Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Edward Hutchinson
I think that the President has actually turned over a lot of material to this committee. I am not going to enumerate it all because members of the committee are all extensively aware of the vast amount of material that has been turned over to the committee that has come from the White House. But, in any event, when it came to subpoenaing the President, I did not think that even the power of impeachment should break down the doctrine of coordinate branches. I think that just as the President cannot order the House of Representatives to do anything neither do I think that the House of Representatives can order the President to do anything. I happen to feel the same way about the Court. I don t, I can t imagine that the Court that the President could order the Court to do something, so it is hard for or me to accept the proposition that the Court can order the President to do anything. At that level, at the very top of our structure, of three coordinate branches, where the President is equal in all respects to the other two branches, I think the only way to get along is through cooperation and working things out in a satisfactory way in order to preserve the prerogatives of all three branches.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.28] Mr. DENNIS. But, you do have to say, if you are charging the man with making false and misleading statements, you do have to say in that on April 14, 1973, he did say to Henry Petersen, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, the so that he will know. He cannot be, required under the Constitution to look back over everything he may have said Sometime that somebody is now going to Say was false or misleading. You have gat to specify to that extent, and there is only one precedent in this particular case, and that is the case of Andrew Johnson. And if you will look. at the articles set forth on page 154 of our own publication, you will find that they were exceedingly specific. On a certain date he discharged Secretary Stanton contrary to the Tenure of Office Act by writing him the following letter. And on a certain date he conspired with one Lorenzo Thomas to make him Secretary of War when--- Mr. DANIELSON. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DENNIS. I will yield for about 30 seconds, but Mr. DANIELSON. That is about all the gentleman has. Mr. DENNIS. Well, I hate to yield to you then, but I would like an answer to that Mr. DANIELSON./ I wonder if I understood the gentleman correctly at I understood him to say that if we specify these acts in our accusatory pleading, the evidence to be educed at the trial is restricted those items? Mr. DENNIS. Why of course, and that is the whole purpose, and at you want to do is give a man no chance to know what he must et, and then you bring in anything you happen to think of, and it ,not constitutional, and it is not fair, and just because you are a congressional committee you cannot just tear the Constitution up and row it away. And that is what you want to do here. Mr. DANIELSON./ Would the chairman yield 2 minutes to the gentleman that he could yield to me to respond (1, please ? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the. gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. I do not -want 2 minutes to yield to him. Mr. DANIELSON. May I The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine has been seeking recognition Mr. Cohen. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize you for 5 minutes. Mr. COHEN. If I could, I would like to address a question to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes Mr. Sarbanes, I would assume that in each of the subheadings under the article that you propose to substitute, and let me say that I think these statements and the conclusions I can agree with most if not all of them, but let me turn to page I under article I, where you list submitted title, 1, making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees-of the United States. Now, -would it be fair for me to assume that you would rely upon certain--Mr. Dennis said essential facts--I would hesitate to use the word operative, facts in this context, but is it fair to Say that You Would rely upon one, two, three or four, specific dates an operative set Of,, facts to support that general statement, the making of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigators? Is that fair', to say that, you have that in mind Mr. SARBANES. Yes, although in most of these. instances, when it is, finally detailed in the the report, I would assume there, would be, many more instances than the number the gentleman suggests--one of the points is that there is a course of conduct, and not a single event. Mr. COHEN. I understand, and -would it be fair to say that you -would., probably refer to the summary of information that has been prepared! by Mr. Doar and Mr. Jenner, such as summary pages 30 through 32 to support that specific operative set of facts? acts Mr. SARBANES. Well, I would assume that the report would go further than that. The report could do that, but I -would also a that the report would spell out the matters I indicated in the response I gave this morning to the gentleman from Illinois. MC COHEN. But the problem that I have had for several months now, and usually with counsel, Mr. Doar and Mr. Jenner, you may,-` recall that at each time we issued a subpena, I specifically asked you, inquired and was always rejected, as to whether or not we might attach a specific justification Which you Set forth in great detail justifying the issuance for those subpena and the reasons why we needed them, and I would just like to inquire, I think I know the answer you will give me, but is there any reason why a document could not be attached to the proposed articles of impeachment, with a phrase to the effect "All of -which is set forth with greater particularity in the appendix attached hereto." In other words, getting into the civil pleading. I happen to agree with counsel, Mr. Jenner, that we are not talkin necessarily about criminal pleading, but perhaps civil pleading and we do have notice of pleading in civil cases and we also have a very -well established doctrine of incorporation by reference. Now, -wouldn't that be helpful in this particular instance? Mr. DOAR. It is my understanding, Mr. Congressman, that this would go along with the material would be included in the report and with articles. Now, whether it is attached that way or attached to the pleading, it is my understanding further really is immaterial. But generally speaking any civil pleading that I have been familiar with, is that you don incorporate this by reference. You furnish it by way Of answers to interrogatories or other discovery, pretrial procedures. Mr. COHEN. But it certainly -would be helpful in this instance to least incorporate by reference several operative sets of facts supporting the general allegation which again I can agree with, that the making of false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized officers, I agree - with that, there were false statements made. I think we can by the simple act of incorporating by reference clear away the probably really. Mr. RANGEL. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. COHEN. I yield to Mr. Rangel, the gentleman from New York. [01.09.23]
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-TX) during House floor debate; remarks on recent housing legislation; talks about lack of action in Congress and Sub-Committee on Housing and Urban Development.
