Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.14.51] Mr. HOGAN. Will the Chairman Yield Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON I thank the chairman for yielding. If I understand the chairman's remarks, it is that perhaps this committee in working on articles of impeachment so-called, that our responsibility is not now actually to perfect any articles but simply to decide whether or not we should recommend impeachment, and that those recommendations could be included in a report, and so on. However, somewhere down the line the House of has got, to draft some articles of impeachment, which in the opinion Of the House will stand the legal test in the Senate and if that is so wonder whether or not--whether the House will look to anybody but this group in the Judiciary Committee to do that, very task-. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have that responsibility And we might as well give our attention to those problems right now. The, CHAIRMAN. I do not want to take more, time except that I must correct, the, gentleman from Michigan who I am sure would want to set the record straight, does not want to misunderstand me. I did not state that, we should not perfect the articles. What I merely stated was a legal proposition that in impeachment proceedings there is no requirement in fact that the articles be, specifically set out. That is what I stated. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman? Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Now, I recognize--I have to go to this side. I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. . I thank the chairman, I would like to begin by commending our colleague, Mr. Sarbanes, who seems to be the target for tonight, on a rather excellent job I think of explaining what he has worked out here and what is going on. This reminds me a great deal of an old saying of our former distinguished chairman Mr. Celler, "I can give You explanations. I can't give you understanding." I think Mr. Sarbanes has done an excellent job. The impeachment grounds, as the chairman has indicated, indeed are quite broad. As I understand it, in the case of Andrew Johnson., they passed a resolution of impeachment. came back and drew up nine articles, went over in the Senate, decided they needed some more and drew a couple more. So going into all Of this great, I hesitate to say specifically, I really can didn't mean to say it. [Laughter.] As we get into all these legal terms. it is a lot, of fun, for 38 lawyers, 38 good lawyers, I think --well--37 good lawyers. It is a lot of fun, but we forget perhaps that in the House of Representatives they aren't all lawyers and the public likes it that way, I think. They may like it better. As for strict standards of proof--I saw where one of the distinguished Senators said yesterday that some of them had differing views from the discussions we had about rules of evidence. The Senate will decide on the rules Of evidence and as I recall in the, Johnson case they did. They overruled the Supreme Court's Chief Justice so many times that he finally threatened to quit and leave unless they behaved a little better. So I think it is educational for us lawyers but the doctrine of impeachment, is as strong as the Constitution and as broad as the King imagination, and we have that problem no now, perhaps. All the technicalities just remind me of the story of ,in old Missouri lawyer--the fellow was, kind of a country follow and got a case finally in the Supreme Court. He was nervous. He got up there and was arguing along and one of these judges looked down at him and He said. "Well, young man, where you come from do they ever talk the doctrine of 'que facit per aluim facit per Se?'" Well, he said, "Judge, they hardly speak of anything else. [Laughter.] Let me tell you I think Mr. Haldeman faked it per aluim and 'Mr, Ehrlichman faked it per aluim there is lots of evidence. If they dont understand -what we talking about now, they wouldn't know a hawk 'from a handsaw anyway. Seriously, we know what we are discussing. It is really a question of pleading and I think we are seeking to--piling inference on inference. There you go again, making inferences. We sit through these hearings day after day. I tell you, if a guy brought an elephant through that door and one of us said that is an elephant, some of the doubters would say, you know, that is an inference That could be a mouse with a glandular condition. [Laughter.] And perhaps one of them might be, but not 12, or even 28 volumes. Let talk some about this evidence. I know these distinguished gentlemen know the law far better than I and they realize that we don't have, to plead it with all that great whatever that word was. Article III, I would like to talk about it a little, "approving, acquiescing, counseling witnesses to give false and misleading statements," et, cetera, of, cetera. [01.20.32]
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference on spending. Conference Chairman, US Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) continues his opening statement. Sen. Dole says this is a bill to raise revenues (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982). Dole says the bill is also a tax reform bill, not a tax increase bill. Dole says it is a fair bill. Dole mentions the Windfall Profits Tax and the Social Security amendments of 1977. Dole says the bill does not represent a backslide from the commitment to lower taxes for both individuals and businesses; saying there has been a lot of misinformation on this subject. Dole says we have to "consider just what this bill is about."
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.12.23] The CHAIRMAN. Both perfecting amendments Can be pending at the same time. This is a perfecting amendment, and therefore, would take precedent over any other amendments, and the vote would occur first on the McClory perfecting amendment. Mr. DENNIS. But if the Chair please--- Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DENNIS. If the Chair would hear me further. I suppose the Chair must know the parliamentary law better than I do, but while I have heard of perfecting amendments, this is the first time I have ever seen a pending amendment taken off the floor- in this manner. I think you have to address something to the pending amendment, either a substitute or something to perfect it or change It. Mr. SIEBERLING. Would the gentleman yield'? Mr. DENNIS. Well. I have made my point. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has stated a parliamentary inquiry, and the Chair has stated that the perfecting amendments can both occur. The perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Illinois is only offered as such and therefore, the Chair will state that what will occur now will be that the gentleman from Illinois will be recognized. for his perfecting amendment and the question would take place on that. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, all that this perfecting amendment does is to delete the word "matters" and substitute the words "unlawful activities." What we are talking about here really are unlawful activities of those who were employed in the White House, and who operated during this period prior to and subsequent to the Democratic National Headquarters break-in, and who were involved in all of these other unlawful activities to which we have made reference--the burglary of Dr. Fielding's office, the Perjury with respect to Mr. Kleindienst confirmation and a number of other matters that which we are aware of. It would certainly be inadequate on our part to recommend to the House of Representatives that they consider only the breaking in of the Democratic National Headquarters when so many other more serious matters which we have investigated are involved. I would like to call attention to the, fact that this article IT is in the nature of a civil charge, a civil charge or complaint, and it is something of which the respondent, of course, is -well aware. This is stated with definiteness. There is no doubt or uncertainty as to what we are talking about. There should not be any question as to the President being apprised of what is involved in this paragraph. And if we merely include the words "unlawful activities" it will include these other matters, We do not have to delineate a long string or a long line, of matters which are involved in the criminal conduct of some 20 different people who were so engaged. What we are talking about is a pattern of misconduct, and we included, of course, the initial break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters, plus these other things that are also involved, and on which we will be sending Our articles on to the--- Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. McCLORY. [continuing]. To the House for their consideration and their judgment. Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCLORY. I yield for a question. If the gentleman wants to make a question I think he can take it. Mr. DENNIS. I am asking for a question . Mr. McCLORY. Sure, re. I am happy to yield to the gentleman, Mr. DENNIS. I was just wondering whether 'the gentleman from Illinois felt that to make it read "concerning other unlawful activities " instead of "concerning other matters" really advanced us very far as far as specificity is concerned which I had understood the gentleman was concerned with a moment ago. Mr. McCLORY. Yes. I will say it does because, we are not talking about other matters other kinds of conduct that are not unlawful or anything that isn't in the nature of a criminal act or some serious wrongdoing and so if we say it is unlawful activity which we are concerned with I think it apprises the President of what is involved. Mr. HUNGATE. Will the gentleman yield to me, please? The CHAIRMAN. Will you yield to the gentleman from Missouri ? Mr. McCLORY. Yes. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Mr. HUNGATE. I am happy to indicate on my part I am pleased to accept the perfecting amendment of the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. BROOKS. Question. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the--the question occurs on the perfecting amendment by Mr. McClory. Mr. WIGGINS. Parliamentary inquiry. The, CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman will state it. Mr. WIGGINS. What happened to my amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment------ Mr. WIGGINS. Do we expect to vote on it shortly? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment will BE voted on after the McClory question had been put to the committee. The question is on the amendment of the--- [00.17.38]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.51.09] Mr. EDWARDS. But that is the fact. I think it is really more important to point out -what was done with the information that resulted from these taps. Mr. Hoover, the Director of the FBI, would send them to the White House, to the President. There was a total from 1969 to 1971--and they went on for more than 2 years--of 104 summaries sent. And what happened? It was found that there had been no leaks of confidential information from these 104 summaries. Nobody went, to jail, nobody was charged , nobody lost their job , nobody was transferred. There were six or seven members of the National Security Council who had their telephones tapped. Four newsman later were tapped, and several White House employees, Most of these people, had no access to any confidential information -whatsoever. And as I pointed out earlier, these summaries indicated that no leaks were going on. Well, how was this information used by the White House? On December 29, 1969, Mr. Hoover wrote to the President and said that former Secretary of Defense, Clark Clifford, was about, to write, an article for Life. magazine attacking Mr. Nixon on his handling of the Vietnam war, and part of Mr. Clifford's attack was to be regarding Nixon's criticism of President Thieu. Well. immediately this triggered political action by the White House. Presidential assistant, Butterfield wrote Magruder: "The name of the game, of course, is to springboard ourselves into position from which -we can effectively Counter whatever Clifford takes." The suggestion suggested method of countering Clifford's article was sent by Haldeman, the chief political adviser to President Nixon, and included a proposed discrediting of Clifford by use of his prior statements or a counterarticle. Haldeman directed Magruder to be ready to act and suggested finding methods of free action. 'Mr. Haldeman concluded "the key now is how to lay groundwork and be ready to go, and let's act.,' Mr. Ehrlichman characterized the Clifford information as "the kind of early warning we need more of," and he, noted to Mr. Haldeman, "your game planners are now in excellent position to map anticipatory action. The basic nature of the material developed from these 17 wiretaps and sent to the, White House, was political and personal. There were no leaks. The FBI was sending what the White House wanted, and certainly the flow of the information was not, stopped by the White House when the character of the material became, obvious. The material, in addition to the political information on Clark Clifford, contained reports On how certain Senators were expected to vote on legislation, on the activities of critics of the administration's administrative agencies, on the campaign plans of Senator Muskie. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. EDWARDS. Could I have 3 more minutes, please, -Mr. Chairman, of the 20 minutes? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 4 minutes Mr. EDWARDS. Four minutes, and I will take 2. The CHAIRMAN The gentleman in is recognized for 2 more minutes. Mr. EDWARDS. And information on the social habits and political plans of White House employees. The material had no conceivable relevance to national security, but only could have had political value. I personally reviewed many of these summaries that the FBI sent to the President describing, what was Said over the home telephones of these people under surveillance, and I want to be careful not to describe any of the information in such a way that could get back or be traced to the. people Involved. Suffice 'It to say the conversations were those of citizens, their wives, their children, chatting on the telephone With acquaintances and close friends, confiding their joys, their' sorrows, their anxieties about their personal lives, and in some instances their observations about political and. social events of the United States. These telephone calls were like any calls between close friends where personal disclosures were made, only for the ears at the Other end of the line, and Some of the information would be terribly embarrassing if it, were heard by third parties. The summaries themselves are the strongest evidence of the wisdom of Mr. Justice Holmes' description of wiretapping as "a dirty business." The President authorized these wiretaps. He did not stop it, when they almost immediately proved to be nonproductive. He. knew about them. He discussed them with John Dean on February 28, 1973. He was talking about two of the men who were being tapped, and he said to John Dean, "Incidentally, didn't Muskie do anything had on these? To share with you how the FBI felt about it, this is what two agents said in a memorandum on October 20, 1971. They were talking about why there were no regular records kept of these tapes by the FBI. This is what the two FBI agents said: it goes without saying that knowledge of this coverage represents a potential source of tremendous embarrassment to the Bureau and political disaster for the Nixon administration. Copies of the material itself could be used for political blackmail and ruination of Nixon, Mitchell, and others. [00.56.55]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.15] Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania Mr. Eilberg Mr. EILBERG. Mr. -Chairman, I have listened with great interest to the statement of the gentleman that was just made, and he talks again repeatedly about the lack of direct evidence. talks about circumstantial evidence and how vague it is, and I would like to place in the record this point some of the cases of direct evidence so that we have at one place a number of specific examples where there is direct evidence, of the knowledge and participation by the President. Some of these have been repeated before. but I will just take a few minutes to point them out. Specifically, Colson reported that on June 17 or June 18 when the -President first learned of the break-in. he threw an ashtray across the room. This is direct evidence that the President knew that either CRP or White House persons were involved. Specifically. on June 20 after 3 days of constant activity by the President's principal assistants, Haldeman met with the. President and discussed -what the President thought should be done about Watergate Haldeman's sketchy notes, show that the President decided that there should be an attack for diversion. This tape was intentionally destroyed This is direct evidence that the President was involved. It is also evidence that he must, have believed the tape was incriminating. Specifically, on June 20 the President had a conversation with Mitchell. The President made a dictabelt of this conversation. This dictabelt with the President's recollection shows that the President knew that CRP had a relationship with the burglary. 'Mitchell apologized for not supervising his men because the matter had not been handled Properly. On June 20, Mitchell issued a false press release denying any CRP involvement. The President because of his conversation with Mitchell, "had to know this to be false. Notwithstanding this fact, the President Made a statement to the press 'which told the public that what John N. Mitchell had said was true. This is direct evidence of the President's active Participation and leadership. On June 30, the President, Mitchell, and Haldeman had a conversations about why it, made sense for Mitchell to resign. This conversation discloses that both Haldeman and the President believed that more things might surface in the Watergate, and now was the time for Mitchell to leave before they did. On. July 6, the President failed to make any inquiry into Pat Gray's warning that his aides were mortally wounding him. This is direct evidence of the President's unwillingness to have their coverup activities brought to light. on July 8, without any conceivable rational basis for doing so, he", discussed with Ehrlichman on the beach in Key Biscayne whether clemency should be offered to the persons involved in the Watergate, This conversation can make no sense at all unless the President was involved in making decisions relating to concealment of the Watergate. On August 29, the President made a false press release about the fact that both John Dean and Clark MacGregor were making investigating investigations, Dean at the White House and MacGregor at the CRP. 'No investigation had in fact been made of either organization. On September 15, the President sent, for John Dean and told him he had done a good job and gave him directions as to how to stop the Patman committee from being effective. I could 'go on, Mr. Chairman, but these are just some of the cases where the, President had direct knowledge, participation, and direction. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion to strike. I am not going to rehash this long list of evidentiary matters which have been so ably presented and which I think we all know almost to the point of nauseam here. 