Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Walter Flowers
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Walter Flowers (D - Alabama) [00.56.50] [Continued Speech by Representative FLOWERS, D-Ala.] Obviously America is a nation with many flaws, but it is also nation with hope so vast that only the most foolish or the most pessimistic would fail to realize it. We, have, all made mistakes, and will probably make some more in the future. Some of them have be' big ones with important and even sometimes tragic consequences. But, my friends and fellow countrymen, we have not always failed and it is important to be aware of our successes as well. In all of history there has been no other nation to do as much for our own people while at the same time extending a helping hand of freedom, generosity and compassion to a world in need. And I say it is important to remember these accomplishments, and let us remember that some of them have been accomplished in the last 6 years under President Nixon, because they might otherwise be persuaded to abandon those values and those institutions that are responsible largely for these achievements and they are also, I say, our best hope for further progress. Now, I have said on many times that we can make great progress and improve our society, and still not have anything that will live or last unless we concern ourselves with underlying values. If we believe in nothing, my friends, if we don't have a sense of moral purpose, then there is little possibility of our Nation or we as individuals reaching the heights of which we are capable. We have, in the, tradition of this Nation, a well-tested framework of values, liberty, justice, worth, and dignity of the individual, in individual responsibility, and more. Our problem is not now to find be values, but I say our problem is to be faithful to those that we pro and to make them live in modern times. You know, I always think back to the Preamble of our Constitution. It starts off, as we all know, "We the people of the United States. And surely, at least to me, there is no more inspiring phrase than, the people, of the United States." Not -we the, public officials Of United States, not we the certified experts, or we the educators, we the educated, or we the grownups over 21 or 25. -Not we the privleged classes or whatever. But just simply we the people, we acting our communities across the Nation can pull our fragmented society together again. At the grassroots of our complex and mechanized industrialized Nation, we can renew the moral fiber of America. Young and old alike, we can create an America in which men and women, and young people speak to one another once again in trust mutual respect. We sharing common objectives and working toward common goals can bring our Nation to a point of confidence and well-being. We can provide a soul and character so vitally needed in our native land. 'You know, we are the people of the United States, and we can do these things. We here in this room are the representatives also, of the people of the United States, and even more particularly in this case, representatives of the representatives of the people. And we have awesome task that no one else can do for us. Let me close my remarks here by paraphrasing something Harry Truman was Supposed to have said once. "I try never to forget who I am. and where I come from and where I am going back to." And I would add that I cannot forget that I must get Up every morning for the rest of my life and live with my decision here on these terrible alternatives. I shall listen to these debates, and only then shall I cast my vote.. And I can only vote as I am convinced in my heart and mind, based on the Constitution and on the evidence. you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The committee -will recess until 1:30.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.44.19] Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, for 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. During the. SALT negotiations a study was published in the New York Times on June 8, 1969, which spelled out our analysis of the Soviet, Union's strategic strength and first-strike capability. Henry Kissinger said: Each of these disclosures was of the most extreme gravity, as presentation of the Government's thinking on these issues has provided the Soviet Union with extensive insight as to our approach to the SALT negotiations and severely compromised our assessment of the Soviet Union's missile testing and our apparent inability to accurately assess their exact capabilities, Another leak involved the alternatives for ending the Vietnam war. One alternative was a study of a unilateral troop withdrawal for Vietnam and Henry Kissinger said concerning this leak: This disclosure was extremely damaging with respect to the Government's relationship and credibility with its allies, Although the initial troop withdrawn increment was small, its decision was extremely important in that it reflected a fundamental change in the U.S. policy. Certainly this gave to foreign agents information concerning the U.S. capability and plans which were harmful to our position. If the President of the United States had not taken stem to determine where the leaks were coming from he would not have been carrying out his constitutional responsibility to take care of our Nation and its people. I submit to you that when such a leak takes Place at a time when we are at war, when our troops could lose their lives, it is the responsibility of the President to find out where those leaks are coming from and stop them, and that is just exactly what he did. The 17 wiretaps were instigated for the purpose of discovering the sources of these leaks, I know that in the testimony that has been be given to our committee there, was a question raised as to the effect the wiretapping in solving the leaks. Mr. Colson, in his testimony before this committee answered that question. He told us that as a result of wiretaps we were definitely able to close one of the major leaks that had occurred, and, therefore, perhaps save the lives of many of our troops and help this country for the future, I think this ground for impeachment is the weakest of all of those that have been brought up. Certainly there is DO ground to impeach the President of the United States in his attempt to save the lives of troops and the safety of our Nation. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MOORHEAD. I will yield back my time to Mr. Wiggins, The CHAIRMAN. Mr. WIGGINS. I want to just make a few observations, about the legality of these taps. This matter has been before Congress before. Congress has not litigated into the field. It is well to remember that former Attorney General Richardson, Elliot Richardson, testified before the Senate expressing his opinion that if, in fact, we are talking about national security Wiretaps, it -was wholly legal then and remains so today. That is also my recollection of the testimony of Attorney General Petersen before my friend from Wisconsin's subcommittee not to long- ago when this subject was before it for or consideration. I yield the balance of Mr. Moorhead's time to the gentleman from Indiana. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, just a word on this legal situation. None of us like wiretaps very well, but we are talking here about, what was legal and what was proper as of the time that it was made and as of the time today. Now. at, the time of the wiretaps we are talking about I agree with Mr. Wiggins. the question is was national security involved. That is a factual question. But, if it was, there was nothing illegal about these wiretaps, and it is very doubtful. that there is anything illegal today. It has been held, for instance, in the third circuit that you could have a warrantless national security wiretap used to stem the flow of information out of the Government, and the contrary had never been held at the time -we are now talking about. And now, you have got to think of the climate, as has been said. We Were having leaks about the Pentagon papers. about the SALT talks. about. Vietnam And Henry Kissinger said the leaks about troop withdrawals---- The CHAIRMAN. The I minute of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. Have I only got 1 minute? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California had 5 minutes and he had consumed 4 and had 1 minute remaining when he yielded to the gentleman from Indiana. The gentleman still has 10 minutes in support of the amendment. Mr. WIGGINS. I will yield if a few moments to the gentleman from Indiana, but let it go to the other side. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the motion to strike. These 17 wiretaps started On May 12, 1969, as a result, of the Beecher article in the 'New York Times revealing the secret bombing of Cambodia. And I want to correct the record right now. The SALT talks had nothing to do with it. There has never been an allegation that these 17 wiretaps were triggered by any SALT leaks, and there, is nothing- in our evidence to so indicate. Nor did the taps have anything to do with the Vietnam war, or with leaks about, the Pentagon papers. That did not come until nearly 2 years later. Mr. DENNIS. Now wait a minute. Mr. EDWARDS. On your time, my friend, you can straighten it out. Mr. WIGGINS. We shall. Mr. EDWARDS. But that is the fact. [00.51.09]
