Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.21.36] Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I move an amendment The CHAIRMAN. No the, gentleman is not recognized at this time. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Chairman, I will yield-- CHAIRMAN. . You are recognized for 5 minutes. MEZVINSKY. Thank- you. Will yield 3 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California to continue his presentation. Mr. WALDIE. Well, I do want to make clear about John and Martha The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. WALDIE. The reason I do that is that there is no question and the Public knew that John Mitchell and Mrs. Mitchell were having some difficulties. Mrs. Mitchell in fact told him that if he didn't leave Public office she would leave him. But, that wa the excuse given, and in the conversation when they' discussed this they all agreed that that was the excuse because the public would understand that and as the President said, anybody would dare criticize a man for leaving this office because of his wife demand. Well you know they just wouldn't do that. He put it in More' blunt terms, but what they really wanted to do was to get John Mitchell out of the public eye. That was coverup. Now, I just think, you see, that through June 30 there was just no, question that there was a policy which was to protect the election of the President by concealing the involvement of the White House and'! the Committee for the Re-Election people in the burglary of Watergate because once their involvement had become known they would go back to the Plumbers' activities involving that break-in of the for Dr. Ellsberg, or Dr. Fielding's office and they would go back to the forging of these cables, designed to implicate John F. Kennedy in the assassination of Diem in South Vietnam. They would go back to the investigations of Senator Kennedy, They would go back to all kinds of very ugly things that 'were always describe mind you, as national security. That is the other key phrase you find through the coverup scheme When you want to keep something covered, when you don't want people to inquire, You put a label of national security on it an they always talked about Hunt's activities being national security. Nobody has ever pointed out to one single thing Hunt has ever don that had anything to do with national security. Forging cables surely is not national security. Breaking into a psychiatrist office-, is snot national security, as John Ehrlichman can clearly tell you. None of, the things described by the special investigation unit were really in implementation of national security. What this plan was, right up through June 30, was to coverup, conceal, and to keep it contained. From June 30 on, the plan evolved into much more dramatic terms, where John Dean's efforts relative to the FBI, relative to containment by coaching witnesses, relative to really raising big money to pay off the burglars and---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes. Mr. WALDIE. Let me just leave the last line for the next chapter. We, will go on to at the next meeting the question of picking UP money. with gloves on because you don't want fingerprints when you are going to deliver it for a compassion purpose. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has I minute and 45 seconds remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I Will be very brief I think what is interesting is that we are having now the layout of evidence but when we listened to the debate this afternoon, I think a lot of the public may have wondered actually what is going on here. We are. supposed to be considering an article impeachment concerning whether Richard Nixon has prevented, obstructed and impeded the adminsitration of justice. Somehow it seems that some of colleagues have been more concerned about possibly starting a crusade to make the word "specificity," as common in our conversations as the word Watergate. Mr. MARAZITI. Would the gentleman yield? the Mr. MEZVINSKY. I think it is demeaning really to President to think that he cannot understand the meaning of what is in this Sarbanes substitute, I think it has been spelled out quite well and I think we understand the tactic as really being diversionary. I just want to say to my colleagues, the evidence that the gentleman from California and others have pointed out is overwhelming. And I also want to say that the evidence will not go away. Mr. MARAZITI. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The yenfleman has 10 seconds remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I shall yield back the balance of my time, .Nrr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey seeking recognition? Mr. MARAZITI. Yes Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature a motion to strike paragraph 1 The CHAIRMAN. Has THE gentleman an amendment at the Clerk's SANDMAN. Yes, sir. There are eight amendments, and mine is The CLERK. There is an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment Has the amendment been distributed? The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the amendment has been distributed, I understand, but it did not contain Mr. Sandman's name. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Sandman. Strike subparagraph I of the Sarbanes substitute. [00.28.07]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.29] Mr. WIGGINS. Now, some sinister purpose is imputed because he paused briefly before he said that. But that is what he said. Now, I want to refresh the recollection of the members as to whether or not the President's concern about CIA was justified under all of the circumstances, We remember that McCord was in fact arrested and a former CIA agent, We remember that Barker was in fact arrested and a former CIA agent, perhaps an active CIA agent, Martinez was arrested and he was a former CIA agent. Hunt's name was in the Washington Post: Hunt was a spy for the United States, a former CIA agent, and a former member of the Plumbers' unit. There are other facts which were called to the President's attention on June 23 all of which indicate possible CIA involvement a theory which was Supported by the FBI itself the FBI itself believed there might be CIA involvement, Given those facts, ladies and gentlemen, we are asked to conclude that the President corruptly, corruptly, instructed his aides to request, that there be coordination between the CIA and the FBI so as not to reveal unrelated CIA covert activities: Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is all the evidence there is in between the 23d Of June and the 6th of July. There is no question that John Dean acted improperly. I am willing to stipulate to that. But that does not execute the President's instructions which were given on the 23d of June. On that issue. ladies and gentleman, the question really is not all that close. I would think that the weight if not the preponderance, of the evidence in favor of the President is that he acted in the public, interest as distinguished from corruptly. Surely however, there is not a clear and convincing showing that the President acted corruptly- given the facts and the knowledge that he had at the time he issued the instruction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time hs expired. The question now occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Alabama. All those in favor of the motion please say aye. [Chorus of "ayes".] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed, no, [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes have it. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a rollcall. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey demands a rollcall, and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor, signify by saying aye; all those opposed, no. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards, Mr. EDWARDS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg Mr. EILBERG. No. The CLERK. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. Present. The CLERK. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. SARBANES. No. The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling Mr. SEIBERLING. No. The, CLERK. Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. No. The CLERK. Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. NO. The, CLERK. Ms. Jordan. Ms. JORDAN. NO, The CLERK. Mr. Thornton, Mr. THORNTON. ]NO. The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman. Ms. HOLTZMAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinsky Mr. MEZVINSKY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. No The. CLERK. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER . No. The CLERK. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. No. 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. Mr. RODINO/ NO. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman 11 members. have voted aye. 26 members have, voted no, I member voted present. The CHAIRMAN. And the motion is not agreed to. [00.41.34]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.33.33] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maraziti is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to compliment at this time the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky. He has done what some of the proponents of articles of impeachment have not done. He has inserted specific allegations. I do not agree with his position. but I do agree that the article is precisely and properly drawn. I address myself to paragraph 2. I know that paragraph 2 is an emotional issue and it has more strength on the side of popular interest, but it Is really weak as a ground for impeachment. Let us now analyze this particular I article. On July 25, 1969, that date constitutes the last date when a gift of Presidential papers could be made. March 27, 1969, as has been stated, is the date when the Presidential papers were delivered to the, 'National Archives. This is about 4 months before the cutoff date. There are a number of questions involved here. First, how is title to personal property passed ? There are two methods of transfer. One is by a deed of transfer -and another legal method is by actual delivery of the personal property. "Now. the second' question is, Was title transferred on March 27, 1969? Well, the papers were delivered to the National Archives and in my opinion title was transferred on that date. Now, after that date the President was not able, to repossess his papers. He lost possession. He lost control, And he lost title. A very interesting thing, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee a Government agency has actually ruled to that effect. And I refer to a letter put in evidence dated June 4 1974, from the Archivist and here is; what he says in part, "Long before the onset of the tax controversy"--long before--"It was the position of the General Services Administration, which itself has absolutely no involvement in Federal tax matters, and here is the important part--"that there had been a valid gift of the subject papers to the United States." That is a ruling of an agency of the Government of the United States. Now, if title passed. it is obvious there Is no fraud. But I submit to you that even if there Is. a dispute as to whether title passed, -when the President divested himself of possession of his Presidential papers, in a voluntary way. certainly that is enough to negate fraud. Now, what did the IRS do in this particular situation? I What action did they take? Section 6653 of the Internal Revenue Code is relevant. Well, they checked the return and they found that a tax was due. And they assessed a tax. There are two sections to 6653, section (a) and section (b), Section (a) provides for the assessment of a negligence penalty which was done in this particular case,5 percent. Mr. Sandman indicated section (b) provides for a fraud penalty which the IRS has the, right to assess: 50 percent. Now, here we have the most thorough and complete audit in the history of the IRS, the audit performed on the return of Mr. Nixon, and the IRS, with its thorough investigation, notwithstanding what has been said here and argued, did not assess the fraud penalty. Mr. Chairman I cannot see how this matter can be a ground of impeachment under the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks you said, and I concurred, We Must be fair to every man. I have tried to be fair to Mr. Nixon and I have tried to persuade the members of this committee to vote against Impeachment, It is apparent that we have not succeeded in this respect. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. MARAZITI. May I have one-half a minute to finish my sentence, please? Mr. HUTCHINSOn I'm sorry, I cannot yield to the gentleman any More time. I have not got a speck of time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson, has consumed 29 minutes and 20 seconds and has 30 minutes and 40 seconds, and the gentleman from Iowa has Consumed 26 minutes and has 34 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. MEZVINSKY. Yes. Mr. Chairman. I now yield to Ms. Holtzman from New York, 5 minutes. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady is recognized. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a grave concern about the tax matter that we have seen before this committee, and I would like to clear up the record on one point. There has been a lot of talk that the IRS cleared the President on tax fraud. In fact. the IRS did nothing of the kind. The IRS said that the reason they. could not find tax fraud was because they did not have the testimony under oath of Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Ralph Newman, and that without that testimony under oath. they were not able to make a decision one way or the other. But, they did not preclude the possibility that in the future, if these persons did testify under- oath. they could connect the taxpayer with fraud in this instance. So, I do not think that it is fair on the record to say that IRS exonerated the President of tax fraud. They found that because persons close to the President and the members of the President's staff would not testify under oath they were unable to reach a conclusive decision. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the lady answer a question ? [00.40.40]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.58.28] Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [quoting] QUESTION. And you testified, however, that had it, in fact, been technically grand jury testimony that., in your legal opinion, you had a perfect right to transmit it to the President? Is that right? ANSWER. Yes, sir. QUESTION. Arid I think you testified also that had it, in fact, also been grand jury testimony that in your legal opinion it would be entirely proper, correct and legal for the President, in the discharge of his administrative function in determining whether or not to fire Haldeman and Ehrlichman what he should do about them and so on, to inform them of the charges against them, is that correct? [end quoted section] ANSWER. Yes, sir. Now, similar answers were given by this distinguished public servant and to a number of Congressmen who questioned him on the subject, it seems clear that much ado is being made about nothing in this particular paragraph insofar as it related to the testimony that the President did transmit information received from Mr. Petersen. Mr. RANGEL. Would the gentleman yield'? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman Mr. MAYNE. I yield back my time to Mr. Dennis. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for the remainder of the time---3 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayne has made my speech for me and made it very well. I am very happy that he recalled that colloquy that I had with Mr. Petersen and called it to our attention, because it is the answer. Mr. Petersen said in the first place that it was not grand jury testimony although some of it was, some of it wasn't. In the second place, if it had all been grand jury testimony he would have had a, perfect right to tell the President of the United States about it, as he, did. In the third place, the President of the United States had a perfect right to take up with these people the general subject matter with which they were charged for his administrative purposes and in order to determine whether or not they ought to be fired or retained, and "I expected him to do that when I talked to him." And there was not anything illegal about it. Now, that is the Petersen testimony. And now we are going, to hang somebody because of that transaction when that is the man involved has to say about it and it- is very, very difficult to see. Mr. Petersen has no complaint and I would not think that this committee would have any complaint either. Now, that is adequately covered and I hope everyone here understanding exactly the procedure we are going through. Yesterday we gave these people a little hard time because they would not file an ordinary charge which as Mr. Latta said, would be granted to any jaywalker in the land. So today the have concocted a scenario and we have a series Of motions which nobody intends to vote for, even including the charming gentleman who makes them, just so they can talk about Specifies that they were not willing to plead. That is all right. It is good, clean fun, I guess. A little bit farcical, I think, for such a serious Procedure. I am afraid some of the bias against the President is showing here and there in this kind of an operation. I am afraid so, but really there is not very much more to say about this particular charge because the man who was involved and whose information was supposed to be transferred has no complaint and. said that it was perfectly 'all right. I think the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, wanted Me to yield to him, and I will be happy to do so. Mr. SANDMAN. Thank you. My only Purpose in seeking this 1 minute is, I have a question for my friend from Alabama. On my motion to strike, you voted no, On' the second one, of course, we had no vote. On three and four, you only voted present. Five and six, we had no vote. NOW, On seven, I am Curious: Are, you going to vote for your own amendment or are you going to Continue to call on people to defeat your amendment? The CHAIRMAN. the time of the--- Mr. FLOWERS./ Mr. Chairman, may I answer the question? Mr. SANDMAN. Could I have unanimous consent to have the gentleman answer? The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. [01.02.58] [DEADPAN] MR. FLOWERS. Well, the caliber of the debate is so outstanding, Mr. Sandman, that it leaves me undecided at the conclusion. [cut to SANDMAN laughing] [DISORDER in the room] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please be in order and I think it is important that we try to maintain some decorum in this chamber. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. MR. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we have spoken to this issue before and I regret the need to have to go back into it. But, I guess this is what we have decided to do today. Let me just say that I think the American people, if they want to suitably apprise themselves of the facts surrounding the events of April 15, ought to get ahold of the transcripts and look at them. The two preceding speakers forgot to relate a couple, of important events. The President of the United States, who was interested in finding out about the involvement of Haldeman and Ehrlichman his two top aides, had specifically assured Henry Petersen, the new----- [01.04.16--TAPE OUT]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 Walter Flowers (D - Alabama). I yield to the gentleman from New York. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R New York). I thank the gentleman for yielding and Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to address not only the members on this side of the aisle who have labored those last 7 months, but also my friends and supporters in New York who are also by and large supporters of the President s. Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote in favor of this, the first article of impeachment. This comes after long deliberation, but it comes because that analysis of the evidence in this proceeding has led me to this inescapable conclusion. I am sure you realize that my vote is not cast lightly. My decision has not been reached hastily. It is reached at all with deep reluctance only after I have been persuaded that the evidence for such a vote is clear evidence warranting the recommendation by this committee of this article of impeachment to the House of Representatives. I thank the gentleman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Now, I think this committee has to face up to the question of whether Richard Nixon has willfully evaded his taxes. I believe this matter falls into a pattern of abuse of office because it is evident that the President entertained an expectation for and took advantage of favorable treatment by the IRS. I view this as a grave misuse of a serious violation of public trust that demeans the Office of the Presidency. Our tax system is based on impartiality, and everyone is supposed to be treated fairly under our tax laws. Now, some Of MY Colleagues such as Tom Railsback, whose district is right across from mine On the Mississippi, they have already discussed the disturbing practice of making up friends and enemies lists in the White House and sending them over to the IRS. for special attention. You have to wonder when you look at the friends list whether the President wasn't his own best friend. As we look at this area, we cannot concern ourselves solely with the question of willful evasion of taxes. We have to consider the President's unique position in our country. ; He is looked to for leadership and his respect for and adherence to our laws is supposed to set an example for the rest of us. We must remember that if an average citizen cheats on his taxes, the Treasury only loses the money. But, the President deliberately fails to pay his proper taxes, we risk the corrosion of our entire. System. And really when we consider taxes or any of the other serious charges before us, we have to take a hard look at what Richard Nixon's conduct has done to our system of government. Mr. Chairman, as you so eloquently noted at the opening general debate, we are at the crossroads for America. Whatever committee decides, it will have a Major impact on the future of the country. What legacy shall we leave for the future? Will we condone Richard Nixon's Presidential conduct and sanction his claims that he, is the defender of that grand Office or will we record our abhorrence of the way he has defiled the Office? Will we, ignore the actions which have already brought so many our children to hold such a low regard for the highest office in our land, or will we make it clear to our fellow citizens that we cherish the Office of the Presidency and will take up the Constitutional challenge to protect it? As we proceed with the debate on these articles, on the question whether we are to bring Richard Nixon to account for the gross abuse of Office, I think we must all ask ourselves if we do not, who will?
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. US Representative Sam Gibbons (D-FL) talking to Rep. Barber Conable (R-NY). Gibbons and Conable talking to Chairman Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL); Rostenkowski walking. Two unidentified Adult Caucasian male politicians talking. Rostenkowski talking takes seat; Caucasian male press photographer.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.02.54] Mr. SEIBERLING....... what is in dispute are the conclusions we ought to draw from them. The evidence is largely circumstantial. but I remember the Writer Thoreau once said that, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." Now, what have we found In this case ? We have found a fraudulent deed and I do not think there is any doubt of it at least I do not have any doubt about that in my mind. And that deed -was used to secure an enormous tax deduction. Now, the question is whether the President was involved in that fraud. The Internal Revenue Service has already determined that, he was involved in negligence and they assessed negligence penalties against him which be has paid. Now, the question is how do we decide whether there is sufficient, cause, to send it to the Senate for a trial? And my feeling, after considering all of the principal factors, is that we should do so and I would just, like to outline very quickly these because they have been thrown out in detail here. First is that the President signed income tax and by so doing verified that all of the facts therein were true to the best of his knowledge and that he personally read the return, Second we also have evidence that before he signed it he went over it, page by page with his lawyer. Third, we find that he failed to answer questions addressed to him by the Internal Revenue Service regarding certain key facts and he refused to answer them. The fourth point is that be has shown a habit of great attention to detail regarding his personal finances. Fifth of all, -We have the great size of this deduction, $576,000, a huge sum of money. And finally we have the testimony that if the ease had involved anyone other than the President itself it would have been referred to a grand jury for prosecution. Now, it seems, to me that we cannot have one standard for the President and another standard for all of the other taxpayers. Either we are going to have to hold him to the same standard and submit him to the same process, or we are going to have to lower those standards and make things easier on other taxpayers. Now, I maybe as a taxpayer and as taxpayers we would prefer to have it that way but I think that if we are going to protect the integrity of the system we are going to have to subject him to the same kind of scrutiny that any other taxpayer would be subject to, And that means, in my opinion a trial so that all of the facts can be brought out and that trial of course has to be in the Senate as far as this body is concerned. NOW, we have, not discussed with respect to San Clemente and Key Biscayne the benefits and emoluments and the fact that there is also an abuse of power aspect to this matter. The President clearly has used his power through his aides and personally over the General Services Administration and over the Secret Service to obtain which he would not otherwise have obtained. And this has been a source Of embarrassment to the GSA and the Secret, Service. And as I recall when the questions first were submitted to them by the clerk as to whether expenditures had been made for the President's personal benefit at, San Clemente, the GSA refused to answer on the grounds that the facts, were classified because of national security. NOW, the. Secret Service the next week released some of the facts so that they could not have been national security. But, this is an example of the spuriousness of the concept of national security to cover up embarrassing things such as we have seen in earlier discussions before this committee. And if I have any time left, I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. if he could give us the chronology of how the figures were gradually brought out as to the expenditure. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I will give him another minute, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you. I Would yield to the gentleman from Texas. [01.07.29]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