'But I do want to respond again to the comments, the arguments of the distinguished gentleman from Indiana , Mr. Dennis, who seems to continually feel that there is no evidence that puts this contact directly in the lap, in the mouth of President Richard M. Nixon. I respectfully suggest if we will just go to the President's taped transcript of September 15, 1972, and I am not go going to read it, it has been read time and time again, but you will remember- that with John Dean, that afternoon, when John Dean came back the courthouse, he complimented John Dean on the fact that that time at least Dean had been very skillful. He put his fingers the dike. He had stopped all the leaks. He had held and contained investigation to the five actual burglars and the two surrogate burglars, the leaders of that pack, Liddy and Hunt, Now, those were words coming out of the mouth of the President of the, United States in the Oval Office, the seat of Government. Can you tell me that he did not know what he, was talking about? Mr. DENNIS. Does the gentleman want to yield on that? Mr. DANIELSON. If he did not--I do not yield. If he, did not know what he was talking about---- Mr. DENNIS. I thought, you -wanted an answer to the question. Mr. DANIELSON. That in itself is an Impeachable situation. He certainly ought to know what he is talking about when he uses that language. Let' Let's go on, and I am not going on to February 21--excuses me March 21. On February 28, 1973, another transcript from the President; Dean and the President are talking. What are they talking about? The usual thing, Watergate, only this time it is money. Money. Spell it out, pronounce it by name. And they are talking about a lot of money here. They are talking about paying' off these people who were not supposed to break, who were not supposed to explain their participation in the Watergate unlawful entry and in the coverup that followed and--who are we talking about? Of course, the four Cubans, but addition McCord and, far more importantly, E. Howard Hunt. [00.42.25]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.00] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Edwards, is recognized for 3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suppose that many times during the past few weeks all 38 of us had looked with envy upon parliamentarians in our sister countries where, by a majority vote members of parliament can just call a new election and indeed right now there are several of these propositions to amend the Constitution before the House Judiciary Committee but obviously will not receive attention this year. But a new election where a President gets into trouble is not provided in the Constitution. Our Founders talked about it but they rejected it for the stability that is inherent in a 4-year term. And they rejected it for the power that a 4-year term gives to a President. This 4-year term that can only be interrupted by death or impeachment. So, this power of impeachment that we have in article II, section 4, is all we have to protect the country from a President who gravely abuses his office. We can't have a nice, convenient election down the road by a majority vote of Congress. We can't, like our country to the north, Canada, or England or most European countries, call an election in a couple of months. We just have impeachment. We do have, of course, the power of the purse but that is limited. We do have to enact appropriation bills and the President does have the right to spend the money. So I suggest that we would be irresponsible if we don't enact this article III, that if we don't, we will diminish or destroy this only safety valve in our Constitution. And for this power of impeachment to operate, if it is to have any meaning at all, any vitality at all, we simply must be able to get the evidence. That seems very clear. The inquiry must be complete if it is going to be fair and we can* be fair and complete without the facts. Our subpenas all were carefully drawn, narrowly drawn. We weren't seeking information about national defense or any state secrets or personal information. So, in voting for this very important article III, I suggest that we can't destroy the only safeguard that we have to protect ourselves from a President who. misbehaves so badly that he becomes a threat to the country and should be removed either now or in the future. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, is recognized for 4 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I would like to yield 30 seconds of my time to my friend from New York, Mr. Smith, to finish his statement. Mr. SMITH. I thank the gentleman. We -were talking about whether in the background there were implications of the fifth amendment--that an accused shall not be required to be a witness against himself--and I think the question which should be asked here is whether it is fair and according to our traditions to say to the President, in effect, "We don't yet have the clear and convincing proof we need to impeach you, so -we are requiring you to hand over -what we hope will be your confession, and if you don't, in fact, hand over the materials which we hope will be a confession, we shall peremptorily impeach you for failing to turn them over on the order of the Congress, even though the Supreme Court might have found that you have -good Constitutional reasons for not handing, them over." I thank- the gentleman. an. Mr. SANDMAN. Thank you. I think the outstanding point that is being raised here by my friend from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, who uses his time, and I want to yield to him in a moment, one of the things that I bear him musing about here which I think is so awfully appropriate is that this really is overkill tit its worst and I know he can talk about that -well. And that is about what this amounts to, a little Item of overkill. There are enough votes here to pass anything and you know it and I know it. But, -when you reflect the correction that the Thornton amendment tries to make, it rapidly brings back those two Wiggins' amendments, and then also it rapidly brings to your mind, too, a word that has been brushed under the counter here for so long, that word "direct," "direct evidence," It says there that these papers were needed to produce direct evidence. This is -what -we have, been complaining about. There isn't enough direct evidence. There isn't any, Then, of course, the Wiggins' amendments corrected in there, too' because he said it will provide the necessary factual questions relating to Presidential direction. Remember that in the Wiggins' amendments? These are the same people who voted against the Wiggins' amendments. The other thing in the, Wiggins' amendments, that it -would provide the knowledge on the part of the President. Those words should haunt people who now have a reverse in their opinion. And, you know, I don't think that-it seems to be the objective of some people here, unless we impeach, -we are not carrying out our constitutional duty. Impeachment is that course of last resort. It is not the course of first resort. And I think -we should start thinking about that once. in a while. I would like to yield to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have my own time and use it in connection with the time yielded to me and I wonder how much time I have. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes of his own and 1 minute if the gentleman from New Jersey yields him that minute. Five minutes in toto. And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me say at the outset that I don't attribute any evil motives to my friend from Illinois for offering this resolution. Let me say, though, that I think this is a case where we, this committee has developed a rather fragile bipartisan support of two rather substantial and serious articles of impeachment, and is now about to engage in what I call political overkill. There are many Republicans, I can tell you, on the House floor that have been impressed with the evidence that has been adduced in respect to the, very serious obstruction of justice charge, and also the abuse of power charge. Now, what is this committee about to do? We are about ------ [01.04.09--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
*See information in RIGHTS field before using* [01.09.36--DUKE, LEHRER in studio] DUKE says its been a long day for committee, to be back tomorrow. Says there will be more "TEST VOTES", and that it's clear that the REPUBLICAN defenders of NIXON will try to use any tactics available to derail the proceedings, but it seems like a losing cause. LEHRER wonders whether the tactic of using strike motions to force debate on every section of the article will be continued. Indications from Reps. SANDMAN, WIGGINS, that such would happen, or possibly they will consider the point made and not belabor the losing cause. DUKE introduces LEWIS on screen LEWIS says that Chairman RODINO has committed to fairness, and thus has not cracked down on the delaying tactics, at risk of having up to 27 hours of debate on the striking motions alone. Says that the lines are hoding fast in spite of the debate, ironically with REPUBLICAN Rep. FROEHLICH going from the "strike" side to the side supporting the ARTICLE as drafted. Says that the REPUBLICANS may relent and give up the tactics, which are at a standoff currently. [LEHRER in studio] LEHRER characterizes the situation as a delicate balance for the REPUBLICANS and for Chairman RODINO with regard to how long the debate should be allowed to stretch, with neither side wanting to be seen as extreme. LEWIS says there may be a CAUCUS in the morning to resolve the procedural questions. But it depends if the REPUBLICANS are scoring political points in their speeches. If they continue to convince other HOUSE members and the public that the proceedings are unfair to NIXON, they may continue to gear up for the FLOOR VOTE. DUKE says it's significant that there is a bipartisan coalition for impeachment LEWIS agrees, and saying that this is a "test vote" on impeachment, and that the final tally is likely to be similar to the 27-11 one on this motion. p[01.15.05]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.19.15] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. May I have 1 additional minute, Mr. Wiggins? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for I additional Minute. Mr. MAYNE. NOW, the President, ladies; and gentleman of the committee felt on the advice of his closest foreign policy and national defense advisers that he had to act to protect the national security to stop these leaks. In my judgment and perhaps. yours, he acted unwisely In setting up this special investigative unit headed by a brilliant young man who had no investigative experience. I believe and I think you do, that it would have been much better to rely on the FBI which had experience in this field and would have known the legal limits and the practical limits in which to carry out a proper national security investigation. But is the President of the United States to be impeached because, he made an error in judgment, because he was not perfect in his decision to act quickly and necessarily to protect the national defense? Is it a high crime and misdemeanor not to be letter perfect in the performance of your office'? I think not, and I think this around, alleged ground of impeachment simply should not receive serious consideration by the committee. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed that, other minute. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie, for 3 minutes. Mr. WALDIE. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think this particular issue is one of the most serious offenses alleged against the President It relates back to one of the remarks that I made in the, opening session of this committee when I suggested that the liberties of this country were enormously fragile and had been subjected to an assault, the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetime, and I think this particular case, the Fielding break-in Particularly as an activity of the Plumbers indicates the insensitivity of the President to the constitutional obligations that he had as the President of this country to protect the people in their liberties. One of the basic stability points of a free society is that the law enforcement authority of that society is accountable, and the moment you destroy accountability of law enforcement authority you jeopardize and endanger freedom of individual citizens and when the President denied the opportunity of the legitimate law enforcement institutions of this Government, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, denied taking his problems with security to them for resolution and sought to set up an extracurricular secret police force accountable to no one in this Government or in this society except to the President individually and as a person. He in my View was in a major way interfering with the constitutional protections that have been set up to protect liberty. Now, for the, President's defenders to suggest that It, was extraordinary departure from the institutions of law enforcement but warranted because, of the threat of national security, the burden is then clearly upon them to establish that the activities of the Plumbers were in fact designed to protect the national Security. And I call attention to what I thought was a very important statement of My colleague, Mr. Conyers from Michigan, where he pointed out that we' must now once and for all, draw a line -with the use of national security as an excuse for all sorts of illegal and illicit activities generally that result in erosion of freedom. And just to test whether or not national security really was the purpose of this burglary in California when Dr. Fielding's offices -were burglarized by the Plumbers to procure access to the psychiatric files of Daniel Ellsberg allegedly for a national security purpose, but in reality to interfere with the trial that was to begin involving Dr. Ellsberg, you only have to examine the language of the President in his conversations with Mr. Dean on March 17 and March 21. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [00.24.11]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.52] Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out I voted against article I which involved a conspiracy charge--obstruction of justice--against the President because of the fact that there was insufficient evidence in the record and the amendment which is offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, which I propose to accept would make reference to the kind of evidence that was lacking with respect to the first article. I did not say that there, was sufficient evidence to impeach the President on article I. I said there was insufficient evidence. Mr. WIGGINS. Well. I cannot yield further. And I-- Mr. McCLORY. That is what our need is. Mr. WIGGINS. Unless my memory failed me the gentleman found by clear and convincing evidence just on yesterday that the President should be, impeached and removed from office. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WALDIE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I think what we are doing in this article as in every article of impeachment is attempting to define by the legislative process. by the impeachment process if you will, the extent of powers that we will permit Presidents to exercise in the future. It is if you will accept it, a constitutional redefinition of those powers and I think what the author of the resolution and the author of the amendment is saying in this instance, is that future Presidents, if subjected to an impeachment inquiry, will not be permitted to 'Make the determination that this President has sought to make, that he will determine what is relevant to that inquiry. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate the point the gentleman is making It is a good point. The way to do it is by legislation, not by a bill of attainment. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the. other gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the article offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory, and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that it is essential that we resolve this issue of the subpenas. The issue has been joined. This committee has issued a number of subpenas. The President has directly stated that he refused to obey them and reserves the right to decide what evidence will be presented before ore us from his office. The question we have here is very delicate and very finely drawn, but it is critical to the separation and allocation of powers under the' Constitution. The Thornton amendment brings into this article the type of responsible restraint that we need. It limits the impact of this article solely to the function of the Congress under the impeachment Clause, our sole power to impeach. This is a basic issue of constitutional separation and allocation Of powers. I submit that, in resolving this question this committee and the Congress must remember that we have no more right to refuse a jurisdiction which is ours than we have to assume a jurisdiction which is not ours. Nor does the Judicial Department nor does the executive department. It is for us to make a judgment here and on the floor of the House as to whether we are going to exercise our responsibility and our jurisdiction under the sole power of impeachment. Mr. McCLORY. In the Thornton amendment and the resolution, I submit that we will have met that issue, and I urge that both the amendment and the a article be adopted. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. I would yield to the lady from New York. MS. HOLTZMAN-. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I would just like to add a few points to his very eloquent statement. There has been some talk that the failure, of the President to comply -with the subpenas wrought no harm, and I would just like to point to the, area of the milk inquiry in which we did seek a number of subpenas and in which the committee in general has come to the conclusion that the evidence has not been sufficient even though there have been any number of indictments handed down, and some of the conversations that we subpenaed had to do with these indicted persons, Second, the argument is the same as was raised yesterday -with respect to IRS: That is, an illegal act which does not succeed is somehow less illegal. That remind me of attempted murder. Do we allow somebody to go free, because the victim survives? That is really a doctrine I think we cannot countenance. And I would like to add one other point, and that has to do with seeking the ruling of the courts. You know, the Founding Fathers placed the impeachment power solely in the hands of the Congress, and they explicitly rejected having the Supreme Court sit as the trier on a Conviction. If we were to allow the Supreme Court to decide on that relevance of the evidence in an impeachment inquiry, and if we were to allow the Supreme Court to decide basically what evidence an impeachment inquiry could have, I feel we would be violating the decisions of the Founding Fathers to place the right to inquire for the purposes of impeachment solely in the hands of the Congress. I very strongly support this article and yield back. [00.19.39]
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference on spending. Conference Chairman US Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) recognizes a statement from Senator William Roth (R-DE). Sen. Roth says last year's emphasis was on reducing taxes and spending; saying this year's emphasis is on reform, closing loopholes, and tightening compliance with tax laws; ensuring everyone pays their fair share of the tax burden. Roth says the bill is not a repudiation of supply-side economics, it is the second step in the process of reforming tax laws; while raising the revenue necessary to control the deficit. Roth says some would like the avoid their responsibilities like Pontius Pilate, but the Senate made hard decisions and exercised leadership. Roth says Congress had to prove to the American people that it can act and act responsibly.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.08.32] [DUKE in studio for brief break, explains gist of debate] [PBS Network ID--PBS programming promos] [00.12.00--title screen "Impeachment Debate"] [DUKE reintroduces the hearings] I recognize the gentleman from Alabama Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have, an amendment at clerk's desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK. Do I understand, Mr. Flowers, that this is the amendment No. 2 in the general list of amendments? Mr. FLOWERS. That is correct. The CLERK [reading] Strike paragraph 2 of the Sarbanes, substitute Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer, this amendment having no fear that I will be unable to explain what it means to any of my colleagues on the pane1, and hoping that they fully understand what it means and I am certain they do. And I offer if not in any dilatory manner, but as a device, to elicit from members of the panel or staff specifics Of what charges what information, what, evidence do we have that support, paragraph 2. Are we capable of proving satisfactorily and a clear and Convincing manner the allegations of subparagraph 2 on page 2 of article I of the Sarbanes substitute. I think that, the proof aspect of it is vitally important, and remembering the comments made last evening as to the notice that the President is entitled to, this will likewise serve a vital function along those lines. So, I make this motion to strike and I ask staff, Mr. Doar, 0r any member of the committee, I am prepared to yield to them if they can provide me with the evidence to support this allegation in subparagraph 2. I see Mr. Cohen... I yield for a question. [00.14.20]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