House Subcommittee Shreddergate Investigation
House Public Works and Transportation Committee conducting hearing on shredding of public documents by the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Chief of Staff John Daniel interrupts closing remarks by Committee Chairman U.S. Representative James J. Howard (D-NJ) to make a closing statement of his own. Daniel feels that oversight of the EPA can benefit from Congressional review, particularly by the House Public Works and Transportation Committee. Daniel credits the value of the Committee on the Clean Water Act of 1972. Daniel hopes something can be worked out for the Committee to see the documents and provide oversight in the future. Daniel discusses the extraordinary lengths the EPA has gone through to try and protect documents requested by the Committee. Daniel expresses his appreciation to the Committee for allowing the EPA to testify. Daniels thanks the Committee for their patience, quickly checking his watch.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.31.39] Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very, much for yielding. In early August 1972, the President himself asked Mr. Ehrlichman to arrange that Mr. Stans not be compelled to go before the grand Jury. What I said about Mr. Stans is totally relevant to this inquiry because it was the President of the United States himself who ask that Mr. Stans be given this unusual situation, and I yield back Mr. Hogan. Thank you. Mr. HOGAN. The point that I am trying to make--and I would again remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that there is nothing unique or unusual about that; it is totally proper for a man of Mr. Stans' prominence, and the position he played at that time to testily under oath as he did, in the offices of the Department of Justice. He was under oath, and there is not anything more improper about that there was for exactly the same procedure which was done for former Speaker McCormack of the gentleman's State. And I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. LOTT. One brief point and I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Since we are going to talk about the facts, I -would like to make one point before we go any further. I think Mr. Flowers brought up and it has been passed over. All of us have been speaking to press conference of the 22d, talking about the President's public Statements. Mr. Wiggins spoke to it, Mr. Sarbanes. I think the important point is that this first section says making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative offices and employees of the United States. I think Mr. Doar said that this particular date and statement would not be applicable, to that section. Is that correct, Mr. Doar? Mr. DOAR. Yes, that is correct. Mr. LOTT. SO, the point is that the very first argument made in support of this section, in fact, is not applicable. Thank you for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson, for 5 minutes. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, have been rearguing evidence and facts all day and the, evidence closed on Wednesday of last week. I suggest that we get back to discussing the pleadings. No. 2, 1 wish to make it clear in the record that I do not concur with the opinion of my colleague from California, Mr. Wiggins, on constitutional law as applies to impeachment proceedings. I yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I will not take long. This is a very simple section, making false and misleading statements lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, has provided us definite information, time, chapter, and verse, and in depth, some very definite testimony about where the President made the false statements to a lawfully authorized investigative officer, the head of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, Mr. Petersen. And in addition to that, false statements made by the President to Attorney General Kleindienst. Mr. Wiggins says this does not count because Judge Gesell made some sort of a ruling the other day in a criminal proceedings and I'm sure Mr. Wiggins really did not mean that to apply to this case. We are certainly not dealing in a criminal proceeding. I really do not know what more, Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to do in this modest section. It, seems to me that we have provided the information, the evidence, to comply with it, and I think we ought to move along. Mr. DANIELSON. I submit that we should get on with the work which is cut out for us, to vote on some articles of impeachment. I submit at we should quit setting up straw men and knocking them down I'd and I yield back to the Chair the balance of my time. [01.35.40--TAPE OUT]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Robert McClory (R Illinois). Will the gentleman yield to me? Henry Smith III (R New York). I will be happy to yield to the gentleman one minute. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman is recognized for one minute. Henry Smith III (R New York). One minute. Robert McClory (R Illinois). I thank the gentleman for yielding and in 1 minute. I would like to explain that while I voted against article 1, which was the vote that we took on the last Article that I intend to vote in favor of Article II. In my opinion there was no clear and convincing proof of any criminality or any conduct of the President which involved him as a co-conspirator, but the President does have a Constitutional oath and an obligation to see to the faithful execution of laws. And with multiple acts of misconduct, of illegality, of criminality being conducted in and around the White House by many of his top aides, it seems to me that the President has failed us in this take-care provision of the Constitution. While I bear no malice and no hostility to the President, it seems to me that I have an obligation myself as a member of this committee when I see the Constitutional obligation in default to support an Article of impeachment. I thank the gentleman. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman has 40 seconds remaining. Henry Smith III (R New York). Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I am sorry that my remarks, brief as they may have been, failed to sway my colleague from Illinois who sits on my right. And with that I yield back the balance of my time.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
23.36 Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). And I would like to ask Mr. Doar, if I may, Mr. Chairman, what harm would come from setting out in subparagraph 1, I believe it at least the one that is the subject matter of this motion. What harm would it do to the impeachment case for you to set out the names of the agents and subordinates of the President, the specific occasions on which you allege that he made these misleading statements and to whom he made them. Why should there be any mystery about it? Why should there be any speculation or guesswork about it? Why would this prejudice the House of Representatives? It does seem to me that it very definitely will prejudice the President, that he shouldn t just have to rely on some, I apologize, I do not, wish to say offhand statement by the gentleman from Illinois because it was obviously carefully prepared but given a necessarily very hurried manner, isn't this a matter of enough importance so that you should prepare it specifically and in a manner that the defense and the American people can fully understand? John Doar, attorney. Well, I think in order to answer that you have to admit that you have to balance. On the one hand you have to give the President fair notice. On the other hand, you have to move along and avoid dilatory tactics. And it seems to me that experience has shown throughout the last 200 years of our country that the way to fairly present these matters is to present in the pleadings short, concise, simple statement of the ultimate facts that you base your articles on and then give to the person charged full opportunity in the pretrial, in the discovery stage to learn all the facts about the case. That if you get arguing about the pleadings, the paper, experience has shown that you run into a considerable amount of delay and dilatory arguments that are really, really, experience has shown in the judicial process is unnecessary. So that you can t, I really think, Mr. Congressman, that to get this all out in a pleading, in an Article would cause harm. Not in the sense of depriving the President of knowing every single thing that entitled to know, the nature of the charges, but rather that it will and build and feed and fester into more and more delay of getting to have this case finally decided one way or the other. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). Well, I assure the gentleman I share the concern about delay, but I am afraid we are inviting and causing delay by the filing of a bill of particulars if this statement is not sufficient. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Time is expired.
Cut Congressional Committee Budgets
U.S. House Representative James Collins (R-TX) continues speaking on House floor on the need to cut Congressional staffing as means to reduce House Budget. Rep. Collins believes travel expenses need to be reviewed as well as duplicated services such as two computer services that perform the same task. $10 million that can be cut is Congress spending their own money. Collins notes Agriculture Committee's expenses increased from $250,000 a year to $2,272,000 within a span of 7 years. Collins cites House Administration Committee for increasing yearly expenditures from $617,000 to $22,699,000 in the same time span. Merchant Marine Committee had yearly expenditures increase from $519,000 to $3,176,000. The Ways and Means Committee had yearly expenditures increase from $75,000 to $4,252,000.