Capitol Journal - Elderly Rights/Medicare - House Ways and Means Committee
Meeting of the House Ways and Means Committee on new Medicare policy, Caucasian men and women fill the room. Representative Pete Stark (D - California), "I think you have the information and you're hiding it. Because I think you know the results and it s going to look bad for Stockman's budget when they come out. Ad to cheat the poor elderly people out of medical care, which is what I think your department is doing is a sin. It's a crime. It's an obscenity." Carolyne K. Davis, Ph.D, Healthcare Financing Administration, "I think I will have to respectfully take issue with you. I believe that we are doing the very best job that we can. And we are being cognizant of the needs of the elderly." People at the meeting listening.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.31.22] Mr. LATTA..... And let me direct my attention in the few moments that we have to another- area that concerns me.. because -we have touched upon it so lightly. In fact, I heard somebody say, and I am sure he said it in jest, something about it is a bugaboo, and I have reference to national security. National security. What are -we talking about? We are talking about, protecting the lives and the security of 220 million Americans. That is what we are talking about. So, let, us not talk about it lightly. I happen to be one who since I have been in the Congress of the United States who has supported a strong national defense, a strong national defense. We cannot be second. We have got to be strong, and we are talking about national defense as a bugaboo issue? I think not. The President, of the United States was concerned about leaks right after he took office. Now, let us take a look at what he was talking about. Where were these leaks coming from? Were they coming from somebody's bridge club or out of some nonsensitive agency of the. Government? We, know better than that. They were coming from no other place than the National Security Council. Now, -who sits on the National Security Council? Staff members? The President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, along with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General by designation of the President. Now, they do not talk about rules for a handball game. They discuss and make the policy for the defense of this country, your defense, my defense, our children's defense. That is what they do. And these leaks that concerned the President of the United States were coming directly out, of that National Security Council. Now, what were they? Many of our colleagues here today have alluded to them, and I do not want to duplicate what they have, said. But, let me, point out that about, every time the National Security Council would make a decision, a couple of days later-, and I hate to mention- newspapers, but I must, the New York Times would publish it or the Evening Star. Would this not concern you? It concerned Me. It concerned the President. Let me give you just one. On April 6, the New York Times prints a front page article indicating U.S. consideration of unilateral withdrawal, June, 1969, shortly after a decision had been reached to begin initial withdrawal of troops, the New York Times and the Evening Star reported this decision indicating that it -would be made public following the meeting, following the meeting -with the South Vietnamese President Thieu. Leaks damaging Dr. Kissinger's diplomatic efforts to end the war. For the South Vietnamese Government to hear publicly, of our apparent willingness to consider unilateral withdrawal without first discussing the matter with President. What does this do to our credibility? Damaging leaks had been occurring with regard to the SALT negotiations, and they had been discussed, and the internal uses by our Government of the strategic force posture. A study was made to determine what programs should be adopted relative to our country's, get this, deterrent conventional and nuclear capability. The study included five possible strategic options from an emphasis on offensive capability to heavy reliance on anti-ballistic missile systems. Costs even were discussed. Notwithstanding the obvious need for secrecy of this study------ [01.36.21--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
The Judiciary Committee has for 7 months investigated whether or not the President has seriously abused his power, in violation of that oath and the public trust embodied in it. We have investigated fully and completely what within our Constitution and traditions would be grounds for impeachment. For the past 10 weeks, we have listened to the presentation of evidence in documentary form, to tape recordings of 19 Presidential conversations, and to the testimony of nine witnesses called before the entire committee. We have provided a fair opportunity for the President's counsel to represent the views of the President to this committee. We have taken care preserve the integrity of the process in which we are now engaged. We have deliberated. We have been patient. We have been fair. Now the American People, the House of Representatives, the Constitution, and the whole history of our Republic demand that we make up our minds.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.22.44] Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman and I think it only fair, to point out that what has been referred to the. Special Prosecutor is not specifically the President 'but the people who prepared the returns under a separate section which applies only to the man who prepares the return such as the agents or the accountants or the lawyer and does not come under the section where the taxpayer himself is involved. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the, gentleman from New York, the 1 minute, has expired. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 5 minutes, to the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, The CHAIRMAN. 'Mr. Moorhead is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no question but, what one, of the, most inflammatory subjects to the American people is taxation. They are always alarmed whenever they feel a public servant or someone who has a lot of money is not paying his just share of the taxes. So that is one reason I am sure that this particular matter has been brought before this committee. At the same time, in looking over the facts of this case, it is clear that our problems are caused by two particular things, two particular laws. We had a bad law that allowed public officials to take deductions on the gift of their public papers. We had another law that was passed after the death of Senator Kennedy and a number of other public officials which encouraged extra security for our top public officials, so that they would live through their terms in office and not die in office through tragic events of that time. Mr. Nixon made the gift of the personal property involved early in 1969, March 27, The, law taking away the right to make that gift and getting a tax deduction was not signed into law until late December of that same year, 9 months later. The law, when passed, dated back to July, It did not date back to March. Anyone who has had anything to do with the (rift of personal property knows that when the property has been delivered and, control and ownership of the property given up in that manner, there is a valid gift. GSA has determined that there was a. valid gift of that property and there is no way that the President can get it back regardless of what happened later. That property was given as of that time. The Internal Revenue Service in many instances liked to get, some kind of a paper to prove, the intent of the giver. and that is -the reason the paper was prepared in April of 1969. I don't know what, happened to that, particular paper, whether it was lost or what bid, there was obviously a duplicate that was prepared and signed not by President Nixon but by someone that worked in the office lower on his staff. There is no showing that Mr. Nixon had any knowledge of the additional paper that was found. I would submit that President, -Nixon was very badly served by his personal accountants and In this particular instance by his attorney who supervised, but. there is no showing that -Nixon in any way engaged in any fraud in taking the deduction that was allowed by law in respect to a gift, which he made 9 months before the change of the law took place and some 4 or .5 months before the dateback in which the law became effective. In connection with the other property in San Clemente, We heard a figure kicked around of $17 million. I visited that property a number of years ago with a number of public officials in California. You couldn't spend $17 million on that piece of property if you wanted to. The figure we heard later of $67,000 as far as security improvements is probably much more accurate. It is true that there is other property not owned by the President which is being used for governmental offices that is not too far away but that certainly isn't an improvement for the President's property in any way, shape, or form. The President, because of the difficulties here, I am sure, but perhaps for other reasons has agreed to give that property at San Clemente back to the people of this country. There, is no way his estate will be improved by anything that was done to that property. There is no showing whatsoever that he will be increased in his net wealth, When Mr. Nixon took office as President of the United States, he was worth more money actually than he is at the present time. He is not a man that has become rich in public office. Actually, with the payment of the taxes that, he has been assessed, he will undoubtedly be poorer than he was. I don't see how you could get the kind of misuse of internal revenue that has been testified to here today, and I certainly think there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time on both sides has expired. And the question now occurs on the adoption of the. article as amended All those In favor I please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of 'ayes.] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed. [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it. The noes have, it. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I demand call of the yeas and nays. The CHAIRMAN. Call of the yeas and nays is demanded and the call of the roll is ordered. All those in favor of the article as amended please signify by saying aye. All those opposed no.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. WIGGINS. ----that the President personally acted to corrupt the due administration of justice by intentionally engaging in a plan or design, a course of conduct or a plan which was intentionally designed to obstruct justice. Now. is that a fair statement? Mr. RAILSBACK. What I Intend by the amendment is to suggest that Richard M. Nixon, if it can be shown in the Senate, and if he can be held to account in the Senate, that he used his power of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful and covert activities. In other words, the words speak for themselves. Mr. WIGGINS. I understand. You mean what you said. Well, I am running out of time. I want to clear up the question, however, of the conduct of his aides. In order to have this be, President's acts, you would require, I am sure, that at least the knowledge of the acts of his aides, or that, he instructed them with the requisite corrupt intent to obstruct justice, would you not? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Excuse me. Mr. RAILSBACK. I would answer the gentleman by saying that the language still speaks for itself. But, it is my belief that to hold Richard Nixon to account and to remove him from office it must proven that he has committed a serious offense, serious enough for which he should be removed from office. Now, if he directed something, or if he participated in something or if he Was involved in something that was clearly illicit, if he falsely misled the American people, or if 'he obstructed justice or impeded justice. or interfered with the due administration of justice, or if he abused the power of the sensitive, agencies of the IRS, well then I think that is what he is going to be held to account for. Mr. WIGGINS. All right. Fine. I appreciate the gentleman's explanation and I support the gentleman's amendment as I explained. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? I think I have, a little time, left. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair -will state pursuant to the policy that was set, no member could reserve any time. but if the gentleman is seeking more time" he can request unanimous consent, since he has already been recognized once on the amendment. Mr. DENNIS. I appreciate that, and if I could have it, I would like I to ask, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, a question. The CHAIRMAN. Well. without objection. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the, gentleman this: Do you subscribe to Mr. Railsback's explanation of the meaning of his amendment, responsibility of the President for third person's actions, or do 3 feel that his amendment will support your own theory on that subject as announced by you Mr. SARBANES. Well, as I understood the last response, The gentleman from Illinois Mr. Railsback, gave, I thought that was proper elaboration of his amendment. As I understood it, part of what we have been discussing is this whole concept of the Madison superintendency theory, and I think this is very clear with respect to the proposition, and that proposition is not contained in this article as a potential premise. Mr. DENNIS. If I understand your- answer, then you feel that -Mr. Railsback's version comports very well with your own, as advanced before the amendment. Mr. SARBANES. Well, I must Confess to the gentleman from Indiana that I did not pay the, close attention to the full colloquy between -Mr. Railsback and Mr. Wiggins that I should have in order to respond definitively to the question that he has just put to me, and I apologize for that. But, it is my impression that the last response which I heard Mr. Railsback give seemed -to me a satisfactory elaboration of this amendment. Mr. DENNIS. Well, I am not sure Whether the gentleman are together or not. but if you are together with the gentleman from Illinois if he is together with you, why, since I did not like your version well before I am not persuaded that his is much different or very much better. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered BY the gentleman from IllinoIs. All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying ave. [Chorus of "ayes. The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [Chorus of "noes." The CHAIRMAN. The ayes appear to have it and the amendment is agreed to. the CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois? Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman. I have a conforming amendment if I can find it. Can it be read? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment The CLERK. [reading] On page 1, line IS on the Sarbanes substitute beginning at the third paragraph, strike out the following: "The means used to implement this policy have included one or more of the following:" and insert in lieu thereof the following new language- "The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:" Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman?, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for- 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I think the language speaks for itself and I am not going to belabor it. The CHAIRMAN--- The. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman. All those in favor please say aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [Chorus of "hoes."] The CHAIRMAN-. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. [00.08.32]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.20] LEHRER questions guest commentator Barbara TUCKMAN about her previous point that Congress was facing a trial as well as the statement, noting that most of the committee mentioned that same point in their speeches. TUCKMAN notes that only HUTCHINSON seemed to address partisan issues, everyone else evidently mindful of the impact of the hearings on the role of CONGRESS. LEHRER reintroduces LEWIS, interviewing Rep. WIGGINS (R) LEWIS asks WIGGINS if he expects a delay. WIGGINS says there hasn't been any serious discussion on delaying even among Republicans, and that the only scenario he sees in which it could have been raised was if NIXON stated that evening that he was going to deliver tapes to the committee immediately that day. Says there is no point in waiting if there is no assurance of getting anything for the wait. LEWIS asks about behind-the-scenes maneuvering to try to persuade NIXON to hand tapes over WIGGINS says it's been out in the open, LEWIS notes that MCCLORY indicated that NIXON's failure to provide the HOUSE COMMITTEE with evidentiary materials cound in itself be an impeachable offense. Asks WIGGINS for his opinjon. WIGGINS says that that any statement indicating a definite vote for impeachment is a very strong statement, and that he is not personally convinced that McCLORY will ultimately vote for impeachment. LEWIS notes that he was incorrect in gauging the feelings of Rep. HOGAN WIGGINS says that he does understand the anger at not getting materials, but that NIXON has never truly been in contempt of Congress, but merely asserted a good-faith claim of EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE and that such accusations of contempt are premature and unfair. LEWIS asks if the Supreme Court decision has rendered EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE extinct.] WIGGINS says that the ruling applies to the particular case and only to actions taken after the ruling on this new poing of law. the interview ends. [cut to DUKE and LEHRER] LEHRER notes that Rep. WIGGINS has been an ardent supporter of NIXON, and that his discussion with LEWIS seems to mesh with the President's own words. LEHRER quotes a press statement by NIXON which asserts that the particular Supreme Court ruling should not affect future Executive Privilege claims outside of the particular case. DUKE does comment that the principle of EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE was dealt a serious blow, a unanimous 8-0 supreme court decision is compelling. LEHRER notes in contradiction that the ruling only applies to evidence in criminal cases, giving example of a civil matter without litigation in which the ruling should not affect Executive Privilege. Asks TUCKMAN about her opinion TUCKMAN notes that she hasn't seen the ruling in detail, hut her impression is that the ruling is definitively linked to the