Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. HOGAN.....to give a summary of the kinds of arguments which support the various paragraphs in the article. We are not presenting the evidence. I will vote against the amendment of the gentleman from California, but I do hope that some of our draftsmen who are supporting article II will jot some additional specifics and offer some additional amendments so we can clarify the objection raised by the gentleman from California. Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from Maine. Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to follow up on the line of reasoning of Mr. Hogan and inquire of the gentleman who drafted this article as to whether or not he was prepared, as we have been prepared in the past, to list a number, of specific instances to -which you are referring, in addition to the break-in into Dr. Fielding's office. I think that of particular concern, might be the matter that Mr. Hogan mentioned just prior to the break and that was the activities involving the transfer of FBI -records to' the Oval Office at the direction of the President. Could the gentleman from Missouri help us out in that regard as to whether or not be would be in a position to delineate some of the specific items upon which he intends to rely upon for the proof of this case? Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri if he wants to respond. Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The language of 4, if you refer to the first few lines of that, when you talk of concerning other matters he has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by falling to act, when he knew or had reason to know his close subordinates, et cetera. Now, -we are talking of situations of which he should know or should have reason to know, and as we have said earlier, the doctrine of impeachment cannot really be very narrowly confined. It is as broad as the king's imagination. It has to be. If I can define it closely enough, there will be somebody to figure a way around it. Take the Kleindienst situation. The testimony, the evidence before the committee, as I recall it and would state it is that Mr. Kleindienst received what we would I guess call a chewing out from the President, in rather plain and forceful, clear language, and concerning a specific matter. And then when he was before the Senate committee they were asked if anybody had approached him concerning the matter, ITT, as I recall. and he in effect. said -"well, he might have casually mentioned it". Well, I am telling you that the chewing out that, he, got was such that you would remember it no matter who gave it to you, and certainly if it came from the President he would remember. Now, we still find him, the President after this date, going before the American people and saying when he knew that this testimony had been given, and when he had reason or knew, or had reason to know that the testimony was, not true, and upholding the testimony of Mr. Kleindienst in that situation. Now, there are other examples. I am told in the Jaworski consideration in the false Diem cables, these are, the sort of things that would be, covered here. I yield back the time. Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman from Illinois yield? The CHAIRMAN. How much time, has expired? Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. DENNIS. I thought you had some time. That's all. The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman please defer. There are 7 minutes that have been consumed in opposition and 4 in support. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and the reason I do is because We were specific in our allegation in the first portion of that paragraph, where we limited the failure to faithfully execute the. laws into the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Now, I happen to believe that the matter of Mr. Kleindienst and the antitrust case might well fall within the provisions of the general allegation of paragraph (4), but we alleged specifically the break-in of the, Democratic National Committee, and we throw in just absolutely, as an afterthought those last four words, and concerning other matters." And I am not at all--I do not at all concur in what I have thought to be the objective of my friend from California, Mr. Wiggins, to limit and narrow this inquiry so precisely that the -proof that could be produced would be almost prohibitive in our ability to produce it. But, in this instance I think we have strayed so far into generalities that we would be well advised to adopt his amendment and we would in so doing, in my judgment, do no violence to our standards of fairness, and do no violence to our obligation to have an opportunity to consider and introduce all proof necessary that bears upon impeachable offenses of the President. So I support the gentleman from California. Mr. SARBANES. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WALDIE. I will be happy to yield. t[00.07.39]
US House Ways and Means Committee - Pre-Conference on Spending
US House Ways and Means Committee - Pre-Conference on Spending; United States Congressional hearing room. Predominately adult Caucasian men conversing and walking around; Congressmen, staff members, and press; some Caucasian women, one African American man. US Representative Sam Gibbons (D-FL) walking, stops to talk to Representative Barber Conable (R- NY), Chairman Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) in BG. Crowd in Congressional chamber including Adult Caucasian male press photographer and cameraman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.48.25] Mr, RANGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding because the author of the motion to strike gives me a little problem in that he never directed himself as to whether or not he is saying that the President did not give false and misleading statements. I don't know whehter the motion to strike is merely a parliamentary maneuver but if it is a question that the gentleman has as to which authorized officers, employees, of the United States that the President lied to, then we are prepared to tell you the names and the dates of what Federal officials the President lied to. If you are having a problem with the language as to whether it was a Capitol policeman or whether it was someone that worked in the Printing Office, if it is a language problem you have. then I can understand why you raise the motion to strike. But if you are talking about the Attorney General, the Acting Attorney General, if You are talking about anybody that was involved, Silbert's office, if you are talking about grand jury testimony, if you are talking about anything to prevent his close associates from getting indicted, then the President lied, and we can only refer to the President's statements as to what he Said. What he said to Mr. Haldeman, to tell him that everybody that Dean said was not involved, he said, say they are not involved, I mean, if they were involved. He said lie and tell them something different. So that if the motion to strike is just to take time, then, of course, I can understand the gentleman from New Jersey's dilemma. It is a bad night. If, on the other hand if on the other hand the gentleman really Wants to find the names of the people that the President lied to, counsel can give you the names and then we can move on to your next motion to strike. Mr. SANDMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. RANGEL. It is not my time. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, whose ever time it is. Mr. CONYERS. I have the time. I have the time and I would like to say it is very, very -clear to us that there are two views. They have been thoroughly debated. Some of us would like to keep our pleadings consistent with the 20th century. Others of us would prefer them for reasons real or imagined, to keep them back into the Johnson impeachment. Mr. SANDMAN. Will the, gentleman from Michigan yield so I can answer the gentleman from -New York? Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman. Mr. SANDMAN. It is going to be very short really. I objected because I had to object because I have never been permitted under the procedures that we are following to get Some kind of a ruling as to what the law is here. I submit and it is undisputed to me and I don't care what anybody else says. the thing here is very clear. It should be specific. Now, you have all this information that you can give to people. Why can't you at least give simple sentences that are concise. Mr. CONYERS. Well, I 'IM not--- Mr. SANDMAN. And do it right. Mr. CONYERS. I am not going to yield any further to the gentleman. Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman? Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Don. Mr. DONOHUE. Order Mr. Chairman., The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, and I believe that it is in order at this time to state that the view of one member does not express what is actually the law or the policy of this committee, the House of Representatives Mr. WIGGINS. Including the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I would hope that the members would recognize that the Chair presides and the Chair is attempting to be fair in recognizing each member and at such time as the Chair recognizes those members, I think that those members should speak out. Until then I would hope that. we. could keep order and we would be true to the trust that, we, have and I don't mean to lecture in any way but I think that this is serious enough that indulging in parliamentary maneuvers to delay a decision on this very important question only I think serves to tell the people that, we ,Ire afraid to meet the issue. And I would hope that we, do have as we, said we have the courage of our convictions. And to the gentleman from New Jersey directly, Mr. Sandman. I would state, that while Mr. Doar may not have expressly stated what the policy is in setting" forward specifications I don't believe that the, gentleman at this time is prepared to state that he is, going to say what the Constitution is when the Constitution for so many years has spoken clearly and the, precedents have spoken clearly on the matter of what is established Policy. And I think that if we get on with the business of the day and-- whereas there have been questions raised as to what the facts are, remain on this side and on the side of the minority who are prepared to speak to the facts. And I think that is what we ought to be doing. [00.53.58]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.30.54] Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the parliamentary scenario we see today whereby all those who were against specificity yesterday want to recite it today, albeit not put it in the charges, is kind of interesting, but, aside -from that it is sort of refreshing to talk a little bit about the facts. I listened carefully to my good friend from Maine , Mr. Cohen, and he says, for instance, by June 19, Ehrlichman had learned that Liddy -was involved. Did Ehrlichman tell the. President he had learned it? There is no evidence he ever did. Did Liddy tell the President? Certainly not. The gentleman says Mitchell had learned something. Did Mitchell tell the President what he had learned? No evidence of it whatsoever at that time. You do not get anything involving the President in the gentleman's recital until pretty far down the line. Now, the first thing you get about the President is the statement that he made on a dictabelt that McCord said he was sorry he, had not disciplined his men better. Is that news? McCord was one of his men and McCord was in jail. Mr. COHEN. Will the gentleman----- Mr. DENNIS. No; I will not yield. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Mitchell. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Mitchell Mr'. COHEN. Mr. Mitchell. Mr. DENNIS. Mitchell--McCord was Mitchell's man. Mitchell knew McCord was arrested. He did not have to reveal anything that was not in the newspapers. And he said he was sorry he had not disiplined the people. For all we know, he may have been talking about McCord. There is no significance to that at all. Now. you talk about Dean. You talk about Kalmbach. You talk. about Mitchell. You talk about Ehrlichman. Where do you get the, President? Let me ask you a question. Who had a motive, to cover anything up when this happened? There is not any evidence at all that the President, knew anything about this Watergate break-in ahead of time. I think we are all pretty well agree on that. Now, it happened, Who has a motive to cover it up? The worst, thing that can happen to the President is to lose an election which by that time he, knew he could not lose no matter what he did because you gentlemen Over there were going to hand it to him by McGovern being obviously the successful candidate by that time. So he did not need to worry about that. But Ehrlichman had something to worry about because he was in- involved in the Plumbers and he was involved in the Fielding break-in, and he knew if you started to look into Watergate break-in you found out that. these boys had been in the Plumbers and that they had been out in California, were likely to get back to him. Mitchell had something to worry about because he had known about the surveillance plans for the, Democratic Committee and according to some of the evidence, had OK'd it ahead of time.. Haldeman did not have quite as much, but he, too, had something to", worry about because he had had these political reports and he had $350,000 there to play with. And he had some things to be concerned, about. But at that point the President really has nothing. So should he be bothered to cover up? All right. You go down the line a little bit further. The President learns nothing until March 21 or maybe a little bit on March 13. Now, it says he is talking to Petersen and he does not tell him what he learned on March 21. Well, from April 6 on, the President and Petersen both knew that Dean is, singing like a canary to the U.S. attorney. This was understood between them, that he was the state's evidence. They were talking back and forth. Petersen says don't fire him yet because I need this fellow. I may want to give him immunity. And so on and so forth. So there, was not any need for the President to tell Petersen anything about what Dean was saying. At that time, the U.S. attorney was getting everything Dean was saying. If you start talking about the facts, if you start pleading the facts, you cannot, hold any--very much intendment against the President except by taking the worst possible construction on everything that happens, when the law is that he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, And that is probably one of the reasons why we have not had specificity, and remember, by April 30, all these wrongdoers are cleaned out of the White House gone. and they have been prosecuted and they are in jail, some of them. and everybody goes up to the Senate and testifies, and so forth and so on. and I am real glad to begin to see, even if we cannot have it put in the, charge like any decent charge would, what we are going to be talking about on this on the floor and on down the line, and in the Senate if You ever get it there, because the more you analyze it. the more you are going to find out, how weak this case is on the facts. [00.36.15]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.07.29] Mr. BROOKS. I would be delighted. my distinguished friend. In May of 1973, the GSA somewhat reluctantly, under pressure from the press. said that. they had spent about $39,000 on those properties. on certain parts of it that they asked about, Then in June of that same year they found that they had spent $1.9 million. And a little bit later, by August of that same year, 1973, last year they got the number up to $3,700,000. And then a little later there was considerable pressure. and we announced hearings in another congressional committee and when it became obvious that a hearing was to be held then the White House announced that all agencies totaled about $10 million expenditures at Key Biscayne and San Clemente . Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. And when the hearing was over, it, was $17 million. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield? That expression has to be corrected. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 23 minutes remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. I Yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California, Mr. WIGGINS. Well, in fairness Mr. Brooks. you should indicate that the numbers that you mentioned, the $17 million, were not improvements On the President's property, but included that entire military office complex at San Clemente. Now, is that not a fact? Mr. BROOKS. Would the gentleman allow me to respond? Mr. WIGGINS. Well, Well, I know the answer. If you would affirm it then we can move on to the gentleman's time. That, is the correct state of affairs. Mr. BROOKS. I wish you would give them the, breakdown on it. it would be helpful. Mr. WIGGINS. You know you are not talking about the President's property. That property is owned by the Coast Guard out there. I yield back to this gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The 30 seconds of the gentleman have expired. Mr. MAYNE. May I proceed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, 'Mr. Chairman. I think I would set a higher standard even than the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling. It seems to me ladies and gentleman, that a President has a very high obligation to set a good example to the American people in carrying Out his personal as well as his public responsibilities and that is especially true of the way in which he claims deductions and declares income On his Federal income tax returns. Regrettably to Me this President has set us a very sorry example in the way that he has performed this basic obligation of American citizenship. Even if it Were technically legal, I think it was highly questionable for him to claim such huge deductions for his personal papers. And for that, matter. it, was a very grave mistake by this Congress of the United States for it to ever authorize such a, deduction in the first place. I was not in the Congress when that action was taken, that, law was passed, but I was here in time to vote for its repeal in 1969. 1 think we have to accept the fact though that this provision was not law and the President tax adviser did advise him to take, advantage of it. I wish they had not and I certainly wish he. had not taken the advice. But. much as I deplore the way in which his tax affairs were handled, the, question remains did he commit criminal fraud in Connection with his taxes after listening to the evidence very carefully, and it, is my considered judgment that proof of criminal fraud is certainly insufficient in this case. And I was particularly impressed by the testimony of One of the few witnesses who was permitted to appear and testify before our committee, in person. That was Herbert Kalmbach testify who related how he, was present when the first, tax return in which this deduction was claimed was read to the President. by, his tax attorney. Mr. DeMarco And 'Mr. DeMarco went, through the return page, by page. They said it took about 10 minutes and then Mr. DeMarco did assure the President that this was a legitimate and valid tax deduction, not only for that year but for 4 or 5 years in the future. So the evidence does indicate that the President, like many Americans, relied on the advice of his tax advisers. Now, even if criminal fraud had been proved, and I think quite clearly it is not, then -we would still have the question whether it is a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the Constitution, because that is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen, to determine whether the President should be impeached, not to comb through every minute detail of his personal taxes for the past 6 years, raking up every possible minutia which could prejudice the President on national television. I certainly do not believe that Madison and the. Framers of the Constitution had in mind any such recital as we are hearing here tonight. They did not want the President, to be removable simply because he did not enjoy the support and confidence of a majority in the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.13.43]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.24.52] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Father Drinan, is recognized for 6 minutes and 15 seconds. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let's see first -what this document or article does not do. This document takes no position whatsoever on the merits of the, -war in Indochina. We are not asking hawks and doves to vote along that line today. This resolution makes provision for those who feel as others do who have spoken here. If they feel that the bombing in Cambodia save American lives, they can continue -with that conviction and still vote for this resolution today. This resolution relates in its essence to secrecy, secrecy in the executive branch of government. General Wheeler testified on July 30, 1973, that the President personally ordered him not to disclose the bombing of, Cambodia and I quote General Wheeler: "To any member of Congress." This article is very marrow. This article means that we don't want a president authorizing or ratifying- the concealment in the Congress of the. facts about it certain situation concerning which the Congress must act. The Founding, Fathers I think we should note made a provision in Article I that the Congress itself must publish a journal except in a narrow exception the journal could be secret if the Congress decided. There is no provision for secrecy in the executive branch of government whatsoever in the Constitution. The. whole, history of secrecy in government was the very thing that the Framers of our Constitution wanted to undo. Secrecy means that we in the, Congress don't get the essential information that we need in order to legislate. In the area Of war. Madison said that the war-declaring power in Congress must include everything necessary to make that power effective. The administration deceived the Congress over 4 years for this reason, that there is absolutely no request from March 1969 to August 1973 by the administration for appropriations for the war in Cambodia; $145 million was spent. Is that wrong? Can you say that this is all one, war? NO communication to the Congress Even if, and this is, in dispute, somewhere it was told on a secret basis to four or five, people in the Congress, that we have something going in Cambodia. The members of this very House were deceived because, as Senator Symington said" "We authorized $140 million not for war in Cambodia but for war in Vietnam.- At least now the Congress has a right to know. And here are some of the questions that the Pentagon refused to testify to at the hearings a year ago in the Senate. Who authorized the falsifications of documents? What reason is there now long after the war has ended for the continuation of the secrecy in this matter? Falsification of military documents appears to be it clear violation of article 107 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Melvin Laird himself in 1973--was Secretary of Defense in 1970 when these things occurred, and in 1973 he denied knowledge of it. Furthermore, why did the military feel that they could not trust their own highly classified reporting system? All B-52 strikes are carefully coordinated with special photo-intelligence and this was done outside of that ordinary system for one reason, that the Congress has not been told. To repeat, I think this is a very- narrow article. It does not really involve what Prince Sihanouk thought whether be acquiesced or did not. It does not involve our assessment of the Indochina war. All it says is that secrecy in Government without justification or excuse can in this instance be an impeachable offense. Even the acquiescence of the Congress in some Of the things that you have heard today is immaterial. The President himself told General Wheeler not once but, as General Wheeler said, Six times that no one shall ever hear of this bombing in Cambodia. Mr. Jerry Friedheim the spokesman for the Pentagon, said these sad words. He spoke of the falsification of documents. he spoke of the erroneous information that, he transmitted to the Congress And he said just a year ago, "I knew at the time it was wrong and I'm sorry." Did the, President ever reprimand any of those who deceived the Congress? No; he ratified their conduct. And those who Vote against this article will be saying, in effect, that the President, our next President can deceive the Congress, can have secrecy in the executive branch, can try to Justify it by saying that we didn't want to embarrass Some foreign prince, but that goes to the very heart of what the separation of powers is all about.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.04.03] Mr. HOGAN..... And for several months -we have had a chronicle of all of the illegalities and crimes that they have committed under that assumption. Now, obviously both of those groups of people were wrong. Both should be held accountable for the violations of the law. Now, what -we are debating today is whether or not, the President of the United States lived up to his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and the, duties of his office. And we have talked a lot about this all day. And I would like, to read for you verbatim the oath that every President of the United States is required to take under article II of the Constitution. The President must state and swear, quote: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." What -we have been debating today is whether or not he has lived up to that. The British House of Commons impeached the Earl of Suffolk for high crimes and misdemeanors, 600 years ago, and that is the first reference in all of history to this term which has become so familiar, If not fully comprehensible to all of us on this committee. The wrongdoing against which the crimes and misdemeanors charge was made at that time involved some form of corruption of office or misuse of office, offenses which inflicted some great injury on the state. Now, based as it was on hundreds of years of British precedent, our Founding Fathers who established this country used the same term, "high crimes and misdemeanors," clearly intending not as a catch-all phrase with which to threaten Presidents and confound lawyers and scholars and members of Judiciary Committees, but as a broad, widely recognized standard of impeachable conduct. The abuse of power by those in high office, then, constituted what was essentially the first impeachable offense, and what is still today the touchstone of our debate. Now, as the consistent abuse of power holds greater danger for the republic than does a single criminal act, it is a much more serious offense and a far more serious charge than the one that this committee has already approved. Now, has the President faithfully executed the Code. Title 18, section I of the United States Code says, quote: "Whoever, haying knowledge of the actual commission of a felony recognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or some other person in civil or military authority in the United States may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than 3 years or both." That is under misprision of felony. I submit that our record is complete with a whole litany of repeated offenses of this particular statute. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be very brief. I listened with much interest to my dear friend, and he is my dear friend, from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. And I find that I agree with almost everything he said except the way he put some of the things together. And I cannot quite do it that way for myself, although I do not say that he should not have the right to look at it the way he does, and I respect him, and he knows I respect him. And we will be together on something else maybe later this week or next week. But, you know, Mr. Chairman, I think that this article of impeachment is perhaps more important than article I, as some others have said, As I see it, article I could even perhaps be included as a subparagraph or a subheading under this article IT. There are some things here in this article that I do not feel as strongly about as I do others, but overall I believe it to be a strong case made out by article II. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and if this President failed to assert that affirmative duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, if he has failed to resist even the transgressions of these laws before his eyes and ears. If he has violated the so-called sensitive agencies of our Government, and I believe he has, and these sensitive agencies are both necessary and useful, but also precarious in our system, then this President has abused his public trust and he ought to be impeached. With the same reluctance and with the same sorrow and regret that was mine on Saturday, Mr. Chairman, I find that I must also support this article of impeachment. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. I am not seeking recognition at this time, Mr. Chairman. [01.09.53]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