[01.16.04] Specifically. on March 21, 1973, the President instructed Dean and Haldeman to lie about the arrangements for payments to the defendants. And in this regard, I call your attention to page 119 of our transcript. I think we have probably been over this some little time before but it is relevant to this particular point dealing with the Cuban committee [quoted section] PRESIDENT. As far as what happened up to this time, our cover there is just going to be the Cuban Committee did this for them up to the election. DEAN. Well, yeah. We can put that together. That isn't, of course, quite the way it happened, but, uh---- PRESIDENT I know, but it's the way it's going to have to happen. DEAN. It's going to have to happen [laughs]. [end quoted section] Mr. BUTLER. And I direct Your attention also to page 120 of the transcript which follows specifically on March 21, also the President told Haldeman and Dean-- [quoted section] PRESIDENT. That's right. That's right. HALDEMAN. You can say you forgot, too, can't you? DEAN. Sure. PRESIDENT. That's right. DEAN. But you cant'-your-very high risk in perjury situation. [end quoted section] Mr. BUTLER. Now, this is on page 120 of the transcript. I think I will not burden you too much with that at the moment because I am running out of time. Specifically, the President and Dean discussed how Magruder' perjury Problem -was helpful in making him keep his story straight. And that is on page 123 of our transcripts. And Dean says to the' President: [quoted section] DEAN. Once we, once we start down any route that involves the criminal justice System-- PRESIDENT. Yeah. DEAN. You've got to have full appreciation of there's really no control over that. PRESIDENT. No, sir. DEAN. While we did, we have an amazing job of--- PRESIDENT. Yeah, I know. DEAN. Keeping the thing on the track before. PRESIDENT. Straight. DEAN. While the FBI was out there all that--and that was, uh, only', because-- PRESIDENT. Right. DEAN. I had a [unintelligible] of where they were going. PRESIDENT. [Unintelligible] right. Right. But, you haven't got that now because, everybody else is going to have a lawyer, Let's take the new grand jury. Uh, the new grand jury would call Magruder again, wouldn't it? DEAN. But, based on what information it would? For example, what happens if Dean goes in and gives a story, you know, that here is the way it all came about. It was supposed to be a legitimate operation and it obviously got off the track. I heard of these horribles. I told Haldeman that we shouldn't be involved it. PRESIDENT. Yeah, right. DEAN. Then Magruder's going to have to be called in and questioned about all those meetings again, and the like. And it begins to--again, he'll begin to change his story as to what he told the grand jury the last time. PRESIDENT. Well- DEAN. That way, he is in a perjury situation. HALDEMAN. Except that's the best leverage you've got on Jeb-is that he's got to keep his story straight or he's in real trouble. DEAN. That's right. [end quoted section] Mr. BUTLER. And of course, this conversation was between the President, Dean and Haldeman. Specifically, at the March 27 meeting between the President, Haldeman, and Ehrlichman the following discussion took place this comes from the unedited, or the edited transcripts which which have come to us from the White House. And I refer you to page 35 of that transcript if you will. [quoted section] HALDEMAN, Let's go another one. So you persuade Magruder that is that; and approach is (a) not true; I think you can probably persuade him of that; and (b) not desirable to take. So he then says, in despair, "Heck, what do I do? Here's McCord out here accusing me," McCord has flatly accused me of perjury-- he's flatly accused Dean of complicity. Dean is going to go, and Magruder knows of the fact that Dean wasn't involved, so he knows that when Dean goes down, Dean can testify as an honest man. PRESIDENT. Is Dean going to finger Magruder ? HALDEMAN. No, sir. PRESIDENT There's the other point. HALDEMAN. Dean will not finger Magruder but Dean can't either-likewise, he can't defend Magruder. PRESIDENT. Well--- HALDEMAN. Dean won't consider [unintelligible] Magruder. [reading interrupted] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will finish his sentence. Mr. BUTLER. Well, I will finish what I was reading of the statement by Mr. Haldeman in this quotation, if I may. But Magruder then says: [quoted section] Look, if Dean goes down to the grand jury and clears himself, with no evidence against him except McCord's statement, which will not hold up, and it is not, true. Now, I go down to the grand jury, because obviously they are going to call me back, and I go to defend myself against McCord's statement, which I know is true Now I have a little tougher problem than Dean has. You are saying to me, "Don't make up a new lie to cover the old lie." What would you recommend that I do? Stay with the old lie and hope I would come out, or clean myself up and go to jail'? The President, to Haldeman. "What would you advise him to do?" [end quoted section] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to speak in support of the--- Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have started from an understanding of what the language is before us to be stricken, and I want to read the operative words, at least, These are charges against the President. mind you, approving, condoning, acquiescing in and counseling witnesses with respect to giving false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers, and so forth, including congressional proceedings, Note, if you will, that; the language is couched in terms or giving false testimony in the future. That is an important thing to remember because the perjury of Magruder and Porter occurred prior to March 17, well prior to March 17, and the., President did not learn about it until March 17, and so I ask the obvious question, can you counsel the giving of perjured testimony after it is already done? Well, the answer to that is no. The President is just learning about it, on the 17th,----- [01.22.46--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.28.14] Mr. WIGGINS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman an ? Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding- I rise also in support of this amendment and honestly, I would hope that the proponents of the amendment would accept this or the proponents of the article would accept this amendment. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in opposition to the amendment for this reason: It strikes me that the break-in of the Democratic Headquarters is only part and in my opinion only a small part of the misdeeds, the misconduct which is attributable to these aides and assistants of the President, and where the President through these individuals attempted to impede the investigation of the Department of Justice and to otherwise interfere or frustrate the lawful inquiries. For one thing, certainly the break-in of Dr. Fielding's office and the events surrounding that are far more reprehensible in my opinion. The Watergate--the break-in at the DNC is a political matter but the other is unrelated to any political campaign and there are a number of other activities that I suppose they Could be all delineated but I think they are all well known. Now, it is possible that some other appropriate language which Would cover this would be adequate instead of just the blanket phrase "other matters." A great deal of this does arise from the break-in of the Democratic Headquarters, In other words, while that seemed to generate this sort of clandestine operation which took place in the White House, nevertheless, it was only a small part of the overall activities in which all of these different characters were involved and I would hope, either that we would retain this language or that, some appropriate more explicit, language would be offered in order to cure what the gentleman feels is too much of a generalization. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. While I think it would be preferable in the drafting of this clause if we did include more specific terms, there are many more items than the break-in of the Democratic National Committee. But, I think this argument of specificity that my friends and colleagues have so effectively and articulately made is, in effect, a red herring because we should not delude ourselves into thinking the deliberations we are now engaged in is a presentation of the evidence. We do not intend to duplicate the 10 weeks of evidentiary hearings which brought us to this point. We are only trying in the most general way 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? [01.33.01]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote on Sarbanes substitute as amended
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote on Sarbanes substitute as amended