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-TX) during House floor debate; remarks on Sub-Committee on Housing and Urban Development; visiting rural and urban America; mentions the struggles of poverty & migrant workers.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Arab-Israeli Conflict
Ranking Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. House Representative, William Broomfield (R-MI) begins his remarks; Chairman, Rep. Lawrence Fountain (D-NC), Rep. Edward Derwinski (R-IL), and Rep. Paul Findlay (R-IL) all seated on the same level of the dais, other middle-aged and elderly adult Caucasian males are seated on the lower dais in the FG. Rep. Broomfield extends his greetings and compliments the work Secretary of State George Shultz is doing, particularly when it comes to ceasefire and peace brought to Lebanon and the Middle East area. Chairman Fountain acknowledges Nick Veliotis, Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, and Richard Fairbanks, a special representative for the Middle East. Secretary Shultz seated at witness table with colleagues; adult Caucasian men and women seated, listening to hearing in BG. Chairman Fountain acknowledges that there may be questions asked where Secretary Shultz may not be able to delve into the details, but after seeing his work with media outlets such as "Meet the Press", he's confident Shultz can answer questions without giving up classified details.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974
[00.02.00] [in to conclusion of speech by Rep. MARAZITI, R-NJ] Why did he tell of the "cancer" if the President knew about this cancer. as has been mentioned by members of this committee previously is the only witness that in any way attempted to implicate the President. Mr. Petersen. Assistant Attorney General, and head of the Criminal Justice Division of the Department of Justice, in answer to a nun Of questions and in answer again specifically to a question asked Mr. Sandman, stated that there is no evidence, there is no evidence, implicate the President of the United States in any criminal action Now, this comes from the head of the, Criminal Justice Division, the man who has made the investigation, from a career man, From a man whose reputation and integrity are beyond reproach. And yet. Mr. Dean says otherwise. I can only say that I do not believe Mr. Dean, and I don't believe the American People will believe Mr. Dean If I have, to choose between Mr. Dean and the President as to who is telling the truth, I have no difficulty in that regard. Now. let us turn to the tape of the morning of April 16, 1973, what does the President say to Mr. Dean, in regard to his testimony before the Grand Jury? The President says: "Dont lie. Don't do John. Tell the truth. That is the thing I have told everyone here. Tell the truth. Don't lie. Understand what I say. Don't lie, about me, either." In effect he says later on go to the Grand Jury. Go down and testify. Go down and tell the truth. Do not claim executive privilege. Do not claim attorney client privilege. I waive that." Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee. does this sound like a man who wants to cover up? What more can a President do but' tell his staff as he did. to tell the truth and not claim executive privilege on the. Watergate break-in. Mr. Chairman. let me say that I listened with interest to your opening statement and I concur with that portion of your statement in which You say that we must deal fairly with every man. It, is my hope that We adopt that principle expounded by you in our final and most crucial deliberations. I look forward with interest to the. discussion Of the particular articles of impeachment that may be, set forth and I invite those who propose impeachment to martial the hard facts in support of That position. They have a duty and a, responsibility to do so and I, Mr. Chairman Will exercise my duty and responsibility to consider the hard facts if they can be shown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I wish to yield the, balance of my time, to Mr. Latta.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.56.31] The CHAIRMAN. I recognized the gentleman from California. Mr. Danielson. I Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I, too, oppose the amendment offered my colleague, Mr. Wiggins. I respectfully submit if this amendment were put in to the article, it would unduly and unnecessarily limit restrict the proofs which the managers will be compelled to make fore the Senate. I concede that the managers must prove each and very charge before it can serve as a basis for an impeachment, but they should not be unreasonably and unrealistically limited in that proof. there is The wording of this proposed amendment would require that there is proof that the President in each and every instance knew in advance of the precise act that was going to be carried out by his agents and subordinates. I respectfully submit that that is unrealistic. Let's look at, for example, Segretti, Do you suppose as a-- is it reasonable to suppose if Mr. Segretti, if we were to prove that he was authorized by the President to commit these dirty tricks; do you suppose that he picked up the phone every time just before' he did one of them and the President, and said, "Mr. President, I am now about to order 100 pizzas for Mr. Muskie's fundraiser?" That is unrealistic and yet the language of Mr. Wiggins' amendment would require that type of prior action by the President in each and every instance. I respectfully submit that the managers before the Senate must prove each and every charge against the President, but this must be one in the context of the real world. If they should prove that the President knowingly and intentionally set One of these forces in motion, then the President is responsible for the natural and probable consequences of having set that force in motion. I