Advanced Search
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
41.32 David Dennis (R Indiana). I suggest perhaps to my friend from California that one of the reasons there is such an unwillingness to be specific may be that some of the specifics that they would rely on if they had pled them just wouldn't pan out as true. Mr. Wiggins has already mentioned this, but one of the points that been suggested here is that on the 27th of March the President instructed Ehrlichman to tell Attorney General Kleindienst that Dean was not involved and that that is false. Here is what he said. He said, "Look, Dick," this is what he is saying to Ehrlichman, but I should say to Kleindienst, "Let me tell you, Dean was not involved. Had no prior knowledge." Now they are talking about prior knowledge of the Watergate break in. And there is no hard evidence that Dean had prior knowledge of the Watergate break in. They re not talking about the coverup. And that is proved when you go over further and read what Ehrlichman actually did tell Kleindienst he said, The President said for me to say this to you, that the best information he had and has is that neither Dean nor I nor anybody in the White House had any knowledge of this burglary." Now that is all they are talking about. And it is a very, very thin suggestion that there is anything false in that. Charles Rangel (D New York). Would the gentleman yield? David Dennis (R Indiana). It isn't false by the weight of the evidence, Charles Rangel (D New York). Would the gentleman yield? I think we can have a meeting. David Dennis (R Indiana). I yield back to my friend. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.31.41] Mr. SANDMAN. But let us get back again to the most important thing of them all. Why are these' people resisting so hard to give us nine simple sentences? Why'? They do not have to give us great big volumes. They do not have to give us 150 pages that Mr'. Doar referred to. Just give us nine simple, sentences. The simple reason they will not--they do not have the proof, They have 40 books, but no witnesses. An unusual case, to say the least. Now, we can talk about this as long as we want, but I think we have talked long enough. I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California , or Mississippi, I am so sorry, Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Sandman. Just a couple of points. First of all, with reference to this telephone conversation between the President and Pat Gray ray, the fact is Pat Gray did not initiate that -call. The President called Mr. Gray at approximately 8:25 a.m. .July 6. This all came about apparently through MacGregor and MacGregor did not meet with the President until 10 a.m. A lot has been said about what was said in that conversation. After Gray raised the question that the President's staff was trying to mortally wound the, President what did the President do? He paused perceptibly, and I think this is a natural--it shows logically that this was a matter of first impression and concern and he did not make any kind of comments about coverup. he told him, you just keep going right ahead with your thorough investigation, or some words to that effect. Now there, is no hard evidence that the President ever attempted to interfere with the course of the FBIs investigation. At no time did he, Haldeman or Ehrlichman state that the investigation should be halted--and I refer you to book 2, page 383. They merely expressed a, concern, -and a legitimate one, I think, at that time that the trail not lead to exposure of CIA or Plumbers' activities which would harm national interest. And this is important. Before and after that concern was expressed there was no knowledge or no involvement by the President in the future attempts to limit the investigation. There is no evidence that the, theory, this Watergate break-in was a CIA operation, was discussed before Gray told Dean the FBI was considering this possibility on June 22. Although Gray had checked with Helms before talking to Dean and received a tentative denial, it does not appear that he passed this information on to Dean. I refer you to book 2, page 339. Therefore there. is no evidence that the President was aware of CIA denial at the time he was informed of possible CIA involvement. Now, it is very difficult to argue to these specifies that we are being given, we hear them for the first time. here and there are replies to these, but we have to try to go and find the reply on the spur of the moment. It is important to differentiate, I think, between the President President's expressed concern and the subsequent actions taken by his assistants without his knowledge. Once again You must look at whether this the assistants, the aides, doing these, things, or the President. Mr. HOGAN. Will. the gentleman yield? Mr. LOTT. I think Mr. Wiggins---- The CHAIRMAN. There are 3 1/2 minutes remaining out of the 10 minutes. Mr. Wiggins is recognized Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be succinct. It is instructive to remember. ladies and gentlemen, that in the form of this article we are talking about Presidential misconduct, Presidential misconduct, and not misconduct of others unless it con be logically and appropriately tied to the President. I wish to speak rather rapidly to the matter of CIA. There. are two Presidential acts within the time frame of June 23 to July 6, and that is the time frame in which it is alleged there has been inference with the CIA. The first act begins when the President issued these instructions, as reported in our tab. The President Instructed H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman to insure that the FBI investigation of Watergate did not expose unrelated CIA covert activities or White House special investigative unit activities, and that the CIA and the FBI should coordinate to that end. That is a Presidential act and it is admitted. The only other Presidential act occurred on July 6, several wee later, and this is what the President said after being informed by Pat Gray that his aides are attempting to mortally wound the President. The President said, "Pat, You just continue. to conduct your aggressive investigation." [00.36.29]
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. William S. Cohen
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. William S. Cohen (R - Maine).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974
[00.25.33] LEHRER calls on Caroline LEWIS at the Rayburn Office Building [LEWIS shown on projection in studio beside LEHRER] LEWIS remarks that the intensity of feeling has increased, and a great degree of respect for the Constitution was expressed, and that no Representative seemed to really want to be in the position of making a decision. Points to a highlight of the day as Rep BUTLER, R-VA, giving an impassioned speech in favor of impeachment, even though conceding that it might hurt his re-election efforts. [cut to DUKE and LEHRER in studio] LEHRER introduces guest lega analysts VAN ALSTYNE and KRAMER KRAMER comments that most side issues and allegatins have fallen away to leave as the core of the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT the charges of OBSTRUCTIN OF JUSTICE and ABUSE OF POWER, with the emphasis on the Constitution being so strong among almost all speakers. VAN ALSTYNE remarks that there was more agreement on the committee than he thought about the issues of burden of proof, and standards of evidence, and that a majority seemed to feel that impeachment required at least a taint of criminality, if not provable statutory criminal offenses. Agrees on a professional basis with those conclusions. Says that the side issues of Tax Fraud, the ITT affair, Dairy Price Bribery, and the bombing of Cambodia, have fallen aside. DUKE thanks guests, and invites viewers to view the next days proceedings. signs off. [title screen--voiceover credits sponsoring organizations--NPACT ID--PBS network ID] [00.30.57--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