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. Elizabeth Holtzman.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. Elizabeth Holtzman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.08.52] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that we are' faced with the problem that confronts the drafters of pleadings constantly, and that is the conflict in the requirements of trying to be specific in the details and the need to be clear and concise in stating the nature of the charges which are to be, brought. In order to accomplish this, the procedure which is usually followed is to have a clear and concise statement of charges such as the one before us and then to supplement that with a bill 'of particulars or as has been discussed by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jordan, a report which would detail in great particular the specifies. I see no great difficulty in proceeding that way and would like to join the gentleman from New York. Mr. Fish, in suggesting that perhaps our differences over procedural matters are interfering with our approach to the very grave, and substantive matters which we must consider. I think it is important for each member of this committee to know the detail of information which does lie behind each of the paragraphs which we have, and our counsel has indicated that he is prepared to give us that information. We have heard during the day very specific illustrations of some of the detail which supports these charges. And, Mr. Chairman, I just think that we should make every effort to get away from the problem of procedural drafting and move forward to a consideration of the Substantive questions which are represented by this document, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Holtzman, for 5 minutes. MS. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just briefly want to state that the debate here is whether we ought to follow the procedure that was used and developed centuries ago or whether we in this impeachment proceeding will bring ourselves into the latter part of the 20th century -where we find ourselves. It is true that the earlier impeachment proceedings pleaded very specific language. It is also true at that time that they were based on the general civil practice which required specific factual pleadings. We abandoned that system of specific factual pleadings in 1938 in our Federal court system and since that time have been operating on a notice pleading system which has been held by courts on innumerable times to supply defendants with due process of law. And I think that that is the issue here, whether we are going to bring ourselves up to date or whether -we are going to discuss really a phony issue involving antique practices. I would like to address myself, Mr. Chairman.. to the. substance of the article before us, and in particular the language which says "subsequent to June 17, 1972, Richard M. Nixon, using the power of his high office, Made it his policy to cover up, to conceal and protect those responsible for the Watergate break-in, and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities." The question -was raised earlier today, when did the. President make this his policy? Mr. Waldie has been trying to give a chronology starting if from at least June 17 and I would like to point to a very important Conversation that took place on March 21, 1973, and to what happened in that conversation. John Dean, counsel to the President, came to President Nixon and said that there is a cancer growing on the Presidency. He said that there has been blackmail, there as been perjury, there has been coverup, there has been obstruction of justice, hush money has been paid to buy silence, clemency has been promised to buy silence. He told this to the President and he said to the President: "I was under pretty clear instructions not really to investigate" this whole matter during the summer. "I worked on a theory of containment." He told the President "I know that Magruder has perjured himself, I know that Porter has perjured himself." he also said to the President that "Bob." that is Bob Haldeman, "is involved in that," the hush money payments, "John is involved in that"' John Ehrlichman, "I am involved in that. Mitchell is involved in that, and that's an obstruction of justice." What did the President of the United States say in response, to these revelations? What did he say? He said John, John Dean, "You have the right plan, let me say. I have no doubts about-, the right plan the before election, and you handled it Just right. You contained it." In that conversation the President was approving what John Dean had told him about the perjury, about the blackmail, about the, theory of coverup, about the clemency, and I would like those of you who say that the President has not approved this and made this his policy, how that is not so to explain to me, I yield back the balance of my time. [00.15.20]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
.[00.02.06] Mr. BUTLER. [quoting the WHITE HOUSE TAPES] HALDEMAN. Dean will not finger Magruder but Dean can't either-likewise, he can't defend Magruder. PRESIDENT. Well--- HALDEMAN. Dean won't consider [unintelligible] Magruder. [reading interrupted] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will finish his sentence. Mr. BUTLER. Well, I will finish what I was reading of the statement by Mr. Haldeman in this quotation, if I may. But Magruder then says: [quoted section] Look, if Dean goes down to the grand jury and clears himself, with no evidence against him except McCord's statement, which will not hold up, and it is not, true. Now, I go down to the grand jury, because obviously they are going to call me back, and I go to defend myself against McCord's statement, which I know is true Now I have a little tougher problem than Dean has. You are saying to me, "Don't make up a new lie to cover the old lie." What would you recommend that I do? Stay with the old lie and hope I would come out, or clean myself up and go to jail'? The President, to Haldeman. "What would you advise him to do?" [end quoted section] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California to speak in support of the--- Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have started from an understanding of what the language is before us to be stricken, and I want to read the operative words, at least, These are charges against the President. mind you, approving, condoning, acquiescing in and counseling witnesses with respect to giving false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers, and so forth, including congressional proceedings, Note, if you will, that; the language is couched in terms or giving false testimony in the future. That is an important thing to remember because the perjury of Magruder and Porter occurred prior to March 17, well prior to March 17, and the., President did not learn about it until March 17, and so I ask the obvious question, can you counsel the giving of perjured testimony after it is already done? Well, the answer to that is no. The President is just learning about it, on the 17th, and a fair reading of the conversation between the President and John Dean on that occasion, my recollection is it is the 13th rather than the 17th, but on that occasion is that the President is learning about prior perjury as distinguished from counseling future perjury which is the essence of the allegation before us. In addition to that, my good friend has just read several statements from the transcript, of March 21 in which John Dean 'is speaking to the President and the President to John Dean about certain aspect 7 aspects of the, then unfolding Watergate case. The question is, which We have to decide and to decide on the basis of evidence convinced as we must be, that it is clear and convincing whether the President counseled anybody, to go before a duly constituted investigative agency and not tell the truth. I can only submit the record to you ladies and gentleman. Well, now, men and ask that you read it, again, those specific incidents called to our attention by Mr. Butler, and ask that, you read it fairly and resolve that question. Did the President indeed counsel anybody to commit perjury? Well, I call only, say, that I am satisfied, and I hope, that you -will be satisfied upon a rereading of that record, that the allegation is not true. There are other aspects, however, to this case which have been mentioned from time to time in the context of the President counseling false testimony. You will recall, ladies and gentleman, that there came a time in the course of this testimony when- we learned that the President advised various witnesses about what other witnesses were testifying to before grand juries, the assumption being that he was counseling them to phony up a story to counter the testimony which was then being received. I am talking specifically about Herb Kalmbach, and you are well aware of that situation Tom. I am also talking specifically about Magruder. The backdrop, of course. was that John Dean was then testifying before the U.S. attorneys. Magruder--strike that--LaRue, now a broken man, was offering testimony before the U.S. attorneys-The President said that others have to be advised as to that testimony, the implication being that they would concoct a story to lie. Well let me, within my remaining moments say that there are not less than two reasonable constructions to be drawn from that. One is that they phony up a story to lie. .Another is that they not lie, that they conform their story with that being offered before the attorneys so as to avoid a perjury situation, even unintentionally. The notion that someone should be advised about the context of someone else's testimony IF; wholly consistent, ladies and gentlemen, with developing the truth, and it is totally unfair I believe to suggest that that was part and parcel of a plot to develop the untruth. Now, we know here as the lawyers for the House that if you have these two reasonable possibilities, and I suggest that they are eminently reasonable, if you have these two reasonable possibilities, we solve that in favor of the President of the United States, the respondent, and not draw the adverse inference simply because some among us are relatively suspicions as to whatever the President does. One final comment and then I think my 5 minutes are up. Are they up now? The CHAIRMAN./ The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. WIGGINS. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00.08.44]
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA) speaking during a House floor debate; discusses Republican vs Democratic House Committee membership; highlights percentages; wants to increase Republican membership.
