Advanced Search
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Carlos Moorhead (R - Calfornia).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Carlos Moorhead (R - Calfornia).
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. Wayne Owens (D - Utah).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Wayne Owens (D - Utah).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.01.50] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* [NPACT logo black screen--trippy rotating image of Capitol Dome--title screen "Impeachment Debate" ] LEHRER in studio, discussing progress of debate, to debate an ARTICLE introduced by Rep. Paul SARBANES (D-MD) charging OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Appears to have majority support, possibly 25 or26 votes. Majority of debate, says LEHRER, over whether the SARBANES ARTICLE was specific enough, with lines drawn clearly pro and con. Paul DUKE notes it was a new kind of debate, with parliamentary procedure governing a more heated confrontation, with more partisanship. 2 things clear: President's supporters will do whatever necessary to derail impeachment drive it may be more difficult than previously thought for the supporters of impeachment to agree on a drafted article. Introduces reporter Caroline LEWIS LEWIS at Capitol reports on the abundance of posturing and grandstanding earlier in the day, giving way to closed-door sessions to try to iron out differences quickly. LEWIS says that amendments to the proposed article have not been serious, and a vote on the final article may come quickly if [cut DUKE/LEHRER, L.standing at "scoreboard"] DUKE asks LEWIS if she thinks the committee will bog down on inane details, does she think there will be a vote tonight? LEWIS says she's talked to Chair. RODINO'S chief aide, who indicated a vote by the end of the night was possible. Expect a motion to strike by Rep. Wiggins, a motion to table, and debate about amendments, leading to a vote by the end of the evening, but congressional committees are often unpredictable. [DUKE/LEHRER in studio, L. standing at "scoreboard"] DUKE says that one certain thing is that there is a likely 2-1 majority for impeachment, with many taking a side who were uncommitted. LEHRER frames the count as votes on the first OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE article, saying a tentative 23 votes for the proposed article. LEHRER points out photos, names names. 23 sure votes. Of definite nayes to the ARTICLE, points out faces, reads names. 11 "nayes", with McCLORY checking in against the particular ARTICLE while still advocating other articles of impeachment. All Opponents are REPUBLICANS. Points to Rep. FROEHLICH (R-Wisc), who has stated his opposition on grounds of the drafting of the ARTICLE. Maybe "AYES", called the three crucial people, are REPUBLICANS, FISH AND RAILSBACK, and DEMOCRAT FLOWERS of Alabama. LEHRER asks LEWIS if she agrees with his scorekeeping [cut LEWIS at Capitol] LEWIS says agrees on the whole, has questions about Rep. BUTLER, saying that he has expressed a desire to have more specificity in the ARTICLES. Asks if his committment to the ARTICLE has been confirmed. Says that in the crunch, FLOWERS will go along with impeachment, but BUTLER as a stickler for the rules may pass over the ARTICLE. [00.13.31]
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative and Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Dante Fascell (D-FL) off camera, recognizes Rep. Donald Bonker (D-WA); adult Caucasian males seated in BG. Rep. Bonker (D-WA) believes there should be debate within Congress on the issue of U.S. Marines in Lebanon. He contends the Middle East has been a dominant foreign policy issue for years, but the issue of U.S. Marines in Lebanon adds a new dimension. Rep. Bonker asks U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to further explain how the idea of using United Nations peacekeeping troops, supported by the U.S. was able to be rejected by Syria, who is not a member of the U.N. Security Council. Eagleburger directs the question to Ambassador Richard Fairbanks, but states that his use of the word "veto" does not refer to the Security Council vote. When Syrians rejected U.N. observers, the U.N. was not going to put observers in an area where one of the parties in the current conflict would not accept it.
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference on spending. US Senator William Roth (R-DE) continues his statement. Sen. Roth says many are not happy about raising taxes in a recession. Roth calls the proposed bill a compromise that gets the job done, while improving the tax system; ensuring that all segments of society bare their fair share. Roth calls conference Chairman Sen. Bob Dole's (R-KS) legislation the best package to put through. Roth says the bill does not touch across-the-board tax cuts for individual tax payers; Congress will not go back on it's promise of real tax relief for working Americans. Roth commends Dole's leadership and legislation, calling it fair, balanced, and equitable. Roth says more than 40 percent of revenue from this bill will come from enhanced compliance with tax laws. Roth says the bill will collect taxes already owed, broaden the tax base, and eliminate loopholes for special interest groups.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00--Rep. HUNGATE] Mr. HUNGATE. [quoting from testimony] Mr. BUTTERFIELD [white house staff] I know him to be a detail man. Then he goes on The President often, of course, was concerned whether or not the Curtains Were closed or open, the arrangement of state gifts, whether they should be on that side of the room or this side of the room, displayed on a weekly basis or a monthly or daily basis. Social functions were always reviewed by him, the scenario, after they came to me from Mrs. Nixon. Each was always interested in the table, arrangements. He debated whether we should have a U-shaped table or round table. He was deeply involved in the entertainment business, whom we should get for what kind of a group, small band, big band, black band, white band, jazz band, Whatever. He was very interested in meals and bow they were served and the time of the waiters and was usually put out if a State dinner was not taken care Of in less than an hour or an hour's time. He debated receiving lines and whether or not he should have a line prior to the entertainment for those relatively junior people in the administration who were invited to the entertainment portion of the dinners only and not to the main dinner. [end quoted section] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Did Mr. Dennis seek recognition? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I will Seek recognition, sure. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dennis Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues on the committee, think this article, if proof were here, would be more important in many respects than article I that, we dealt with earlier. But, the difficulty as I see, it is that whereas on article I you had a, difficult matter of balancing Proof mid deciding where the weight lay and whether a case had been made beyond a, reasonable type of a doubt. and I decided it had not been, but while you have that kind of a problem there, here we might have a serious case, if you had the evidence, you don't really have the evidence. And I cannot believe that we are going to impeach the President of the United States, without the facts. Now, it is difficult to go over the same ground, but lot us just look quickly at what we are talking about,. First is the IRS. I was just talking about that a moment ago. The Japanese had an offense, in the old days that they called dangerous thinking, and maybe on the basis of the conversation of September 15 you could convict somebody of that if it were an offense in this country I do not think it is. A bunch of politicians get around after an election or before an election and are talking about the opposition. What they are going to do to them and I don't think that it is a very high-class conversation, but I do suggest that that conversation in itself is not an impeachable offense. You've got to show that something was done as a result of it and done by the President or by his instructions. Now, there. is not any, evidence. We have a hearsay statement about the Wallace matter. That is all. We have the enemies list and Dean himself said that was not done. at the President's request and he agrees that he. never followed up on it. And as far as he knows. nobody ever followed up on it. And the Joint Committee. says that, nobody was ever audited as a result. My friend from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky, talks about overfriendliness to someone. He didn't specify anybody, but one case, that I remember we checked into was alleged was the case of John Wayne and that was checked In and nothing was found to exist at all. It was treated just like everybody else. And the Joint Committee has looked into this thing and said' that in none of these cases was the taxpayer improperly treated because of political considerations. Now, my friend from Alabama, Mr. Flowers. says it is a terrible thing to ha have a statement in the White House "do you need any IRS stuff." Well, again, maybe it is not the kind of statement you would like, to hear, considering all of the circumstances and what not but is that an impeachable offense? That is what -we are, talking about here. Nobody shows that anybody went and got any IRS stuff and used it for any improper situation. Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. DENNIS. I hate, to yield because of the length of my time. otherwise I would be happy to. Mr. McCLORY. I -would just, like to say--- Mr. DENNIS. Well, I yield to my friend from Illinois since he, is going to talk anyway, I will be glad to yield to him. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you very much. I just want to say don't You think that it is really, genuinely fortunate that we had Commissioner Walters and that we had Secretary of the Treasury Shultz who decided that they just would not tolerate any such business as that, even though some close to the President wanted to misuse the IRS? Mr. DENNIS. I completely agree with my friend, As I said before, they were appointees of the President, and I think that he is entitled to a great credit for having that kind of people as his main appointees. He appointed them, and none of them have said anything in the evidence before us in this record to indicate that they feel that the President ever pushed them. The President himself, so far as I am aware. Now, I am going to the second matter, the matter of the surveillance. We talked about that already, too. You have to consider the climate, the leaks, about Cambodia and the bombing, about troop -withdrawal, about SALT. I think personally----- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman. may I make a parliamentary inquiry, please? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has asked for a Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, would not be in order it this time since, one from each side has spoken, for a member to move that all debate on this article terminate within 1 hour so that the time can be equally divided? The CHAIRMAN. Well. under the rule, the members -who wish to speak have that time, reserved to them, and unless there, were unanimous Consent, then I do not believe that such a motion would be in order. Mr. SANDMAN. Could I ask for unanimous consent that all debate on article II end at 10 minutes after 10, which is I hour? The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. SEIBERLING. Reserving the right to object Mr. Chairman, could we have some indication as to how many members intend to speak so that we have some idea of how much time will be allotted'? [00.09.10]
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 98.9 billion dollars have been provided in new revenues. Dole says changes in spending are focused on administrative improvements, better allocations of costs, and reasonable tightening of benefit rules. Dole says the goal is not to hit beneficiaries, but to take steps to encourage better cost control by reviewing role of providers of services. Dole says there are good and bad ways to reduce the defecate; there are good and bad ways to raise revenues. Dole says this bill (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) raises revenues in the most equitable way possible, by broadening the tax base and ensuring compliance.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
[01.30.17] Mr. WALDIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think the charge that the coverup was really continuing at the very highest level is embodied in this declaration that the President -was making false or misleading public Statements for the purpose of cementing the coverup. All the activities of those below the President became manifested in terms of the certainly when the President himself says, "That this matter is now being investigated thoroughly and that the results we will give to you are the only results that need be given." Now, there may be some question as to whether the President had within his knowledge, facts up through and until April 30, 1973, because all of these statements were made at a time, when we, did not have in our possession, the edited transcripts. The President then on April 30, May 29, and August 15, and August 22, Continued to make statements that were less than complete. Now, the question is, -was the coverup continuing on April 30 and dates subsequent thereto? It is my own contention that the coverup was continuing in those public statements because there is no question that the erroneous statements actually from April 30, May 22, August 15, and August 22 were clearly known to the contrary to the President because he had edited transcripts of all his conversations. He had full transcripts of all his conversations. The last public statement the President made of this issue to the Nation was April 30 of this year, April 30 of this year, 1974, and he as he has said in every one of these statements to the Nation, tonight I am giving you the definitive story , the real Watergate. Everything you need to know about Watergate is contained and he pointed, as Mr. Latta did last night, to his 47 volumes of edited transcripts. And he said, up to this point you have not had the full story, though he had made about 10 public statements, saying we had had the full story, but this the definitive full story, the edited transcripts -which he is releasing to the Nation. And he said after you have read these, you need no more information. It is all there. Now, we ought to examine was he telling the truth to the public on April 30 of this year when he said all the truth of Watergate is contained in these edited transcripts? The Nation relied on it as the President thought they would and believed this is the final statement about Watergate. Everything up to this point has been less than full because the President says now it is a full story, though it goes back to April 30, 1973. The President says in April 1974, what I told you before April 30, 1973 was not the definitive story but this is. Everything now is in these transcripts. Well, everybody heaved a sigh of relief and said, "Well, thank God, the President finally has told us the full story of Watergate and that is about time, and we are pleased and we are relieved that the President has now told everything there is to know about Watergate. The committee began. examining the edited transcripts and the committee got ahold of tapes from which those transcripts had been. transcribed, and the tapes on our equipment compared to the President's edited transcripts were incredibly more incriminating and, in fact, Produced a great deal more of the story of Watergate, so that the last Public statement of the President, April 30, 1974, that is the full story of Watergate, again has been false and misleading in the extreme because it was misleading in every aspect in those mistaken transcripts, those altered transcripts, misleading in a, manner beneficial to the President, intentionally omitted and deleted, intentionally deceptive and misleading. The, allegation "making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States"" is an allegation that has been sustained amply as recently as April 30 of this very year. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California 11,118 expired. All time has expired and the question now occurs, on the motion Of the gentleman, from Alabama. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The, CHAIRMAN. All those, opposed. [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. SANDMAN. OR this I demand the ayes and nays. The CHAIRMAN. Call of the roll is demanded and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye, All those, opposed, no. . The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. No The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. r. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. No.------ [01.36.21--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
[01.25.02] The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. I don't just happen to have a lot of prepared material by me like my friend from Utah does, because to use one of the President's favorite words, the scenario has not been so well written over here, as it has been over there where this has been very carefully taken care of by the assistance of staff counsel and everyone has his piece. But, I think I can still read English unassisted, and I do not need a lot of reference I do not believe, to help convince any reasonably open minded person, if there is such a person on the committee, that this particular paragraph belongs out of here on a motion to strike. Honest to God, just ordinary garden variety principles, without much reference to the weighty matters we are dealing with, because it just does not have anything to do with what we are talking about. We should go back to the beginning of article I and see what we are discussing, The article starts out and it says that on June 17, 1972, agents of the Committee to Re-elect committed an illegal entry into the Democratic National Committee, Headquarters and subsequently thereto Mr. Nixon, pursuant to plan, and so forth, acting through various subordinates did various things to delay, impede and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry. That is what this is all about. And to cover up and protect those responsible. Now, that is the gravamen of the charge, that he tried to obstruct the investigation of an illegal entry and protect, those responsible. Then they begin to spell out how that was done, not how something else was done, and you come down to this No. 8 and it says making false, or misleading public statements. I do not care whether false or misleading or not, our present 'purpose, is, the question is, do they obstruct the investigation of this break-in, and protect the people who did it? And it. says here not for what purpose, because I suppose anyone could see that that would not be very much for Obstructing an investigation of a break-in but for the purpose of deceiving the people of the, United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted when I Suppose in fact. it had not, been. Now, if that is any kind of a charge at, all, I certainly submit that it is not the charge of article 1. You could have just as false a statement and I would like, to make clear that I am not conceding there was any false statement. but for the sake of argument, you could have one and you could have one made for the purpose of making people think that there had been an investigation of this break-in and you still would not have any single thing which implemented the charge here, which Is obstructing the investigation of the break-in. What difference does it make what the old lady in Dubuque thinks about whether there is an investigation or not? The question is was there, and was something done which interfered with the investigation? The President of the United States could put anything he wanted to in all of the papers in the country and it would not interfere with that investigation which is what we are talking about here. This No. 8, whatever it is, just does not belong here as a specification. such as it is, of this particular charge. And I think my good friend from Alabama, whom I greatly love, respect, and admire, will vote with me, to strike this One because I just simply suggest and submit that there is not any logical grounds on which you can leave this monstrosity in here in this particular place. I just do not. see it. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. LOTT. I thank the. gentleman for Yielding. On this particular charge I think there are three things we should keep in mind. First a question. Did the President have knowledge that he was allegedly making false statements? Second, some of the arguments advocated in behalf of this section are actually true, and SO what? And third are We now in the business of impeaching Presidents for making misleading statements? The CHAIRMAN. The time Of the gentleman from Indiana has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from California Mr. Waldie for 5 minutes. in opposition to the amendment. [01.30.17]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.19.39] Mr. DANIELSON. I thank THE lady from New York. And I point, out that since the issue has been joined' and is before us, we must not retreat from our responsibility, or this action will establish a precedent Which could bind the Congress on this very delicate point for centuries to come. Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield to me? Mr. DANIELSON. I yield. Mr. SEIBERLING. I am a little bit surprised by the argument of the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins is a very, very able lawyer, and he knows in a court trial you are entitled, the parties are entitled to all of the relevant evidence, not enough or barely sufficient to support a particular point of view, but all of the evidence because the more evidence you can get the stronger your case is and the better chance you have of prevailing. That is an argument which I think is so easily disposed of by any lawyer practicing in the courts that I am surprised that he would even make it. I yield back. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired and all time has expired in support of the amendment. There are 5 minutes remaining in opposition to the amendment. Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Could I move the previous question? Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. If there is no further request for time in opposition? Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I would wish to speak to the amendment, to the article. I am not interested in speaking to the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time will be reserved. Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman? Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. There are 5 minutes remaining in opposition. I will recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. know that this amendment obviously is going to pass, but I oppose it. I suppose I feel stronger about this particular article than I do even about the other two that we have passed. I would vote to impeach on this basis on this article even if there were -no other evidence . I think that through it all, the power and the process of impeachment must come through unfettered. I think that the ultimate weapon against Presidential tyranny, which is the power of impeachment should be as clearly bottomed upon principle as it can be, and I think the wording of the McClory amendment is even better than that of the Thornton amendment. The committee I think- must say to the President, to future President's that impeachment will be automatic if the President asserts his unique power to stonewall Congress in a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the future. The, President is the only individual in this country who can refuse to honor a subpena, and that is quite simply because he is the Commander -in-Chief Chief of the Armed Forces and he is the head of the executive branch, and we have not the physical ability to overcome his resistance to a congressional subpena. I think the power to compel evidence in an impeachment inquiry must be considered absolute. We do not need to decide this morning the fifth amendment questions here because the President has not asserted his fifth amendment privileges. Mr. McClory said in his opening remarks that he hopes that we do not, have any more impeachment proceedings, and I am sure we all join him in that, and I think we may not, if out of all of this we Set down two basic principles. One, we set clear standards for impeachment based on fairness, an understandable standard which we are willing to apply for all Presidents. And two, we say that impeachment power is absolute and is bottomed upon the power to compel documents and evidence, and we do this by saying that a Presidential stonewall a' against a committee in an impeachment proceeding will bring automatic impeachment then if no other evidence is educed. Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. OWENS. Yes; I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. [00.24.12]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.42.42] Mr. HOGAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman from -Maryland. Mr. HOGAN. I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining. Mr. HOGAN. I would just like to return to the wiretap matters that I was not able to finish earlier. In addition to the Kraft wiretap having no criminal or national security basis, it was done by a consultant to the Committee to Re-Elect the President, -which makes it, totally illegal. In addition, under normal procedures, the Attorney General reviews the necessity and the propriety of wiretaps on national security matters every 90 days and this practice -was not followed in respect to any of these 17 individual taps that the President authorized and approved. Now, I would like to read from a transcript of the conversation between the President and Dean on February 28, 1973, on wiretaps when they were just talking about the Time Magazine story which revealed the Wiretaps at the White House. The President says: "Sure. And the, and the, and Henry's--he insisted on Lake, you see after working with McGov--uh, uh, for Muskie." And Dean says: "Uh-huh." And the, President, says: "Incidentally, didn't Muskie do anything bad on there? (unintelligible) Henry (unintelligible). At least, I know not because I know that, I know that he asked that it be done, and I assumed that it was. Lake and Halperin, They're both bad." That's the President talking. "But the taps were too." The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time has expired. And the question now occurs on the Wiggins amendment to strike subparagraph 3. All those in favor by Of the motion to strike please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [CHORUS of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it. The noes have it and the, amendment is not agreed to. I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in this debate we have neglected a most vital part of this article, that being section 1. 1 think it is very pertinent to this entire activity. It is a, primary area of abuse that has subjected the American People to spying and prying and In the interest of debate, in that all of those members who have an interest in presenting the facts on this matter section 1, and those who are, opposed to it., I have an amendment at the desk to strike section 1 and would so move. The CHAIRMAN. The. clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. Brooks, Strike subparagraph I of the Hungate substitute. The CHAIRMAN. And the gentleman from Texas is recognized. accordance with the rule recently adopted by unanimous consent, the gentleman recognizes that there is 20 minutes in opposition to the amendment am] 20 minutes in support of the amendment The gentleman controls the 20 minutes in support of the amendment. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the time that I would use be deducted from the time of the Opponents of this so that the Proponent of this would not suffer in any way; we will have a full 20 minutes to utilize I will yield to them as they request. The CHAIRMAN'. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nixon's personal involvement efforts to misuse IRS for political purposes in violation of individual civil rights is clearly documented in events that occurred on 157 1972. In the tape. of a meeting between the President, Mr. Haldeman, and Mr. Dean. there is no question that there was some discussion as to how efforts were going to get the IRS to institute audits, investigations of Mr. Nixon's political enemies. Some of the evidence involving Mr. Nixon efforts to misuse the IRS has not been made available to this committee. The transcripts submitted to us do not include last 17 minutes of this meeting with Haldeman and Dean on September 15. And yet Mr. Dean has testified that during that time there. was a specific discussion about the plan to use IRS for these purposes. Judge Sirica has listened to the entire tape and has announced in open court that those 17 minutes do indeed involve conversations relating to the abuse of the IRS. He has since made those 17 minutes available, to Mr. Jaworski but under the restraints put on him by the U.S. court of appeals has been unable to provide them to the Judiciary Committee. And needless to say, Mr. Nixon has not made this portion of the, tape available to us despite his continuing protestation that he intends to cooperate fully with our investigation. Now, we can only use the evidence that we have and that evidence, the September 15, tape, Judge Sirica's announcement, John Dean's testimony, the Johnnie Walters testimony, clearly indicate that there was a definite concerted plan to misuse the Internal Revenue Service for personal and political gain. Now, Mr. Chairman, our constitutional safeguards protecting individuals rights against arbitrary and unrestrained Government power mean very little to a President who Would use the IRS for such distorted fashion. I would 'reserve the balance of my time for those who are opposed or in favor of this proposition. [00.49.01]
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative William Hungate
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative William Hungate (D - Missouri).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory (R - Illinois).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Edward Hutchinson
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Edward Hutchinson (R - Michigan).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Walter Flowers
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Walter Flowers (D - Alabama).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Bob Latta