Mr. WALDIE. Rollcall, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The roll call vote is demanded. However, in accordance with the rules of the House, one-fifth of the members would have to support a request for a Rollcall. All those in favor of asking for a Rollcall, by record vote please, raise their hands. Show of hands. The CHAIRMAN. 1/5 of the members, a sufficient number has Voted in the affirmative & Rollcall is demanded & the clerk will Call the roll. All those in from favor of closing up r, the hearings please say aye and all those opposed, no. Mr. DONOHUE. Aye. Mr. BROOKS. Aye. Mr KASTENMEIER. Aye. Mr. EDWARDS. Ave. Mr. HUNGATE. Aye. Mr. CONYERS. 'No. Mr. EILBERG. No. Mr. WALDIE. NO. Mr. MANN. Ave. Mr. Sarbanes, Aye. Mr. SEIBERLING. Ave. Mr. DANIELSON. Ave. Mr. DRINAN. NO. Mr. RANGEL. NO. [SMOKING cigarette as vote progresses, grim expression] Ms. JORDAN. Aye. Mr. THORNTON. Ave. Ms. HOLTZMAN. No. No. Mr. OWENS. Aye. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Ave. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Ave. Mr. McCLORY. Aye. Mr. SMITH. Aye. Mr. SANDMAN. Aye. Mr. RAILSBACK. Aye. Mr. WIGGINS. Aye. Mr. DENNIS. Aye. Mr. FISH. Aye. MAYNE. Aye. Mr. HOGAN. Aye. Mr. BUTLER. Aye. Mr. COHEN. Aye. Mr. LOTT. Aye. Mr. FROEHLICH. Aye. Mr. MOORHEAD. Aye. Mr. MARAZITI. Aye. Mr. LATTA. Aye. The CHAIRMAN. Aye. The clerk will report the, vote. The CLERK. 31 members have voted aye, 6 have voted no. And the motion is agreed to. And the Chair will now announce that the committee will go into recess until the television cameras and other equipment which is not allowed, and persons not permitted during the course of the confidential hearings will be removed from the room. [00.23.16--start of fade to LEHRER in studio]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.37] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* [DUKE AND LEHRER in studio, discussing the impact of TV on hearings] DIAMOND states that there is proof that televising does affect the process, he can't say for good or ill, but the chance to watch the proceedings makes him feel good about the television coverage. As for the public, he wonders whether the result is info overload for the public, grandstanding by the members, or public education. VAN ALSTYNE says he favors televising the next proceedings, that TV tends more to induce thoughtfulness in the members. LEHRER asks about the need for the hearing to be seen as fair to be legitimate. DIAMOND says that this dynamic is an important check on the committee LEHRER asks DUKE for a comparison of televised/nontelevised hearings. Says that the Senate has always favored and welcomed television, the House has been less so, possibly for fear of grandstanding. [screen shows LEWIS with Rep. WIGGINS at Capitol] LEWIS asks WIGGINS about his plans for the night, to which he says "endure". Seriously, he will seek to introduce a motion to strike, for the purpose of forcing the Pro-Impeachment side to deliver some specifics on the charges LEWIS says that surely after all this time WIGGINS already knows the facts. Isn't it really a delay effort? WIGGINS denies this, claims there are serious legal questions, i.e. there must be a "policy" of the President that can be documented before the acts of others can be used against the President. LEWIS asks whether all of this won't be in the report? WIGGINS says that they don't want to vote on concepts and delegate the task of providing facts to staff. LEWIS says he doesn't have the votes, what does he expect to gain? WIGGINS says he wants to make some of the knee-jerk impeachment DEMOCRATS reflect on the charges. [LEHRER in studio] LEHRER reminds that the issue at hand is the substitute ARTICLE charging OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE written by Rep. PAUL SARBANES [clip of SARBANES defending his article against the charge of nonspecificity, saying that NIXON'S counsel has been there all along, the report will supplement the charges in detail, and that NIXON is not on trial until the matter reaches the Senate.] [LEHRER in studio] [cut RODINO at chair, speaking with Rep. RAILSBACK, conferring--shot of REPUBLICAN MEMBERS] [01.16.00] h
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.42.05] Mr. RANGEL. Reserving the right to object- Mr. SARBANES. I will take the lesser time, 3 1/2 minutes. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Reserving the right to object, and I shall not object, I will Just take the time, however, to point out that earlier, even though I had my hand up on another matter, the Chair failed to write my name down and denied me my 4 minutes and 35 seconds, or something like that, and the Chair was very charitable and he gave me 1 minute, but I shall be much more charitable and I shall not object and you shall have all of your time. Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RANGEL. I reserve the right, to object. I -would just like to inquire as to whenever my distinguished colleague makes up his mind as to what side he is going to speak on this issue as to what order his name will be listed as being recognized. The CHAIRMAN. There is no--no time is left. The gentleman has the gentleman from -Utah had been the last speaker in support, and actually all time had expired. Mr. RANGEL. I hate to find myself in the position as my distinguished Colleague, Mr. Latta, but having heard the distinguished chairman mention my name as one that had been on the list, I was hoping that you had not forgotten. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to state that the names of all of those who had been seeking recognition were all read. Mr. RANGEL. I am certain, Mr. Chairman, that if the stenographer were to review the notes that she has taken, that my name would be recorded among those that wanted to speak. In any event, I would request unanimous consent to speak briefly on this subject. Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentleman from Ohio perhaps yield his 4 minutes and 35 seconds? Mr. KASTENMEIER. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I do so because we may have open-ended this thing, if I understand it, Mr. Sarbanes is seeking----- Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, withdraw the request. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, you had mentioned my name as being On the list. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair wishes to state that the, list was submitted to the Chair of those people and- Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman? The, CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman? Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that Sarbanes and Mr. Rangel both be. given 3 minutes, and let's then vote on this and not argue about whether or not their names were down. They both want to speak. I would be delighted to hear them. It wont take much longer, and we call then go On and vote. We will spend more time arguing about it. Then let them speak. Mr. FROEHLICH. Mr. Chairman. reserving the right to object-- Mr. SMITH. I request that Mr. Rangel be allowed to have, up to 4 minutes, or whatever the time IS. Mr. FROEHLICH. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. The CHAIRMAN. 'Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. I know this time my colleagues, Mr. Maraziti and Mr. Moorhead would also like to speak, and if we are going to give that right to the two gentlemen over there, I ask unanimous Consent that they be included for the same amount Of time. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair would like to state that the Chair erred in not, recognizing the gentleman from New York, and the Chair does want to state that he did know that prior to the recognition of those members that the member from New York, Mr. Rangel, had indicated that be -would be one of those -who wanted to speak on the article if it -were proposed. And I do have his name, but I did not have his name at the time, and I would wish maybe that the members might recognize that he could do that, and out of consideration for that fact, the Chair will state that it erred and that the Chair asks unanimous consent, that the gentleman from New York be given that 4 minutes. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to Object, I Will simply suggest that under a similar circumstance under another article, Mr. Latta, was granted I minute, so I think if Mr. Rangel is granted 1 minute that ought to take care of it in the, same way. Mr. RANGEL. I don't think--- The CHAIRMAN. Maybe -we -will not wrangle over the 1 minute. Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. RANGEL And I thank my very generous colleagues on this committee. And I was not a Mr. Truman and Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Johnson -were here, and they are not here, now, to set the record straight, All I am saying that Americans do not ask too much from their country, and when there is a problem, when our -Nation's safety is at stake, military people go forward, American men go forward and they defend our country. The only thing between war and people is the United States Congress. I refuse to believe that you have, got to change the rules of the game and say that this President, or any other President, can meet with a handful of Congressmen and thereby send American boys to fight a war in some Country that they did not even know existed. Perhaps there was no argument made, against Mr. Truman, but on that, troop ship that I was on in June of 1949, had the argument been raised on the question of impeachment, I am certain there. would have been a lot of support for it, I yield back the. balance of my time. [00.47.58]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.58.40] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the. gentleman has expired The gentleman from Michigan has 26 minutes remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Mr. HOGAN. I thank the gentleman for the time. I think it is unfortunate that these deliberations, which to date have been handled in a very high manner, have, deteriorated into partisan wrangling tonight. And I think not only are these deliberations tonight unfair , but the entire handling of Mr. Nixon's tax returns are unfair. Someone has already alluded to the fact that the IRS decided that Mr. Nixon had to pay income on the honeymoon which his daughter spent at Camp David. Now, I ask the ladies and gentlemen of the committee whether or not this is fair? They also decided that he had to pay $27,291, or he had an additional income of $27,291.08 for the travel of his relatives and friends. Now, what that means is that if Air Force. One were flying to San Clemente, and Julie or Tricia and their husbands were going along, the President has been required to pay the fair market value of the travel Computed on the basis of the cost of traveling first class on commercial airlines to the various destinations reported in the flight logs. This is income to him as declared by IRS. Now, I ask the ladies and gentlemen of this committee if that is fair? And I address a question to their consciences. Let us take a hypothetical case. Suppose the, members of this committee went overseas on a study mission and their wives accompanied them. Now, if that happened, as it has, I wonder if the members would and have reported the first-class air fare on their own income tax as income to them? I think the answer is obviously they did not. One of the other things that troubles me very much about this is the not only -unfairness but this in no way rises to the level of an impeachable offense. The, staff report on grounds for Presidential impeachment makes clear, and I am quoting: As a technical term, high crime signified a crime against the system of government not merely a serious crime. This element of injury to the commonwealth, that is, to the state itself and to the Constitution, was historically the criteria for distinguishing a high crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one. Now, obviously in the drafting of this, the words previous previously were included against the United State's after high crimes and misdemeanors so that it is clear that that is what, the Founding Fathers intended. The. CHAIRMAN. The, time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. The gentleman from Iowa has 24 minutes remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Seiberling. the CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mention has been made that President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Humphrey have also mad gifts of their papers and taken deductions But I think It also ought to be. mentioned that there has been at no time any suggestion that there was any backdating of deeds or other fraudulent acts in connection with that gift. their gifts. Now. I must say that the facts In this situation have given me a great deal of trouble. because the facts are largely undisputed, what is in dispute are the conclusions we ought to draw from them. The evidence is largely circumstantial. but I remember the Writer Thoreau once said that, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." Now, what have we found In this case ? We have found a fraudulent deed and I do not think there is any doubt of it at least I do not have any doubt about that in my mind. And that deed -was used to secure an enormous tax deduction. Now, the question is whether the President was involved in that fraud. The Internal Revenue Service has already determined that, he was involved in negligence and they assessed negligence penalties against him which be has paid. Now, the question is how do we decide whether there is sufficient, cause, to send it to the Senate for a trial? And my feeling, after considering all........
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA) speaking during a House floor debate; regarding Republican vs Democratic House Committee membership; discusses Supreme Court Case regarding Committee membership.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
*See information in RIGHTS field before using* [01.22.22] VAN ALSTYNE disagrees, saying that the essential decisin of the coalition is that there is enough evidence to convince a reasonable person that NIXON did commit certain acts, and that the 27 members on the impeachment side trust John DOAR'S counsel that due process is served by the ARTICLE as drafted, if these members have put aside their disagreements on which particular acts and allegations are relevant for one vote, there is no reason why the coalition cannot hold together. DIAMOND says that he was impressed by the way the PROCEDURAL question of SPECIFICITY raised debate that caused members to fall out on lines of SUBSTANCE with respect to impeachment Says that the committee debate is crucial because the large number of hardcore, PRO-IMPEACHMENT, liberal DEMOCRATS must compromise with more moderate members to draft a bill of impeachment that moderates and REPUBLICANS in the HOUSE will be willing to support. Likewise, the smaller core of intensely PRO-NIXON members is pursuing a strategy of tying all substantive matters to questions of DUE PROCESS, characterizing the IMPEACHMENT as akin to criminal proceeding, to make their case. [RETURN to LEWIS at CAPITOL--standing in a now-empty corridor] LEWIS says to expect more haggling and procedural debates, but possibly one side will relent and a vote on the first ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT may be reached by the end of the day. [DUKE/LEHRER in studio, LEHRER standing at "scoreboard"] DUKE: the day's hearings have clearly shown a majority coalition for impeachment. LEHRER: wonders aloud what changes are required on the scoreboard. 23 definite Ayes, 11 Noes, two "maybe's", says that extrapolating the vote, he can move rep's FISH and RAILSBACK to the AYE category and FROEHLICH to the NO category. DUKE argues that FROEHLICH has indicated he could vote for other ARTICLES. LEHRER agrees and moves FROEHLICH photo a bit away from the rest of the no voters. DUKE signs off [01.29.45--PBS ID] [01.29.52--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.25.51] I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback. Mr. McCLORY. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. RAILSBACK. Yes, I will be happy to yield, Mr. Chairman, 2 1/2 minutes to my colleague from Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Railsback. I certainly want to agree with the views expressed by some of MY' colleagues that the original intent of the special unit, or the Plumbers, was to try to seal up leaks but I also would like to call attention to the fact that in, July 1971, just a few weeks after the Plumbers were set up, the break-in of Dr. Fielding's office was recognized by the President and Mr. Ehrlichman in his personal notes made while in conference with the President, that there wasn't any espionage or national security question involved at all. And this effort to draw in the CIA and the FBI were resisted, of course, by the head of the CIA and the head of the FBI. You know, some years later, as a matter of fact, in April 1973 when Henry Petersen was in charge of the Criminal Investigation, the Department of Justice was investigating the whole subject of Watergate and the coverup, he brought to the President's attention this Dr. Fielding's office break-in -in, the President in the taped conversation that we had here before the committee said to Henry Petersen: "I know all about that. That is national security." You see, the real facts are that while the Plumbers may have started as a legitimate, valid organization, it was soon converted by Hunt and Liddy and Ehrlichman and the whole group there into something quite different, and something that the President knew about; and it was wrong, and it seems to me that that is why this belongs in this part of our impeachment proceedings, why it is appropriately put in article II which relates to the question as to whether or not the President was indeed taking care to see to faithful execution of the laws, and that is why I think it is appropriately there as well as some of the other paragraphs that we have which question whether the President was fulfilling his obligation, and it is something that we should send to the House of Representatives to have considered there. In my opinion, there is clear and convincing evidence with respect to each of these paragraphs, that these actions were wrong. And I am hopeful that this article will be supported. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wiggins. has asked for about 30 seconds because he thinks there was an error made by Mr. McClory. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. I don't think the record should remain. I am sure it was an unintentional mistake. The Fielding break-in occurred in September 1971. It did not occur prior to that. There is not a -word in the Ehrlichman notes of July 1971 indicating prior knowledge of any break-in in Ellsberg's office. Mr. McCLORY. No. While-- No. It was not the Ellsberg break-in in July 1971. The Ellsberg's theft was regarded as not being a question of national security. If I said break-in, , I didn't mean that. It was the publication of the Pentagon Papers. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, if I have any remaining time, I would like to yield it to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1, minute and 50 seconds remaining. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to whether that time could be yielded to me when I seek my own 5 minutes? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minutes and 50 seconds re- remaining of the gentleman from Illinois' time and he has the time if he so desires 5 minutes. Mr. COHEN, Can I take them consecutively? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6 minutes and 50 seconds. Mr. COHEN. Thank you. There is a -word that has been used here for the past 2 days and I am constrained to call upon myself to repeat it-amazing. Isn't it amazing? And I find it amazing that the fine lawyers on this committee have, somehow overlooked the concept of an attempted wrong act. All we have heard about the IRS is, well, what happened? It wasn't accomplished. It failed. It reminds me something of the words We have seen in the transcripts--a dry hole. I would like to direct a couple of questions to the staff now and ask you about the criminal penalties involved under this section. I assume it is a crime for anyone, any officer, or employee of the United States, to breach the confidentiality of the income tax returns of the citizens of this country and I further assume that, under title 18 the President and his subordinates fall within the definition of all' employee of the U.S. Government. Is that correct, Mr. Jenner? [00.31.00]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.32.04-- cut to Chairman RODINO after recess] The, CHAIRMAN. At the time the committee recessed, the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, had consumed 5 minutes in support of the amendment. I recognize the gentleman an from New York. Mr. Fish, in opposition to the amendment, for 4 minutes. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I think this article II dealing as it does with the abuse of the enormous power of the Federal Government against the citizens is an issue that is particularly abhorrent to a democratic people. The illegal activities of the Plumbers is the subject of the third provision which we have before us a motion to strike. I know there are several who want to talk on this paragraph, and I will attempt to be brief. As we know, on June 13, the New York Times published the first installment of the Pentagon Papers. The President, through Haldeman, directed Mr. Colson to prepare a memorandum stating his recommendations on the Pentagon Papers issue. The memorandum of Mr. Colson, dated June 25, recommended that the investigation and successful prosecution of Ellsberg was an opportunity for or political gain for the President by publicly discrediting Mr. Ellsberg. As we know also, Mr. Ellsberg was indicted on June 28. The genesis, I suggest to you, of the Plumbers was the Pentagon Papers and in a meeting between the President, Mr. Ehrlichman, and Mr. Mitchell on July 6, We have the discussion on forming a "nonlegal group in connection with the Pentagon Papers affair." So there is no question here, of Presidential knowledge. The question has been raised, and will be raised again, however, that the issue was national security from the start, that, this legitimized the formation of the Plumbers and the effort to publicly discredit Mr. Daniel Ellsberg. Mr. Jenner, I have asked you during this break a few minutes ago to find for, me certain citations I recall of conversations between the principals in this matter that showed to me clearly that it was a public relations effort they had in mind and that national security in the Pentagon Papers was not the issue. Could you refer to those citations please? Mr. JENNER. May I, Mr. Chairman ? the CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenner. Mr. JENNER. The following items appearing in the Ehrlichman notes which, by the way, will be delivered to all of you tomorrow with a covering memorandum, I -will read without comment. I think they speak for- themselves. On July 1, 1971, a meeting of the plaintiff, Mr. Ehrlichman, at 10:15 in the morning and Mr. Colson. Did I say the President ? If I didn't, I should have. Item No. 8 reads, "Leak stuff out." "This is the way we win." The next is -also July 1 at 1 p.m. a meeting with the President. It bears the following entry labeled item No. 1. "Espionage not involved in Ellsberg Case," Did I say 21-29. His case, Breach of security, Willful disclosure with intent to commit espionage. The same meeting later, note No. 30.---- [01.36.17--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.37.31] The CHAIRMAN. The 3 minutes of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Father Drinan. For 3 minutes. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This fiasco called the Plumbers had three names. It started out as Project Ellsberg. David Young named It the Plumbers, and the President, 18 months later, gave it the name of Special Investigative Unit. It was political and covert and unlawful from the beginning. Patrick Buchanan had the good sense to decline the good job that had been offered to him to be head of the Plumbers, and so on 'July 1971, he gave the best description of the purpose of the then Project Ellsberg. He wrote in a memo to Mr. Haldeman that "This is a project for a 3-month period to link the Pentagon Papers with the left-wing newspapers and people of America." There, was no national security involved. Mr. Pat Buchanan had an alternative which he thought was better. "Let us undertake, a major public attack on the Brookings Institute." Everyone had hysteria over the Pentagon Papers except Mel Laird. Ten days after they were released he said that 98 percent Of the Pentagon Papers could have been and should have been declassified. The hysteria, I assure you, was created months after when the of the Plumbers came out. In Mr. St. Clair's brief on page 94 he, said that the Special Investigative Unit was created "in an entirely legal manner," And I doubt if he can support that because this is an entirely outside of the ordinary that the executive branch of government operates. Mr. St. Clair concedes at, a moment in time that there was a shift in the Unit's way of acting. But, he, said that the purpose, was legitimate. He failed to tell us why they had sterile phones whatever they are, in this little cubbyhole in the Executive Office Building and needed Special passes to enter this section and why, in total defiance of the law of the CIA, they regularly violated that prohibition any internal security matters of the CIA. Henry Petersen testified before this committee on July 12 that he said there is no area of violation of Federal criminal laws which was not covered by existing statutes and that if there is any residual jurisdiction it goes to the. Department of Justice. I suggest therefore that this was political and unlawful from the beginning and the names came later. If the President says that there is an epidemic of leaks, that is substantiated by the evidence. And let me quote you one justification that has come out today in a minority report from this committee that demonstrates the hysteria that is still going on and with that I close. And the statement in justification of the Plumbers that "Foreign espionage agents read English and they can read the New York Times." Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, I recognize the. gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen, for 3 minutes. Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct my attention to the final sentences of this paragraph whereby the President attempted to prejudice, the constitutional rights of the accused to a fair trial. Several days ago the gentleman from New Jersey made a statement that we must view the totality of the evidence, and I happen to agree with Mr. Sandman. He is absolutely correct, because only by viewing all of the evidence can we trace the threads of attitude and action that are a pattern of spirit and conduct that is the very basis of our investigation, And I want to call your attention to the September 15, 1972 conversation between the President, and Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Dean whereby Mr. Dean indicated he was talking about Edward Bennet Williams, at which time the President says "We are, going after him." Haldeman says "This is the guy we have got to ruin." And then I am skipping on to page 10 where the President says "I think we are going to fix," and I am paraphrasing "the SOB, Believe me. We are going to, we have got to because he's a bad man." Now. I think this statement is relevant that respect to the Ellsberg matter because Mr. Colson told Us, as he told the court, that on several occasions the President urged Colson to disseminate information about Ellsberg and also his attorney, and this is the same act for which Colson pled guilty to corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the criminal trial by devising and implementing a scheme to defame and destroy the Public image and credibility of Ellsberg. Now, Ellsberg, in my opinion, and I agree with Mr. Hogan, he should have been prosecuted, but his trial should have gone, to its full conclusion according to the due process of law. What was done in Ellsberg reminded me of what Commodore Vanderbilt said to his adversaries: "I won't sue you, I'll ruin you." The administration did not seek to sue. or prosecute Ellsberg for his wrongdoing, they set out to ruin him, and that, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, is not only contrary to the spirit of our Constitution, it is also contrary to the laws as stated in the cases of United States v. Krogh and Colson. A man cannot set attack dogs loose on general instructions to stop and destroy leaks at any cost, and then say he is not responsible when the constitutional rights of citizens are shredded in the process. [00.42.42]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.37.41] Mr. SEIBERLING. Will the gentleman yield'? Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. Of course, if I have time. Mr. SEIBERLING. I -would like to ask the gentleman if his amendment would cover a situation such as we have testimony on. where the President would give instructions, sometimes saying "Now, I want you to get this done, but I don't care how you do it, don't bother me with the details." Would that be sufficient to cover the instructions under the gentleman's amendment? Mr. WIGGINS. Well, I think the instructions are subject to interpretation. I know the incident to which the gentleman refers, and I could not conceive that the President was by that instruction authorizing doing of an illegal act. So long as the act is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of his policy and direction, I have no quarrel with attributing that conduct to the President. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California, Has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. an, I oppose the gentleman motion. The specific act included within the scope of this article involved an awesome, array of impeachable offenses against the U.S. Constitution and the American people. The evidence that we have gathered clearly establishes that Richard M. Nixon and his agents sought and obtained confidential tax information from the Internal Revenue Service, in a manner unauthorized by law and for unlawful purposes. Specifically he and his subordinates made repeated attempts to influence the selection of citizens to be targeted for audit and other special action by the Internal Revenue Service. In a sworn affidavit to this committee, Johnnie Walters, former IRS Commissioner. stated that in the summer of 1972 John Ehrlichman requested the, IRS to check out the income. tax returns of Democratic National Committeeman Lawrence O'Brien. The IRS checked O'Brien's returns and conveyed the relevant information to Ehrlichman through then Secretary of the Treasury Shultz. Ehrlichman was not satisfied and because of his demands. O'Brien was Interviewed on August 17, 1972. The IRS furnished a copy of the O'Brien conference report to Secretary Shultz. A short, time, later Shultz informed Walters that Ehrlichman was still not satisfied. Walters told Shultz that there -was nothing else the IRS could do. On August 21, 1972, in a joint telephone call to Ehrlichman by Secretary Shultz, Walters and his assistant IRS Commissioner Roger Barth, Ehrlichman was told that O'Brien's returns were closed, that there was nothing further for IRS to do. Ehrlichman then told Walters, "and I wanted them to turn up something and send him to jail before the election and unfortunately it didn't," Ehrlichman told Walters, and I would repeat that that is not that--right quote. I turned to the wrong page. What Ehrlichman said on page 235 was, indicating disappointment, "and he said to me I am god-damned tired of your foot dragging tactics." And then when Ehrlichman was so interested in the IRS status of O'Brien's operation in testimony before the Watergate committee, Ehrlichman arrogantly stated the reason that-I previously stated. He wanted something turned up before the. election. Unfortunately it didn't materialize. On September 11, 1972, John Dean gave Walters a list of Democratic Presidential nominee staff members and campaign contributors , instructing the IRS to begin investigations or examinations of the People named on the list. Walters testified that he advised Dean that compliance with the request would be disastrous for the IRS and for' the, administration, and that he would recommend to Shultz that the IRS do nothing with the request. Four days later, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Nixon met and discussed among other things Dean's working through the IRS. Our transcript of these September 15 meeting had -the following exchange: [quoting] HALDEMAN. Between times, he is doing, he is moving ruthlessly on the Investigation of McGovern people, Kennedy stuff, and all that, too, I just don't. know how much progress he is making because I-- PRESIDENT. The problem is that's kind of hard to find. HALDEMAN. Chuck--Chuck has gone through, you know, has worked on the list and Dean's working the thing through IRS and, uh, in some cases I think some other (unintelligible) things he has turned out to be tougher than I thought he would which is what--- PRESIDENT. Yeah. [end quoted section] [00.43.01]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.14.55] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for yielding. It had been my intention, Mr. Chairman, to use my 5 minutes to discuss the historical meaning of the "take care" clause because I think frankly this committee has not shown the degree of scholarship the House has the right to expect from us with respect to that Clause and its probable misapplication to article II. But I will reserve that to a later time and probably will include it in the report when ,we go to the House. I want to take this moment, to just lay out a few facts because charges .are easily made and now we have to take the time to shoot them down ,even though they are really without substance. It has been said that President Nixon attempted to subvert, the processes of justice by somehow improperly interfering with a Federal judge. We know we are talking about the Matt Byrne incident and the Ellsberg trial out in California. Let me tell you what happened. It is a relatively short story. Everybody knows that the, nomination of Pat Gray was in trouble and the President -was going to have to nominate a new director for the FBI. The President sought the advice of his Attorney General as whom that nominee ought to be and the Attorney General suggested "two names. He suggested Matt Byrne, a judge in California, and he suggested Henry Petersen. Given that, Mr. Ehrlichman, who was acting as the President's agent, sought to inquire -whether or not Judge Byrne was interested, and this is what he said to Judge Byrne: "Judge," he said, "I have been asked by the President to call you. have been asked to discuss 'with you a Federal appointment which is not judicial in character. I do not know whether this is an appropriate time for us to have a conversation like this because I do not know what the present situation in your trial is." Given that, Judge Byrne said, "I see no reason why we couldn't talk right away. Thereafter they met. They met down at San Clemente and they 'Walked out on the bluff, away from the office complex in San Clemente, and Ehrlichman said to the judge as follows: [quoting] "I am sensitive to the fact that you are now trying an important lawsuit. I Propose that we walk out toward the bluff from this office. if at any point a subject arises that you feel in any way impinges upon your ability to fairly try the case, You just turn around and walk away from me, and as I said before, this is not something that needs to be discussed right now. we can talk about it later, And the judge said, "Fine. Let's proceed on that basis." [end quoted section] Then they walked out on the bluff and an offer was made to be Director of the FBI. Judge Byrne saw no impropriety in that. he didn't report instantly to the Judiciary Committee as a result of that conversation. The President came out during the conversation and he said as follows: "I have not been following your case very closely. it appears that it may take as long to get the case tried as it took me to end the war in Vietnam, and that is all he said. Now, that is all he said. These sweeping statements that the President, was trying to prejudice a trial are unsupported by that sort of record and we ought to be more careful in our language. That allegation, at least, ladies 'and gentlemen, has no substance to it whatsoever. I yield--whatever I have got, I yield to my friend. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute and 15 seconds. Mr. WIGGINS. I yield that to my friend from Indiana. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. I may just say in the short time remaining that I think we ought to keep in mind--I could go over the surveillance again, the Plumbers again. Is it suggested that there is a law broken because of' the creation of the Plumbers? No one has told me what the law was. Is it suggested that because a unit is created and set up to take legal-to do certain things that you are thereby automatically responsible if it takes illegal action? It is perfectly obvious that the President knew nothing about the break-in out in California because of his remarks -when it came to his attention. It is perfectly obvious he knew nothing about, it and he said again in the record, I told all these fellows to obey the law and there isn't any evidence to the contrary. We have talked before about impeding the investigation. That came under article I and I said then and I say now that it is a debatable question -whether he legitimately felt that there, might be a CIA involvement or didn't legitimately feel it, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And finally, what we need to remember is -we, are. not accusing the President because of his general moral character or whether he is moral or amoral or what our personal opinion of him may be. We have got to find evidence or proof of a high crime or misdemeanor and if -we try to impeach him for anything else, then -we are not doing Our duty and we are violating our oath and our conscience. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, I am not seeking recognition at this time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. sought recognition ? Mr. SANDMAN. don't seek recognition at this time. I would like to at another time, Mr. Chairman, but not at this time. [00.20.36]
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Delbert Latta (R - Ohio).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Delbert Latta (R - Ohio).