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) speaking during a House floor debate; regarding Republican vs Democratic House Committee membership; address Republicans' membership concerns regarding balanced committees.
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) speaking during a House floor debate; regarding Republican vs Democratic House Committee membership; address Republicans' membership concerns regarding balanced committees.
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. William Dannemeyer (R-CA) speaking during a House floor debate; regarding Republican vs Democratic House Committee membership; calls for equity in Committees between parties.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.25.54] Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will claim the time on this side. The CHAIRMAN. -Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I will claim the time on this side, and I -will yield 5 minutes to Mr. Wiggins. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. I thank the Chairman for yielding. Ladies and gentlemen, we reached all agreement a few moments ago that what this case was all about, was the willful evasion of taxes. We know, although the gentleman from Iowa causes me to doubt that he knows that this case has nothing to do with an innocent state. If the President, in fact, erred on his income, tax but did so innocently or relied in good faith upon his counsel, then -we are not talking tax fraud in this case. It is a sweeping inaccurate statement, to say any citizen who claimed an improper deduction in this amount would be criminally prosecuted. That is not so. Such a prosecution can only proceed if there is fraud. And I want to discuss the evidence, not a theory, not a, theory at all, but the evidence with respect to whether or not fraud exists in this case. This story began in the fall of 1968, ladies and gentlemen, after the, election, when President-elect -Nixon met with President Johnson. President Johnson recommended to President, Nixon that he might consider giving certain pre- presidential papers as a gift and taking a tax deduction. President, Johnson recommended to President-elect -Nixon the name of an appraiser, one that -Mr. Johnson had used when he claimed his deduction. The appraiser's name was Newman and he was from Chicago. President Nixon apparently felt that was worthy of pursuing and contacted his law partners up in New York, the firm of Nixon, Mudge, Rose, and an attorney proceeded thereafter to perfect a gift of certain pre-Presidential papers for the taxable year 1968. Now, that was the only Presidential Involvement in the year 1968, President-elect Nixon, talking to President Johnson and dealing through his attorneys concerning a gift. We move now into the year 1969, which is the critical year insofar as Presidential actions are concerned. In February of that, year, John Ehrlichman sent a memorandum to the, President in which he discussed tax planning for the President and suggested that the President might well consider making a gift of his pre-Presidential papers. There was no question at that time as to the. propriety and lawfulness of making such a gift if it were properly perfected. The. only Presidential act so far as our records disclose is the President writing on the bottom of that memorandum the word "good," and a few odd sentences with respect to a, foundation. But the word "good" is the operative word, suggesting that the President was instructing Ehrlichman to go forward and perfect the gift of his pre-Presidential papers. The President now is removed from the picture for a period of many months. Thereafter, John Ehrlichman and Ed Morgan of the White House, in cooperation with Mr. DeMarco, a tax attorney out in the Los Angeles area, performed certain acts for the purpose of claiming a gift. I make no claim, ladies and gentlemen, that they acted properly. That will be determined at a later time. But we, are talking about the President's actions and his alleged fraud. The President played no role. ladies and gentlemen, in that at all. The next act of the President is in a, social occasion at. the White House, when he meets -Mr. Newman and as Mr. Newman goes down the social greeting line, and we have all had some experience in that, there was a brief exchange about the appraisal, appraisal of the pre-Presidential papers. Thereafter, the next act occurs in January, rather, in December. The President signs a bill, a tax reform bill. And the final act upon which this whole case is premised is that in April, April 10, 1970, Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Kalmbach, his two attorneys, come to the Oval Office .With a completed tax return. They spend approximately 35 minutes in the Oval Office, a portion of which was devoted to pleasantries, approximately 10 minutes of which Was devoted to the tax return Itself. It is stated by the, witnesses that they went over it page by page and now critically, ladies and gentlemen, critically the, evidence' is that the President's attorneys then and there stated to him that these deductions were properly taken and the President signed the return, A few moments thereafter 'Mr. DeMarco took the return upstairs for Mrs. Nixon to sign and that is it. That is all the evidence we are talking about. Now, on that--on that this web of fraud is spun and I suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen, it is wholly, wholly unsupported by the evidence. The CHAIRMAN. The 5 minutes of the gentleman has expired. Mr. Hutchinson. [01.31.20]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] [the CLERK reading the substitute of Rep. HUNGATE to the ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT charging NIXON with abuse of his PRESIDENTIAL POWERS] The CLERK [reading]: In all of this, Richard M. -Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest-, injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Richard TM, Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. Mr. WIGGINS. Now I repeat my point Of Order, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized on a point of order and will state his point ]it of Order. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, my point Of order is that article II fails to state an impeachable offense under 'the Constitution. May I be recognized on my point of order? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his point Of order. Mr. WIGGINS Mr. Chairman and members of the committee it is quite clear of from a full reading of proposed article II that the gravamen Of that article is abuse of power on the part of the President of the United States. That concept of abuse is stated in various places by use of the word misuse and in use of the word dereliction of constitutional rights as distinguished from in violation of those rights. The question, ladies and gentlemen, is whether an abuse Of power falls within the meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and misdemeanors," since we can impeach on no other basis. If it, does not then my point of order should be, sustained. If it does, then we should proceed With the consideration of that article. My problem. Mr. Chairman, is that I have no quarrel -with abusive conduct-- when that conduct does in and of itself violate the law. In that Case. then we should impeach because of those. violations. I do have serious concerns as to whether or not, conduct, which does -not, violate the law, but which may be characterized by this committee or the, Congress as abusive. falls within the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors R is apparent from the proposed article that its author believes that abusive conduct is impeachable. My problem is this; just what is abusive conduct? What does it mean? I suggest that that is an empty phrase. having meaning only in terms of what we pour into it. It must reflect our subjective views Of impropriety as distinguished from the objective views enunciated by society in its laws. It ought to be clear to this committee, a committee of lawyers. that Such a, phrase. as "abuse, of power" is sufficiently imprecise to meet the test required by the fifth amendment. In my view. Mr. Chairman, the adoption Of such an article would imbed in' our constitutional history for the first time, for the very first time, the principle that a President may be impeached because of the view of Congress that he has abused those powers, although he may have acted in violation of no law. If that is true, then we truly are ratifying the statement attributed to the now Vice-President that impeachment means exactly what the Congress says it means