Advanced Search
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Joseph Maraziti (R - New Jersey).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Joseph Maraziti (R - New Jersey).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.58.44] The gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may desire to Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank -you. I would like to respond to some of the points made by the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. Wiggins mentioned that on March 13 Mr. Dean had informed the President about certain perjury that had been committed by Mr. Strachan. I do not think I need to read all the transcript I would simply point out that Mr. Dean told the President that Mr. Strachan knew about Watergate and yet he was "tough as nails," and that he is going to go in to the grand jury and say again that he is going to stonewall it. and say I don't know anything about what you are talking about. "He has already done it twice, as you know Mr. Dean told the President. And the President says, "Yeah, I guess he should, shouldnt he, in the interest of--well, I suppose we can't Call that justice, can We. How do you justify it?" And Dean says, it is a personal loyalty with him." The President goes on and says , "Well, I'll be, damned. Well, that is the problem in Bob's case, isn't it"--Bob Haldeman. "It's not Chapin then, but Strachan. Because Strachan worked for him"--Haldeman---and the President says, "Who knew better? Magruder?" And Dean says, "Well, Magruder and Liddy." And the President says, "Ahh---I see. The other weak link for Bob is Magruder, too," --he having hired him. et, cetera. Now. this is on the 13th before, almost a week before the famous March 21 meeting. Did the President rise up in righteous, indignation as he should have and say well. I am going to clean this out right haul them in here and we will get them on the carpet and I have the Attorney General here, too? Mr. St. Clair asked us to consider what we would do if we were in the President's shoes. Isn't that what any law-abiding Chief' Executive ought to do? But he did. nothing. Now, on the 21st Mr.--and I am going to skip over that--later on Mr. Dean told the President about the perjury of Magruder and Porter and the President did nothing about that, But then, we get to the 21st. Now. on the. night of the 21st, after the two meetings with Mr. Dean, the, President dictated his recollection of the events of the day and said that Dean--and on a dictabelt--and he said that Dean felt, he was criminally liable for his action in "taking care of the defendants. That is the President's own words. And that. Magruder would bring Haldeman down if he felt Himself--he himself was to go down, and that if Hunt wasn't paid he would say things that would be very detrimental to Colson and that Mitchell was involved. Now, what. did Mr.--what did the President of the United States do the next day? Did he go to the Attorney General and tell him all this? No. He held a meeting with Mitchell, Dean, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman to dismiss the very crimes that Mr. Dean had already implicated them in and the purpose of the discussion was to discuss how to contain it. In fact. the President's last words were, after he criticized General Eisenhower because all he, cared about was being clean, he said: "But I don't look at it this way. That is the thing I am really concerned with. We are, going to protect our"--"our people if we can." Apparently. the Justice Department was not part of "our people because during the course of that meeting, he called the, Attorney General and did he tell him about these crimes that had been revealed about his close, aides? No. He told the Attorney General to get working with Senator Baker for the, Presidents position in the Ervin committee hearings. Now, it just seems to me that if he really wanted to turn this matter over to the law authorities, the next day he would have taken that dictabelt, called in the Attorney General of the United States, handed it to him and said, Mr. Attorney General, do your duty. But he did not do that. And I would be interested, Mr. Wiggins, in what you would have to say about that. Mr. WIGGINS. You are yielding? Mr. SEIBERLING. I will yield. But. I cannot yield, it is the gentleman from California that has the time. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I move the previous question. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion, the 'amendment of the motion offered by the gentleman from Alabama to strike. All those in favor please say aye. [chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [Chorus of "hoes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it, and the noes, have it and I the amendment is not agreed to. And the Chair will recess until 4 o'clock. [01.03.50--LEHRER in studio for station break] [PBS network ID] [01.04.12--TAPE OUT]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Vote on Hungate substitute as amended
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[01.01.28] The, CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 0wens for the purpose of general debate, for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Owens. STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE OWENS, A REPRESENTATIVE CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Preparation for this inevitable time of judgment has been an exhausting experience for all of us on the committee--physically, mentally, and emotionally. I, for one, have tried very hard, and I suspect unsuccessfully, to find the right words to convey my feelings and concern that we reach the right answers in this proceeding. Mr. Chairman, the problem of being 37th in seniority on a committee of 38 members is that one sees his points fall one by one. I desire at the outset to state my complete confidence in the durability of constitutional separation of powers and our great institutions Of government the Congress, the, Judiciary, and the Presidency, which permit the people to unite and move together to solve their problems. To me and to the people of Utah the Constitution is a special document. Though I faced this onerous task with great reluctance it has been an honor to serve as a member of this distinguished body of men And women during this historic inquiry. These statements have been extremely impressive to me, and I am proud, I must say, of my colleagues. I can't commend too highly our distinguished chairman who throughout these long, difficult months has as continually maintained nonpartisan and judicial fairness who has given wise direction to the course of this inquiry and for whom I have the, greatest respect and admiration. And John Doar, this good man of balance and sensitivity and strength, and Bert Jenner and Sam Garrison-to each of them and to the entire staff I think that the committee owes a very deep debt of gratitude for their scholarship and complete dedication. Mr. Chairman, I did not bring the training and the experience of a seasoned trial lawyer to this responsibility. My background is that which the authors of the Constitution foresaw for those who would be asked to judge Presidents. I am a politician. And I would be much less-----
