3 days a week, for all-day sessions beginning next Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.The chairman will, as circumstances dictate be ready to notice such business meetings as may be necessary. During the initial presentation, special counsel and minority counsel will explain and summarize the materials. Our proceedings are governed by the rules of confidentiality that the committee adopted on Feb 22, & the rules of procedure adopted May 2. The committee has the power to modify or change these rules during, the course of the hearings. Some of the, materials which the committee will consider have been held confidential by the staff, by Mr. Hutchinson & myself. This material includes tape recordings of conversations among President Nixon & his key associates. We will listen to these recordings during these hearings. After the Judiciary Committee has had the opportunity to consider this material it will decide if & when, in the national interest, this material should be made public. The Judiciary Comnnttee. has determined that President Nixon should be accorded the opportunity to have his counsel present throughout the proceedings. Mr. James St. Chair is present today. After the initial proceedings are completed, Mr. St. Clair will be afforded the opportunity to respond to the presentation, orally or in writing, as determined by the committee. He and his Assistant understand the committee's rules of procedure land the committee's rules of confidentiality, and they are bound by those, rules. Our proceedings be conducted under the Rules of Cie House of Representatives. Technical rules of evidence do not apply. We are governed by the Constitution Which vests be sole power of impeachment in the House. A brief report of the day's proceedings will be issued at the end of each Clay day's hearings. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.16.00] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* [Chairman RODINO with Reps. RAILSBACK, SARBANES, DRINAN, others] DUKE/LEHRER v.o. discuss the conflict between the members over specificity, LEHRER saying it could become very drawn out and difficult. [01.18.55--GAVEL to order] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jordan, for 5 minutes. Thank Ms. JORDAN. Thankl you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this committee has spent 2 days receiving and listening to very eloquent arguments. We talked about the Constitution I and we talked about the Serious nature of the impeachment process and all which -was said, we were telling the truth. We believed what we were talking about. Now, Mr. Chairman, this committee is called upon to get to the matter of the consideration of articles of impeachment. It apparently is very difficult for the committee to translate its views of the Constitution into the realities of the impeachment provisions. It is understandable that this committee would have proceeding difficulties, because this is an unfamiliar and strange procedure. But, some of the arguments which were offered earlier today by some members of this committee in my judgment are phantom arguments, bottomless arguments. Due process. If we have not afforded the President of the United States due process as we have proceeded through this impeachment inquiry, then there is no due process to be found anywhere. Well, what did we do? The Judiciary Committee under all of the historical precedents available does not have to allow counsel to the President to participate in its proceedings, but this committee, because of its grace, because it wanted to be fair, because of its interest in due process allowed, suffered, if you will, counsel to the President to sit in these proceedings every day. He was present. Was he gagged? Was he silent? No, because this Judiciary Committee cast a rule which allowed the President's counsel to speak. Now, one might say, well, certainly that is minimal due proem. All I am saying is that the committee was under no compulsion to do that, but voted to do it. So, the President's counsel was here and received every item of information this committee received. The President's counsel suggested witnesses be wanted called and heard by this committee. They were all called. They were all heard. The President's counsel was afforded the right to cross-examine witnesses. I Now, I know that our rules disallowed cross-examination on said question. But, those of you who know of the capacities and abilities of Mr. St. Clair would certainly say that be cross-examined the witnesses who appeared before this committee. What else did he do? He submitted to this committee a reply brief: in addition to making and oral argument in response to all of the' material which this committee had received. Now. we have board a lot today about specificity, about our being so general that no one would be able to answer it, that the President would not be advised of his rights, and that therefore would not be able to answer or prepare for his defense. Well, Mr. St. Clair felt that the case presented before this committee was specific enough for him to file a reply brief and to engage in oral argument, both before this committee. The subpenas. We were very reluctant to issue a subpena to the president of the United States. But the President asked us for additional time to respond to our first subpena and we said we want you, Mr. President, to have due process, so additional time is yours. And we gave him that time. Due process? Due process tripled. Due process quadrupled. We did that. The President knows the case which has been heard before this committee. The President's counsel knows the case which has been heard before this committee. It is a useless argument to say that what We Would do is to throw 38 or 39 books at the House and say, you find the offenses with which the President is charged, and say the same thing to the President. We talked about a report and we say that the report will be filed along with the bill of impeachment, resolution of impeachment. That report will be filed and it will contain the rather detailed specific particularized information so that no one can question whether the President has been advised of the allegations against him. The CHAIRMAN. The time of gentlelady has expired. MS. JORDAN. Thank you. [01.26.15]