mention Segretti's dirty tricks. This goes to many other things. Let's take a look at the Watergate burglary. Someone mentioned properly the other day that it was improbable that the burglars called the President down in Key Biscayne and said--I believe, it was my colleague, Mr. Rangel, "Mr. President we are about to make a hit." Of course, they didn't. But if it can be, shown that, he set this force in motion and that the activities of the Perpetrators were a natural and probable culmination of the force he set in motion I submit that he, is responsible. You know, we hold the, President to a higher standard of conduct than that, of the marketplace. He is the person who, is to set the and ethical standards of the Nation, of the entire Republic. that Mr. Wiggins; amendment would unduly and unnecessarily strict proof and for that reason it should be defeated. I yield to my--- Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. To Father Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much for yielding, and I would like to raise a basic question as to the authorization that is in the, proposed amendment by quoting the President just before the establishment of the Plumbers. The President speaking to Haldeman and Mr. Colson according to Mr. Colson's affidavit in the Ehrlichman case, said this: The President said: "I want these leaks to be stopped, I don't want to told why it cannot be done. I don't want excuses. I want results. I want it done, whatever the cost." Mr. DRINAN. I have difficulty in accepting the. proposed amendment in view this type, of blanket authorization. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman. 1 would like. to add one more point. Of course, I do not believe and I do not think any other member believes that the, President should be held responsible for the acts of his subordinates under general doctrine, of respondeat superior which simply says that he is; liable for whatever his agents do within the scope of their general authority, but where the President has failed to take the actions, to make sure that his agents have stayed within scope of their legitimate authority and furthermore, as Father Drinan indicated, has told them " I don't care how you do it, just get it done," implying that he didn't care about the niceties of the law or anything else, why, -we have a totally different, situation and yet the amendment proposed would not take into account that type of situation. Mr. DANIELSON. I should like to conclude by stating, Mr. Chairman that if the President set forth a general policy or general instructions and pursuant thereto his aides misuse the President's power, then the President alone can be held to account. The CHAIRMAN. The time, of the gentleman has expired. The Chairman would like to observe that the proponents of the amendment have consumed 10 minutes and those in opposition have consumed 12 minutes and the gentleman from -Now Jersey, Mr. Sandman, is recognized in opposition to the amendment. Mr. SANDMAN. Oh, no. I want to be recognized in support of the amendment, sir. [Laughter.] Mr. SANDMAN. It wouldn't be truthful---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. It -would be untruthful for me to say I am surprised because so many things have happened here that would surprise anybody, so I guess we are following a normal course. But isn't this really the crux of what it is all about? The gentleman from California truthfully adds only two words, that is all be adds, for him to be responsible so that he can be removed from office. My colleague, from California says he either has to have knowledge of wrongdoing before it happens or he has to be the person directing that the wrong be committed. Now, maybe we are making new laws for Presidents and I want to say to my colleagues on the other side some day you might have a Democratic President and you want him to live up to all these kinds of new laws that you are making. We heard yesterday that the fifth amendment and due process has become outmoded. You want that to apply to your Presidents like you are trying to apply it to this one. you want all of these things to be done the hard way. Now, let's go through just a couple of things. And I am not going to prolong the argument on specificity, that long Word. But, isn't this why you will not, agree to that particular thing? Which one of these abuses are you going to attempt to prove, which one of them? And now we understand that, the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson, says that it is all right even if you can show that, the President did not know about it or that he did not direct it. No other human being can be held responsible for the acts of his agents---- [01.04.04--TAPE OUT]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
27.11 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Froehlich. Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wiley, do you need more time? Wiley Mayne (R Iowa) No. I thank the gentleman.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
30.30 Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Now the motion from the gentleman from New Jersey is not dilatory. It s not made to delay. It is made to explain to the American people the specifics behind each one of these subparagraphs. And in talking to the gentleman from Alabama, he said we need this, to me earlier this evening, and I think we need it and the American people need it. Now the best way to get it is not to spend another day fighting over the next eight Articles or asking staff to explain the next eight Articles or trying to explain them shooting from our hip. But it s to take the time and 1 day or 2 days after 8 months is not going to make the difference. It seems to me we need to take the time to give the staff the opportunity to work with the proposers to detail the specific items behind the charges and then we can sit down and say, "yes" or "no".