(Do not use voice over of Jim Lehrer) A shot of aides working in the empty committee room.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
[00.48.18] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi I overlooked, Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the hour is late, I will be brief. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Mayne, and speak briefly in support of the motion to strike by Mr. Sandman. I Oink that, he probably did not intend necessarily to offer motions to strike on each amendment, but I think it has been clearly demonstrated here by what has been said. that we do have a need to see what the specifics are so that we can debate and agree, if possible, on what will be included in the articles.Now, we have already pointed out earlier that there, was a mistake the first allegation in support of this section. And I have another that I could speak to with regard to the President's giving false and misleading statements to Petersen on March 21, but I think enough has been said about this. I think now that the point has been made very clearly by the last few speakers, on both sides of the aisle, that we do need to find some, way to come, up with the particulars and I urge the committee to go ahead and get on with their vote on the motion to strike and make some termination as to what we can do or some way that we can find to be more particular so that we can debate the real issues, the real facts that have been asking for an opportunity to discuss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a reward for your pa patience, I shall not take my full 5 minutes. I take this time to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Doar. If we do not strike this item, it is your intention, then, to leave it in these general terms and to go to the statements of information for the details? Mr. DOAR. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Mr. LATTA. Is it your intention if the article--item is not stricken as proposed by Mr. Sandman. is it your intention then to go to the statements of information for the details that will have to be spelled out specifically in the charge the President? Mr. DOAR. No; Mr. Latta, it -would not be my intention to do that. Mr. LATTA. Where will you (yet the information? Mr. DOAR. You would have the statements in a report that would go along with the article to the floor. and in the report yon would be keyed to the summary of information that you were furnished last week, and that in turn would also be keyed back to the, statements of information, but what you would have, as I would envision it, you would have a report that was maybe 15, 20 pages long that would summarize these facts, these ultimate facts. and relevant facts, and that would be keyed if someone wanted further information to the summary of information that, was about 150 pages long and had it all keyed to statements of information where you could see the documentary--- , the testimony, if you needed to see them. Mr. LATTA. Where would the President have to go to find out the charges being made against him specifically? Mr. DOAR. Well, the President would have the article or articles of impeachment. MR. LATTA. Which would be general. Mr. DOAR. Which would be general. The President would have the report of the committee. The President would have the summary of information, and the President, would have the statements of information. Mr. LATTA. He would have to go to all of those? Mr. DOAR. Well it isn't a question of reading them all. They, would all be. keyed so you could got from one to the other very easily. It is not--it is not a difficult job of getting in and out of this material if you have the proper Index. Mr. LATTA. SO what you are saying, then, you are going to have,' report in addition to the statements of information. Mr. DOAR. Well, there would be a committee report. That is my understanding what the chairman has said. Mr. LATTA. And you wouldn't be incorporating all 38 or 39 statements of information in that report. Mr. DOAR. Oh, no. Mr. LATTA. But the President, would still have to go to those statements of information to get the details of the charges being mad against him specifically. Mr. DOAR. Not the details of the charges, but if he had Mr. LATTA. Let's get the specifics. Mr. DOAR. The specifics would be in the--there would be more specifics in the report. If he was--you could be more Specific if you looked at the summary of information that we furnished last week Mr. LATTA. Well, then, the question is how would the President knows the charges being made against him if we left this charge "making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States". Now. will you just outline how he would know what those charges are so he can defend himself against them? Mr. DOAR. Well--- Mr. LATTA. He would go then to the report from this document Mr. DOAR. He would go to the report, and if the report--then he would look at the summary of information. That is the document we furnished, one notebook. Then in the one notebook that is the statement of information, and he could go to that and the actual testimony, for example, or the statement that a person made, or the press release, or whatever else was relevant on that subject and then--that is not unusual with respect to modern civil or criminal practice Mr. LATTA. It might not be unusual, but in cases, in criminal court these days we don't 38 or 39 volumes of statements of information and I would just like the American people to know what we are talking about. And this- [00.54.26--to demonstrate, piles the STATEMENTS OF INFORMATION, EACH THE SIZE OF A PHONEBOOK, on top of each other on the table] [00.54.56--laughter as LATTA FINISHES his demonstration]
Chairman Ichord of the House Committee on...
U.S. Representative Richard Ichord (D-MO) at podium for press conference regarding The House Committee on Un-American Activities investigation into the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Off-screen male reporter asks, "The witness who occupied most of your day was Dr. Quentin Young, who answered many of your questions. Did you find that he was anything other than a well-meaning physician with an interest in social and anti-war causes?" Ichord replies: “Let me say this, that there will probably be some additional evidence developed in connection with Dr. Young and I do not want to say any more about that matter at this time. The investigators are gathering evidence and I expect that there will be some additional evidence concerning his activity." Off-screen male reporter reminds Ichord the Dr. Young’s Subpoena has expired. Ichord says another subpoena can be issued. Another male reporter asks which witnesses the hearings will continue with. Ichord says, “The hearings will continue on December 2nd, that some witnesses have had their subpoenas continued: Mr. Tom Hayden, Mr. David Dellinger, Mr. Rennie Davis, and possibly Mr. Abbie Hoffman. Ichord says he thinks, “they've just scratched the surface in this investigation. " Off-screen male reporter asks if contempt citations are being considered for the lawyers as well. Ichord replies: “If the witnesses will be responsive to some of the questions, as they have this afternoon, I don't expect that they'll be in contempt. Anyone cited for contempt of Congress will have their day in court as well.” Off-screen male reporter asks, "Some of the witnesses have charged that this hearing was politically motivated to support your own re-election. Is there any truth to that charge?" Ichord responds: “Let me say this, that the last poll that was taken in my election, I was leading 67% to 24% for my opponent, with 9% in his own home town, so I doubt if that contention has any merit."