at a given moment. By declaring punishable conduct which was not, illegal when done, this Congress is raising the issue of a bill of attainder, contrary to the express terms of the Constitution the argument of ex post facto legislation is now before us. If we are to declare punishable that conduct which is not illegal under our laws, in so doing, Mr. Chairman, We Ought to recognize the momentous nature of such a decision, because we. are taking a step toward a parliamentary system of government, in this country rather than the constitutional system which we, -now have. We are in effect, saying Mr. Chairman, that a President may be impeached in the future if a Congress expresses no confidence in his conduct. not because he has the law, but rather because that Congress declares his conduct to be abusive in terms of their subjective notions Of propriety. In terms of the future, Mr. Chairman, what standard are we setting for the Presidents in the future? How will any future President know precisely what Congress may declare to be an abuse, especially when, they have failed to legislate against the, very acts which they condemn. I think it, is holding up to a future President an impossible standard that he must anticipate What Congress may declare to be abusive in the future Under the law, Mr. Chairman, -we have no right to impose our notions of morality and propriety upon others and make it their legal duty to comply therewith. But. that is what we are doing when we say that a, President may be impeached for abuses of his office when the acts of alleged abuse, are not in themselves violations of the, law. I have much more to say later with respect to the take, care, but, I will reserve that until that is considered under separate subdivisions. Mr. Chairman, I believe my Point of order is well taken and should be sustained. [00.07.37]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.26.30] Mr. JENNER. I think that provision of article I would not prevent the introduction of evidence in the area. But the problem presented is whether that it is sufficiently specific in a charging sense to be able, to assert that the failure to respond to the subpena is itself an impeachable offense. Mr. THORNTON. Well, based on that answer then, it seems that we are faced with the very real issue of giving a proper consideration to the failure of the President to comply with our subpenas. I think that it is important that in approaching this we should be aware that here we are dealing with directly and intimately a matter which can have a bearing upon the constitutional basis of power between the three departments of Government, and that what we may do with regard to the adoption of this article is going to in one way or another possibly affect the future of those balances. If we do nothing, we may indeed limit the authority of the legislative branch to make a proper inquiry as to the misconduct under the impeachment provision of individuals in either the executive or judiciary branches of Government. If, on the other hand we draw too broadly upon our power and authority, we might distort the balance of power to give the legislative branch under its impeachment clause the authority to constitutionally investigate and determine the actions of members of the executive or judicial branches of Government For this reason it seems to me that, if this article is to be given consideration, it must be sharply limited and defined to the presence. of offenses established by the other evidence which might rise to the level of impeachable offenses. And that is the purpose and effect of the perfecting amendment which I have offered and which I ask the members to adopt, because it seems to me that we are confronted with the very serious problem in Presidential noncompliance with our subpenas, but that we must draw carefully limiting language to prevent a distortion of the balance of power between the executive and the legislative branch. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. FROEHLICH. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and the gentleman from Arkansas, no matter how sharply limited and defined you try to draw this article, this is clearly an indication of alleged absolute power of the President versus the alleged absolute power of the Congress, a classic, case in separation of powers. The President claims constitutional and historic tradition of executive privilege and the Congress claims --exclusive power of impeachment. What reasonable men would not properly place this Impasse before the third branch, the courts for final arbitration and decision in both in the interests of obtaining information or substantiating the President's compliance or noncompliance under the Constitution. Clearly, the President has asserted his constitutional responsibility vested in him in article II to protect the office of the Presidency against, the infringements of other branches. This argument was also advanced by the President in responding to subpenas sought by the Special Prosecutor. In fact the President used the courts all the way up to and including the Supreme Court to advance his position. What the Supreme Court said in the United States v. Nixon in response to the President's argument is vitally important for this committee to understand. It said that in the performance of assigned constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the constitution and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due respect from the other. [01.31.26]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.58.09] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the debate on this article, and article I last evening, seems to have been developed into the proposition that unless the president personally or individually authorized the activities set forth in articles I and II, the charges set forth therein have not been sustained. Now, let us look at the Federalist Papers for a little guidance and the statement made by James Madison, one of the main architects and Framers of our Constitution. He went on to say: "I think- it absolutely necessary that the President should have the power of removing from office. It will make him in a peculiar manner responsible for their conduct, and if he suffers them to perpetrate -with impunity crimes and misdemeanors against the United States, he will be subject to impeachment." And he goes on to say, quote: "Or if he neglects to superintend their conduct so as to check their excesses he shall likewise be subject to impeachment And Madison went on to say: "On the constitutionality of that declaration I have no doubt." Now, the question is, did President Nixon, a recognized, sophisticated, astute public official, who has been described by his deputy assistant Mr. Butterfield, as a stickler for detail, and a person who made all decisions, know of these operations that -were being directed by "trusted and loyal members of his official White House family? This member believes that he did. You know, on the day in 1789 when the Constitution was adopted, Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady: "What kind of government have you given us?" And Mr. Franklin replied: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." I believe that we will keep our republic and that the process that we are engaged in during these proceedings -will help us. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. [*this is a very good speech for establishing the socio/historical context of these proceedings*] Mr. HOGAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to return to a thought which my esteemed ranking Minority member offered to us this morning. He reminded us that a few years ago the country was being torn apart by groups of people 'that were going around bombing college campuses, burglarizing draft boards and ROTC facilities and destroying the work of scholars and in engaging in all sorts of lawless activity because they disagreed with the Vietnam war, they disagreed -with the draft, they disagreed with the position of the Nixon administration, and they felt that because cause was just they could commit these crimes. They felt that -were above the law. Most of them had long hair and beards and dressed as nonconformists and desecrated the flag. Inside the White House at the same, time there was another group of men who wore well-tailored business suits, close-cropped hair, no beards, and wore flag pins in their lapels. They disagree with all of these other people, they thought that the cause was just, they believed that the Vietnam war was Justified, they supported this administration , but they felt that because their cause was just they too were above the law. 