[00.02.00] Mr. FISH. .....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. Timing-do not react to Ellsberg Case. Don't think in terms of spies." July 6, 1971. The President, the Attorney General, Haldeman, Ehrlichman. Note No. 11. The President is saying this, "Put a non-legal team on the conspiracy." That is--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's 4 minutes has expired, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 4 minutes. s[00.06.21]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.10.45] Mr. BUTLER. I thank- the gentleman from Maine. I just would take A moment, but I feel like we ought to complete what was said by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks, with reference to the O'Brien investigation, and point out that there is among the evidence -which Was brought to our attention the affidavit of Mr. Thompson with reference to the conversation -with Mr. Fred Buzhardt on behalf of the White House in which he advised on September 15, 1972, Dean reported on the IRS investigation of Larry O'Brien. There Would be some questions in my mind under this amendment as to whether that would, in fact be relevant and admissible, but under the proposed amendment, substitute by Mr. Hungate, I am quite satisfied that it -would. In my judgment, the proposal by Mr. Wiggins expressly excludes the opportunity for ratification and evidence of ratification. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield on that? Mr. BUTLER. And I think that is very significant. "The time is not mine,. Mr. WIGGINS. Would someone yield? Mr. COHEN. I would yield to the gentleman. Mr. WIGGINS. It is not my intention as the maker of the' motion to exclude the concept of ratification. That is not my intention. My words were, only intended to convey to the gentleman that I did not accept the view that the facts constituted a ratification, but that, the issue of ratification is still before us in terms of my language. Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. HOGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I agree with my colleagues who say that we cannot, impeach the President for the wrongdoing of his aides. I have said so myself. I think there is a very, strong case of personal culpability on his part, as Mr. Cohen has indicated, and there are a number of them and in the short time, remaining I will try to hit some of them myself. We have his words on record, but one of the strongest things of personal involvement to me is when the Department of Justice files briefs in the Ellsberg case and says that there is no record of any wiretaps or any overheard conversations of Ellsberg. The reason they filed those briefs is because it -was not in the files of the FBI. And why 'was it not in the files of the FBI? Because the Assistant Attorney General, Mardian, flew to San Clemente and personally discussed the matter with the President, not his aides, personally with the President and he said what shall I do with these records, and the President said deliver them all to the White House, And Mr. Mardian testified that he delivered them to the Oval Office. When he was asked, well, to whom did you deliver them, he said, I would rather not say. Well, who sits in the Oval Office except the President? They were then given to Ehrlichman and Ehrlichman kept them in his files outside of the records of the Department of Justice. This is one of the reasons the Ellsberg case was dismissed, which I think was a calamity. In February 1973, when Time magazine came out with a story about a White House wiretap program, the President personally approved the cover story, as he did in the Daniel Schorr case, and there was no such wiretap program. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. HOGAN. May I have another 30 seconds with unanimous consent? the CHAIRMAN. Well, there, are 3 minutes remaining in support, or in opposition to the amendment. Mr. HOGAN. Could I be recognized for one of those, 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be recognized. Mr. HOGAN. He denied the existence of the wiretap program when with Time Magazine came out with the story. That is in February 1973. In May 1973, he publicly states that he, the President, personally had authorized and directed the electronic surveillance of 17 persons. A number of these wiretaps were blatantly illegal. There, was no justification for them whatsoever under criminal or domestic security bases. And is it reasonable for reasonable and prudent men to conclude that White House aides would tap the phone of the President's own brother without his approval in advance? I think there is ample material linking impeachable offenses directly to the President, not to his aides. Directly to him. I agree we should do that, and I think we have done so. The CHAIRMAN. The 1 minute of the gentleman has expired. There are 5 minutes remaining to those in support of the amendment and 2 minutes remaining to those in opposition to the amendment. And I think the Chair will, unless there are those who wish to be, recognized at, this time for the short 2 minutes, otherwise, there, is a rollcall vote, and the vote Is on the conference report, Of Military procurement authorization, and the Chair will defer calling on any member On either side, until we have returned from the rollcall vote at 2:30 p.m. We will recess until 2:30 p.m.. [01.15.35]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.23.35] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak against this article. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has I minute and 15 seconds. Mr. WALDIE. I speak against this article because of my theory that the impeachment process is a process designed to redefine Presidential powers in cases where there has been enormous abuse of those powers and then. to limit the powers as a concluding result of the impeachment process. And though I find the conduct of the President in these, instances to have been shabby, to have been unacceptable, and to have been disgraceful even, I do not find a Presidential power that has been so grossly abused that it deserves redefinition and limiting. if there has been any abuse of a Presidential power it has been that the President may have utilized his office to -cower the Internal Revenue Service from conducting a complete and thorough investigation. That has not been alleged. If that had been the case, that should have been included within article II of yesterday's action on this committee, when we were dealing -with the failure of the. President to faithfully execute the law. I do find then, that, this is not an abuse of power sufficient to warrant impeachment and thereby a redefinition and a limitation of that power, and I hope the article will be rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Michigan has 15 minutes remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. How much. time has the gentleman from--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 11 minutes remaining. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, 1 yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia , Mr. Butler. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Butler is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I believe Mr. Nixon did knowingly underpay his taxes in the 4 years in question by taking unauthorized deductions, and that he knowingly ordered or caused to be ordered improvements on his properties in Florida and California at Government expense. These are offenses against the people and I think the Government should pursue its remedies. But you don't impeach for every offense, nor, on the other hand, do you excuse any offense by saying others did it. But whether to impeach or not is a question of judgment permitted to each of the members. Is it sufficient? Is it that serious? And on the evidence available, these offenses do not rise, in my opinion, to the level of impeachability. It is not, sufficient to the standards I set. I promised the people in Utah when I sat down to impeachment, that I 'would impeach only if there were hard evidence and which was sufficient to support conviction in the Senate, and I found it in four instances and I do not find it in this sixth, to -which I feel I must apply the same remedy. At least twice in the past, once at the first presentation of evidence and once as recently as 2 weeks ago, I asked the staff to obtain the sworn testimony of the President's attorneys and the appraiser and others, They were unable to got it, as I understand, because of the expressed wishes of the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski and so we are here having to decide this issue without any hard evidence which will sustain tying the President to the fraudulent deed or which will support, in my opinion, the inference and close the inferential gap that has to be closed in order to charge the President. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 2 minutes. Mr. OWENS. [continuing]. With an impeachment impeachable offense and based on that evidence, I urge my colleagues to--based on that lack of evidence, I urge my colleagues to reject this article. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. THORNTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is apparent that in this area there has been a breach of faith with the American people with regard to incorrect income tax returns and the improper expenditure of public funds, But it is my view that these charges may be reached in due course. in. the regular process of law. This committee is not, a tax court nor criminal court nor should it endeavor to become one. Our charge is serious and full enough, In determining whether- high crimes and misdemeanors affecting the security of our system of Government must be brought to the attention of the full House, debated there, and if found to exist, presented to the Senate. And to my view. by so doing and by bringing those serious charges to the, attention of the House which we have already brought we are doing our part to ensure that this system of justice--which Will enable all men to receive equal treatment before the law--will continue and can be applied in these instances which have been described to us tonight. [01.28.57]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.22.24] The gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. I have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk -will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Wiggins. In the Hungate substitute, strike from subparagraph 4 the words "and concerning other matters." The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this raises once again the question which was debated at some length concerning specificity. I call your attention to the wording of subparagraph 4. It Charges the President With failing to take care that the laws, were faithfully executed by failing, to act in two respects. One, with respect to the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and two, with respect to other matters. It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that this pushes beyond all reason the desire, apparent desire on the. part of the majority to not specify With Particularity that conduct which they condemn. I can think of more vague nor uncertain than the language "concerning other matters. If we start from the premise required by the Constitution that a defendant in any proceeding and especially in these is entitled to reasonable notice of the nature of the charges against him, then I ask You. what notice is afforded by the charge that he failed to act concerning other matters? We should have extended debates on this. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the author of the substitute would state with particularity the other matters if he wished to rely upon them, but failing that, It seems to me appropriate as a matter of law and certainly as a matter of the good sense of this committee to strike the vague and uncertain language now contained in subparagraph (4) that the President failed to act with respect to other matters. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed I minute and a half. There will be 18 1/2 minutes---- Mr. WIGGINS. Under the, rule I take it I may yield ,it this point- but I cannot reserve my time. is that correct The CHAIRMAN. You can yield at this time but there are still 18 1/2 minutes remaining for those in support. Mr. FLOWERS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. Of course I will if it is in support of the amendment. Mr. FLOWERS. I Support your amendment. I think this is-- Mr. WIGGINS. I will be happy to yield. Mr. FLOWERS. This is material that perhaps, I hope, escaped the drafter of it and can be stricken from it. That 'is about all I have to say. I support your amendment. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate the, gentleman's support. I am prepared to yield to my friend from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. Really, this matter does not need much debate. I don't believe, because it, is so obvious and plain that under any theory of the law, modern, ancient or whatever you want to call it, you are entitled to know a little something about what you are charged with and as a matter of fact there is a certain amount of specificity in this article as it, is drawn and we have been given some justifications for article II up here which are fairly specific and just to run in here that he failed to take care that laws were faithfully executed, by failing to act when he had reason to know his subordinates were going to do certain specific things with regard to (he Democratic Headquarters and then throw in a, catch-all concerning other matters, without any definition at all, seems obviously unfair. I agree with my friend from Iowa down there to the extent that I feel that, this article, too, if the proof were here, and I do not think it is, as I am going to discuss further, later when we get to debating the article proper but if the proof were here, I think in many ways this could be a more serious Impeachable offense than that we had presented under the article the other day, because if there were actually a concerned intentional abuse of the powers and duties of the Presidency for political reasons or other improper reasons, I think you might have something worthy of consideration. But if you are going to get into that, particularly if you are going to include things as we are trying to include here, which are not even violations of the statutes, you at least owe it to everybody to set out what you are talking about. This is just so vague and general it could go back as far as you can go and cover anything that anybody might dream up at some time. It is so difficult to argue because it is so simple and right. So I Support the amendment. [01.28.14]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.05] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* LEHRER turns questions over to guest commentators VAN ALSTYNE and DIAMOND asks a question, interrupted by DUKE announcing that LEWIS has gotten a chance to talk with Rep. SANDMAN. [cut LEWIS with SANDMAN, who is smiling pleasantly] LEWIS asks if the REPUBLICANS who support NIXON are going to extend debate to the fullest length of time possible. Rep. SANDMAN says that he doesnt' intend to do this on every point, but thinks he's sure that others will. Says his own motion was on a strict point of law, and he is not willing to yield to the rulings made today. Says that the case for impeachment on this article is very soft, which is why the pro-impeachment side is averse to specifics in the allegations. LEWIS points out that SANDMAN'S side obviously does not have the votes to win any of the motions. Why carry it on. SANDMAN says that he believed strongly in his argument, and that he needs to establish his objection in committee on the particular point so that he is justified in raising it on the HOUSE FLOOR later. He does not plan to do this for other parts of the ARTICLE. It is important on principle not to let the allegations go by unchallenged if they are believed to be inadequate. LEWIS asks if it's impossible to conclude the debate on the ARTICLE could be finished by the next day. SANDMAN confirms that it will take longer than that. [01.19.06--DUKE/LEHRER in studio] LEHRER says that SANDMAN left no doubt about his position on debating the ARTICLE. Returns to guests--question-- has the time been wasted? VAN ALSTYNE says no, and that it is likely that after 11 hours of debate, he can't think of any further objection to the ARTICLE as drafted, and he'd be surprised if the numbers even change on each vote. The rest of the debates may serve to educate the public in some sort of "Chinese Water Torture" process, but not to change the votes DUKE says that VAN ALSTYNE is saying that there exists a stable coalition in favor of the ARTICLE that is not going to succumb to efforts to reject the ARTICLE. DIAMOND disagrees that the matter is decided, that there is nothing decided about the final form of the articles. [01.22.22]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.50--Paul DUKE in studio] DUKE says that although the votes have been going against the President's allies, they have not given up the effort [PBS network ID] [promos for PBS programming-- 00.29.17, promo for a masterpiece theatre program, in which one man in burgundy velvet smoking jacket upbraids another, who smokes fiendishly, as a "utter SWINE"--it's really too bad that you can't use this, but take a peek if you want to laugh hard] [00.32.18--title screen for "Impeachment Debate"--DUKE in studio] DUKE says that the members are arguing over the language of the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. [00.32.30--committee room] Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. I just have a question of the chairman. There are pending at the desk several motions to strike. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. WIGGINS. And I--by reason of not calling them up at this time in advance, of what we call a general debate with respect to the entire article, I hope that there is no waiver of that right. It would be my hope that we -would continue to discuss it under the 5-minute rule and at the conclusion of that, that a, member might be recognized for an appropriate motion to strike if that be his intention. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the gentleman may at any time, be recognized for. that motion to strike. The amendments are at the desk now and the, motion to strike, if it is THE gentleman's desire to be heard on the motion to strike at this time, the gentleman will be recognized in preference to recognition of the members on the question of debate on the substitute. Mr. WIGGINS. Well, it is going to be done sooner or later, Mr. Chairman. I call up No. 2. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. The clerk will read the amendment. it The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. Wiggins. In the Hungate substitute strike subparagraph (2). [00.33.46]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
37.45 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the, gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead. Carlos Moorhead (R California). Mr. Chairman, the struggle against reason and reality insofar as making the charges specific is something that I can't understand from the explanations that have been given. Because if it is possible to make up a bill of particulars and that won t delay the proceedings, I can't understand stand how it would delay the proceedings to put it into the pleadings. One thing that I think is most important that is that the members of the committee when they vote on each one of the charges be able to see the thing that backs up that particular charge that is made against the President. And from that evidence and from those particulars to reason with themselves as to whether they want to make that a charge for removing the President of the United States from his Office. And I think that we have to consider that on each One of these things that comes up.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.52.50] Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Much has been made here of the conversations between the President and Mr. Henry Petersen who was the Assistant Attorney General of the United States on the evening of April 16. 