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
31.29 Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Would my friend yield, my friend from Wisconsin yield? Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Yes, I yield. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). I think he s made an excellent statement. I did to talk to him earlier. And I think it is highly important that we proceed in some manner to elicit the specific facts that go with the specific charges. And I think this is one process of doing it, a motion to strike a specific section of it and then discuss it in detail. For I would certainly agree that although it might be per se dilatory, it is also per se very helpful in adducing the evidence that stands with each one of charges. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate his statement.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
43.14 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and for your patience in the proceedings tonight. I support the motion to strike this section. We ve heard the statement made today that we don t want to strangle the pleadings with the facts and I certainly agree with that statement. But I think, Mr. Chairman that we ought to, at this time, to make a very technical distinction that we as lawyers understand between evidence and facts. On the one hand, proof and allegations on the other hand. We are not talking here about proof, evidence, facts. We re talking about allegations. Now, what is an allegation? It is simply a precise statement of the charge. The evidence and the facts constitute proof. Now we are not asking for the inclusion of the evidence and the facts. We certainly don't want that in a pleading. But you want the, allegations, very simply as has been stated here by many members, the time, the place, and in this particular instance, the statements that were alleged to have been made. That s very simple. What statements were alleged to have been made and to whom and where?
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
44.59 Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Now, the recitation here in this hearing tonight, in this room tonight is not the answer. The recitation of facts, or alleged facts, and I must say in many instances, opinion by the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie, which recitation is replete with conclusions of his own, is certainly not the answer. The allegations should be included in the Articles of Impeachment. We re not seeking an explanation of the allegations orally. It must be in the Articles of Impeachment for two reasons, so that we know what we are voting on and so that the respondent knows what he must answer.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
46.59 Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Now, the gentlewoman from Texas in regard to an analysis of due process has said that due process has been given to the President in the proceedings that we have had here during the last months. Some will dispute this allegation, but nevertheless, let's assume that that was the case. But are we going to stop, are we going to stop due process at point, the most crucial point when we are drafting and voting on Articles of impeachment? Mr. Chairman, I submit it to you that due process at this point of our proceedings requires that the Articles of Impeachment contain the specific allegations. Mr. Chairman, therefore I say to you that in the essence of the specific allegations, in this section that we are dealing with, I have no alternative but to vote in support of the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
[00.24.35] [cut to DUKE in studio] DUKE repeats the information about the bomb threat. Notes that there is a parliamentary development of significance, that the #2 Democrat, Rep. DONOHUE, has made a motion for impeachment on 2 articles, first the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, second THE ABUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER. DUKE says that a third article, CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, was added to the first at the last minute. DUKE says that this means that these two articles are now designated the primary business of the committee and must be voted before any other articles can be debated, serving as a voting test that will potentially color the debate on any other articles after the first vote. DUKE says that a factor in the drafting of this bill of impeachment was factionalism and a desire to get bipartisan support in order to make the effort seem less partisan. DUKE notes that there have been partisan fights about the language of the ARTICLES. LEHRER says that it could be useful to keep in mind that the 21 DEMOCRATS on the committee constituted a majority, but if a handful of REPUBLICANS join to recommend impeachment, then the resolution will have greater strength on the full floor of the HOUSE. DUKE says that he talked to a White House aide who said that losing five REPUBLICAN committee votes would amount to "losing the ball game". [cut to LEWIS] LEWIS announces that the room has been found clear of bombs, but that due to increased security after the BOMB THREAT, it will take a while to get everyone back in the room. [cut back to studio] LEHRER asks TUCKMAN whether she had comments about LEWIS'S previous interview with Rep. DANIELSON. TUCKMAN says yes, the issue of the bombing of Cambodia deserved some attention as a most reprehensible act, both for the action and for NIXON'S lies about the bombing, raising again the point of CONGRESS's responsibility to regulate war powers and to chech the President on such matters, a responsibility that has been neglected throughout the Vietnam era (a President-driven war effort from Kennedy