exigencies of a criminal case. However, the 8-0 ruling against a President is significant blow to the idea. DUKE says that independent of the legalities of the ruling, the unanimity of the decision will change the attitude of Congress as far as boldness in asserting itself against obstruction by the President. [00.21.18] [back to LEWIS interviewing Rep. George DANIELSON (D)] LEWIS asks about the likelihoood of Republicans successfully delaying the hearings. DANIELSON predicts an effort to delay without success. Says that it's obvious that if the tapes tended to exonerate the President, he would have given them to the committee right away. and that if they tend to impugn the President, there's enough evidence already that the committee doesn't need to wait for more. LEWIS asks about REPUBLICANs voting to impeach the PRESIDENT in the committee DANIELSON says that the Court vote may change the vote in the committee toward delaying to get the tapes. Says that there is a sort of "sense" of how votes will go, and he feels like there will be 26 or 27 votes [0f 38] to impeach. LEWIS asks about a voluntary move by NIXON to give committee tapes, whether such would behoove the committee to wait to hear the new evidence as a matter of good faith. DANIELSON says that enough is enough, no one will be hurt by proceeding directly, and there is nothing to prevent NIXON from making the tapes public on his own. LEWIS asks if there is grounds to impeach NIXON on the bombing of CAMBODIA. DANIELSON. says he's surprised that Rep. SMITH brought it up, noting that some people do favor it, but it was not thought to be widespread enough to support including the bombing as an Article of IMPEACHMENT. [00.24.35]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.49.01] Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. I am in an uncanny position, Mr. -. Chairman because I can't figure out, as I couldn't yesterday, whether or not the proponent of the motion to strike really wants that motion carried. Now. if he does, he has my assistance, and I know a lot of other people, will give him their assistance. Now, before I comment I would like to hear from the gentleman from Texas. Do you really want to strike paragraph 1 ? Let tile know how I should proceed. Will the gentleman from Texas please answer? Mr. BROOKS. I would be pleased to answer. I thought I had made clear to my distinguished friend from New Jersey that in the Interests of debate. of getting the facts about, just what happened to the IRS, how it was Used, -who told them to do it, -what they did, that I- thought that, we ought to have this motion so that the people of this country and so this Committee can fully evaluate just what happened and I want you to have every advantage of a full 20 minutes to discuss why it should he Included. Mr. SANDMAN. That is fine. but I am still asking wanting to know, do you want your motion passed? Mr. BROOKS. Well. to be candid about it, when you offer a motion for debate purposes you are, not necessarily confined to wanting it Passed and I certainly do--- Mr. SANDMAN. . Oh, well, then--stop using my Valuable time. The public now knows what you are up to, Mr. BROOKS. Glad to give you that time, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. I AM not going to hand you any more of that valuable time because it is obvious 'that this is a game. In fact, we have been Involved in quite a, few games here. and you aren't any more serious about striking this article than my friend from Alabama was yesterday in striking any of the articles that he tried to strike. I'm, mindful of the fact that they tell me we have about a 20-percent audience which is about 44 million people and it gives exposure and maybe you can convince them with some of your generalities. That is the purpose behind all of this. I know it. And 44 million people know It, Make no mistake about it. Now, I would like to yield some time to some other members of this side and I would like to Yield to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Sandman. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman---- Mr. SANDMAN. Four minutes. Ml-. DENNIS. [continuing]. That if I felt that the evidence here substantiated that the Internal Revenue Service has been misused and abused for Improper Political or discriminatory purposes, I take a very dim view of that myself. I would do so even though abuse, misuse. and discrimination has not been entirely unknown in Past administrations because that would not, constitute a defense now even though nobody bothered to fool with it then/ I believe, for instance, that in his diaries the late Drew Pearson says that the late Harry S. Truman turned the, IRS loose on him at one time, and that doesn't make it any better if it was done now but I think it is ,I good thing to bear in mind that we have a certain amount of, obvious hypocrisy in these proceedings from time to time. Now, the truth of the matter is that there, really isn' ally evidence connected with the President again, if you please, which we are Sort of sloughing over here. than the, President did anything out of the, way about the IRS at a11. The only thing they can even attempt to cite. Is the conversation of September 15, and as a matter of fact, the President doesn't refer to the IRS in that conversation. He says, "We have not used the power in this first 4 Years as you know. We have never used it. We haven used the Bureau--- that Is- the FBI--"and we. haven't used the Justice Department." He doesn't talk about the' IRS, as a, matter of fact, but the interesting thing is that all that conversation is talk anyway. Now, it, is not good talk. It would be damaging talk if there was something to be shown that. the, President ever followed up on it. But I haven't seen anything in this record where the President did follow up On it. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has used 5 minutes . Mr. SANDMAN. I reserve the balance of my time and request that Brooks take up the cudgel again. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. Mr. BROOKS. MR. Chairman, I would yield 2 1/2 to minutes to Congressman, to the gentleman, Mr. Danielson from California. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
[01.17.04] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky for purposes Of debate only for a period not to exceed 15 minutes Mr. Mezvinsky. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MEZVINSKY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IOWA Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that I am one of the last speakers but I shall not have the last word because, we all know that the last word belongs to the Constitution.My colleagues and I who have anguished over this task know this all too well. You can tell it from the words they have spoken, whatever side of the aisle they were on. I just hope that I am able to make a contribution to a further under Standing of our grave responsibility. Now, the American Presidency IS a rare trust. It is truly a culmination of national trust and confidence. And what we are all called on to do by our Constitution is to scrutinize the treatment of this sacred trust by Richard Nixon. By putting the impeachment process into motion, we have accepted the challenge laid down 200 years ago by Founding Fathers, the challenge to preserve the Government that they created. I think it is important for us to remember that the authors of that Constitution provided this process not as something to be feared by the Nation, but rather as -.in essential provision to reassure and protect the people from the abuse of the great powers of the, Presidency. The Founding Fathers really insisted that the President be held to the highest standard of accountability and we know that the impeachment process is really the Ultimate guarantee of that accountability. The Congress is called on to enforce that guarantee. And for this reason it is not only Richard Nixon that is on trial So are we, every member of this committee, every Member of this Congress. We are asked to judge whether Richard Nixon should be called on to account for his actions, and tried in the Senate for the abuse of the great trust reposed in him. The question before us is whether Richard Nixon has abused that great gift, of the Presidency. That this question has had to be posed is disheartening for all of us who hold a deep respect for the Presidency. You can' sense that--it is evident in the remarks made last evening and throughout today. I take a look at my own background, a background where my parents were immigrants who were genuinely inspired by America, as they compared it to their homeland of czarist Russia and turn-of-the-century Poland. I grew up in Iowa with a great admiration for our Presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, and I now find it personally unsettling to be faced with the harsh evidence that Richard Nixon has abused the Presidency. But the committee must face the evidence and that is what it is. It is evidence. To do otherwise would be a grave dereliction of our duty. I want to focus on an area that is not now covered in the articles: That is the evidence on the President's taxes because I believe this evidence falls into a pattern of abuse which the committee Must consider and I think the tax question is especially important because it is so readily understandable. All of us pay taxes. All of us deal with the -Internal Revenue Service. Now, let us review the facts about the Presidential taxes. Here is the story. For the first year he, was President Mr. Nixon paid about $72,000 in income taxes. Now, that is a lot of money. But his income was over $460,000 and the IRS had ruled that he should have paid more than $220,000 in taxes. In 1970, on an income of almost $360,000, Mr. Nixon paid only $793 in taxes. I think that's worth repeating. His income was more than one- third of a. million dollar-, and he only paid $793 in taxes. That is less than the average family in My home State of Iowa paid. He should have paid more than $90,000 in taxes, more than 100 times the amount that he the President of the United States, deemed his Proper tax. Now, let us carry On the story. The next year, 1.971, Mr. Nixon paid $878 In taxes on an income of more than $250,000. Anyone else in his income tax bracket would have, paid it least $94,000 that year, but he only paid $878. And the story goes on. In 1972, our President paid a little over $4,000 in taxes. His income was over one-quarter of a million dollars and he should have Paid more than $90,000 in taxes.