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.09.10] The CHAIRMAN. A total of 20 members--21 members seek recognition. Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, -Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is a matter of sufficient importance so that the members should have, an adequate amount of time. I don't want to prolong this, but I I don't think we should Cut off debate on a matter of this seriousness, and therefore I must register my objection to the request. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard, The gentleman form California, Mr. Edwards---- Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? The, CHAIRMAN. [continuing] Is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. I would like to Speak just for a few minutes about all of article II which I suggest is an expression of our deep devotion to the Constitution, and above all, to the first 10 amendments, known as the, Bill of Rights. Article II is our rededication to and our reaffirmation of the Bill of Rights and the principle that no officer of our Government from the most lowly to the highest can violate with impunity those fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed every' American Citizen. In 1787 when the 13 Colonies Were, considering ratification of the new Constitution, three, of the new States voted to ratify only On condition that a recommendation for a Bill of Rights be added. These men remembered well that they or their parents had fled from the kingdoms of Europe to seek individual freedom in the New World. They had Just, finished winning a war to insure this independence and freedom, and they were not about to substitute a new Federal Government for the old tyranny without safeguards designed to protect their rights as individual human beings from the arbitrary encroachments of the new Government. So it was that the First Congress of 1789 enacted the, Bill of Rights as the first, 10 amendments its to the Constitution. Jefferson in a letter, to Madison urged the adoption and Said, "Let me add that a Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against any government, on earth." Why do I review this history this late at night in the consideration of article II? It is of course, because article II charges President Nixon with intentional violations of the Constitution, chiefly amendments one, four, five, and six. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. In direct contravention, of this amendment President Nixon authorized or permitted illegal wiretapping and other surveillance of individuals, including reporters, and the use of this information so gained for political reprisals and The fourth amendment guarantees the rights of people to be secure in their homes. their houses, in their papers, against unreasonable searches and seizures In direct contravention of this amendment, President 'Nixon established a special investigative unit within the White House to engage in searches and seizures without legal warrant, and the special White House unit committed a burglary the State of California. The fifth amendment guarantees to all equal protection of the laws. In direct contravention of this amendment, President Nixon endeavored to use the Internal Revenue Service for tax investigations and tax harassment of political opponents . The fifth and sixth amendments guarantee a fair trial in all criminal prosecutions. In direct contravention of these amendments. President Nixon and his subordinates leaked information unfavorable to a criminal defendant, withheld information necessary for his defense, and during the trial even offered the judge a high Government position. No proposition could be more profoundly subversive of the Constitution than the notion that any public official, the President or a policeman, possesses a kind of inherent power to set the, Constitution aside whenever he thinks the public interest, or to use the popular term now given such easy currency, the "national security" warrants it. That, notion is the essential postulate of tyranny. It is indeed the very definition of dictatorship, for dictatorship is simply a system under which one man is empowered to do whatever he, deems needful for the Whole community. We, look now beyond the walls of this committee room to every citizen, rich or poor, white or black. brown or yellow, from the Most powerful to the humblest, and say to all who will listen, this article II is the only meaningful way to protect your constitutional rights, your right to speak -what is in your mind without fear of reprisal or other harassment and your right to hear and read -what others would say to you; your right to be secure in your home and your office, against Government wiretappings and burglaries; and your right to equal treatment under law without fear or favor from the Government; your right, if legal difficulties should enmesh you, to a fair trial; your right to be left alone to pursue life, liberty and happiness free from unlawful incursions at all levels of government from the President down. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00.14.55]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.46] Mr. FLOWERS. Let me turn to some specifics which may be just the tip of the iceberg. There was a two-pronged attack on a well-known political Figure who is now the Governor of my State, and a great and courageous American, a belief which is shared equally by those who agree or disagree with him. In the spring of 1970 George Wallace was not Governor of Alabama, but engaged in a heated contest with the then Governor Brewer who had succeeded Governor Lurleen Wallace on her death in 1968. The decision was made, by whom I don't know, but I think you be certain it was in the highest councils of the White House, that the success of Governor Wallace in the Democratic Primary in the State of Alabama was somehow incompatible with the interests of the Nixon administration. So, what did they do? Well, at the specific instance of Mr. Higby, primary assistant to Mr. Haldeman, Chief of Staff to the President, $400,000 in funds left over from the 1968 Presidential campaign was funneled to Alabama in a devious and undercover manner in on unsuccessful effort to defeat Governor Wallace. There is direct evidence to this from Mr. Kalmbach before this committee in this room. Then in early 1970, H.R. Haldeman, directed a special counsel to the President to obtain a report from the IRS about. the. investigation of George Wallace and his brother. Haldeman gave assurances that the report was for the President. A report from IRS Commissioner Thrower was requested on this basis, received and given to Haldeman. Material contained in the material -was there, thereafter transmitted to Jack Anderson, a syndicated columnist, by Murray Chotiner, a White House employee and personal confidant of the President. Portions of the material potentially dangerous politically to Governor Wallace were published nationally on April 13, 1970, several weeks before the primary election. Now: both of these foregoing, actions were gross abuse of the IRS as an agency of Government And incidentally, a violation of Federal law. Now, I ask you, my friends, who -was it that maintained a political enemies list in an effort to get back at them? It was the administration of Richard -Nixon. Who was it that released potentially damaging tax information about. The Governor of Alabama? The aides of- Richard -Nixon. And on another subject of gross abuse, who was it that frustrated the ultimate date with justice that awaited Daniel Ellsberg and Anthony Russo. and which I trust would have come to them at the hands, of a jury? Was it some left-wing radical liberal group ? No, my friends, it -was the administration of Richard M. Nixon. However you describe yourself and wherever you may be., you ought to be vitally, concerned here. because if this President, with whom -you perhaps agree politically, can get by with the abuses described in this article, then so can succeeding Chief Executives, including those with whom you may not agree, thus imprinting in our highest office a standard of conduct that is certainly unacceptable to me. The, CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, The gentleman from New Jersey has 3 minutes remaining. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, I think now we have the whole case and if we could rest all Of it on this one, this lawyer would have asked for a directed verdict because these are the facts and now you know why they will not be specific. All they have are generalities, groups Of dates and each one, include about 3 months. All they have is in 1970 Haldeman told Mollenhoff. All they have is over sometime in 1971 and 1972 Caulfield did something' that Dean told him to do. All they have is in the spring of 1972 Ehrlichman told someone else something. The, only thing left is that magic date, September 15, 1972. Why don't you say that is all you have? "Why don't you let this count, rest on that date, because you know you cannot hold up. That is why you don't do it and here is why it would not hold up. All you have is a conversation which anybody that listens to that tape can tell why and how it was arrived at. Mr. Railsback now has brought Something and this is a majestic case to say the least. Modern times has done away with the fifth amendment. We heard that a day or so ago. And what did Mr. Railsback just say? Do you know what he said ? Nothing happened. not one of the five were audited. -Not one of them. But you have got to look past that. Impeach the President of the United States for a thought, not a deed? That is what he is saying. When did that happen before? And what kind of law is this going to make for every Man that sits in the White House from now on?, This is what I am concerned about. This can be a, stage show from now On for any majority party to manipulate against any man that becomes President of the United States that is not a member of his party, and such actions as that cannot be in the best interest of the Government and the country we all love so well. This is the thought we, have to prove to 220 million people. This shows beyond all reasonable doubt you cannot prove this count. You know it and the people know it, and why don't you pass this motion to Strike? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.26.24]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
54.57 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentlelady from New York is recognized for 5 minutes. Ms. Holtzman. Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak in opposition to the motion to strike. And I am absolutely overwhelmed by the evidence with respect to this and I think it has to be seen in context. When I spoke earlier, I said that John Dean had confessed to the President on March 21st that all kinds of people in his administration had been guilty of criminal acts. And not only did the President say to Dean that your involvement in this, your obstruction of justice, that was the "right plan." The President didn't pick up the phone and call Attorney General Kleindienst or call FBI Director Gray to say that criminal things are on in my administration and I want to put an end to it. He calls Kleindienst on the 21st. He called Kleindienst on the 22d and he said, yes you had better call Senator Baker at the Senate Watergate Committee and babysit with him like 10 minutes. And then On the 27th of March, even though the President is burdened with overwhelming information, this cancer that is growing, he tells Ehrlichman, he says to him the following, "Have a session with him," i.e. Kleindienst, about how much you want to tell him about everything." Ehrlichman, ah. The President, "I think you have got to say look, Dick, let me tell you Dean was not involved, had no prior knowledge, Haldeman had no prior knowledge. Ehrlichman had none and Colson had none." But what was the President told by Dean? He was told that Haldeman had been told about the first two Liddy bugging plans, that in fact Haldeman had ordered Liddy to move the capability From Muskie to McGovern headquarters before the break in. The President was told that Strachan knew and the President was told that. Colson called Magruder to tell him to get going on the Hunt and Liddy plan. The President is telling Ehrlichman not to tell Kleindienst about all this information and the criminal liability. Instead he is telling Ehrlichman to tell Kleindienst that nobody is involved, and nobody has prior knowledge. Is this the kind of conduct we expect from our President? Is this the kind of concern that he has for the enforcement of the laws?
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.13.07] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier, for 6 Minutes and 15 seconds. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of that time, and will yield some of my time to the proposer of the article, the gentleman from Michigan subsequently. I think it is unfortunate that we are in the position of technically reviewing the war in Southeast, Asia. This is really not the point of this article.. But, very candidly. this article will not succeed, it will not, be adopted either by this committee or the Congress Nonetheless. I support, it. I think the essence of the article is as fundamental as the three we have already adopted if not more, so. I appreciate the comments of my colleagues, particularly the gentlemen from California, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Waldie to the effect that the genesis of concealment and deception did not originate -with Mr. Nixon. There, may have been culpability in the past, by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. However, they are no longer President and, in fact, have long since gone to their graves. The question is really a constitutional one. If, in fact, the President did issue false and misleading statements, engage in deception and concealment concerning a matter of such great importance to the country as the conduct of war in which thousands and thousands of Americans were killed, irrespective of how Americans now view that war, and then, in fact, he has committed an offense for which he is accountable. I would only say that going back to the earliest times, one James Iredell, one of the Framers of the Constitution, stated the proposition that the President, and I paraphrase, must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the every material intelligence he, receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence - which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country in which they would not have consented to had the true state of thing's been disclosed to them. in this case I ask whether an impeachment for a misdemeanor would lie. And so we have come to modern times and the situation that confronts us at this moment. In terms of what the Constitution requires, in terms of accountability of the President, we must adopt article No. IV. Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield for one question? Mr. KASTENMEIER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. A great, deal of information we received was classified but is it not a fact that information regarding the bombing was revealed to selected members of the Senate? That is my recollection of the information we have received. Mr. KASTENMEIER. The gentleman is correct, and some of the colloquy between the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Virginia affirms that. However, I think history will record that those several selected individuals were people fully committed to a course, of action involving war and did not necessarily represent the people in the sense that the Congress as a whole, if imparted this knowledge, represents the people, and I would suggest that imparting that knowledge to a few select individuals, -whose views conformed with that of the administration, did not constitute imparting full information to the country and did, III fact, constitute further concealment thereof. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding, and I would pose this question to my colleagues because I appreciate ,the seriousness of the considerations before us. In a way this article cuts differently from any of the others, and I would be the, first to concede that were the President not being considered for impeachment on other grounds, it would be extremely difficult to have this consideration before us. But, history has brought them together, ladies and gentlemen. The coincidental meeting of this consideration of war powers has arrived at the same time that the revelations of Watergate and make this vote inescapable upon us. And I would only urge every ,member that if he or she feels that the record that we build should not include and recommend this article of impeachment, legitimately, not to add onto a bill of impeachment unnecessarily, but responsibly to preserve and reclaim the probably most important single power that the Constitution vests in this Congress, and I urge your support of this article. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. [00.19.25]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.12.52] Mr. HUNGATE. Will THE gentleman from Texas yield? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining. Mr. BROOKS. I yield 2 and a half minutes. I would yield--- Mr. HUNGATE I thank the gentleman and I would just say that I think the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky, and the gentleman from Texas and others have done a valuable public service and continue to do so. I would urge them to consider the possible withdrawal of this article. I think there is a case here but in my judgment I am having trouble deciding if it has as yet been made. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for his comments, And I would say the. people who believe in everybody paying their taxes ought to vote for it. I think that most of the people in my district pay theirs I think we have to answer that question ourselves if we think that, It ought to be done in that fashion. Now, during the early weeks of this investigation we spent a lot of hours discussing what constitutes an impeachable offense under the Constitution. The prevailing view and one to which I subscribe is that misconduct in office, or misuse of the power of the Presidency constitutes ,in impeachable offense. There, are those, however, who have a much more restrictive interpretation of the impeachment clause and require proof to the commission of a criminal act. I Submit that this article charging violation of the emoluments Clause of the Constitution in violation of the tax law fits foursquare with even the most restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an Impeachable offense. We have evidence of criminal violations of one of the most basic laws of the land, the, Internal Revenue Code, a law Which gives every American an opportunity to pay their taxes and With which every American is very familiar. Every taxpayer agonizes over the honesty and accuracy of his returns. Very few are willing to risk the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment. Millions of Americans will view this evidence as a so-called smoking gun. We have put before the Americans proof of the specific violation of our criminal statutes by the President. The question of his accountability is now, up to us, to this Congress. Those who bargained so long and so hard during these proceedings for proof, for specifics, for citations of criminal violations now have before them precisely what they have been asking for, the Specific proof of the execution of fraudulent deeds, the filing of false returns the failure to report income, the enrichment of one's personal estate at public expense, and these must be viewed as proof of impeachable offenses. NO President is exempt under our U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States from accountability for personal misdeeds any more than he is for official misdeeds. And I think that -we On this committee in our effort to fairly evaluate the President's activities must show the, American people that all men are treated equally under the law. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.The gentleman from Michigan has 10 minutes remaining. Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. DRINAN. Would you yield I minute to me in opposition ? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I'm sorry, Mr. Drinan, I don't have. any time to yield. It is all committed. If you call get the gentlemen whom I have committed myself to recognize to yield to you Of course you can. Mr. Chairman, I Yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One happy thought always arises when you get down to the junior member of this committee and that is the debate is about to end. Let me say this has been a good debate. We have gone into the matter of taxes. We have gone into the matter of Security for the President of the, United States. Both of these subjects could command hours of discussion time and I have 2 minutes for each. At the outset let me, address myself to the question of taxes. I couldn't agree more with the, gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. that every American, including the President of the United States, Members of Congress, and others, should pay every single nickel or even down to the penny of taxes that, they owe. And I might say as Members of Congress know that our good friend Pat Jennings, the Clerk of the House sees to it that we pay ours every month. He takes a very sizable chunk out of my salary. In fact. I am pleased to admit that, he takes $1,000 a month out Of my salary at the end of the, month. So we pay our taxes and I think the, President of the United States should pay his taxes likewise. And I find him guilty tonight of bad judgment and gross negligence in -following the advice of Lyndon Baines Johnson to ever take a deduction for the Vice Presidential, Presidential papers.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Now that means in 4 years Richard -Nixon. underpaid his Federal taxes by nearly $420,000. Earlier this year, the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation a committee that Is held in the highest respect of this Congress, and it issued its report on its review of the President's taxes for the years 1969 through 1972. It was this report that first laid bare the wide discrepancy between what Mr. Nixon owed and what he actually paid. One of the most significant findings of this report was that more than one-half of a million dollar deduction claimed by the President was improper. That disallowed deduction which involved the gift of Mr. -Nixon's pre-Presidential papers to the National Archives 'a gift made to build Mr. Nixon a tax shelter. By ducking 'Into that shelter, the President was able to substantially Pare his taxes for 4 consecutive years. but finally it came home to roost in 1974. The, story goes on. When Mr. Nixon's tax returns for those years received their first thorough review, the tax shelter collapsed because the deduction was found to be improper. Now 'Was it improper? Well, in 1969, the Congress closed the loophole which allowed tax benefits for such gifts Mr. Nixon knew about this law because he signed it. The President says that his gift was made before the loophole was closed and he has a deed that purports to show that the gift was made in time to beat the change in the law. Considering the date on the deed, the IRS first said that the deduction was legitimate. But we really know now that, that deed was, falsely backdated to indicate that the gift was made in time for the deduction. That deed was not executed in the spring of 1969 like it says but in a White House meeting- more than a year later. Based on the backdating of the deed and other evidence, IRS has ruled that the President had no right, no right to take the deduction he claimed. The evidence presents a glaring pattern of deception. just as distressing has been the President's response. He disclaims responsibility for his tax returns, He, says that if there is any problem, it is his tax lawyers and his accountants who are at fault. he would, like us to believe that he has had no part in the seamy circumstances surrounding the suspicious deed of gift. But, we know that Mr. Nixon generally paid close attention to his financial affairs; he -was well aware of the beneficial tax consequences of the gift. Can we really believe that Mr. Nixon didn't, know the facts surrounding this gift of over one-half of a million dollars, the largest gift he ever made in his life? Don't you think. every member his committee and everyone, that is listening don't you think that