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Bob Latta (R - Ohio).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Walter Flowers (D Alabama). And I have discussed this matter with the gentleman, from Utah, Mr. Owens, and I would like to ask if he has any comments to make on this subparagraph at this time? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Wayne Owens (D Utah). I will say to the gentleman from Alabama that it so, happens that I am prepared to comment on subparagraph 8 and I express my appreciation to him for yielding. Subparagraph 8 deals with the question of whether the President, made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the People of the United States into believing a fair and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. And there has been a great deal said during the course of this debate on this subject.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.12.50] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has heard arguments for the point of order and in opposition to the point of order and the Chair is prepared to rule,. The Chair Makes reference first of all to article 1, section -2 of the Constitution, which gives to the House, the sole power of impeachment and in article H. section 4. the declaration that impeachment shall be, for treason, briber, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. So the issue of impeachment and the, nature of an impeachable offense is, as the gentleman knows, the very nature and subject of these proceedings, and no point of order can possibly the in the nature of a challenge as to the impeachability of such offenses. That is a matter, as the Constitution has already clearly stated, for the committee which has been delegated with this responsibility by the, House, the House itself, and ultimately the Senate, to decide. The gentleman will be, given full opportunity to debate. this question and attempt to persuade his colleagues that no grounds for impeachment have been stated in the articles. But the issue does not state a, point of order. Rather, the issue presented in the, point of order is a constitutional argument that must persuade the Congress. And therefore the Chair rules against the point of order. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, before going further, I should like to ask unanimous consent, that debate on any' amendment, to the substitute, including amendments in the nature of a motion to strike., be limited to a period not to exceed 40 minutes. to be divided equally between the proponents and opponents of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman is recognized. Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the chairman. I thank both the, distinguished gentlemen from California, for drawing the issues and the, 'problems before us in the skillful way they have done throughout this proceeding. Mr. Truman once said or asked people if they knew what it Was like to have a load of hay fall on them. and I think- this morning I know what he meant. All I can say is that sometimes -when You practice law you find that, the best cases do not come in through the most ideal clients. That is our problem today I apologize to my colleagues for the lateness with which they received my substitute, but I know all of them to be. distinguished and able attorneys and conversant with the facts and problems before us here. I should make. it, clear that the Hungate substitute is really a distillation of the thought of many members from many areas and many differing, political philosophies and the, input of many of the capable members of this committee, for which I only seek to be a catalyst. It would be rather difficult or impossible for me in 5 minutes to explain all the points that should be and will be considered and debated here. Various colleagues, I know. are knowledgeable on the various subparagraphs (1) through (5) and Will outline this in more detail in our debate I believe the, gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, touched some elements that are correct in that basically, as I see it, article I involves obstruction of justice, standards of conduct that may be criminal, and basically perhaps what we have today involves abuse of powers, and whether we shall say that you can be President as long as, you are not subject; to a criminal charge, whether that is the level of conduct we require, or whether we shall set a somewhat higher standard , and whether we shall set that standard so that we will realize that the, oath. of office of the Presidency means what it meant to Madison and the Founders be-fore the Constitution was even completed. Now, some -would believe that if we find any one of these five subparagraphs which support impeachment, and I think more would believe that a combination of one or more, or all of them. would Support impeachment because we do discuss and consider repeatedly violations in many cases repetitive conduct within the article and certainly repetitive conduct--I mean within the subparagraph and certainly repetitive conduct throughout the five articles. I would think that if only one instance of improper conduct. had I Occurred, and it perhaps could be quite, serious, I do not know that we would be here today. I think this sort. of impeachment proceeding was deliberately, set up historically so that those who are in political life. those who can understand some of the pressures and nuances involved in serving in public office try the President, a political figure and for my part, I think there, is more tolerance in such a political body than one would find in just a body without the experience, as I have said, of the pressures and difficulties in public life. I say again if only one violation had occurred. I would doubt we should be here. Men are, human. Humans are frail. But I think we discuss, consider, and see here a Consistent disregard of the law. To give all example, I think if a man is driving in his car and he crosses the center line, that is not grounds for a whole lot of punishment taking his license- or- thoroughly incarcerating him. But if he Crosses the center line 15 times every mile he drives or if he insists on straddling the center line all the time, then I think, we find action has to be taken. I thank the Chairman. [00.20.28]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.07] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Senate and Members of the House, I hope that we won't have to carry this on through all of theSe paragraphs, all nine, but, it seems as though this is what we have do to get some kind of a ruling on the law about which there should be no question. at the outset, of course, my objections to paragraph I is that it is indefinite, as is the preamble in the first paragraph. And it is reason, it is -not a legitimate Article of Impeachment. I may say at the outset, I had -wondered, after I had heard the nine witnesses before our committee on who the prosecutor would use as witness when this measure would ever get to the U.S. Senate, if it ever got there, and tonight I think I found out they apparently intend to use the gentleman from California, and using him as a witness is going to be about as legal as using the evidence that he is trying to make people believe tonight. Now, back to this particular item. So much as been said about the that the Special Prosecutor has in his job as compared to what we are doing here in our job. Now, this is an amazing set of circumstances. The Special Prosecutor is looking into exactly the same case, but, of course, his is a little different because crime is being charged there, and impeachment on our score. But, the Special Prosecutor, with a handfull of people