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. BROOKS......one-half million dollars. It has been documented that President Nixon took unlawful deductions from his income during the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972. These include a fraudulent gift of his Vice Presidential papers, his daughter's honeymoon at Camp David, and the upkeep and maintenance of his private homes at Key Biscayne and San Clemente. In addition to reducing his taxes by these fraudulent dedications, Mr. Nixon failed to report certain from the sale of property in California, in New York, and in Florida and from the conversion Of campaign contributions to his own personal use. We are not discussing a person unfamiliar with the laws involved. This is a lawyer who knows the, requirements for a gift. This is a man who signed the tax provision in question into law a few months earlier. This is the man who unabashedly attempted to use the IRS to attack his political enemies. Now, with regard to emoluments I want to direct your attention to article II, section I of the Constitution which states, and has stated, since about 1789, that: The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive any other emolument from the United States or any of them. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, stated its purpose as follows: Neither the union nor any of its members will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. Now, you are familiar with the expenditures of Federal funds on President Nixon vacation retreats in San Clemente, Calif. and Key Biscayne, Fla. This issue has been the subject of several extensive investigations by congressional committees and executive agencies. The Internal Revenue Service did, an audit Of President Nixon's tax returns and they determined that he received $94,679.61 in unreported income as a result of Government expenditures on his California and Florida homes and travel for unauthorized purchases. The breakdown -was about $67,000 on those homes, about $27,000 on unauthorized travel. which was unreported income to him. The Internal Revenue Service declared, and I quote, and this is not Democrats, this is not, Republicans, this is the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, they said: In view of the taxpayer's relationship to the U.S. Government as its Chief executive officer, the above items constitute additional compensation to him for the performance of his services for the Government. Now, these expenditures were not the result of overzealousness on the part of fawning bureaucrats, but were ordered by his personal agents, his Personal lawyer, his personal architect, his personal decisions his closest Personal friend. In my judgment, the, President should be, impeached by the House of Representative.-, for his gross and willful violation of article 11, section I of the U.S. Constitution, the highest law in this land. And I would reserve the balance of my time for a future period. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot-- Mr. BROOKS. Pardon me, if that is not proper, 'what time, have I consumed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes and 45 seconds Remaining. Mr. HUNGATE. Would you yield to me? Mr. BROOKS. I will be delighted to just, point out that there has been some question about, what, the Government has done about, this, about whether it is fraud or whether, it is a problem or not. And I will point: out that Donald Alexander, the current. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, and I do not even know him, referred to the question of possible--I hope I don't meet him--referred to the question of possible violations of section 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code rising- out of the preparation of that, 1969 income tax. He sent a letter to Mr. Leon Jaworski asking that, they look into this and this is -what, he said in that, letter. he did not send it a long time ago. He sent it on April 2, 1974 not last year, just a month or so ago. And he said: 'We have been unable to complete processing of this matter in view of lack of cooperation of some of the witnesses and because of the many inconsistencies in the testimony of individuals presented to the Service. The use of grand jury process should aid in determining all of the facts in this matter. it is our opinion that a grand jury investigation will involve Presidential appointees. We believe it would be appropriate for it to be carried forth by your office. Now, since that time I understand that the grand jury has called Mr. Blech, his accountant on two occasions, once On June 26 or 27, and again on July 25, and that is this year, and that he has been discussing with them the details of these tax preparations. In addition to that, I understand that they probably have or very shortly will have issued subpenas for some of the financial records so that we call got at the bottom of this. Now, there are additional income figures, of unreported income that I hope. Ms. Holtzman will discuss. She very familiar with them, and I would at this point, if I have time, yield to my distinguished friend, Mr. Hungate. [00.08.50]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.00] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. At the time the committee recessed, the committee was debating the Wiggins motion to strike paragraph 3, and those in opposition to the amendment had consumed 8 minutes, and those in support of the amendment had consumed 5 minutes. And I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, for such time as he May consume out of that time. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes of my time to The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mayne is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those of this panel who would impeach the President for setting up the special investigative unit would have us believe that there was just no national security involved in It at all. Well. then, why is it called the Plumbers unit? It was called the Plumbers because Its purpose was to plug leaks of secret information vital to the national security of the United States. There were many instances where, those leaks occurred. I mentioned several of them just before the recess. There was the secret Intelligence Board's report in which it estimated the Soviet Union's strategic strength and the Russians' first-strike capacity, a Matter of Great importance to our defense effort. Well, that was leaked by a Government official to a reporter who printed it in the press for the Russians' information. There was the disclosure by one of our senior officials, at least so the newspaper reporter said, of our Secret fallback position, our final offer in the SALT talks the strategic arms limitation negotiations, in Helsinki in 1971. Our negotiators there, our negotiating team, were trying to achieve as much security for the United States as possible from nuclear attack. The package which we had on the table therein dealing with the Russians -was asking them to stop the construction of all nuclear, missiles, both land and submarine based. But, according to another reporter, one of our senior officials con. confided in him that we were -willing to settle for less, that we did not really expect to get that much security from the Russians, and that if they turned us down we would be willing to settle for just a ban on construction of land-based missiles, and let go ahead -with the submarine based. Well, now, when that was printed in the newspaper, and the Russians read it, you can imagine what that did to our chances of getting the more secure arrangement the greater protection for our country. That was definitely, a security leak which needed to be plugged. Then there was the release of the he Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg also In June of 1971. Of course, Ellsberg had been identified so that' case is somewhat different, because the President highest national; security and foreign policy advisers had warned him that it Was extremely important that these officials, who were leaking this information, be identified and stopped. Well, Ellsberg had been identified, but it was by no means certain that he would not leak more information. Only part of the Pentagon Papers had been published at that time. It