1 think that that conversation has to be taken In its proper context, and it is important in considering this to recall the extensive examination of Mr. Petersen when he appeared in person before this committee. Now, he is one of the relatively few live witnesses which we had. Unfortunately, that was a closed hearing. The, press and the American people were not privy to that at the time. I wish very much that his testimony could have, been seen, as well as later read. But, he testified that it was his understanding that under the circumstances it was entirely Proper for him to give this information to the President, He testified that in his opinion, it, was not grand jury information that at had already been testified to before the grand jury, but had been otherwise developed by the Government. and he said that certainly such information be properly used by the President in his capacity as' Chief of State, and that he fully expected the President to do so. He testified further that even if it were grand jury testimony, that it was his opinion, as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the criminal division, that there would be no impropriety in the President divulging that to subordinates in the course of his official duties, and specifically he said that he would be better able to determine whether or not Haldeman and Ehrlichman to be specific, should be permitted to continue in their very important duties if he could discuss, he the, President could discuss this information with them and determine whether he should keep them on or not. Now, it seems to me that Henry Petersen is certainly one person who has come unscathed through this ordeal as a very dedicated public servant. a professional of the highest standards, and that his testimony should be given a great deal of weight. He further testified that it is generally the practice within the Government for persons accused of wrongdoing to be confronted not only with the charges against them, but also the information on which those charges are based. And for that reason he felt that it -was entirely appropriate for the President to transmit that information to Ehrlichman Or Haldeman. Now, I think this testimony of his is so important that I want to refer to it in detail, and this is during the examination by Mr. Dennis of Indiana at page 142 of book 3. [quoting] QUESTION. Mr. Petersen, I think you testified earlier that the information which you transmitted to the President of the United States was not, in fact, grand jury testimony, but rather material in evidence -which you and the Department of Justice had accumulated and acquired by your own investigations. Is that correct? ANSWER. That is right, but, it is a treacherous area. At the, time I was receiving information, it was not grand jury information, but that some information maybe within a matter of a day, would become grand jury information. QUESTION. I understand that. However, at the time you had it, and at the time You transmitted it, it had not yet become so, is that true? ANSWER. Well, certainly at the time I transmitted it. Whether at the time---certainly at the time I got it. Whether or not it was at the time of transmittal it was grand Jury information, I was not keeping that close a track of it. QUESTION. OK. And you testified however--- The, CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. Will the gentleman yield to me 2 additional minutes? The CHAIRMAN. That will come out of the 10 minutes that is allotted. Mr. MAYNE. Yes, I understand. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 2 more minutes. [00.58.28]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
Mr. WALDIE. Rollcall, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The rollcall 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. The CHAIRMAN. 1/5th 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 the hearings please say aye and all those opposed, no. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier. ME KASTENMEIER. Aye. [slow pan down back row of Representatives as each in turn votes] he, CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Huntgate. Mr. HUNGATE. Aye. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. 'No. The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg. Mr. EILBERG. No. The CLERK. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. WALDIE. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. [No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes,Mr. Sarbanes, Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Drinan, [Rep. DRINAN is wearing the collar of a Catholic Priest, seems angry at the motion as he votes] Mr. DRINAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. RANGEL. NO. The CLERK. Ms. Jordan. [Congresswoman BARBARA JORDAN with grim expression, voting out of step with the more aggressive Democrats, SMOKING a cigarette] Ms. JORDAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. Ave. The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman. Ms. HOLTZMAN. No. No. The, CLERK. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Mezvinsky. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Ave.The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. up Aye. The. CLERK. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Aye. CLERK. Mt. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. Aye.The CLERK. Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. Aye. The. Clerk. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. Aye. The CLERK.. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. Aye. the CLERK. Mr. Moorhead. Mr. MOORHEAD. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Maraziti. Mr. MARAZITI. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Aye. The CLERK, Mr. Rodino. The, CHAIRMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report the, vote. The CLERK. 31 members have voted aye, 6 have voted no. [THIS IS A MINOR PROCEDURAL VICTORY FOR NIXON that the committee will hear some evidence in EXECUTIVE SESSION, where it can't be broadcast on TV] The CHAIRMAN. 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. [00.29.30--remainder of tape shows activity in room, no hearing in progress]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.20.28] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. The proposed article Of impeachment now being debated charges that the President has violated his oath of office and his constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. It charges that he, has done. so by repeatedly engaging in unconstitutional and illegal conduct. The wording of the proposed article II raises a number of serious questions which I hope will be addressed by its proponents during the course of this debate. While I strenuously dispute as a matter of fact that the evidence establishes that the President has repeatedly engaged in unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, I am curious as to what the drafters of this article perceive to be the legal significance of the allegation that such acts have been done repeatedly. What is The gravamen of the offense charged in this article; the supposed repetition of misconduct or the specific instances of it which are alleged? Would any of these individual allegations standing alone support an article of impeachment? Or do they only amount to impeachable conduct when considered in the aggregate? If some would stand alone and others could not, tell us which is which. How many of these allegations must we believe to be supported by the evidence before we would be Justified in voting for the entire article ? Even if each and every allegation were Proved true, is it, fair or is it grossly misleading to say that, the President has violated his oath repeatedly? Repeatedly means again and again. Surely this does not mean isolated or even sporadic failures of duty. It can only connote a regular persistent course of conduct, warranting a belief that the alleged instances of lawlessness are characteristic and not exceptional. Is it really fair? Does it depict the Whole truth to examine the entire record of this administration during the past 5 1/2 years, to examine the totality of countless tells of thousands of official actions taken by the President personally by members of his White House staff and by other subordinate officials of the executive branch of Government and to cull from that huge mass of official action this relative, handful of specific allegations and to derive from them the proposition that the President's conduct, has been repeatedly unlawful? Consider, for example, the question of -wiretaps. I do not acknowledge that these wiretaps were unjustified or under all the circumstances illegal as the law exist at the time they took place. But even if some were, which I do not concede, in all fairness can it be said that if those, few -wiretaps, most of which were instituted in two groups spread over a 1-year period and the last of which terminated in February 1971 furnish evidence of repeated violation of the Constitution? As in the case, of the evidence relating to the Plumbers' operation they, show a, specific Presidential response to a specific and serious problem: namely, the public disclosure by leaks of highly sensitive information bearing upon the, conduct of American foreign policy during that very turbulent period both domestically and internationally. What effect--what effort has our staff made to bring before this committee a coherent comprehensive reconstruction of the claimant and the circumstances of the 1969 through 1971 period in which The wiretaps occurred? We have heard no eloquence to stir our memories as to the violence and as to the disorder and the war which nearly had this Nation on its knees at the time that Richard Nixon look office. The President's prosecutors would have us view the actions of which they, complained in the abstract, ripped from the very context of the event which precipitated them, giving not even lip service to the Serious governmental problems which they were designed, even if designed clumsily to Cope with. Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this ill-conceived article of impeachment. [00.25.23]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.31]. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, for 5 minutes. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I can well understand -why some of the gentlemen, ladies here today are discussing the tapes again rather than the issue at hand because they are on the -wrong side of the most Important issue, one that I feel is as important and dear to the citizens of this country as any right that they have under the Constitution. I think we have to uphold our Constitution and the rights of the people who are accused of any kind of offense. You cannot arrest a man for suspicion of a robbery at 10th and L in Washington, wait until the time of trial and have him build up his defense, and then offer evidence against him for an offense on an entirely different day, in another city, that he has not had a chance to defend. There must be a time when the issues arc formed, when they are joined, where the man knows what he is charged with specifically. Now I do not blame the people who have drawn these articles. I know le reason. Mr. Hungate said you had to have understanding think we have understanding. The understanding is that all the way through these hearings Mr. Doar and Mr. Jenner told this committee You will be the judge of these offenses, you -will be the judge as to, whether this particular fact is truly a fact or whether it is not. You will be the judge of determining whether this fact constitutes an offense or whether it does not. But, now what we are asked to do as a committee is to not determine whether those facts are true or whether we accept them, or whether we accept a particular version of them. We are asked to pass on a lot of generalities that really do not allege specific charges, that do not tell the President what we believe, he is guilty of and what he is not. And the reason is, obviously that you cannot get 21 people on this committee to agree to many of these things which have not been proven, for which there is not *adequate evidence. So, I do not blame anyone. that wants to go by these very general, and in some cases misleading statements. Let me read one place in this article. The "means used to implement this policy have included one or more of the following," and they allege nine different things. One or more. Well, I suppose if you read that carefully it says that there may be eight of them that are false, but maybe one of them is true. I think the President of the United States, as well as any other citizen of this country, has a right to know what he is charged with, and has a right to prepare a defense. Now, I know we have got -39 volumes of materials, some of it is hearsay, some of it is newspaper articles, some of it is quotes from other tapes, and some of it comes from all kinds of various sources and a lot of it is not evidence, could not be admissible in any court of law. You cannot tell the President or any other person we have got these general charges, but you may be, accused of anything that i's in this, book, or anything else that we want to bring in at the last minute. Let us follow the Constitution that we have talked about and which many people have said last night was so important. I believe in that Constitution. I believe in that Constitution more than almost anything in this world. And I -will fight and defend it in every way that I possibly can. It is more important than Richard Nixon or me or anyone else in this room. That Constitution is the thing that has given us freedom. But, I -would tell you that if this modern law that is supposedly taking effect, and I do not think that it has reached California yet, thank goodness, if that's ever really adopted into law, the people of this country have lost some of their constitutional rights and they are bad shape, because you would not know what you were accused of until you get on trial. I think the President of the United States has more opportunity should have more opportunity than that. And getting down to specifies, we have been told that a bill of particulars could be had when this thing goes to the Senate, and we he earlier in the newspaper at least, that Mr. Mansfield was discussing giving the President 54 days to prepare a defense, to offer argument against the petition that might be filed by this body. But, I read the other day that be was considering starting the immediately so that it would get all of the good press just prior to election, I am sure, so we would be in the newspapers then, on television , pointing out the mistakes the Republican administration made on prime time right up to election day. [00.33.48]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Now pursuant to that Constitutional power, House resolution 803 as stated by our distinguished Chairman was adopted by the House of Representatives on February 6 by a vote of 410 to 4. That that resolution directed this Committee to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional authority to impeach the President of the United States. For the past several months as it has also been stated this Committee has been continuously engaged in the careful conduct of this presidential impeachment inquiry. Under the absolute neutral leadership, I believe that our Chairman has well established its overriding motivation of honesty, decency, thoroughness and objectivity to the satisfaction of the great majority of the American citizens.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.30.24--Paul DUKE in studio] DUKE says that the next order of business will be to debate the ARTICLE proper [00.30.35--PBS network ID--promos for PBS programming [00.33.46--title screen "Impeachment Debate"--DUKE in studio] DUKE announces that the debate will focus on NIXON's refusal to honor the committee's subpoenas. [cut Chairman RODINO] The CHAIRMAN. And the amendment is agreed to. There being no further amendments before the desk, the Chair wishes to announce that there is 1 hour and 20 minutes remaining for purposes of debate on the article itself, and the Chair would like an expression of those who -wish to speak on the article so that the time may be evenly divided between the opponents and the proponents of the article. Would those who wish to speak in favor of the article please raise their hands. [Show of hands.] The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory, Mr. Hogan, Mr. Fish, Mr. Mann, Mr. Danielson, Mr. Drinan, Ms. Jordan, Mr. Thornton, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Eilberg, Mr. Hungate, Mr. Kastenmeier, Mr. Edwards. All those who wish to speak in opposition? [Show, of hands.] The CHAIRMAN. Mr., Cohen, Mr. Butler, Mr. Froehlich, Mr. FROEHLICH. No. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Froehlich does not Seek recognition . Mr. Latta, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. Smith , Mr. Sandman, Mr. Railsback, Mr. Dennis, Mr. Moorhead, and I did announce Mr. Moorhead and Mr. Maraziti, Mr. FLOWERS. I think we have got a problem posed here. We have 30 minutes of debate on the amendment in which everybody got 5 minutes, and it seems to me like the article is more important and we are going to be restricted to -what -will not be time to discuss the points that I 'Wish to raise. I -wonder if we could reorder these priorities a little bit here this morning. [00.36.09]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.19.25] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Flowers, is recognized for 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't object to the fair air consideration of this, I will say to my friend from Michigan, I only object to anybody voting for it. This is a bad rap for President Nixon and we ought to recognize it as that. Let's remember what the President's purpose was in Vietnam or Southeast Asia, and it was to get us out of there and let us remember those advisers that advised him in the early spring of 1969 earned their stars under President Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, if you will. I don't intend to demean the author of this article in any way and I honor your conscience, Mr. Conyers, and those others who join in this effort. But by the same token, you all don't have a corner on conscience in this or *in any consideration we have here and by the same token my conscience dictates to me that I speak out against this article of impeachment. We might as well resurrect President Johnson and impeach him posthumously for Vietnam and Laos as impeach President Nixon for Cambodia. How many articles of impeachment were filed against President Johnson for what he had done in getting us into the war in Southeast Asia? I don't recall that any were. I was not a Member of Congress during his administration. We might as well resurrect the Memory of John Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs. President Eisenhower had his U-2 incident. President Truman in Korea. I don't know. We could go back almost throughout history, and remember the Alamo. I don't remember who the President -was-but Davey Crockett may have been a, member of CIA. Congress has acted. We have passed the war powers limitation bill and I believe that is action setting forth our judgment on this situation. We don't need to spell it out any further. We, ought to vote this down by a large margin. I notice when you say Vietnam a certain number of people still jump up. Let's see if they do on this. I hope not, because this is a bad rap for President Nixon and I call on all members of this committee to vote against this article. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mann, is recognized for 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr. MANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is unfortunate that the relationships between the President and the elected representatives of the people in Congress have deteriorated down over these 198 years to the point that the President cannot confide in the Congress and that Congress -whose duty it is to declare war. That situation exists, ladies and gentleman and it exists today. And we look ourselves straight in the eye and decide -what can we do about it? To further exacerbate that problem by recriminations for past conduct is not the answer, unless we can attribute to that President a motivation that is treasonous, and none of us would do that. There is no neat way to fight a war and the judgments made under those circumstances can only be viewed in the light of history and the judgments of Congress as it failed to declare war. What were we doing in Vietnam without a declaration of war? Appropriating funds, tacitly approving the commitment of troops. We have lately undertaken a definition of the powers, the, respective powers of the President, and the Congress, and so we should. And we should refer to article I. section 8 of the Constitution and see that there responsibilities upon the Congress with reference, to the operation of our armed services. To make rules for the government and regulations of the land and naval forces and other powers. So let us direct our attention to improving and restoring those rules and regulating regulations, those relationships, those trusts, that will not cause us to engage in a confrontation when that important item of national defense or national security is involved. [00.24.52]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.09] Mr. FLOWERS. I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate of the article be extended 1 hour. The CHAIRMAN. There is 1 hour and 20 minutes remaining. Mr. FLOWERS. I ask unanimous consent that -we can extend the time to a total of 2 hours, I hour to each side for debate of the article. Mr. WIGGINS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his reservation. Mr. WIGGINS. Can I suggest to my friend from Alabama that we defer consideration of his unanimous consent request until -we see how -we are getting along. I have a feeling that as is the custom in the House, there be a great deal of yielding to members to develop their arguments more fully. But, if at the end of an hour it is clearly apparent that we have not had an adequate discussion, I certainly would not object to any unanimous consent request at that time. Mr. FLOWERS. I cannot argue with that. Mr. WIGGINS. Great. Mr. HOGAN. Reserving the right to object, the difficulty with that is that if the Chair parcels the time out on the basis of the fixed time limitation at this time, members will not have sufficient time to develop the arguments they want to make. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, I cannot argue with that either. The. CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to announce that there are 23 members who have sought recognition, 10 members in opposition and 13 members in support, and probably we could compromise by stating that each of those members, if a- unanimous consent request is in order, and it would be in order, that each member be given 5 minutes? would that suit the gentleman? Mr. FLOWERS. It seems like the' other side has got the advantage there, Mr. Chairman. I would kind of like to restrict it down to--there's not as many of us as there are of them this time, and it's kind of lonesome, over here on this article. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. I think once again the gentleman from Alabama has shown his good sense. Why don't we just divide the time equally. Mr. FLOWERS. I thank the gentleman for that comment very much. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. All one has to do is ask a unanimous consent request that that is in order and the Chair will put the unanimous consent request. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. My parliamentary inquiry is this: If we are going to abandon our unanimous consent request which I made at the outset, and which was opposed. and cut down, it seems to me that we should revert to the rule -which -we adopted when we began these debates and proceed to provide each member with an opportunity to have 5 minutes to discuss it. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request that each side be given 40 minutes. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I think that the suggestion of Mr. McCLORY. makes sense. We started out with the 5-minute rule. I don't know why we should suddenly switch to some other approach. And I just wonder whether there are any really serious objections to that. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair would like to state that presently, however. the unanimous consent request was adopted without objection and at the present time the Chair finds itself in the -position that there is 1 hour and 20 minutes remaining, and that I hour and 20 minutes would be divided, as the chair stated, between the opponents and the proponents. Now, if that order is to be vacated, then a unanimous consent request to vacate that is in order and we then -will proceed. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. I would like to withdraw my unanimous consent request and reserving the right to object to my friend from Illinois' Unanimous consent request, the 1 hour and 20 minutes amounts to 80 minutes does it not? The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. FLOWERS, Would that not be 40 minutes per side? Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the. gentleman yield?, Mr. FLOWERS. I realize this is the Judiciary Committee and we do not deal in numbers very often, but---- Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. FLOWERS. I certainly yield to my friend. Mr. RAILSBACK. I think I have decided, to withdraw my unanimous consent request. Mr. FROEHLICH. -Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Froehlich, Mr. FROEHLICH. I ask unanimous consent that each individual on your list be given 4 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman please restate that? Mr. FROEHLICH. I ask unanimous consent that each individual on your list be given 4 minutes. Mr. HOGAN. I object, Mr. Chairman. May I be heard on my objection, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman has objected, there is no unanimous consent request, unless the gentleman reserves his right to object. Mr. HOGAN. I object, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. is heard. We are back to 1 hour and 20 Minutes. The Chair will recognize the gentleman in support of the article, 'I and there are 13 of them listed, and I recognize Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. For how long, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Three minutes. [00.41.29]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.18.12] Mr. LATTA. And certainly the Congress of the United States is to be commended for repealing that legislation which permitted those type deductions. And second, I find him guilty of gross negligence for not taking more time in going Over his tax returns at the time he signed them. All through this investigation I have found the President of the United States too busy to take care of the little details that we have talked about here tonight, and I don't consider the matter of taxes a little detail. I have before me the transcript. We had Mr. Kalmbach, the President's personal attorney, testify before this committee about him going in for the ceremonial signing because he had only seen the President of the United States--get this--his personal attorney--five or six times in about 5 years. So he went along- to witness the ceremonial signing of this tax return. And what. did he say under questioning by Mr. St. Clair? [quote] "How long, were you in the President's presence?" "approximately. well, 35 to 40 minutes." [end quote] Well, now, I say to you that it takes me 10 times that, long to go over I page of my very simple tax return. But here, the President of the United States goes over a very complicated tax return and they are only in his is office, 35 to 40 minutes. Now, I say that is gross negligence. He should have taken a longer look. And in the meantime they talked about other things and we, 'have heard testimony here tonight that would lead you to believe that he went over page by page, line by line and the evidence does not support that statement. Now. the President, as has been alluded to here tonight, has paid those taxes with the exception of The 1969, He doesn't have to pay them but he has promised to pay 1969. We could go into that in great detail and I am certain that the President will pay 1969 even though he is not required to do so. Let's skip along to what Mr. Brooks has talked about, security precautions out at these Presidential mansions or homes or whatever he prefers to call them. Now, Mr. Brooks is in a very unique situation. He, was chairman of the subcommittee that went into these matters but likewise there was another subcommittee of this Congress that went into them also and that happens to be a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that, paid the bills. Now, what was the finding of this subcommittee? Did they find anything grossly wrong as has been alluded to here by Mr. Brooks? Absolutely not. And we had a press conference by the gentleman from Oklahoma who happens to chair that subcommittee when he stated in so many words, that was true. And I might say that I talked to that gentleman this afternoon on the floor of the House and he is still of that opinion. We have gross negligence but it is on the part of the GSA in putting these security precautions and I heard him say this afternoon---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. LATTA [continuing]. That it is cheaper to keep Presidents alive than to bury them. Mr. HUTCHINSON. 'Mr. Chairman,. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish. The CHAIRMAN. Mr, Fish is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. FISH. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me. I certainly want to associate myself with what has been said about the tax situation being a bad scene. 'Nevertheless, there is not to be found before us evidence that the President acted willfully to evade his taxes. I do not think that can be, said on the basis of all the careful work that our staff has put before us. We do know that the IRS investigation has been cursory. They, no more than we, have not had under oath the key witnesses In this matter We also know that they have referred the matter to the Special Prosecutor and I believe that is where the matter should rest as far as we are concerned. If in the course of the Special Prosecutor's investigation now information comes to light, we have the reserve power to amend our articles at any time in the future, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. [00.22.44]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Charles Rangel (D - New York).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Charles Rangel (D - New York).