and only a fraction of the time that we have consumed has been able to produce a theory of the case. The Special Prosecutor, in exactly the same case, has presented exact, precise articles of indictment. Now, why can we not do the same thing, with 105 employees, of which about half of those are lawyers? Why can we not do the same thing? It would be SO easy. Why are we arguing about all of this Everybody knows it is the only legitimate way to do this. It is a simple way. Reference to bill of particulars, reference to any other item is not, the same as making the original document specific, A simple parking ticket has to be specific. It has to say what you did that violated the law. It has got to have the license of your car it has got to have the date that you did it. You want to replace that and say, that does not have to apply to the President. Why, this is ridiculous , and this is an altogether new ball game. You can talk about all of the days and the months that we have been here, and St. Clair has been here, but that changes once you adopt one Article of Impeachment. That is a new ball game, because then it goes to the House of Representatives to decide whether or not a trial should be held in the Senate. And you know, I think the House of 'Representatives is entitled to a little bit of information. I think that it is altogether fitting and proper to tell them specifically what you are, going to prove. I do not think they should have to listen to their TV all night, and find out the next chapter of Mr. Waldie's summation. I do not think that is the way this case should be tried. You cannot, replace witnesses that you are unwilling to call, you cannot not replace him for Mr. Hunt that you did not want the public to hear. This is what the case is all about. Let us itemize this thing now. The House is going to go into a 10 debate, 435 people are, going to have something to say a-out this an they should not have to wait until the, same measure gets to the U.S. U.S. Senate, when Mr. St. Clair for the first time, according learned counsel, will have the right to ask for a bill of particulars. [00.32.25--here is a much better shot of John DOAR that shows Hillary RODHAM (CLINTON) seated behind DOAR] House of Representatives does not have to ask for a bill of particulars, they are entitled to the particulars from the first day one, you know it and I know it and let's do it. That is what we should be talking about now. Now, I would like to ask counsel this simple question. You have given some pretty good, wide-searching opinions tonight, especially on paragraph I where you have given your blanket endorsement to that paragraph, replete with generalities as being sufficient. I Will ask you one simple question. The Special Prosecutor is working on exactly the same case and, in fact, you want his evidence. You want his tapes. Would this be sufficient for the Special Prosecutor? Would it? Mr. DOAR. If this were, Mr. Sandman, if this were a conspiracy case, a criminal conspiracy case, in addition to the first paragraph there would be a requirement under the criminal law that one, overt act be done by one or more of the coconspirators pursuant to the agreement. But, the essence of a conspiracy case is an agreement. That is the essence of. a conspiracy case. And the essence of this case is the President's policy. And the essence of a conspiracy case is something is done in furtherance of the, conspiracy, in Mr. SANDMAN. IS. Pardon me. I am not trying to interrupt. I am not interested in the difference between conspiracy. We are both working on the, same case. I am talking about being specific. Is the language, according to your opinion, in paragraph 1, which you said is sufficietn for this case, is it -also sufficient for any kind of a case that the Special Prosecutor would bring? Mr. DOAR. Yes I believe it is. Mr. SANDMAN. Oh, this is sufficient for indictment? His is an indictment. Mr. DOAR. If one overt---- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. DOAR. If you allege one overt act. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman [00.34.38]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.58.12] Mr. SARBANES. Will the gentleman Yield'?, Mr. DENNIS. Wait. I would like to see what, Mr. Railsback--- Mr. RAILSBACK. My thrust I guess is to get. away from the language of "policy" and I think I have answered your question as far as my own beliefs about not inferring, criminal responsibility. I do not, think I can answer it any more clearly. I do not impute any kind of criminal responsibility, and I think that the President should only be charged with direct acts or knowledge I think there has to be some, kind of Presidential knowledge or Involvement. I just happen to think there IS. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman for his answer and reserve balance of my time. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine is recognized. Mr. COHEN. Perhaps I can add to Congressman Railsback's response having discussed this matter with him at some length. I believe the word plan was used in his substitute, because this is the, exact language that the President used. Referring to the transcripts of March 22, 1973, when there was a discussion between Mr. Mitchell and the President, you recall the words that "up to now our plan has been one of containment and then there Was an additional reference to the fact that "we are adopting a new plan," and that new plan was going to the use and implementation of executive privilege to be asserted for some of the aides going before the Senate select committee. Now, that was the reason I think that you incorporated the word Plan. I yield back. recognition The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins, are you seeking recognition? Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. May I be recognized? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions. which I will be directing to my colleague, Mr. Railsback, about his amendment, I have it before me, and it seems to say, omitting the parenthetical expression, that Richard -Nixon engaged personally in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and do other acts in connection with all obstruction of justice charge, Now I want to understand does the word designed as used in your amendment. Mr. Railsback, mean that the President intentionally and corruptly acted for the purposes of delaying, impeding and so forth? Is that your intent Mr. RAILSBACK. Will the gentleman yield Mr. WIGGINS. Of course. Mr. RAILSBACK. I think that, the design can relate to the course of conduct, or the word plan, and I think that it clearly means that the action. that he took willingly Mr. WIGGINS. And to carry on, knowing the purpose of his acts, that is to obstruct, delay, interfere, and impede with the due administration of justice/ Mr. RAILSBACK. If my friend will yield, the answer is yes. Mr. WIGGINS. All right. Then that evidence which may be before us which does not suggest that the motivating purpose of Presidential actions was to obstruct, delay, hinder, and impede and so forth would not be covered by the language of yours in this amendment, is that so, Mr. Railsback? Mr. RAILSBACK. Well, let me make myself clear on that. If you are, suggesting that the litany or the recital of events that was made by Mr. Waldie yesterday, which referred to many acts about which we have, no knowledge of direct Presidential direction or involvement, the answer again is yes. I do not, I do not think there is, frankly, a proper again place to be considering things other than that which relates to the President. We are talking about the impeachment of the President of ,the United States. We are not talking about criminal indictments returned, unless they happen to relate to his