through Nixon), citing Congress' abysmal abdication of responsibility over LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. DUKE says that Congress has approved a war powers bill to check the Presidential power to committ military activity (the Javitz Act). LEHRER notes that it has been the more stridently Anti-War committee members who raised the Cambodia issue. DUKE says that it is curious that a REPUBLICAN like SMITH would mention Cambodia, in effect opening an entirely new can of worms that was not likely to be at issue at all, giving encouragement to an Anti-Nixon faction, saying that he has heard no indication from anyone connected to the committe that the Cambodia bombing had any chance of being included in the Articles of Impeachment. TUCKMAN says that it is possible that Rep. SMITH felt strongly and sincerely that the bombing of Cambodia was very wrong. DUKE asks TUCKMAN about the fundamental dispute over what constitues an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE, citing the wide and narrow views, either that a package deal of offenses can amount, in sum, to impeachability, or that impeachability can only come from a charge of a crime that would be a criminal matter in a court of law. TUCKMAN says that she's not a constitutional lawyer, but that her impression is that the core of impeachability is the abuse of power, meaning that a strict standard of criminality is not necessary. That the entire body of the abuse of the Executive Branch is adequate for impeachment. LEHRER interrupts to point out, for the sake of fairness, that in contrast to the Broad View endorsed by TUCKMAN, there is a more literal Narrow View which holds "high crimes and misdemeanors" in a literal sense. [00.36.20]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote on Motion to delete charge of false public statements
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote on Motion to delete charge of false public statements
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.12] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. I, I would Yield Minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois IS recognized. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is one of areas that I mentioned I was concerned about in my opening statement. I want to express the feeling that I share. the concern that was expressed by the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. Let me just say that this story is what would call both bad and good or good and bad. The story is bad in the respect, that top officials of Government clearly tried to misuse their power. Good in the respect that in this particular case, contrary to many of the other aspects of the Watergate affair, there wore some good people in the administration that rejected and fought against what I think was a blatant misuse of power. The facts are these that trouble me so much and I realize, that other administrations have been guilty of similar activities but, certainly I don't think on the massive scale that this was attempted. On September 11, John Dean gave 591 names to the Internal Revenue Commissioner and asked him to audit those persons returns. What is an IRS audit? 'What is an audit? well, to begin with, the taxpayer asked to furnish a full and complete justification for everything used within the tax return itself. The IRS agent has access to prior returns. An audit of civil Cases can go back 3 years and in a criminal case if criminal fraud is suspected they can go back without limit, checking any and all returns filed by the taxpayers. In a typical civil case the agent must be provided by the taxpayer access to all records involving deductions, medical bills, information regarding outstanding loans, and other significant financial data. If the IRS agent suspects there has been income received and not reported he will prepare a net worth analysis and to do this he will interview friends, neighbors, associates to determine a taxpayers life style. Oftentimes the taxpayer will have' to hire a lawyer or an accountant at an expense to him. Many of my constituents have complained about IRS audits. Now, the direct, evidence that we. have, is testimony by John Dean along these, lines. This was Conducted by Mr. Doar of John Dean in secret session. This list of 591 names is a group of McGovern supporters and contributors. The CHAIRMAN. The 2 1/2 minutes of the gentleman has expired- I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey. MR. SANDMAN. It is interesting to note that the gentleman from, California, Mr. Danielson, has given me an opportunity to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt what we have been arguing about. The Specificity, it is a real word, and that is the thing that is going to be remembered here because those who have that solid 27 seek to violate it so badly. Now, here is the whole case. Let me make in Illustration of what the gentleman has said. They are willing to be specific, sure they are. Look at bow specific he just was. He started out by saying on a number of occasions In 1971 and 1972 John Caulfield, a member of John Dean's staff obtained some IRS confidential information. In any Court in this land, would that kind of' indefinite thing hold up? Of course it wouldn't. Let's go down to the next one. In the spring of 1972--the spring takes in 3 months. What part of the spring? He doesn't dare tell you because. he doesn't know. That is why they don't want to get specific. And in that one, John Ehrlichman received some information passed it on to someone else. The next thing he told you, during the summer of 1972, a span of 3 more months. Now, the 38 members here have tried more criminal cases than they. ever want to remember and there isn't one can tell you that. this caw hold up in any court in the land. Each of these, periods is 3 months. When in 3 months? And you can go right on through the whole bit. It is just a whole conglomeration of generalities. That is why they don't want to get specific. They don't want to do this thing the right way. Never did., Now, we have valuable time and I want to yield to my friend from California, Mr. Wiggins The, CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. 