was not known whether he would go ahead with the rest, and there was also reason to believe that he had additional information. John Ehrlichman, in an affidavit, a sworn affidavit in April of this year, testified that in a week or 10 days of the days after the publication of the first Pentagon Papers, these papers were related to our decisionmaking in a war which was still going on, in which American troops were still in combat, which Kissinger was trying to settle in sensitive negotiations in Paris, and Ehrlichman said that Henry Kissinger met, with him and the President and hold them about Daniel Ellsberg, and told him that he was, and I quote; "In knowledge of very critical defense secrets of current validity, such as nuclear deterrent targeting" And I am reading from page 621 of book 7, part 2, and I continue the quote: "having never heard of Ellsberg before theft of the papers, my impression from Kissinger's description was that the Nation was presented with a very serious potential security problem beyond the theft of the larger historical Pentagon Papers. I later learned that the papers themselves were believed by defense experts to contain vital secrets. Dr. Kissinger told the President that the theft made very difficult our foreign relations with allies with whom we shared classified information. In these meetings, both the President and Dr. Kissinger were obviously deeply concerned." [00.19.15]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Mr. Dennis is recognized for 2 minutes. David Dennis (R Indiana). I thank the gentleman for yielding because something the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead said, struck a very responsive chord with me. I believe I have spent as much time in courtrooms defending the underdog as any man or woman on this committee. And I have done it enforcing their civil rights too, where it counted. And I have done it when every man's hand in the establishment was against my client and when every public organ was crying loud for his blood. So that situation is nothing new to me at all. But I never expected to find myself in a similar situation where the President of the United States was concerned. And now that I have, I simply want to say that it is my belief and opinion, and my sincere opinion and belief that the President of the United States has exactly the same rights and I will stand up for them exactly the same way as did those humble citizens I used to represent. I thank you.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
(DO NOT USE voiceover of Jim Lehrer.) Committee room, back shot of Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey) taking seat, facing the visible wall of reporters and cameras at front of Committee.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974. Vote on motion to strike paragraph I of the Sarbanes substitute.
[01.07.56] Committee room, members and reporters speaking to each other. Voiceover of Paul Duke says its significant that 6 Republicans joined the unanimous Democrats to defeat the motion.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). Now let us go back to April 30, 1973, when the President accepted the resignation of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Kleindienst and Dean. He at that time pledged to the American people that he would do everything in his power to ensure that those guilty of misconduct within the White House and in his campaign organization were brought to justice. And he announced he was going to appoint Elliot Richardson Attorney General and he announced Elliot Richardson would appoint a Special Prosecutor and in due course that came to pass. And Mr. Richardson submitted to the committee a statement of duties and responsibilities of the Special Prosecutor. And the statement provided that he would have jurisdiction over offenses arising out of the Watergate break in, allegations involving the President, members of the White House staff or Presidential appointees. And they also provided that the Special Prosecutor would have full authority for determining whether or not to contest the assertion of executive privilege or any other testimonial privilege and that he would not be removed except for extraordinary improprieties.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.07.37] Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in opposition to the point of order. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized in opposition to the point of order. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to Mr. Hungate. I feel deeply about this point order. I feel that I must speak in Opposition. In MY opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is possibly, probably--I can make that stronger--it is certainly the most important article that this committee may pass out. The offense in this article is truly a high crime and a misdemeanor within the purest meaning, of those words as established in Anglo-American jurisprudence over a period of now some 600 years. The. offenses charged against the President in this article are Presidential offenses. No one else can commit them. You or I, the most lowly citizen can obstruct Justice. You or I, the most lowly citizen, can violate any of the statutes in our criminal code. But only the President can violate the oath of office of the President. Only the President can abuse the powers of the office of the President. When our Founding Fathers put our Constitution together, it was no accident that they separated the powers. Against the backdrop of 400 years of history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence they realized the need to have a device. a constitutional means of removing from. office a chief magistrate who had violated his solemn oath of office. And I respectfully submit that impeachment clause of our Constitution which. fortunately, we have to use now for only the second time, is that means. These are high crimes and misdemeanors, meaning that they are crimes or offenses against the very structure of the state, against the System of government, the system that has brought to the American People and has preserved for the American people the freedoms and liberties which we so cherish. This is uniquely a Presidential offense, a Chairman, and the most important subject of this hearing. There are some--and I -would like to respond right now--there are some among us, there are conscientious, dedicated Americans who harbor a feeling of fear and apprehension at this. They seem--I submit that it is a sensitivity to the travail through which our Republic is now passing, but they feel they recognize, they sense that this is a most grave responsibility and proceeding, and some of them say that this should not be done because it might harm the Presidency. Mr. Chairman, I submit. that only the President can harm the Presidency. No one but the President can destroy the Presidency. And it is our responsibility acting under the impeachment clause, to preserve and protect the Presidency as -we preserve, and protect every other part Of our marvelous structure of Government, and we do it through this-- it through this process. Someone' in his opening statement, referred to this as being a situation Of "We, the people" acting "We, the people," are acting through this procedure, through the provisions put into our Constitution. The American people, Mr. Chairman, are entitled to and -want a Government which they can honor and respect, and they should have it. The American people, Mr. Chairman, are eager to revere their President. They are entitled to a President whom they can revere. Mr, Chairman, I ask, "Is not the violation of the solemn oath of office an impeachable offense?" It is not found in our criminal code. It, is implicit in our Constitution but it is necessarily implicit in the Constitution for otherwise why would there be an oath of office? The offenses charged in this proposed article I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, are offenses which go directly to the breach of a solemn oath of office. Can anyone argue that if the President breaches his oath of office, he should not be removed? I say not. And I respectfully submit that this point, of order should be denied. [00.12.50]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