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.40.46] Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, I would yield my time to the gentleMan from Illinois if he needs any more time there. Mr. RAILSBACK. I appreciate--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized-is he Yielding 5 minutes? Mr. FLOWERS. I would yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois and I want to reserve 2 minutes to ask a question of counsel. the CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In addition to that particular statement by the President, then there, was a sizable-there was some material deleted and then the converstation picked up and it went to Kalmbach and in this particular case the President's own edited transcript shows that the President instructed Haldeman to call Kalmbach to attempt to learn what Dean and Kalmbach were going to say Dean had told Kalmbach regarding the purposes of fundraising. In addition the President instructed Haldeman, "Well, be sure that Kalmbach is at least aware of this, that LaRue has talked very freely." These statements that involve Henry Petersen were between the President and the man that was really in charge of the Watergate investigation Then on April-he believed it was 25th and 26th the President Instructed Haldeman, a man who had been implicated, a man who had been implicated by John Dean on March 21, to get hold of certain taped conversations that took place in February and in March and Haldeman carried out his responsibilities and reported to the President. On April 26 he met with the President for 5 hours and reported to The President of the United States about what he had heard on those tapes. This committee has subpoenaed that 5-hour taped conversation and this is one of the tapes that we have not been able to get our hands on. Then I think it was April 27 the President again met with Henry Petersen. Henry Petersen at this point indicated that Dean's attorneys 'were threatening to implicate the White House. The President assumed that it meant him as well. And that is when he referred, and this is also in the edited transcript, the President said the only thing he could be referring to is that famous March 21 conversation and he did not tell Henry Petersen that he had had Haldeman listening to the tape. He didn't tell him there was a tape and this was just the day before but what did he do? He told him that they had talked about hush money, $120,000, and I think that his final quote was that he had turned it off totally. Mr. Doar, if you want to get into false and misleading statements I can't think of a better place to begin and I feel so strongly about this particular aspect of the whole Watergate incident that 1 would refer your attention to those conversations. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, in my remaining time I would ask counsel if this is the kind of evidence that counsel would have put under this heading. Is this the kind of evidence that falls into this place in the article? Mr. DOAR. This is the proof, yes, that we would offer. Mr. FLOWERS. Do you have any further items that Mr. Railsback has not mentioned? Mr. DOAR. Well we have the item. that Congressman Waldie mentioned about the President's statement on June 22 following the President statement by John Mitchell on the 20th of June. Mr. FLOWERS. To whom was that statement made 2 Mr. DOAR, To whom was what statement made? Mr. FLOWERS. The June 22 statement Mr. DOAR. It was made, in reply to a question at a press conference. Mr. FLOWERS. That wouldn't fall under this heading, though, false and misleading statements. Mr. DOAR. That is true. Excuse. me. Mr. FLOWERS. Well, I ask again are there any further items? Mr. DOAR. Yes; there Is. There is one other statement. That was, well, I believe that this one falls under the next paragraph because this relates to information to the President with respect to a statement that one of his subordinates made to officials of the Department of Justice. Mr. FLOWERS. Well, the items that Mr. Railsback mentioned and which he centers on, the dealings with Assistant Attorney General Petersen. is it your purpose, then, that these items of information". would fall under the first subparagraph there. is that correct? Mr. DOAR. That is correct. And I would also say. Mr. Congressman, that the statements that were made by Gordon Strachan to the FBI to the Department of Justice in connection with their investigation, in furtherance of the plan-- Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Strachan was Mr. Haldeman's assistant. Mr. DOAR. Yes; Would be some of the proof under this paragraph: Mr. COHEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you. I yield to the gentleman from Maine. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Doar, would the failure to disclose- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this motion strike and I think we have had a good number of hours here on debate about whether these plea pleadings are detailed enough. I think we have examined counsel searchingly'. We have exchanged our views. I am going to call for the previous question. I think the time--unless there are other members that feel Very strongly about this. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman? Mr- MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman? Mr. CONYERS. I see--well, then, I will withhold the previous question but it seems to me that it is about time for us to consider the first Vote of these proceedings. I don't know now how many...[page obscured several words]... to have to spend to determine whether or not we are going to observe the notice pleading of the Federal rules that have been in existence throughout the country since 1938. Now, if we are going to insist upon drawing an impeachment proceeding based on the last one, from 1868, I think that after we have examined the counsel, we have established facts, we made it very, very definite now that there are two views here. and I presume there is nothing left to do but for us to vote this out. Now, might I inquire, Mr. Chairman, is it possible for us to begin to consider setting some kind of time to close debate to vote on these? I understand there are a number of these motions to strike reaching to some nine of the sections within the Sarbanes substitute and I am very anxious that we resolve this after we have examined it. We have been examining it for several hours. Mr. RANGEL. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I will yield to my friend from New York. [00.48.25]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.33.48] Mr. MOORHEAD. This is not justice, and I cannot laugh at jokes that Mr. Hungate or anyone else might tell in a serious time like this. This is an important time for the people of America, and -we are fighting for far more than Watergate or any specific thing. I will fight for it, for clean Government, and I am against anything that is dirty in Government or that involves the morals, of our elected officials. But, surely let us have the rights that are given to us under Constitution, and give it to the President as -well as we would anyone else. Mr. HOGAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes, I Will yield. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Jenner, I am sure that you would not want to be misunderstood, but in response to Mr. Froehlich's question about who draws up the charges, you said the managers on behalf of the House. I am sure you did not mean to imply that the House -would not approve those charges before they went to the Senate, or did you ? Mr. JENNER. I think that is a very good question. May I give it a minutes or a few seconds' thought, because, Congressman Hogan, a bill of particulars in criminal proceedings does bind the indictment it would be my judgment that perhaps the bill of particulars would have, to be submitted to the House. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Would the, gentleman yield, if he has time? Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes. MS. HOLTMAN. I think it is very important to note that this is not a criminal proceeding, and. that the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that in the event that somebody is impeached, that shall not bar him from trial or indictment or conviction according to law. So, -we are not talking about a criminal procedure at all. And I am very surprised to hear the gentleman's statement that the rules, the, Federal rules of civil procedure which were enacted in the late 1930's have not yet reached California, because I am well aware of them, at least in New York. And they certainly bind Federal proceedings throughout the United States. And those rules of civil procedure allow for notice pleading. This is basically a civil case and a civil proceeding, and I do not think that we ought to be bound by criminal practice. And I think that these articles as they have been Proposed are eminently fair, and eminently within established Procedures. Mr. MOORHEAD. My I have an opportunity to answer? The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. MOORHEAD. May I have 30 seconds to reply to the question as put to me? Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given a an additional minute. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for I additional minute. Mr. MOORHEAD. There is a basic difference in court hearings in which the defendant almost immediately upon being presented with the charges gets a bill of particulars. In this case there would be no way that the President could know of the charges until very shortly before he was to begin trial. I would also point out that while this may not be a criminal proceeding, impeachment is a penalty almost worse than death to any human being that would be President of the United States, to get that penalty, and certainly he deserves to have his constitutional rights protected. And in almost every single impeachment that we have had in recent years the President has had the right to know what be was charged with before he went to trial. Are we going to degenerate the benefits that we give to a President or any other accused in this modern day When supposedly we are expanding the rights of freedom instead of restricting them? Mr. BROOKS. Would the gentleman -yield ? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, Mr. MAYNE. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mann, seek recognition? Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that I have to yield to anybody in my desire to see that these proceedings are fairly conducted. And if it goes to a trial in the Senate, the proceedings there will be fairly conducted. But, as I read this article, the gravamen of the offense is that Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, made it his policy and in furtherance of such policy did act directly and personally and through his close subordinates and agents to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up. conceal and protect those responsible: and, to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. Now, this article goes on to list nine means by which that impeachable offense was carried out. Now, I am astonished to infer that, there are those here who would assert that we should list in this article all of the evidence that applies to this charge. It. is very clear, of course' that if we were to attempt to do that we would have a document filling several of these books. [00.39.32]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.29] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, is recognized. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first perhaps submit, or ask my colleague from South Carolina, who is the underdog now? Mr. MANN. I would like to answer that. Mr. LOTT. All right, sir. I yield, Mr. MANN'. Because I am fully aware that many American people consider that the President is being attacked and abused by sinister forces in this country, by the leftwing press or by the Democrats, and I can assure this gentleman that it matters not to me his party or his position. He is subject to the rule of law, and to justice, and in my role under my oath, he will get it, be he President or be he pauper. Mr. LOTT. I appreciate the seriousness of the gentleman, and I, too, share that feeling. And I think that knowing of my background, I think he knows that this is not a matter of partisanship with me, either. It is a very serious matter. We are, setting a precedent for the future of whether or not a President, because he is unpopular, because of some acts of his aides, even mistakes, or parts of several cases-will a President be impeached. Now, several of you here tonight referred to a gentleman by the name of Butterfield that came in and testified, and I would like to refer to some of his testimony. In one area he testified "everything I am saying to you, incidentally, is judgment, guess. I don't claim to be-to have precise knowledge." And -when I asked him questions about. his position sitting right there in the middle of the White House, right next to the Oval Office, I said: In view of your situation, your location there, and of what has subsequently occurred, and the fact that you were staying abreast of -what was going on, did you have any knowledge of the Watergate cover-up? No, he did not. But he was sitting there right next to -what -was going on, right next to the President. And I asked him did he know about the Plumbers? He did not. Now, -what we have got here in article II is a catch-all accusation. It lumps together five separate charges with a connecting link of only certain common phrases. The purpose, in my opinion, is to put together several partial cases with the hope that the result would be one whole case. Grouping these different charges together in one article represents a clear attempt to accumulate guilty votes, and would be completely improper under any theory of criminal proceeding. In subparagraph 1 of article 11. the President is accused of trying to improperly use the IRS. In subparagraph 3, he is accused of the Watergate cover-up and other unlawful activities which were subsequently specified. There is no real connection between them. It is clear, through, why the catch-all approach has been adopted, and why that is the approach being used. A Congressman who believes that the President should be removed from office for interfering with the FBI may add his vote to the total, even though he does not believe, for example, that the President in any way approved the break-in into the office of Dr. Fielding. Another Congressman may vote for the entire article because he subscribes to one paragraph and he may not subscribe to subparagraph 5. In criminal justice, such words as duplicity and prejudicial joinder of offenses would come into play, but we do not have it here. I think that we do have parts of several cases, and maybe it gets up to three-fourths of a case, or an eighth, or whatever, but you get them together and you get on a tack, and lot me quote the words of Senator Austen in the impeachment trial of Judge Ritter in 1936: "Six legal noughts cannot become a unit of legal accountability." Again, I think we must consider the overall impact of what -we are doing here is going to have on our country for years to come. [01.19.59]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
Last October, in the belief that such violations had in fact occurred a number of impeachment resolutions were introduced by members of the House and referred to our Committee by the Speaker. On February 6th, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 410 to 4 authorized and directed the Committee on the Judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President the United States. The Constitution specifies that the grounds for impeachment shall be not partisan consideration, but evidence of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors''. Since the Constitution vests the sole power of impeachment in House of Representatives, it falls to the Judiciary Committee to understand even more precisely what "high crimes and misdemeanors might mean in the terms of the Constitution and the facts before us in our time. Founding Fathers clearly did not mean that a President might be impeached for mistakes, even serious mistakes, which he might commit in the faithful execution of his office. By "high crimes and misdemeanors" they meant offenses more definitely incompatible with our Constitution. The Founding Fathers with their recent experience, of monarchy and their determination that government be accountable and lawful, wrote into the Constitution a special oath that the President, and only the President, must take at his inauguration. In that oath the President swears that he will take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.41.05] Mr. JENNER. I will ask-the last, Mr. Fish, is quite clear and inherent in the duty to take care. The first that you mentioned is likewise included in the President's obligation to learn what is happening with-- least in the executive agencies, and the executive institutions. You will recall that there was a good deal of testimony with respect to the President's carefully screening the news summaries he received at his desk at 8:10 every morning when be was in Washington and they were delivered to him when he was in San Clemente and in Key Biscayne according to the testimony. And that he read those and he wrote notes on them, and those news reports necessarily, because they covered TV, the, print media, magazines, were necessarily distilled by experts that he had there would bring to him what was occurring day to day throughout the country and alert him to--alert him to things about -which he should inquire with respect to executive agencies and his staff as well. Mr. FISH. Can you think of anything else in addition to these four that would constitute the responsibility -to take care that the laws are faithfully executed? Mr. JENNER. The main one I think is ,in obligation on the part of the President and an expectation of the people with respect to the President, is that he would police his immediate subordinates, not only with respect to direct directions that he had given to them but his chief A, of staff and others as to whether those irections had been carried out. Mr. FISH. I thank you. Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. FISH. Yes, I will be glad to. Mr. DENNIS. I thank my friend from New York for yielding. I simply want to comment first that I don't understand that a piece of conversation to the effect that things are going to change which was what happened on September 15 is in any sense of the word an attempt. If John Dean is concerned I think he would be in serious danger about an attempt but I don't think the President would. Second--- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired. Mr. DENNIS. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie, is recognized. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, the past few days I think have been enormously important days for the Constitution of the United States. Whatever the ultimate result of these proceedings, whether the President be impeached or whether he be not impeached, the Constitution has been strengthened and it has peculiarly been strengthened by commencing the process of bringing into check an executive, a President who had abused his constitutionally limited powers to an extraordinary degree. Article II of these proposed articles of impeachment is in my view the heart of this process, By passage and adoption of this article, we not only tell this President we will no longer tolerate his personal excesses of power but indeed we tell any future President that the Constitution is a limiting document and that it particularly must limit Power where it is concentrated most heavily in the executive branch, the Presidency. Not many Presidents and too few Members of Congress I fear have understood this lesson. I personally believe that few Presidents have misunderstood it as grossly as this President, but in fact all Presidents have sought to grasp and accumulate power -,it the expense of the other institutions of government. I suppose it was inevitable that a, time would come when this constant accumulation of power would have to be checked and curbed and done so in a manner clearly understood, not only by the President in office at that particular moment in history but by Presidents yet to come. That duty falls first on this committee. We have begun to draw that line. We. have begun the, long overdue and the painful process of curbing the excesses of power in the executive branch. We -will forward that process, Mr. Chairman, significantly by adopting article II tonight. I yield back the balance of my time. [00.45.56]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.49] The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson, has 39 minutes and 40 seconds remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 4 minutes to the, gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman, after the remarks of Mr. Sandman I think it would be just as well if I pass my time back and not try to add to it. However, I -want to emphasize again the. remarks that he wound up -with. This afternoon, quite to the surprise Of some Of US, we spent the part, of the, afternoon working on an article dealing with the bombing of Cambodia which - we, most of us, knew -would be defeated. Why? For a very good reason, so that, tonight -we would have an opportunity to talk about the President's taxes. It, is a good political issue. But is it one that you impeach a President for? We the people don't like the idea that our President has not, paid taxes commensurate rate with his income. But will -we not admit that he is entitled to make, those deductions which, according to his counsel and the law, are legal? You may not like it, but do you impeach a President for mere negligence in filing personal income taxes, The question, as has been mentioned by the gentleman before me. is willfulness, and In this case it turns on whether or not the President knew no gift of his papers had been made before July 26, if in fact, they had not already been donated by the actual delivery. I spent a good bit of time in 1969 personally working king on a gift of papers in a, similar situation and I know how it was because the law practically changed from month to month. You had to really stay close to it. Now let's consider Some Of the facts that have already been mentioned to some extent. At the end of 1968 the President made a much smaller gift to the Archives. $80,000 worth of his papers, and he personally was deeply involved in this unquestioned legal gift. He discussed the deduction with his attorneys was briefed on the alternatives, and personally signed the deed conveying the papers. In 11 1969 he did not give the same Personal attention to this gift. And for a good reason. He was President of the United States. Surely he, could rely on the advice of his White House counsel and a noted personal tax' attorney to see that it was properly and legally done. In fact, he apparently should not have relied on their competence. Now, here, is a chain of events I would like to go over with You. First, the President made a gift in 1968, Second, in late February 1969 the President told John Ehrlichman the counsel. that he intended to make a bulk gift of papers during the year. Next, John Ehrlichman wrote a memorandum to the President on the subject of the charitable contributions and deduction. Then the papers were actually transferred to the Archives on March 26 or 27, 1969. On June 16. Ehrlichman ill a memorandum to White House attorney Morgan who was handling the papers conveyed a number of the President's decisions and concerns respecting his income taxes and these papers. In November 1969 appraiser Newman wrote the President and advised him of the value of his papers. and I might add that this appraisal was substantially above the deduction that was actually taken. It is important to note that the President did not sign the gift. It was signed by attorney Morgan and with no written or oral power of attorney from the President, In April 1970, when the President signed his 1969 income tax return. hi,:-, tax lawyer told that he had a 5-year tax shelter here with this charitable deduction. This is in the evidence, This was clearly a strong indication to the President that all necessary steps had been taken to consummate this gift. This is tax lawyer talking to him. I think it can be effectively argued that a very confused manner the existed wit], regard to the applicable law, that Congress changed that Year, and I would like to go over just briefly the dates there. First Of all, there was no indication the law was to be, changed in February. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. Mr. LOTT. If I could just conclude with One sentence, mere mistake or negligence, by the President in filing his tax returns should clearly not be grounds for impeachment. Thank you very much. [00.33.33]
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. Henry Smith III
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. Henry Smith III (R - New York).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
Chairman Peter Rodino and Representative Harold Donohue with assistants and other committee members standing for recess. Paul Duke begins voiceover.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.57.38-DEAN discusses WHITE HOUSE efforts to frustrate the congressional hearings by the PATMAN committee] I also had conversations With Mitchell about this and reported the matter to Haldeman and Ehrlichman. The Justice Department felt that for them to write such a letter would look like a direct effort to block the hearings and I frankly had to agree. Therefore, no response was sent prior to the scheduled September 14 appearance of Stans and 'Mr. Parkinson himself informed the committee that, Stans would not appear because he felt it would be detrimental to the then pending civil and criminal investigations. It was after my September 15 meeting with the President where this matter had been briefly and generally discussed and, as the subsequent activities on the Patman committee became more intense that the White House became more involved in dealing with the Patman committee On September 25, Chairman Patman announced that be would hold a vote on October 3 regarding the, issuing of subpenas to witnesses. With this announcement the White House congressional relations staff began talking with members of the, committee as well as the Republican leadership of the House. I recall several conversation with Mr. Timmons and Dick Cook regarding this matter as well as conversations with Haldeman. Timmons and Cook informed me, that there was a daily change in the list of potential witnesses and the list was ever growing and beginning to reach into the White House itself. In discussing it with Haldeman I asked him how he thought the Patman hearings might be, turned off. He suggested that I might talk with Secretary Connally about the matter because Connally 'would know Patman as well as anybody. I called Secretary Connally and told him the reason I was calling. He said that the, only thing he could think of. the only soft spot that Patman might have, was that he had received large contributions from a Washington lobbyist and had heard rumors that some of these contributions may not have been reported. I discussed this matter with Bill Timmons and we concluded that several Republicans would probably have a similar problem so the matter was dropped. At this time 'I cannot recall the name of be lobbyist whom Secretary Connally said had made the, contributions to Mr. Patman. Timmons and I had also discussed that probably some, of the members of the, Banking and Currency Committee would have themselves potential campaign act violations and that it probably would be worthwhile to check out their reporting to the Clerk of the House. I told Timmons I would look into it. On September 26 I received a report, I had requested from Parkinson after he had one of his associates check the report. of the members of the committee with the Clerk of the House. After I received the document from Parkinson, a copy of which I have submitted to the committee, I decided it would be a cheap shot to get into anything of this nature. Mr. DEAN. Accordingly, I never reviewed the document that, Parkinson submitted and I have not reviewed it to this day. While the White House had received through its congressional relations staff informal reports as to who was likely to be subpenaed, Chairman Patman made public his list on October 2, 1972. The individuals for whom subpenas were to be requested was extensive and included several people who had varying degrees of knowledge regarding the Watergate and related matters. This list. for example, included Alfred Baldwin, Jack Caulfield, persons from the finance committee, Sally Harmony, Fred LaRue, Clark MacGregor, Mr. -Magruder., Mr. Mardian, Mr. Mitchell, Robert Odle. Bart Porter, Hugh Sloan, Stans, Timmons, and myself. I have submitted to the committee a Copy of the entire list. [01.01.29] Mr. DEAN. AS the names on the list had continued to evolve. it became increasingly apparent that the White House did not want the hearings to be held. For example, Bill Timmons took a much greater interest in the project when he realized early on that his name was among those who would be called. I say this not because Timmons had any reason not to appear because I know of no illegal or improper activity on Timmons' part, rather he had been working to prevent the hearings from occurring in the first instance through his conversation with the Republican leaders and members of the committee. This he knew would put him in an awkward position. [01.02.06] I began receiving increasing pressure from Mitchell, Stans. Parkinson and others to get the Justice Department to respond to the September 8 letter of Congressman Brown as a vehicle that Congressman Brown could use, in persuading other Republicans not to vote in favor of the subpenas, Congressman Brown felt that with this document in hand he could give the Republicans and others something to hang their Vote, On. I had continued my conversations with Henry Petersen and, after the indictments had been returned he said that indeed he did feel that the Justice Department should issue such a letter because of the potential implications Of the breadth of the Patman hearings. The letter was sent on October 2. 