1 thank my colleague for yielding and I will only take a moment but I do want to put in focus what my friend from Illinois has just said about this egregious act of John Dean in going into the IRS' with some 500 names Of political opponents of the President./ That is absolutely indefensible, ladies and gentlemen and no one at this table, Republican or Democrat. friend or foe of Richard Nixon, condones for 1 minute that act. But, you see, the President didn't know that. He didn't know that John Dean went to the IRS and there isn't a word Of testimony that he did know when Mr. Dean went. And it is important ,as well to know what the IRS told Mr. Dean. The person that, told Mr. Dean was the appointee of the President, executing the President's instructions, I presume, and there is no dispute as to what Mr. Dean was told. and in so many words, and if you will pardon the expression, he was told to go to hell, Now that is what hap happened. Mr. SANDMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. With that the gentleman is not to be impeached . This whole case of IRS abuse turned on the conversation of September 15 and on that we will just have to submit that and we will study it. review it to decide whether or not at that time the President approved of this OF whether it was simply a discussion in the context of the time 3 months before an election in this country. I yield back that time to my friend from New Jersey. Mr. SANDMAN. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. The CHAIRMAN. The. gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman. continuing the situation I think it is worth remembering that Commissioner Walters said on the occasion that Dean came to him that Dean stated that he had not been asked by the President to have this done and------- [01.04.17--TAPE OUT]
Cut Congressional Committee Budgets
U.S. House Representative James Collins (R-TX) continues speaking on House floor on the need to cut Congressional staffing as means to reduce House Budget. To justify expenditures of $96 million, there are regular committee hearings, too much regulatory processes, and unnecessary amendments, which leads to government largess with over-regulation and over-taxation. Collins proposes cutting committee staff "right down to the bone." He advocates for voting against current committee appropriations, using a unified Republican bloc, noting how past votes to fund committees have already seen more "no" votes. Collins states that 90% of committee budgets go to salaries of temporary employees. He uses his own committee, Commerce, to note the high pay scales, and begins listing other committees, the high salaries that go out to staffers in both senior and junior positions.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Arab-Israeli Conflict
U.S. Secretary of State, George Shultz speaks to U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee members, appreciating the broad and bipartisan support for U.S. President Ronald Reagan's initiative; Nick Veliotis, Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, and Richard Fairbanks, a special representative for the Middle East, seated beside Secretary Shultz at witness table. He appreciates the recognition of his colleagues, and is eager to discuss the developments in the Middle East. Now that the Palestinian Liberation Organization has been evacuated from Beirut, the focus turns to the next steps in securing a peace in the region, which includes the withdrawal of all foreign forces and restoration of central authority in Lebanon. Now, there must be a re-invigoration of the Camp David peace process to solve the Arab-Israeli dispute. With regards to Lebanon, the PLO leaving is only the first step to in the process to help stabilize the country. The U.S. Marines there as part of multi-national force will begin withdrawal tomorrow, while the Lebanese government will begin to re-establish control over all parts of Beirut, using their military and police force. Adult Caucasian males and females seated in BG.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Arab-Israeli Conflict
U.S. Secretary of State, George Shultz speaks to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee on the second phase of the Lebanon diplomacy: U.S. President Ronald Reagan sending Ambassador Morris Draper to Lebanon to begin the negotiations on the withdrawal of foreign forces; Richard Fairbanks, a special representative for the Middle East seated next to Secretary Shultz. Shultz states that the withdrawal of military forces must happen in conjunction with the southern border of Lebanon being secured for Israel's safety. It is vital for the newly elected Lebanese government to be able to perform their governing duties independent of foreign interference. Secretary Shultz re-affirms the United States commitment to Lebanon as an ally. In helping Lebanon with its own security and strengthen sovereignty under its newly elected government, it will also aid in the search for peace within the Middle East region, as a whole. No peace can be achieved in the Middle East without a safe and secure Lebanon. However, in helping Lebanon, the U.S. can also work towards peace in the Middle East as well. That is the goal and why the President has dispatched Ambassador Draper. Adult Caucasian men and women seated in BG.