knowledge or to his direct involvement. Mr. WIGGINS. All right now, I think it would be a fair summary of the gentleman's position, and if I err you are right here to correct me, that you intend by this language to put on the managers in the Senate the burden of proving that the President personally acted to corrupt the due administration of justice by intentionally engaging in a plan or design, a course of conduct or a plan which was intentionally designed to obstruct justice. Now. is that a fair statement? Mr. RAILSBACK. What I Intend by the amendment is to suggest that Richard M. Nixon, if it can be shown in the Senate, and if he can be held to account in the Senate, that he used his power of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful and covert activities. In other words, the words speak for themselves. Mr. WIGGINS. I understand. You mean what you said. Well, I am running out of time. I want to clear up the question, however, of the conduct of his aides. In order to have this be, President's acts, you would require, I am sure, that at least the knowledge of the acts of his aides, or that, he instructed them with the requisite corrupt intent to obstruct justice, would you not? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Excuse me. Mr. RAILSBACK. I would answer the gentleman by saying that the language still speaks for itself. But, it is my belief that to hold Richard Nixon to account and to remove him from office--- [01.04.14--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[00.14.26] The CHAIRMAN. The time Of the gentleman has expired. All those--time in support of the amendment has all expired. There are remaining 4 minutes -for those in opposition to the amendment. I recognize Mr. Hogan for 4 minutes. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As our extremely articulate colleague from Texas, Ms. Jordan indicated, we are, not here debating the President's authority to tap phones, in national security matters nor are -we debating those areas where in criminal cases on a warrant phones may be tapped. My good friends on this side of the aisle are, if they will forgive me, engaged in a shell game. They are trying to put the emphasis on whether or not there is wiretap authority. What the issue is here is illegal wiretaps. Now, when the Time magazine story was about, to break, the President was involved in the--about the wiretaps program at the White House, the President was involved in the creation of a fabrication that there was no such program. Subsequently, he publicly acknowledged it and as late as July 12, 1974, in a letter to -the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee he states- "I personally directed the surveillance including the wiretapping of certain specific individuals." Now, my friends are talking about the Ellsberg leaks. I share their concern about that. I think it was reprehensible. One of the greatest tragedies in all of this is that because. of the misconduct of employees at the White House and the President, Ellsberg escaped prosecution for leaking, that, confidential information, and I abhor that as much as anyone on this side of the aisle. But there is absolutely no justification for some of the pure, the pure and simple illegalities involved this area of the law. The Secret Service has no authority, statutorily, to tap phones. They did at the direction of the White House, and obviously at the direction of the President tap the phone of his brother, with no statutory authority. The CIA was asked and sometimes they refused, sometimes they cooperated, in activities inside the United States. Their statutory authority specifically forbids them to be involved in any domestic activities. Directing the FBI to investigate Daniel Schorr because they did not like the kinds of things he was saying about the administration--another misuse of the President's power. When it was discovered they said he was being considered for a job. We had testimony here that that was a story which the President helped to fabricate. He at no, time was under any consideration for a job. NOW, let's look to some of the specific wiretaps. The Joseph Kraft wiretap. If it was a criminal case they needed a warrant. They had no -warrant. If it was a national security case, they needed the approval of the Attorney General. They had no approval from the Attorney General. He was not involved in publishing leaked materials. That pure and simple an effort, to get, information On a so-called White House enemy. It has been said many times about the former National Security Council employees who left their jobs and the wiretaps continued for a long time. There is only one thing I want to add to that. Indicative of what they had in mind here was that Henry Kissinger no longer got, those wiretap reports for the 8 additional months while they were working for Senator Muskie, They then went to Haldeman who was not concerned directly with the National Security Council. Now, another thing that disturbs me about this is that Alexander Haig directed the FBI on the highest authority not to maintain regular records of the wiretaps and not to treat them in the same fashion that other national security taps were treated by the FBI, and the Joseph Kraft's tap went into that category. So there were no records of the FBI so that when the Department of Justice was asked in the Ellsberg case if they had ever overheard him in any conversations the Justice Department directed the FBI- to check their files, they came back. and said no, there is no evidence of any indication of wiretaps because the records were all at the White House. As I indicated this morning, they were personally delivered to the Oval Office by Mardian, direct Presidential involvement. I wish I had another hour,. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time, has expired. And the question now occurs on the amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying Aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed. [chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it. The gentleman from New Jersey ? Mr. SANDMAN. I demand the yeas and nays The CHAIRMAN.. The gentleman demands a call of the roll and the yeas and nays are ordered. All those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. All those opposed, no. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE NO. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier. MR. KASTENMEIER. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. No. The, CLERK. Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg. Mr. EILBERG. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. NO. The CLERK. 'Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. SARBANES. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. No. The CLERK. Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. No. THE CLERK. Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. NO. The CLERK. Ms. Jordan. Ms. JORDAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. -NO. The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman. MS. HOLTZMAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. No. AL The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinsky. MEZVINSKY. -NO. The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Aye The CLERK. Mr. McCLORY. . Mr. McCLORY. -No. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. No. The, CLERK. Butler. Mr. Mr. BUTLER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. No. The CLERK. MR. Moorhead. Mr. MOORHEAD. Ave. The CLERK. Maraziti. Mr. MARAZITI. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Rodino. The CHAIRMAN. NO. [01.21.44]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.31.32] Mr. WIGGINS. Well, we now know as a result of the splendid contribution of friend from Ohio that, the President did not, learn of these activities with respect to Dr. Fielding for nearly 18 months after they happened. It is the first time he learned about it. And now the question IS should he be impeached. should he be impeached because be, took improper act, upon learning of that activity. The President, without question, ladies and gentlemen regarded The Pentagon Papers matter as a national security issue. It is idle to talk about whether a conviction is proper under the Espionage Acts, those acts, as my colleagues at the desk know, involving a foreign power. It was not the motive of Dr. Ellsberg, ladies and gentlemen, it was the fact of the disclosure. Whatever his motive that prejudiced the United States of America. And the President's actions were prompted by reason of the fact of the disclosure rather than any subjective motive of Dr. Ellsberg to aid a foreign power, a fact which 'Would be very important in a prosecution under the Espionage Acts. That is the issue. That Is the issue, whether or not after the 17th of March 1973, when the President learned of an act which happened about a year and one-half prior to that, whether he acted prudently given his state of knowledge and belief -.it that time. And I am telling you that the weight of the evidence, the overwhelming weight of evidence is that Richard Nixon believed the Pentagon Papers Was a national security issue, and his actions after learning of 1973 were wholly consistent with that belief on his part. Now, if a majority of the committee really believes that a President of the United States should be impeached because of his honest good faith belief that the security of this Nation is in jeopardy, that decisive and bold action is required on his part, then so be it. But, ladies and gentlemen, you live with that judgment. History is going to judge you ill if You make that judgment. This is not a proper to grounds to impeach the President of the United States. I will yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, for 3 minutes. Mr. SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very important for the members of this committee and the American people to appreciate exactly what the Plumbers did in the Fielding break-in. The Plumbers broke into Dr. Fielding's office. Dr Fielding was not under suspicion. They -went into his office in order to get his files on one of his patients. And I ask every doctor and lawyer and every insurance agent and accountant in the country what kind of a land would you be living in if a group of hired hands have the, power to come into your office in the dead of night in order to get one of your files? If the purpose was legitimate, why did they not obtain those files in a lawful manner? And the answer is of course, that the purpose was not legitimate. Who were the Plumbers? They were a band of hired hands. They were not law enforcement officials. Why was not the FBI brought into this matter if it were a legitimate matter for governmental actions? Because the Plumbers were doing absolutely illegal things that the FBI refused to do and that goes back to the Huston plan of the previous Year, when this staff person, Huston put forward to the President and had approved, a plan that involved surreptitious entry. His report stated "the activity involves illegal entry [00.35.44-00.35.55--no video] and trespass" and the FBI added a footnote to that report and said "The FBI is opposed to surreptitious entry." That same Huston report provided for covert coverage, and the FBI added a footnote and said "The FBI is Opposed to implementing any covert mail coverage because it is clearly illegal." They could not use the FBI because the FBI was not prepared to do these illegal things. Let us look at one other thing. From whence did the Plumbers get their money? Where did the money come from in order to do this operation? Ladies and gentlemen, it came from a private source, Mr. Baroody, a PR man here in Washington, a close friend of Mr. Colson's who states in an affidavit that in the" latter part of August or the early part of September "Mr. Colson telephoned me and told me that the White House had in urgent need for $5,000." So, he took $5,000 over to Colson's office and was told to go down to another office and give it to the fellow that he would find There. That fellow was Egil Krogh, the head of the Plumbers unit, So, Baroody goes down there with his $5,000 in cash and gives it to Krogh. Krogh was questioned before. the grand jury as follows: Question: Did You look in there to see what it was? Answer: I looked in the envelope to see this was money inside of it--It was in the form of -cash. Question: Had you stated to Mr. Colson 'anything about the form in which you wanted the funds, whether it should be in cash or not? Answer, I believe I specified cash. Question. Why did You specify cash? Answer. I believe because it was felt that there shouldn't be any way to trace the money that was to be used. The CHAIRMAN. The 3 minutes of the gentleman has expired. [00.37.31]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Our task during these hearings has been made easier because we have had the benefit of the views of the President's attorney on the sufficiency and meaning of the evidence., and we have, had a partial proffer of the President's defense in evidence, by Mr. St. Clair, and legal argument both by Mr. St. Clair and by Mr. Garrison, the acting minority counsel to the committee, and this assistance has been very helpful. However, much of the relevant evidence has been wrongfully and unconstitutionally withheld from this committee by the President preventing us from making a judgment on all the facts. To a very great extent, the. President has chosen the evidence that we have seen. We thus can assume, for purposes of this decision, that all of the evidence which is favorable to the President is now before us. We can also reasonably infer, as any civil court would instruct its jury that, the additional evidence we have sought has been denied, because it is detrimental to the President's case. Fellow members of this committee, on the basis of all the evidence before us, I am now persuaded that, the President has knowingly engaged in three types of conduct which constitute impeachable offenses Under the, requirements of the Constitution and that he should now call called to account before the U.S. Senate. First, I find the evidence convincing that the President know and willfully directed and participated in a coverup of the Watergate break-in. There is clear proof that the President personally agreed the distribution of funds, the offering of clemency to, and the coaching Of Persons involved in the Watergate break-in, in an attempt to secure their silence or influence, their sworn testimony; that the, President knew that perjury had been committed in furtherance of the coverup and that the President personally withheld from law enforcement officials, evidence needed to solve crimes all across the spectrum of offenses known broadly as the Watergate affair. When I hear members Of the committee say there is no direct evidence connecting President with these crimes, I wonder whether we have attended the same presentations. Second, the, President has undermined the presidency by seriously abusing the powers of his office for political profit. This includes the President's misuse of the FBI, for wiretaps and other acts, the misuse of the Justice Department, the IRS, the CIA, and other Federal agencies, well as permitting the substantive violation by his subordinates of the rights & civil liberties of many individuals. Third, the President refusal to respond to our legal subpenas constitutes an obstruction of the constitutional impeachment process Which, in my view, is an extremely grave offense.