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------ [01.04.23--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.51] Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in the context of this article that the paragraph 1 is inadequate. This article is in the nature of a criminal indictment. it essence is a criminal conspiracy which is being charged under designation of a "policy." It also, of course, includes the charge obstruction of justice, another criminal offense, and it should specific. From the standpoint of the proposed article II that I expect us to consider later, and relating primarily to the President's obligation, constitutional responsibility to see to the faithful execution of the it seems to me that such an allegation might take on a different postulation and therefore I am going to join in the motion to strike this language in this article, not withstanding that I may find that this language appropriate in another article which we may consider. Now, I would be happy this time to yield the balance of my time" any gentleman an who would like me to yield to him. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I have some time of my own, but I am grateful to my friend from Illinois adding to it. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the distance we are in danger departing from the law and the Constitution and sending into impeachment politics here this evening is -possibly illustrated best by the rather startling propositions I have heard advanced during the course of the debate from people who I really don't think ordinarily would have advanced them. For instance, it has been suggested in effect that statements in a committee report can be used to cure an article of impeachment Which is fatally defective because it is too definite and vague. At one point in the debate the statement was made that you didn't really need to worry much about the rules of evidence because they didn't apply in a trial before the U.S. Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Then We heard several times in effect that due process of law is outmoded. We are now in the 20th century. You have got notice pleading. Now, everybody knows that, or I thought everybody knew, that an impeachment proceeding is at least quasi-criminal. I didn't know that was a matter of dispute. It is condone punishment and as Mr. Jenner I agreed here a while back, rule 7 of the criminal rules still applies and it Says, "The indictment"--or "The information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." Now, that is not notice pleading. There is nothing outmoded about it. You are entitled, anybody is entitled. I know a little about a few things and one of them is criminal law and you are entitled to be notified of the defense charge, and you are entitled to be notified in the charge. You want some 20th century, up-to-date law. Let me give 'You a little more. Whoever commits an action which the law declares to be punishable Or which is deserving of punishment according to the fundamental idea of a penal law and the sound perception of the people shall be punished. If no determinant of penal law is directly applicable to the action it shall be punished according to the law, the basic idea which fits it best. Doesn't that sound a lot like some of the propositions we have heard Advanced around here today and it is good 20th century law. It is part of the Nazi penal code from Hitler's Germany. You know, really, we don't--we didn't have to be arguing this all day and all night. This is a very very simple proposition. All you have to do not plead 12 books of evidence. You just say making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized intelligence or investigative officers in that on such and such a day said the following to so and so. Now, Mr. Railsback 'has given us a long laundry list. He says I think they are disputable. Mr. Wiggins has disputed a couple of them very well. When the time comes that can be done but why don't we list them? And since we aren't going to list them and since obviously for some reason we have made--better just strike that thing out---- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. As the gentleman suggests I support the motion. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 5 more minutes. The gentleman as his own 5 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, you almost seared me to death but I am glad to know that I have still got 5 more minute, and I will take a little more, time. You ought to specify, as I was about to say, since we, obviously are not going to specify in spite of the great knowledge of these gentleman men, and stated readiness to specify. If you were going to leave it the way it is, it say anything, and according to their theory, the operative parts, and up above here, paragraph 2, you do not, need it anyway, so out it ought to go. This is a good motion under the circumstances. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will Yield a, couple of minutes of my time to the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, and reserve the balance for the moment. [01.16.25]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Now, I do not fear that the impeachment of a President on evidence, would do harm to the office of the Presidency. Our Nation, recently survived the trauma of a Presidential assassination and united behind a new President. Vice President Ford is an honest man Of integrity and intelligence The country would rally to his support if by action of Congress he were to become President. Mr. Chairman. I believe. the significance of what we do here will endure for many years to come. If our standard of impeachment is too low or insubstantial, we -will seriously weaken the Presidency and create a precedent for future use of the impeachment power when charges may be trivial or partisan, but if we set standards of impeachment which are too low or narrow, if we fail to impeach now with this evidence before us, we, are saying to future Presidents you are not required to obey the law. The implications for or wholesale loss of individual freedom freedoms would be staggering. And we would in that circumstance render completely impotent the. impeachment power which the Constitution vested in Congress as the last resort, to prevent serious abuses of power by all Presidents. I believe that the impeachment of this President, if it resulted in his removal and his replacement by Gerald Ford, would not, be, to the political advantage of my Party, but the totality of the evidence has convinced me that it would be to the public benefit of my country. It is possible that in a Senate trial additional evidence, which we have not seen would be presented in the President's defense and no one, knows, nor should they pre-judge whether the Senate would convict. That would depend upon the evidence Presented to them. But the weight of the evidence presented to this committee now stands clearly and convincingly for impeachment. I take no joy & no satisfaction in this decision. I do not take pleasure in pointing an accusing finger. It is a disgusting and distasteful task. It is a joyless resolution to a heartbreaking problem which will cause great pain and suffering. I do it strictly because of the obligation Imposed by my membership On this committee and by my judgment that the Constitution requires it, of me. This Republic, created by the Constitution, represents the finest attempt in the history of mankind to establish a government of laws which can assure equal justice for all and guarantee each individual the dignity to which he is entitled. Today the, Nation looks to this committee to resolve, in unprecedented crisis of confidence in that system and its leaders which left, unresolved could have, disastrous implications. Ours is the responsibility of restoring confidence in our Government by assuring that the President is charged before the Senate where he will either be convicted or acquitted. With the evidence before us, if we fall to Vote for impeachment and a Senate, trial we will have failed the Nation for today and for the future. We will increase public despair and especially disillusion among the young and we will have no way to resolve these questions about the President's conduct which a Senate trial will put to rest one way or another. If we fail to impeach because of our own political allegiances or fortunes. we will have engaged in conduct as harmful to the -Nation as that conduct of the President, the record of which I believe we must now refer to the Senate for their appropriate action.