1972. I have submitted to the committee a copy of Congressman Brown's letter and Assistant Attorney General Petersen's response. Mr. DEAN. A number Of people worked on getting the votes necessary to block the Patman committee hearings Mr. Timmons discussed the matter with the House Republican leaders who agreed to be of assistance by making it a matter for the leadership consideration. which resulted in direction from the leadership to the members of the committee to vote against the hearings. I was informed that Congressman Brown had been working With several members on the Democratic side Of he Patman committee to assist in voting against the hearings or as an alternative not to appear for the hearings. Timmons informed me that he was also in direct Contact with one of the leaders of the Southern delegation who was being quite helpful in persuading the southerners On the committee not to vote for the subpenas or in the alternative not to appear at the meeting on October 3. Also, Mitchell reported to Me that he had been working with some people in 'New York to get the New Yorkers on, the committee to vote against the hearings, He told me, and I cannot recall now which members of the New York delegation he reefered to, that he had assurances that they would either not show up or would We against the hearings. I in turn Passed this On to Timmons, but I did not tell him the source of my information. On October 3 the vote was held and the subpenas were defeated by a vote of 20 to 15 and another sigh of relief was made at the White House that we had leaped one more hurdle in the continuing coverup. [01.04.18-TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.01] [in to shot of empty committee room, with police checking committee bench for explosives after BOMB THREAT] LEHRER in v.o. describes the unexpected recess [cut to LEHRER AND DUKE in studio] LEHRER offers a recap of the first seven arguments, refers to Caroline LEWIS for commentary from Capitol Hill. [camera shows LEHRER in studio and LEWIS projected on studio screen] LEWIS says that it was somewhat a surprise that Rep. SMITH did not advocate impeachment, in fact claiming that there was no evidence of any impeachable offense, save the bombing of Cambodia, which was regarded as a side issue. LEWIS notes that SMITH is retiring from Congress and seeks an appointment from the NIXON administration. LEHRER asks LEWIS'S opinion of Rep. McCLORY'S speech, noting that McCLORY as the 2nd ranking REPUBLICAN on the committee represents an important vote. LEWIS says it appears he is leaning toward impeachment on the grounds of obstructing justice and for CONTEMPT of CONGRESS, LEWIS saying that NIXON's angering of Congress may hurt him, may become the most important issue of the proceedings. LEHRER poses the question to both DUKE and LEWIS, whether the degree of eloquence displayed by the committee members reflects the importance and significance of the proceedings DUKE says that the members were fully aware of the intrusion of TELEVISION and the opportunity to grandstand, and also of the historical significance of the proceedings and their importance. DUKE comments that all seemed concerned with STATESMANSHIP and a desire to transcend PARTISANSHIP. DUKE reads an incoming news bulletin quoting House majority leader TIP O'NEILL saying that "Only a miracle can save the President." on an NPR interview, suggesting that the full House vote will be to impeach NIXON. LEHRER asks whether the interview in question took place before or after the Supreme Court decision hostile to the President. LEHRER takes time to introduce the counsels for the benefit of viewers, describing the two men flanking counsel DOAR on screen. On DOAR'S right is Sam GARRISON, the recently hired minority staff counsel, on the left, the former minority counsel, Albert JENNER, now a member of the majority staff under DOAR. [NOTE--LEHRER is looking at the wrong camera when he gives this explanation] [cut to LEWIS, in a wider shot, showing the activity around her of photographers and reporters.] LEWIS comments that the ranking REPUBLICAN, Edward HUTCHINSON, focused more on the political dimension of the hearings than did others, arguing that the impeachment process was a political tactic against the president by DEMOCRATS. Notes that HUTCHINSON's advocacy, as with McCLORY's, for delaying the proceedings to wait for more of the WHITE HOUSE TAPES to be made available, was mild, not forceful, indicating REPUBLICANS have possibly resigned themselves to proceeding immediately. [cut to studio] DUKE asks LEWIS if she thinks that the REPUBLICANS are going to adopt a DELAY tactic to drag out hearings and frustrate DEMOCRATS. LEWIS says it's most likely that REPUBLICANS will work behind the scenes to get NIXON to voluntarily give the committee the tapes, to avoid delay and not give the DEMOCRATS any more ammunition to suggest the president's guilt. Says that there doesn't appear to be a conscious or organized plan to delay the proceedings, even by staunch NIXON supporters. LEHRER introduces Barbara TUCKMAN as a guest commentator. Questions her about Rep. Smith's statement that the impeachment proceeding could affect the nation "for the rest of time". TUCKMAN says that she agrees, insofar as restoring the confidence of the public in government, which she feels has faded, that the authority of government has lost legitimacy, leaving only power, which is not adequate to direct the nation. Says that a great portion of this loss of confidence is partly the direct result of the NIXON administration, wonders aloud how many of NIXON's associates have been in legal trouble. LEHRER says that 18 members of the administratin have been convicted or pled guilty, with 6 more indicted, encompassing White House and CRP personnel. TUCKMAN says that this is very serious, and that it only naturally leads to inferences about NIXON. [00.13.20]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.22.51] Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield ? Mr. SEIBERLING. Yes, I will yield. Mr. DENNIS. Since you offer "all unlawful activity of all employees of the executive branch," I assume under your amendment if a clerk steals $100 in the post office in Indianapolis or someplace. like, that, that that, is included. Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, we have a record before us, Mr. Dennis, that, it seems to me, is pretty clear, what. employees we are talking about, and it seems to me that that is sufficient. Mr. SARBANES. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. SARBANES. I would like to suggest that the language concerning "other unlawful activities" does not need any further limitation since it refers back to the language at the beginning of subparagraph 4) which refers to failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive judicial and legislative entities, concerning--and then you have two concerning clauses, one, the unlawful lawful entry, and the other one would be. concerning other unlawful activity but that would relate back to the activities of the close subordinates and would be consistent with the theory of this paragraph as understand it as advanced by the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. If the gentleman from Ohio will yield, I would say that that is correct. And I think that, the, language would be confusing if we, accepted the, additional language offered by the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, if that is the interpretation in the record, I think that does clarify matters, but the mere words standing alone, "other unlawful activities" I do not think are sufficiently clear. Well--- Mr. McCLORY. If the gentleman would yield further, the "other unlawful activities- refers to the close subordinates and I think, those are the only ones we want to direct our attention to. Mr. SEIBERLING. All right. Well, 1 will ask unanimous consent to Withdraw my perfecting Mr. McCLORY Without objection. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman--- The CHAIRMAN. The question is still on the, amendment of the, gentleman from California. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed. [Chorus of "noes.] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. CHAIRMAN. the yeas and nays. The CHAIRMAN. Call of the yeas and nays is demanded and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of it signify please by saying aye. All those Opposed, no. The clerk will call I the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. No. The CLERIC. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg. Mr. EILBERG. No. The CLERK. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. Aye. 