when a man, whose income is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, looks at his tax return and sees that he is only paying $'193, don't you think he has an obligation to scrutinize his return and make certain that every deduction is proper? Especially if he is the President of the United States? There is a good deal of evidence on this matter and it is disturbing evidence. But probably what is the most disturbing of all is that when the joint Committee sent the President questions about these matters, he never even bothered to answer them. One of the witnesses that come before this committee, -was the former head of the Criminal Tax Fraud Division of the Department of justice. He served in that office for 24 years under many Presidents, including President Nixon. He considered the evidence that we had, and he testified on the President's taxes. He said that if the Justice Department had that much evidence on any ordinary taxpayer, you or I, and that taxpayer refused to answer the questions, the Government -would seek to indict the taxpayer and send him to jail. But, Mr. Nixon tells us that he is not responsible for what is on his tax returns, even though he is the one who signed "under the pain of perjury " on the bottom line. it 'Was not his tax lawyers who signed that return. It was not his accountant who signed the return. Richard Nixon is the one who signed on the bottom line. After the reaudit by IRS, which found these problems, the President was required to pay back taxes for 1970, 1971 and 1972. And then he often reiterated after that that he would voluntarily pay his back taxes for 1969, even though our laws can not reach back that far. But, you know, he has not paid those taxes yet. There is still a $148,000 bill outstanding from our Treasury. The $148,000 he should have paid by April 1970, is still unpaid today.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.18.42] Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman--- The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maraziti, for 5 minutes. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was amazed to find--to hear the gentleman from Maryland explain why it 'IS not necessary to detail the fact,, and one argument given is that the counsel for the President was present in the room when these, matters were being discussed. That is not a satisfactory disposition of the matter. It reminds me of counsel for a defendant appearing in a magistrates court, presentation made of an hour or two, then the prosecutor of the county--a very general indictment--it is not sufficient for the prosecutor of the county to say I do not have to specify because the counsel for the defendant attended the, preliminary examination. And the President--the knowledge of the counsel is not the knowledge of the President. We do not know whether the, counsel for the, President that appeared here is going to be associate counsel or one of a number of counsel or whether there will be different counsel. Now, he makes a point of once the, resolution or the articles got to the floor they can be, justified, amended, and so on. That may be so. But I think it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, for to, the members here and now, before we vote for or against a particular article, to know the time and place and names, to know all the events. Now, I have done some. legal research during the noon recess because it was represented that the law that pertains to indictments does not necessarily apply to impeachment proceedings. And I found that from the very beginning, when impeachment proceedings were instituted in 1798, right down to the present time, the last, impeachment, of Judge Ritter in 1936, that every respondent charged has been faced with articles of impeachment that alleged specifies, and there, is a reason for it. There is a reason for it. So that he who is charged, and this is fundamental to Anglo-Saxon law, that he who is charged must know on what particular charge or points he must defend himself. It is not necessary for him to go over the tremendous amounts of information that we have here and say, well, maybe they will accuse me on this and maybe on that. And it is very simple, Mr. Chairman, because the, gentleman from Maryland began to specify certain times, places and events, Now, if that is it, if that is what the charge is, simply include it in the articles of impeachment. Just to take an example, on the point one of the--paragraph I Of the article, making false or misleading statements. All right. What statements? When were they made? And where were they made? That, is simple because if we are going to know about it when it goes to the: House of Representatives, we ought to know about it now. To lawfully authorized investigative officers. What officers? One, two, three. When? And where? What is so difficult about that? No. 5, approving, Condoning and acquiescing in payment of substantial sums of money. All right. How much money are we talking about? Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARAZITI. The, amount. The purpose. I will yield as soon as am through. The purpose for which the, money was given. To whom was it given? How many persons are involved? No. 6, endeavoring to misuse, the Central Intelligence Agency. That is a very broad general statement and it may be true. I am not denying it. I am not affirming it either. Endeavoring to misuse CIA. We ought to know how, when, where did this occur. Disseminating information received from officers. What officers the Department of Justice? And that can be characterized throughout the entire part of this article. -No. 8, making false ----- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you. [00.24.08--Rep. MARAZITI's time expires]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.26.27] Mr. MAYNE. Now, this was a highly dangerous situation. The President who was responsible for the national security, had a clear duty to act. He had to do something. He elected to set up this special investigations unit in the White House. Now, I do not happen to agree with the way which he acted. think it would have been much wiser for him to rely upon the, Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was the established agency with the experience and knowledge in national defense security investigations, but it is very easy for me and it is very easy for critics of the President, with the benefit of hindsight, to say that he should have gone the other way. But who is to say -when a man charged with that awesome responsibility has to make, a decision to protect the security of the United States if he does not make precisely the correct decision? Act he must and act he did. Now, another very current instance Of national security leak occurred shortly thereafter while the special investigations unit was still being implemented, and that occurred on July 23, 1971, in connection with the SALT talks, the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement discussions in Helsinki. Here we were trying to negotiate the numbers of ground-based and submarine-based missiles and antiballistic missiles which were to be constructed by us and the Soviet Union. There could be nothing more, vital to the defense of the, United States and to the interests of the United States than our ability to defend ourselves against nuclear attack. Yet, in advance of-we had leaked by some official or officials in our Government our fallback position. Now, everyone knows that in negotiations you do not reveal -your final position. You try to get the best agreement for your side that you can, and this is certainly true more in the national defense than anything else. But in this article which appeared in the Times, they did clearly reveal that the Americans were prepared to ask something less if their full American bargaining package was not offered. Now, this--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. The Chair will recess, since there is a rollcall vote. and recess