20.37 Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). Now, Mr. Railsback, my good friend from Illinois, has rattled off a great many instances which he believes would come within this category. And the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, has said such instances are all over the place. But it seems to me that that is the very point, that the President and his attorneys should not have to look all over the place in preparing their defense. I cannot see how it can be of any possible prejudice to the House of Representatives in an impeachment proceeding to set out fairly and specifically when these instances occurred. If the gentleman from Illinois is correct in his recital, and I believe Mr. Doar indicated that he thought that he was, it would seem to me that no harm could possibly be done setting those out. There are, after all, many, many authorized investigative officers. I think that the FBI agents, and I believe Mr. Doar mentioned that there were some FBI agents to whom such statements are alleged have been made, certainly it would be no great task or unreasonable burden for the staff in preparing these articles to set out the names of those agents so that the defense would not have to sift through every single interview with every agent that took place. And the, point has already been made that there are even more employees of the United States than there are authorized investigative officers. The President happens to have a number of agents and subordinates. Many statements have been made which some of my colleagues he tonight feels were false and misleading. But if only particular statements are those on which you rely, I fall to see how it would not be proper, why it not be required by fair play and process to set these matters out in detail in these articles so that American people, as well as the President and his attorneys, will know just what it is that they are up against. (Hillary Rodham (Hillary Rodham Clinton) seated behind John Doar)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.38] [continued speech by Rep. BARBARA JORDAN, D-TX] We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new, evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There hasn't even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpena is outstanding and if the President wants to supply that inaterial, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people -waited with great anxiety for 8 hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States. At this point I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the President's actions. Impeachment criteria : James Madison, from the Virginia Ratification Convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached." We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects payment to the defendants of money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and that these were funds collected for the 1972 Presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to Watergate and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving and transmitting to the President. The words are, "if the President be connected in any suspicious manner any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."justice Story: "Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." We know about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute complete direction in August 1971 when the President instructed Ehrlichman to "do whatever is necessary." This instruction led to a surreptitious entry Into Dr. Fielding's office. "Protect their rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation." The South Carolina Ratification Convention impeachment criteria: Those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust." Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the, present time the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by Government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave, those who "behave amiss or betray their public trust." James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care at the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregarded the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, concealed surreptitious entry, attempted to compromise a Federal judge while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder. Has the President committed offenses and planned and directed and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution not tolerate? That is the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It .reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision. I Yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
(DO NOT USE image of Jim Lehrer) Paul Duke and Jim Lehrer seated at desk. Duke observes that two significant things took place. In his interpretation, Duke says it appears that Representative McClory, a Republican, announced his willingness to vote for impeachment on some significant counts. Also, Representative Smith, another Republican, saying that he will not vote for the impeachment, and that he is only satisfied with evidence regarding the secret bombing of Cambodia. Jim Lehrer remarks that Cambodia is not considered a significant part of the charges against Nixon. Adds that the push to delay the proceedings until the White House tapes ordered released by the Supreme Court are delivered into committee hands has failed to gain much momentum. Ranking Republican Hutchinson spoke strongly in favor of delay, with weaker support from Smith, and none from McClory, with Democrats urging to proceed immediately, and favoring impeachment. Says that there have been few surprises thus far, with Democrats united and Republican weaker and more divided.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.30.44] Mr. SARBANES. No. I am recounting back. over the transcripts of the tapes. pertinent portions of that conversation. Mr.. SANDMAN. Well, if it is not a new document then we are, back to where we started. Why are you resisting the fact that this should be in the articles of impeachment? Is not the Congress entitled to know what they are going to vote on when I it gets to them?? Should they not know when it happened and how it happened? Should this not be In the. articles? Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. A brief answer from the gentleman from Maryland, if he has one. Mr. SARBANES. I responded to that question this morning when the gentleman asked it and---- Mr. SANDMAN. You have not given any answer at all. Mr. SARBANES. And I said at that time If we were to bring into articles all the factual material which underpins them we would have to have articles that run into volumes and volumes. Mr. SANDMAN. Now. that is not so. Mr. SARBANES. It is SO. Mr. RAILSBACK. Will you yield? Mr. SANDMAN. In a moment I will yield, you know that is not SO more than it is an indictment. You do not need the whole brief in indictment and I do not want to be confused again by saying this is an indictment. It is not. But the common criminal in a criminal case has no more rights than the President of the United States in an impeachment case. This is what I have said. RAILSBACK. Would you yield? Mr. SANDMAN. -No, I won't yield. I am not finished Now. the important things here is why isn't the President entitled to this kind of simple explanation? It can be in a single, sentence. We don't have to go through the speech that you made. All you have to say on any one of your articles, a very simple sentence, on such and such a date the President did contrary to the law a simple act. That is all you have to say. Why won't you say it? Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. I want him to answer. Mr. SARBANES, Will the, gentleman yield'? Mr. SANDMAN. Sure, a simple answer. Mr. SARBANES. Behind each of those allegations lies an extensive pattern of conduct. That will be spelled out factually and will be-- Mr. SANDMAN. That is- Mr. SARBANES./ If the gentleman -will let me finish, I am endeavoring as best, I can to respond to his question. Mr. SANDMAN. All right. Go ahead. Mr. SARBANES. And that pattern of conduct will be spelled out in the report that accompanies the articles. But there is not one isolated incident that rests behind each of these allegations. There is a course of conduct extending over a period of time involving a great number of incidents. Mr. SANDMAN. I am not going to yield any further. It is my time you are using up. I am not going to yield any further for that kind of an answer. You are entitled to your proof. No one said that you aren't. You are entitled to as many articles as you can get the Democrats and some Republicans to agree upon. And no one says that you are not entitled to that. But to each of these, my friend, the law from the beginning of this country up to the last impeachment in 1936 says, whether you like it or not, it has to be specific and this is not specific. [00.33.54--cut to LEHRER in studio] LEHRER says that Chairman RODINO will try to break this impasse by referring the issue to counsels. [00.34.06--PBS NETWORK ID] [promos for other PBS programming] [00.37.18--title screen "Impeachment Debate July 26, 1974"]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.45.56] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, is recognized. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to agree with the 'gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen, that the approach to Judge Byrne about possible employment as the new head of the FBI was certainly highly improper and to discuss with any judge in the. progress of a trial, particularly a trial of major importance such as this, a possible promotion, if it was a promotion, just seems to me so obviously inappropriate that I am surprised and disappointed that this was done by a representative of the President in a conversation that the President himself participated very briefly, not dealing with the actual subject of the appointment, but I also disappointed that Judge Byrne would entertain such an approach in any degree. He did not, of course, declare a mistrial on that ground. He declared a mistrial when the Government disclosed that there had been this invasion of Dr. Fielding's rights by the break-in. And this information was furnished voluntarily, albeit reluctantly, by the President after it became known to him upon the advice of counsel, I believe the Assist' Assistant Attorney General, that it--and the Solicitor General, Dean Griswold, that although it was not technically required, they felt that it was better under all the, circumstances to reveal this and it was reported and a mistrial declared. Now, I just want to emphasize in the time remaining to me that there is absolutely no question on the evidence in this case, aside from some of the argument, that there were serious national security problems in connection -with these leaks which the President carrying out his duty to uphold the defense and national security of the country, was determined to stop. These leaks affected the -war in Vietnam where they affected our troops. They affected our attempts to negotiate, the of the war in Vietnam. They affected the SALT talks. They affected Guam. They affected various negotiations and relationships with the Russians. And to emphasize that this was a legitimate concern of the President, I just want to read from a couple of quotations from Dr. Kissinger referring to these leaks in the-and these appeared in the Presidential presentation book 4, tab 23B, and I quote Dr. Kissinger referring to the damaging nature of these various leaks and disclosures upon our country's interests. And I quote Henry Kissinger: Each of these disclosures was of the most extreme gravity. As presentations of the Government's thinking on these key issues, they provided the Soviet Union with extensive insight as to our approach to the., SALT negotiations and severely Compromised our assessment of the Soviet Union's missile testing and our apparent inability to accurately assess their exact capabilities, The disclosure of the assessment of the 'Soviets' first, strike capability would provide a useful signal to the Soviet Union as to the efficacy of our intelligence system, It would also prematurely reveal the intelligence bases on which we were developing our position for the Impending strategic arms talks. And With regard to the negotiations on Guam, on page 86, Dr. Kissinger stated, and I quote: "The consequences of this disclosure attributed to well placed informants In terms of compromising negotiating tactics prejudicing the Government's interest and complicating our relations with Japan were obvious and clearly preempted by opportunity we might have had for obtaining a more favorable outcome during our negotiations with the Japanese. NOW, the President of the United States had a duty to act and he did act. He may not have done the most effective thing. Clearly this Plumbers unit went astray. They became law breakers. They were caught in a miserable crime out there in California,. But there is absolutely no evidence that the President knew anything about the planning of that in advance. I respectfully submit that the President did try, according to his best judgment, to protect the national security of this country and the mere fact that he didn't do it perfectly and got an inexperienced group who certainly botched the, job and were a discredit to our Country in every respect, that does not mean that he was guilty of a -high crime or misdemeanor for which he should be impeached and that the only basis it seems to me under the Constitution under which -we, can find him impeachable. I yield back- the balance of my time. I yield time-- my remaining time to Mr. Latta of Ohio, if I May. [00.52.33]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.04.08] Mr. EILBERG.....This has become an article of faith that in Russia Big Brother has arrived, that the secret police are always listening. Now we learn that in the late 1960's and early 1970's and possibly right up to this date, the secret police have been listening in on Americans, only now they have special equipment to eliminate the noise of the running water or the loud radio. In Washington it has become a sardonic joke to say that the phone is tapped whenever there is a strong noise on the line. We have become a suspicions people afraid to talk freely . not because what we say might prove we have committed a crime or endangered the national security but because our political enemies might use this information against us. Mr. Chairman, the Nixon White House made the secret police a reality in the United States. The President and his men knew that what they -were doing was so morally repugnant that they could not even trust the FBI to keep records of their activities. Finally, they could not even trust their own subordinates, so the files were taken to the Oval Office of the White House and then locked in the safe of the second most trusted advisor. Mr. Chairman, in addition to everything else, it seems to me that various crimes have been committed, and that what we are discussing now, it seems to me, is not one of the least important but one of the Most important of the impeachable offenses. And when it comes time for debate on paragraph 2, I intend to point out some of the criminal violations that are involved. and I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes. The gentleman from California Mr. WIGGINS. I yield 1 minute only to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. MARAZITI. I thank you for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. MARAZITI. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the records of the FBI show that the information that was obtained by these wiretaps -was Put to good use to prevent further leaks. And certainly I concur with what has been said here today, that the President committed no illegal act in instituting these wiretaps. And indeed, he -would have failed in his constitutional responsibility if he did not attempt to prevent further disclosure of national security information. And I for one, Mr. Chairman, would say that the fact that the President did not, in fact, try to stop these leaks in the interest of national security, I would vote to impeach him for his failure to do so. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 3 minutes. Ms. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there is no question about the right of the President to institute warrantless wiretaps, even in the interests of national security. We do not quarrel about that. Date back to 1940, President Roosevelt in a memo to his Attorney General, Attorney General Jackson stating that it is in the interest of national security to prevent subversive activities, to instigate these warrantless wiretaps, but that is not what we are concerned about. We concede the right to issue, instigate, authorize wiretaps in the interest of national security. The question is whether President Nixon -used his authority in conformity -with and comporting with what the law is and what the law -was at the time those, wiretaps -were instituted? The fact was uncontroverted that Mr. Nixon authorized the -wiretaps. The threshold question is whether or not the law and the Constitution were complied with. We have the, 1967 Katz decision which said that wiretaps do come under the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and Seizures. We have a 1969 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Now, what I want to hear the opposition address themselves to is whether the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act, which was signed Into law in 1968 was in fact the law, even in the absence of clarifying regulations or a clarifying decision issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no such thing as a law awaiting some clarification by the court. The 1968 decision was law, and the President did not abide by the law -which was in effect at the time I time these wiretaps in 1969 to 1971 were instituted. I want to hear the opposition address themselves not simply to those wiretaps which relate to perhaps National Security Council employees, what about, those which relate to the newsmen who certainly know a lot, but, know nothing about. state secrets. What, about those instances where wiretaps were instigated on the employees who had left the Government and long since had nothing to do with national security matters? We read the summaries of those, wiretaps and you have heard Us state that there was gossip and personal matters involved in some of the information educed. I want the opposition to address themselves to all of the, taps, not just those, which may under some stretch of the imagination have had something to do with national security. A climate of leaks do not necessarily justify, and in my judgment do not in this instance justify a violation of fourth amendment freedoms. [01.09.40]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Charles Rangel (D - New York).
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel. Charles Rangel (D New York). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you and the members of this committee because through their decision they have restored some faith and integrity to our system of Government. We have heard in the past many times the words "law and order" but most Americans recognize who those words were directed at and exactly what those words really meant. Today, Mr. Chairman, that phrase, can be restored to some of its original meaning because we have established some law and some order as relates to the abuse of Presidential power. The Vice President of the United States has reportedly said that this committee does not properly reflect or represent the Members of the House of Representatives. And perhaps it does not, for what committee truly does? Nevertheless, the committee system is a part of the House of Representatives. And it is not a part of our American way of life to attack the entire system merely because we differ with the results.