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. Holtzman. Ms. HOLTZMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinsky. Mr. MEZVINSKY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. .Mr. SANDMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. Aye. 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. R. 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. The CHAIRMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman! The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report. The CLERK. Fourteen members have voted aye, 24 have voted no. The CHAIRMAN. And the amendment is not agreed to. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. In order that the membership may understand, I am in the process of preparing an additional amendment which I would rather--rather than draft it in haste, I will prepare. it and submit it at a later time, when we get to this paragraph if that is in order. The CHAIRMAN. The amendments are in order at any time. However in order to give the gentleman the opportunity to draft his amendment the. Chair will proceed with the recognition of members under the 5 minutes which they are entitled to under the substitute amendment . Mr. BUTLER. I thank the chairman. [00.28.50]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.31.00] Mr. JENNER. Congressman Cohen, section 7212 of the Criminal Code provides expressly that attempts to interfere, attempts to obtain information with respect to income and IRS materials shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 3 years, and then is supplemented by section 7213 which makes it unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States to divulge any of the contents of an income tax return and be fined $1,000 or imprisoned not more than I year and if the offense be by an officer or employee of the United States, he shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment. Mr. COHEN. Shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment- Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. COHEN. Not yet, and I assume for purposes of this section, -we are talking about those who attempt to use this information for improper purposes and specifically refers to-to attempts, does it not? Am I correct, Mr. Jenner, that it is not necessary to have a specific act carried out as such, the actual accomplishment of the act? Would it be sufficient, for example, if the President were to direct or ask or inquire of John Dean to obtain certain information, would not the act itself or the intent come from the direction to Mr. Dean as a matter of law? Mr. JENNER. The direction would be an attempt. Mr. COHEN. And it -would not be necessary to have the particular direction completed in order to be a violation, would it? Mr. JENNER. 'That is correct. Mr. COHEN. Thank you. I would also like to direct some comments to statements made by the gentleman from California. I found those statements -were also rather amazing because on the one hand, where the gentleman from California pointed out that Henry Petersen, recommended Matt Byrne as FBI Director, in response to a question that I asked Mr. Petersen during our questioning of witnesses, asked him whether or not he felt that Matt Byrne should be contacted while be was sitting as a judge on the. Ellsberg matter, to he replied, "'No." Even though he made a personal recommendation, be specifically indicated that Matt Byrne should not be contacted during the, Course of that trial. And the answer is quite clear as to why I asked him why not, and he said-in response to my question, wouldn't this be grounds for a mistrial--he said, some, of us felt that it would. I think as a matter of law that there would be a mistrial declared upon such a disclosure. I think that the act in contacting a presiding judge on a case of that magnitude, and I find it a little bit amazing once again for Mr. Ehrlichman to say that he didn't know what the present situation was in the Ellsberg matter, this was the major case of the decade prior to our deliberations on Watergate, if you will just go back a few years. But he didn't happen to know -what was going on at that time and there was no impropriety in the conversation. I happen to feel that the position of a judge is one of the most delicate in our entire system because he has to retain an absolute and scrupulous neutrality and that neutrality is destroyed as a, matter of law in my opinion when the Chief Executive, through his subordinate or subordinates, offers a position of an FBI directorship to the judge. And I suggest to you that if the counsel for the defendant or the defendant himself in such a case offered the presiding judge or even a juror a job with his firm upon the completion of the case, that man would be held in contempt, or would be in jail, I just simply want to conclude my own remarks in this regard and I know what the gentleman from California will say, that this might preclude any Federal judge from ever achieving a higher position, but I only call the gentleman's attention to the manner in which this was carried out. There was never any publication of it. There was never any nomination or word leaked out that there - was-they were considering the judge. As a matter of fact, it was covertly carried out, a second meeting in a park near San Clemente. But it seems to me that Of all Of the allegations we have been dealing with, the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI, investigation of Daniel Schorr, the fabricated statements about what would happen, we would hire Mr. Schorr as consultant to the White House, it seems to me what we are really saying here is that all of these activities raise the faint specter of an American Gulag Archipelago. When the Chief Executive of the country starts to investigate private citizens who criticize his policies or authorize his subordinates to do such things, then I think the rattle of the chains that would bind up our constitutional freedoms can be heard and it is against this rattle that we should awake and say no. Now I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. I only wish to comment with respect to your theory that a mistrial was appropriate by reason of the contact with Judge Byrne, well let me just tell you that Judge Byrne was a participant in that contact and he doesn't agree with you. He did declare a mistrial and he should know; quite the contrary. Mr. COHEN. He didn't think anything was improper. Mr. WIGGINS. The judge disagreed with you. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman. from Maine has expired. [00.36.23]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.53] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we know Charlie Sandman and we appreciate him, and I am going to reefer to him, too. Charlie was talking about how Ellsberg got the applause, and I join with most of you in feeling that except for certain mistakes, Mr. Ellsberg should have not been at that Place at that time. But, he was evidence -'of our system because our System looked out for the underdog, Our system looks out for the rights of individuals, the, little man. In the history of America, it is the history of the protection of the rights of the individual citizen. Look at every decision of our Supreme Court, and whether we like it or not, whether they are freeing a rapist or a murderer, they are interpreting the, Constitution of the United States and its laws to protect that individual from the power of his Government. You have heard a lot about our system and it is really synonymous with the Phrase, the rule of law. In article, II we find this language,"In disregard of the rule of law." You know there was one man in this Government that I have to mention as he has been mentioned by others, and it has been tough for me to hold back on him. Johnnie Walters practiced law upstairs above my office in the two-story building Where he and I practiced law back in the middle sixties, and when I came to Congress and left him in Greenville, S.C., he was not far behind me, as he came to Washington, to serve in the Department of Justice, and then as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. Mack Walters respected the rule of law. You know, Americans revere their President, and rightly they should because they know that by his oath he is supposed to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, to enforce the Bill of Rights' which is their heritage, your rights and mine, whether I am a Democrat or a Republican, rich or poor, and that he will see that the laws, are, faithfully executed and that the individual liberties of each of us is protected, whether President or pauper. Now, this committee has spent 10 weeks reviewing the evidence, and it is not fair to you in these sessions to pull the tidbits out on one side or the other. There is no way that you can bring yourself in the position that we are in without the knowledge. of the facts that we have. I -wish you could. As your Representatives we are charged with determining that truth, and although we have laid something on the, table, during these past 3 or 4 days, and having sat here during these 3 or 4 days I have heard people ask questions about what the evidence was, and I have been wondering if maybe they were here with me, because it is on that evidence that each of us is making our decision, and as we seek a way to escape that decision, we cannot escape, that still, small voice. And so, as Thomas Paine wrote, "Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." And in this situation, as -we look at how the office of the Presidency has been served by an individual, I share the remarks of George Danielson that it is not the Presidency that is in jeopardy from us. We would strive to strengthen and protect the Presidency. But, if there be no accountability, another President will feel free to do as he chooses. But, the next time there may be no -watchman in the night. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, a[01.15.29]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