until the vote has been cast, and return immediately after the vote has been cast. [01.32.04-- cut to Chairman RODINO after recess]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Wayne Owens (D Utah). In response to another question in that same press conference the President said that on March 22 he had told Ehrlichman, Haldeman, and Mitchell and Dean that "We must get this story out. We must get the truth out whatever and whoever it is going to hurt. When the tape finally was released and it became public that conversation of March 21st to which the President refers, when that was made public, and we have a recording, and the committee members have heard that recording and they have heard the President instruct Mr. Dean and Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman this, "I don't give an [expletive deleted] what happens. I want you all to stonewall it. Let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover up, or anything else if it will save it, save the plan. That's the whole point." And then later on he says I don't know but, that's you know, up to this point the whole theory has been containment, as you know, John." Not only is there no such quote as the President quoted himself as giving, but when one reads the transcript there is an exact direction to those four gentlemen to do the exact opposite thing. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.33] The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that we, are all fired, and I know that all of us -who have wrestled - with the votes we have cast are awaiting the relief which is promised -when you, Mr. Chairman, bring down the gavel to end this unwelcome task. But. I believe that the kind of conscientiousness which so thoroughly marked our deliberations would be jeopardized if we failed to give serious consideration to the President's failure to pay his proper income taxes and his misuse of tax dollars. Now. I respect my colleagues reasons for not including, this in the other articles. But, I feel so strongly on this issue that I must introduce this article so that full consideration can be given to the overwhelming evidence on the matter of the Presidential wrongdoing. -Now, my special concern will be the area of the taxes which I believe constitutes criminal wrongdoing and an abuse of power. And the other part of that article is equally -important, and the evidence, that the President violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution which is equally distressing. As we proceed with the debate I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks, who will thoroughly discuss this issue. He can give the kind of lucid view that is so very vital because he is chairman of the Government Operations Activities Subcommittee that handled the matter of the Presidential east and west coast estates, both San Clemente and Key Biscayne. Now, really what I want to discuss is the question of whether or not Richard Nixon -willfully evaded the portions Of his Federal income tax In the years 1969 through 1972. In addition to the work that has been done by the committee, I have talked with the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation which reviewed the President's taxes and I am thoroughly convinced that the evidence justifies, indeed it really demands, an article of impeachment calling the President into 'account for his actions on the matter of his taxes. Now, if yon remember in my opening remarks last Thursday night I went down the litany of President Nixon's taxes citing the, great discrepancies between what he owed and how much he paid. We remember 1970 when he had an income of about $350,000. He only paid $793 of the more than $90.000 that -was owed. You recall that in' his first 4 years as President he underpaid Federal income taxes by nearly $420,000. This was because he claimed over $565,000 in improper deductions and he failed to report over $230,000 in taxable income. So what do we see? We see a total error on his tax returns in excess of three three-quarters of a million dollars. That is right. Three-quarters of a million dollars. 'Now, some might possibly argue and say that this was an honest mistake but unfortunately the facts really don't support that conclusion Instead, they point toward the President's deliberate failure to pay his proper tax. And really what is the central element of Mr. Nixon' assault on our tax laws? It is that unlawful deduction taken or ft gift of his personal papers. As I said last Thursday night, the reason that that one-half million dollar deduction was improper was that the loophole that he tried to use, that allowed such deduction was closed July 25, 1969. Now the President claimed on his tax returns that, actually the gift was made prior to that time. But what do we find? We' find that in the spring of 1969 the papers which actually made up that gift hadn't yet even been selected and appraised and the man who supposedly selected them and appraised them didn't even view them until months after the cutoff date of July 25, 1969. And in the spring of 1969, the recipient of the gift, the National Archives, had no idea that the gift had even been made. Now, don't you think you would know about it immediately if somebody gave you something worth $500,000? 1 submit that you would. [01.20.56]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.38.37] [continued speech of Rep. THORNTON, D-Ark.] Early in this proceeding, the question was frequently asked whether impeachable offense was the same as an indictable crime. I think more is required. All men are ultimately answerable to the courts for the consequences of their illegal acts. To justify the bringing of articles of impeachment against the President, it is not enough to demonstrate that that there is probable cause that crimes and abuses have occurred. It is also necessary that these actions constitute high crimes & misdemeanors against the system of Government itself. Throughout these proceedings, I have attempted to analyze the facts & the evidence which has been presented according to these standards. I would like to say, though, that this judgment that each of us is called upon to make must be made on the basis of the whole body of evidence which has been presented to us & we perhaps err in trying to isolate a few instances of that evidence in this debate tonight. It is so easy to overlook details which might have some meaning b/c they don't seem to be too important. For instance, when Mr. Colson was testifying that when the President heard of the Watergate break-in at Key Biscayne, that he was told that the President threw an ashtray across the room in anger. Mr. Colson stated that he related this to us to demonstrate the President's surprise & anger, supporting a belief that the President didn't know of the burglary in advance. But, what that outburst of anger also indicates, at least to me, was the revelation, as of that moment, at the start, that his own men were involved in a stupid and criminal act, which had the potential of terrible embarrassment. Within hours following the burglary. the President's chief of staff Haldeman had discovered that if the investigation into the burglary should be thoroughly pursued, it would lead to the same individuals who had illegally broken into Dr. Fielding's office, who had engaged in illegal wiretapping and surveillance of individual American citizens and in various of the other activities that have been labeled as the White House horrors. 3 days after the break-in Mr. Haldeman reported to the President on subjects which his notes reflect as dealing with the Watergate break-in. And 181/2 minutes of that tape of that conversation have been destroyed by at least five separate and distinct erasures of the relevant portion of the tape. But, that was only the beginning. I suppose it would be human to try and cut the losses which would follow from a ridiculous and petty foolish act like breaking into the headquarters of an opposition party. So the 1st Watergate coverup got started immediately & even if we suppose for a moment that this coverup was managed not only to obstruct, the investigation but also to shield the President from direct Personal decisions, as the plan unfolded & grew in size & criminality there can be no mistake that he was aware and approved generally of the efforts to contain the evidence. You have heard about July 1972, the Pat Gray telephone call, that his aides were trying to Mortally wound him & the 3 conversations which have been mentioned by Mr. Froehlich, Mr. Seiberling and others, the first w/ John Dean on Sept 15 w/ the President. And talk about direct evidence, it is the rarest thing in the world to have the person who is being checked into I available to listen to & on this tape, which was furnished to the Special Prosecutor & later to our committee, the President says to John Dean, complimenting him on putting your fingers in the dike every time that leaks have sprung here and sprung there. In a second conversation on Mar 21, 1973, the President told Dean, "You had the right plan before, the election. You handled it just right. You contained it. And a third one, 'with John Mitchell , on March 22, 1973, when the President said, "As you know, up to this point, the theory has been containment. But, even if we accept that the first full knowledge of the terrible details of the first White House coverup was in the conversation on March 21, there was still time & adequate opportunity to choose the course of the, obedience to law of full & fair disclosure to Prosecutors of cutting away from those who had engaged in conspiracy which had pervaded the White House. And so for nearly 3 weeks before Henry Petersen came to him, concerned with what his investigation had developed, and offering what he-Henry Petersen-- thought was the last clear chance for the President to raise above the criminality which surrounded him, the President had sufficient & ample opportunity during this time to investigate & act. And therefore, the actions of the President w/ Henry Petersen must be considered in light of this knowledge & not based, as assumed by Mr. Petersen, upon a desire to investigate new revelations before taking action. Rather than choosing a course of simple obedience to law, commencing in March 1973 the 2nd coverup began this time, certainly under the direction and control of the President himself. In April 19 1973 Petersen gave the President information by the Department of Justice and the grand jury, relating to evidence of wrongdoing On the part of his aides, based on the President's assurances that he would not pass on what he knew what grand jury information. Nevertheless, the President relayed the information to his aides not only to possible witnesses, but possible defendants so that they could plan strategy to protect themselves. He withheld from the Department of Justice vital information which had been brought to attention. He refused the request, of the Special Prosecutor for recordings of conversations material to his investigation & then fired him after accepting the resignation of the Attorney General & the Asst Atty Gen, who refused to fire him in an effort to avoid the production of this evidence. And, of course, all Of the committee members are aware of noncompliance w/ this committee's subpenas. You know, with regard to obstruction of justice, the President's counsel has told us that many criminal defendants have been sentenced or are awaiting trial & that proves that the process of law had not been illegally interfered with. But it is no answer that, somehow the system has continued to work, despite the action of the President in trying to impede it. We have before us a momentous & a difficult decision. I approached it as a matter of law & b/c I have faith that people of this country believe that a system of law to which all men are subject is a system that we want & must preserve. I did not & I don't particularly enjoy the duty of sitting here in judgment of any other man's fulfillment of his Oath of office. But Mr. Chairman, like the other members of this committee, I have got an oath of office Of my Own, responsibility to decide this grave matter, not On the basis of political interest, but as a matter of my own best conscience, my judgment of the law, the constitutional principles that are involved. And I must say, as the gentlema
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
Empty committee room, two men seen checking under seats. (Do not use voice over of Jim Lehrer). Paul Duke reminds that the Senate Watergate committee also experienced a bomb threat.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 William Hungate Statement
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Statement of William Hungate ( D - Missouri ) 29.16 Peter Rodino ( D New Jersey ) I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, for the rest of his 13 minutes for general debate only. Representative William Hungate ( D Missouri )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 William Hungate Statement
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Statement of William Hungate ( D - Missouri ) 29.16 Peter Rodino ( D New Jersey ) I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, for the rest of his 13 minutes for general debate only. Representative William Hungate ( D Missouri )
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. John Conyers
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment
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 and African American men. Caucasian male press photographers taking pictures. Chairman US Representative Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) talking with politicians. Eagle molding on ceiling. Crowd in chamber. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) talking. Rep. James R Jones (D-OK) talking. Rangel and Rep. JJ Pickle (D-TX) talking. Conference booklet featuring House Bills HR 4961, HR 6877, and HR 6878; Rep. Barber Conable (R-NY) seated; Caucasian female hands flipping booklet pages. Jones standing with another politician.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] [in Rep. SANDMAN debating Rep. SARBANES about the specificity of his proposed ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. Mr. SARBANES. I believe that this article that is presented to you meets the law of impeachment with respect to the problem that you raise. Mr. SANDMAN. I did not ask that. I asked do you understand the law to say that an article of impeachment must be specific? Mr. SARBANES. In the same sense that a criminal indictment must be specific? I do not believe that the standards which govern the specificity of a criminal indictment are applicable to an article of impeachment if that is the thrust of the gentleman's question. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, now, do you not believe that under the duo process clause of the Constitution that every individual, including the President is entitled to due notice of what he is charged for? Do you believe that? Mr. SARBANES. I think this article does provide due notice. Mr. SANDMAN. You are not answering my question. Mr. SARBANES. Well, I think, lam answering your question. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, let me ask you this, then. As I see this, you have about 20 different charges here, all on one piece of paper, and not one of them specific. The gentleman from California has asked you for a date, for example, on charge 1 and 2, no date. You say that he, withheld relevant material. When and how? Is he not entitled to know that? How does be answer such a charge? This is not due process. Due process---- Mr. SARBANES. I would point, out to the gentleman from New Jersey that the President's counsel entered this committee room at the very moment that members of this committee entered the, room and began to receive the presentation of information, and that he stayed in this room---- Mr. SANDMAN. I do not yield any further. Mr. SARBANES[continuing]. Throughout that process. Mr. SANDMAN. I do not yield any further for those kinds of speeches. I want answers and this is what I am entitled to. This- is a charge against the President of the United States, why he should be tried to be thrown out of office, and that is what it is for. For him to be duly noticed of what you are charging him, in my judgment, he is entitled to know specifically what he did wrong, and how does he gather that from what you say here? Mr. SARBANES. My response to the gentleman is that the article sets out the means. The President's counsel has been here throughout the proceedings and is aware of the material that was presented to us, and at this article, in comparison---- Mr. SANDMAN. One last question. One last question, and you Can answer. Do You or do you not believe, and you can say yes or no,, that the the President is entitled to know in the articles of impeachment specifically on what day he did that thing for which you say he should be removed from office? Is he entitled to know that, and in an article of impeachment, not by virtue of the fact that his counsel was here? Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SARBANES. I do not believe that the article of impeachment is going to contain all the specific facts which go to support the article. If it were to do that, the article of impeachment would be 18 volumes. Or whatever the number of volumes are, Pertinent to place into it all of the specific information. Mr. SANDMAN. I do not think it has to say that at all. But, I think It has to say that on a certain day he did something which is illegal. thus-and-so You can say that in a simple sentence, but you are not saying that here. And, in fact, there is plenty of law on this point. and it says that those things shall not be general, these things shall not be general. They shall be specific. This has been the case of every impeachment trial tried in the United States, all the way up to the last one in 1936. You do not dispute that. do you? Mr. SARBANES. I do dispute that. If the gentleman is talking or referring back to criminal indictments. then the thrust of the gentleman's point has some merit. but I do dispute it when he shifts it to the law of impeachment. It is not a correct statement of the law of impeachment, Mr. SANDMAN. I am talking about the impeachment of Justice Ritter. That was an impeachment. Mr. DONOHUE. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. DONOHUE. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from California Mr. Danielson. [00.06.28]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.30.17--in committee room] [1990's Massachusetts Governor Bill WELD is visible to left of Counsel GARRISON, wearing blue sportcoat] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. Mr. CONYERS./ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to observe, if I might, that we have spent a good deal Of time talking and I think we may have reached some agreement upon the validity of the Sarbanes substitute. That is to say, we realize that 'we are going to bring to the floor of the Congress this matter so that--to attempt to detail the policy or the plan that has been suggested as the basis for article I in the substitute would be a little bit ludicrous. Mr. Sarbanes has outlined on at least three or four 5-minute periods Of members' times the basis for that continuing course of conduct and it seems that for us to continue to say that we want to write it in article I of a resolution of impeachment would be highly unsound. Now, as I look across this article, we have only nine subsections. We allege a plan, that the President using the powers of his office made it his policy to delay, impede and obstruct the investigation of the illegal entry of the DNC on June 17, 1972, and as I look at the first, specifically specification of making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, it is clear that on April 18, 1973, for example, the President talking to Mr. Petersen, the Assistant Attorney General of the United 'States, He told Petersen to stay out of the, Fielding break-in investigation because of reasons of national security. That was a false, or misleading statement. We have documented it tiny number of times in the course of the months that we have been and so for us to have to write this in is an unnecessary act becaus there is not just one or two. there are several, any number of them, any of which, since as I read this pleading, it is in the, alternative would be sufficient'. The. means used to implement the policy of the President have included one or more of the following , emphasis, one or more of the, following and we allege nine specific courses of conduct that demonstrate that the President of the United States used his office to obstruct justice. Now, with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think that after we analyze I any number of these reasons, that demonstrate a course. of conduct, those of us who are ready to support the notion of impeachment as embodied in this -very plainly worded language should be able to support it, before this evening is over and I would hope that we would move to that point so that we could at least accept this very first article before the end of this evening. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. CONYERS. I would yield if I have time remaining to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for an observation, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized 1 1/2 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I think that we should be very careful about the subject of specificity As you have said, this is a unique proceeding and in that. sense I believe it is one that is developing all the time. At most, every day we relearn son something more about the situation With regard to the White House. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the--as we, know, the Supreme Court has Ordered 64 subpenas to be turned over to the Special Prosecutor, Suppose that those tapes or portions of them. become available to the House or even the Senate at a later time. I am a afraid that If the articles or subheadings are too specific that some subjects that may arise, out of those 64 subpenas that Might Ultimately Come into our possession might be denied consideration when. they should be considered by the House or by the Senate. Also, Mr. Chairman, we have a trial we know is coming up in September of Mitchell, et al, and it is entirely possible that facts or situations may- develop which may bear on the ultimate outcome in the in the Senate if there is one and I say that we should not be so frozen in here that -we can't use additional information, and we don't know what other disclosures may come about, what other situations next few weeks and couple of months, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman that the outline in article I as suggested by the gentleman from Maryland is definitely enough and still gives us that flexibility so additional facts may be brought to bear. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. For 5 minutes. Mr. LOTT. I thought that determining the specific charges was what this was all about. Now there has been some talk about including all the other specifies and a report. I wonder who would prepare that report. Would it be left just to the, staff? I think that is a question that we should........ [01.35.46--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey), I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Donohue. Representative Harold Donohue (D - Massachusetts). Thank you Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to the procedural resolutions which this committee adopted yesterday, I move that the committee report to the House a resolution; together with Articles of Impeachment, impeaching Richard M Nixon, President of the United States. Now copy of this resolution is at the clerk s desk. And I understand a copy is also before each member.