The President's refusal to comply with our subpenas would make a, nullity of the impeachment power if we failed to judge this offense impeachable. One night a month ago, about midnight, after studying the transcripts of some recorded Presidential conversations for a long time and being somewhat puzzled, I located one of- the committee's technicians Jeff Banchero, at his home and asked him to return to the impeachment committee office to replay for me the taped conversations of the Morning of March 21, 1973, and that of the following day. I wanted to study the President's intention. I wanted to know what the President intended when he apparently agreed repeatedly to the payment of hush money to Howard Hunt. Was he playing the devil's advocate or did he intend that the he payment be paid? I replayed a. dozen times that section of the March 21 conversation which two prior speakers mentioned the section mentioned. When the President told John Dean to "get it," in apparent reference to the, $120,000 which Hunt was demanding as the price for his continued silence, and I had been intrigued by the new plan to handle Watergate about which the President had spoken and Wanted developed. I had a clear feeling that late night that I knew what the, President intended when as I replayed the tape time and again I heard him instruct John Dean to develop a, new plan for containment of Waterate. This is the President speaking: "And then once you, once, you decide on the plan-- John--and you had the right plan, let me say, I have no doubts about the, right plan before, the election. And you handled it just right. You contained it. Now, after the election, we've got to have another plan because we can't have for 4 years, we can't have "this thing-you are going to be eaten away. We can't do it." And Bob Haldeman's followup response to the President, "John's point is exactly right, that the erosion here now is going to you," meaning the President-"and that is the thing we have got to turn off, at whatever the cost. We've got to figure out where to turn it off at the lowest cost we can, but at whatever cost it takes." And the following morning. further discussing the, new plan with John Mitchell the President instructs: "I want you all to stonewall it, Let them plead the fifth amendment. Cover up or anything, If it will save it, save the plan. That is the whole point." And in his final explanation to John -Mitchell, "Up to this point the whole theory has been containment, as you know, John." The late hour and my fatigue combined with the realization that this was the President of the, United States speaking, and it created in me a sense of unreality. I could hardly believe -what I -was hearing, on those tapes. But I heard his words unmistakably from his mouth. The Presidents intention was clear and inescapable. Awesome as the impeachment and removal of a President can be, the Framers of Our Constitution provided for this power. They didn't expect us to fear it. We were not to be intimidated by It, The power was to be used when necessary and proper. They created after all a Government of laws, not a Government of men & whether we like it or not, impeachment is the only tool the Constitution provides to control a President who refuses to obey the law.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.06.28] [00.06.28] Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apropos of the debate as to specificity as to time, I should like to point out that although this is not a criminal prosecution there is ample precedent in our Federal criminal procedural laws to establish that the only point, the only necessity for establishing- a date in ,in indictment, which this is analogous to, is to bring the' activity complained of within the period of the statute of limitations. Here since the pleadings would indicate that on June 17, 1972 and prior thereto, but obviously in its context, within the period of time that Richard Nixon has served as the President of the United States, and, therefore, clearly within the period of limitations for this proceeding, these events did take place, and the policies were established. The only other requirement in an accusatory pleading, which a bill of impeachment will be, as for specificity on facts, is that the facts be described with sufficient particularity so that the person charged or accused can be aware of the offenses with which he is charged, and thereby enabled to prepare his Defense. Second, that acquittal or conviction on that charge of factual information will serve as a bar to any subsequent prosecution. Now, I respectfully submit, that the pleading before us or proposed, pleading as submitted by Mr. Sarbanes does clearly establish as to a time that this policy was established, on June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, but within the term of office, of President Richard M. Nixon, and therefore, as to time, this is sufficiently specific. No. 2, as to the facts, I would respectfully submit that they are alleged with great particularity, and sufficiently enable the President to prepare his defense and to have an acquittal or a conviction serve as a bar to a subsequent prosecution, thereby avoiding the, constitutional ban against double, jeopardy. Last, I would like, to point out that this document, a, bill of particulars is not an indictment, and criminal law. the precedents do not control. They are valuable as an analogy, but this need not be as specific as an indictment in a criminal case. Moreover, the added information which counsel for the President may want in the nature of time. and in the nature of dates. places, par- particulars on facts, can be reached by him in the event this goes to trial in the Senate through his bringing a motion for a bill of particulars, or a motion to make more definite and certain, and it is not an attack upon the validity of this proposed article of impeachment. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman 9 Mr. SANDMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. I will be delighted to yield. Mr. SANDMAN. Now, you have made a point that this is not necessarily the same as a criminal indictment. Mr. DANIELSON. That is correct. Mr. SANDMAN. All right now, even if we were ere to agree on that point which I do not altogether, but let us assume we do, does the President have any rights pertaining to due process? Mr. DANIELSON. No, he does not. Mr. SANDMAN. As would a common criminal in an indictment? Mr. DANIELSON. He does not have any less right, and as a matte matter Of fact, in this proceeding he has enjoyed much greater rights: Mr. SANDMAN. All right, so he is entitled to due process? I Mr. DANIELSON. This is my time, Mr. Sandman. I will point out that the, President has been present, and participated in these proceedings since the very first hour that we have met. Mr. SANDMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. His counsel has been permitted to introduced evidence and to examine witnesses. He has a complete copy Of document that pends before this committee. Due process; has not merely been observed here, it has been exalted, and I applaud it, but the President and no one else has ever had opportunity to be informed such as have been provided to him in this procedure. SANDMAN. Will the gentleman admit -that this begins a new chapter, this begins a new charge? Mr. DANIELSON. . I was about, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I was about to yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. I would like to direct a question to Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. I -will yield for the question. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. The purpose, of course, is to always be fair in an indictment, and that is -why it should be as exact as possible. You think that the President and his attorney can understand in at particularity exactly the charges, the specific events that this article of impeachment refers to? Mr. DANIELSON. Well, at the risk Of Sounding frivolous, I would state anyone who is in charge of the complicated business of this Nation Certainly would be able to understand the intendments of this proposed article of impeachment. But, if under some happenstance is not deemed clear to the person accused, he still will have the remedy of asking for a bill of particulars or make a motion for greater and specificity of these. facts at an appropriate time. Yes, due process is well served, and fairness has been preserved in these proceedings. Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DONOHUE. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. The Chair will now declare a recess until 3 o'clock. [00.12.21--Recess declared]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote to delete charge of Rewarding Defendants Silence.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote to delete charge of Rewarding Defendants Silence.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Lawrence Hogan
Master 10607 part 2 Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Lawrence Hogan (R - Maryland) 01.20.42 -01.21.22 "The fact is, and the thing that's so appalling to me, is that the President, when this whole idea was suggested to him, didn't, in righteous indignation, rise up and say, 'Get out of here, you're in the office of the President of the United States. How can you talk about blackmail and bribery and keeping witnesses silent? This is the presidency of the United States.' And throw them out of his office and pick up the phone and call the Department of Justice and tell them there's an obstruction of justice going on. Someone is trying to buy the silence of a witness. But my President didn't do that. He sat there and he worked and worked to try to cover this thing up so it wouldn't come to light."