Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.23.16] Mr. HUTCHINSON. How much time has the gentleman consumed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 40 seconds remaining out of the, 4 minutes which were yielded. The gentleman -an from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just can't imagine what else some of these people here want to do to Richard Nixon. They want to throw him out of office for some of the most vague circumstances anybody ever heard of. You heard differences of notice, of fifth amendment, due process, modern times as Richard Nixon--maybe he doesn't have the same rights as 220 million other Americans. And then they adopted article. III. That impeaches him because he won't confess. They had no evidence and if you don't give me the evidence. then we are going to impeach YOU. That is a new one. And then, of course, the insult of them all, of article IV. They are going to throw him out because he, ended the war by bombing Cambodia. Anybody else would get a prize but this man was going to get impeached because he ended war that the two predecessors couldn't And now that is not good enough. They want to strip him of every asset that, he has got left, possibly make him go to jail for the rest of his life. Boy, is a generous crowd I just can't imagine why we can dream up all of these things. The extra emoluments. Do you know that one of those extra, emoluments or trips that Mrs. Nixon took on Air Force One? Did anybody ever question Jackie Kennedy eniiedY or- Lady Bird or anybody else'? But any least little thing that Richard does is a crime. Let me read the one thing that apparently has been tucked under the rug. The evidence that we get is always sketchy. It is never right to the point. And, of course,, he talked about an Internal Revenue agent talking about what happens in hypothetical cases. But look what Mr. Brown, chief intelligence man from the Baltimore office, March 22, 1974. That is pretty recent. He says, and quite honestly he said this because there were three people who had not been interviewed yet, and he said that if they were given immunity in this memo, possibly, they could shed some light that would connect Nixon into Some kind of fraud. But he did say this- He said, "To date, our investigation has revealed that for the following reasons we feel that -we could not"--emphasize not"- "sustain a 50 percent fraud penalty." That is from the, IRS. That is not speculation. That is -what they said about this awful guilty individual. I think this is awful important. Now, there are many other things that -we can say, but the law is clear. The law is clear, that to be guilty of fraud it must be done intentionally. It must be done willfully. And it must be done to defraud, to do something the law doesn't allow you to do. The law, is clear. it says you cannot be held for fraud if it result of a mistake. You cannot be held for fraud if you -rely upon the advice of an attorney. And this is -what Richard Nixon did, and everybody knows it. A fraud penalty cannot be sustained whenever the taxpayer relies upon the advice of his attorney, provided he gives his attorney all of the facts. Now, one outstanding point. Hubert Humphrey did exactly the same thing and nobody ever said a -word about Hubert taking a couple of hundred thousand dollars in a deduction. And so have some other people. There is no question that the papers were delivered to the Archives On time, There is no question about that. In the, interim' something else happened. This fraudulent taxpayer himself signed into law a law which changed the tax law. Now if be was going to be so interested in himself wouldn't he have made some, kind of a change in that? Of course be, would. Or he wouldn't have signed it if he was that kind of a person. But he -wasn't. He signed it into law. There was absolutely no intent to defraud here. Now, let me tell you one other thing which I think is awfully important, and 1 want to see these people who are, moving this resolution deny what I am. about to say. This bunch of baloney was supposed to be taken up this afternoon and not tonight, but there is a bigger audience on TV tonight than there was this afternoon. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [00.28.49]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.31.45] I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have. an amendment at the, desk. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment be deemed to apply to the language in subparagraphs 1 and 3, because those are exactly the same words, and as you know that new language was read in as an addition here just a few moments ago. Does Mr. Hungate understand my point, since it is his substitute? Mr. HUNGATE. As I understand the gentleman, the. amendment would be substantially the same in both the paragraphs 1 and 3? Mr. WIGGINS. Would be exactly the game. Mr. HUNGATE. And I have no objection, Mr. Wiggins. The CHAIRMAN. So the Chair would understand that if the amendment were disposed of, it -would be disposed of Mr. WIGGINS. As to both. The CHAIRMAN. [continuing]. As to 1 and 3. Mr. WIGGINS. as Certainly. of would like to do it all at one time. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK [reading] Amendment by Mr. Wiggins. In subparagraph (1) after the word "has", strike the words 'acting personally and through his subordinates and agents" and add the following: "personally and through his subordinates and agents acting with his knowledge or pursuant to his instructions". The CHAIRMAN-. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe my intent is evident from the words used, and I merely am trying to avoid any possible ambiguity created by the language which is now in subparagraph (1) and subparagraph (3). Going back to the introductory words in article II it states, in essence, Richard Nixon has repeatedly engaged in conduct, et cetera. It makes it clear that we are talking about Richard Nixon's acts, and yet, when -we move to subparagraph (1) -we deviate from that standard and we say, as presently proposed, that he acted personally and through his subordinates and agents. I have no quarrel with impeaching President Nixon by reason of the, acts of his subordinates and agents so, long as we know that we are talking about those acts of his subordinates and agents which were done with his knowledge or pursuant to his instructions. And we are not Seeking to impeach the President vicariously by reason of the acts of others about which he had no knowledge, and contrary perhaps to his instructions. I have every reason to expect, although I have not asked my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, to support such an amendment because this is, in essence, what he was talking about yesterday, that he was willing to impeach the President by reason of his personal misconduct, but was not, willing to impute vicariously the acts of others. My amendment to subparagraph (1) and subparagraph (3) is to Make this concept abundantly clear, and I urge its acceptance. . Mr. COHEN-. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. Of course., I will yield. Mr, BROOKS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. WIGGINS. I have yielded to the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman still has time. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Wiggins, under your proposal that would make it personally and through his subordinates and agents acting with his knowledge, or pursuant to his instructions, would that also cover such situations such as where his agents may have acted without the President's personal knowledge in advance, but such acts were thereafter ratified or condoned by the President? Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, I would not necessarily exclude that. 1 realize that a President must Of necessity act through subordinates and that the acts of subordinates may not be personally known to the President. But so long as those. acts are pursuant to his instructions, or perhaps policy, to use a, word that has been used around here, or ratified and condoned by him as his acts, then I have no objection to attributing them to the President. Mr. COHEN. SO, if he acquired knowledge thereafter and ratified in effect the prior acts, that would be within the scope Of your amendment. Thank you. Mr. WIGGINS. I will submit that, question, Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield to me? Mr. WIGGINS. If I have time, I will yield first to the gentleman from Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California knows that pursuant to the rule that we have adopted, those supporting his amendment and speaking in support of it will have 20 minutes in entirety. Mr. WIGGINS. I think then that, I had best reserve whatever time 1 have and permit others to speak. Mr. Chairman. Well, now, Mr. Chairman, am I in effect forgoing the balance of my time, if I reserve? It is not my understanding that I personally have 20 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. No; you personally do not have 20 minutes. But those in support of your amendment have 20 minutes, and therefore Mr. WIGGINS. If I have used up my time, of course, I am out, of time and. others can speak. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman still has 1 1/2 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. I yield. to the gentleman from Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have only the same, I think the same questions that were raised by the gentleman from Maine. what worries me about this. the President, in some cases. perhaps had knowledge not initially, perhaps, but learned of improper activities and saw I fit to either condone or acquiesce in such activities, and what I am wondering is if it is the intent of his amendment, and again let's make it very clear is it the intent of your amendment to rule out that kind of what I believe is serious misconduct? Mr. WIGGINS. It is not my own intent, to rule it out, but I do not wish to say I embrace it. I will, as you said yesterday, let the words speak for themselves. [00.37.41]
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), House floor debate; remarks on corruption in Congress; reads Washington Post article; scandal involving altering committee transcripts; ethical scandals.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.32.18] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton, for purposes of general debate for a period not to exceed 13 minutes. STATEMENT OF HON. RAY THORNTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS Mr. THORNTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that everyone here in this room and throughout the Nation who has watched this debate. has been impressed with the fairness that the chairman has brought to these proceedings. and with the quality and the work that has gone into the comments of the various members who have spoken to us. As the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie said earlier today, we are all conscious of the need to bring our best to bear on this question, conscious of how fragile our liberties are and how easy it is to abuse them or lose them. If these debates have done nothing else, I believe they have demonstrated that this committee has applied the work, the study and the concern which this grave problem requires us to give. For myself, last fall, after Mr. Cox was fired, and a inquiry was started, approached the problem with the hope that it would not be necessary to bring articles of impeachment against the President of the 'United States I started with the belief and the presumption of President Nixon 's innocence of the charges that had be been leveled against him. From. the beginning. I made my position clear that I would not prejudge this case, that it should be decided upon the law, the evidence, and not upon newspaper headlines or public opinion. For that reason, I have not conducted any public opinion polls in own district. I have read the letters that have come in. Those that come in and advocate impeachment do so with a sadness that recognizes the trauma of this process. And there are other letters that come from people who believe that the charges against the President are the result of a publicity campaign and perhaps some of these people will never believe anything else. I am happy to say tonight that most of the people in my State of Arkansas are law-abiding citizens who believe strongly in the rule of law of this country, and that all of the people of this country have an obligation to live by that standard of law, and that the leaders of this country have an obligation not merely to obey the, law but to set an example of justice and adherence to justice upon which our free Government must be based. As long as such people who believe in the rule of law are in the majority in this country, our free institutions are going to survive, and there will be no need to worry about personal political considerations when called upon to make a judgment such as the one, that we now have to make. There can be no national interest greater than the requirement that the public servants; must be bound by the laws that they make and administer. There can be no public policy which could be served by substituting for the permanent ideals of the Constitution the political expediencies of the day. This is not only applied the President's conduct, of his Office, it applies to each member of this committee as we make our decision. As Ms. Jordan indicated, it is a great privilege to serve our Constitutional system of Government. We now have a difficult task in this committee. But believe me. it is never easy to maintain a free Government. requires constant attention and diligence, and I believe it is a real privilege to serve in time of need. Now, all of us know it is clear that a President should never be impeached simply because of the unpopularity of his policies or ideas. It should be equally clear that the popularity of a President must never permit him to place himself above the law. The power of impeachment is not a substitute for the, political judgment of the people of this country. It is not a means to compel adherence to public opinion. It is not, in my view, a means of punishment, even. If used for any of these purposes, it -would be wrongly used, and might have the effect of placing out of balance the constitutional system of checks and balances which was designed to accommodate the mistakes and frailties of men as they go about their duties in the various offices they hold. You know, as I have reviewed the, many pages of evidence 'have been presented to its, and listened to the witnesses who have appeared before us, I could not help but observe that many of the, things that we, saw, the eavesdropping, the invasion of property, the dirty political tricks, these things had happened before.. It doesn't excuse them. But, they have, happened. Even violations of law such as been described in the evidence before us though they are rare in history they also have occurred. But, as I have reviewed the evidence and the testimony it has become. evident to me that while these offenses may have existed before, I know of no other time when they have been systematized, or carried on in such an organized and directed way.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
[00.02.00--in wide angle shot front of meeting room, people milling/talking--cut to reverse angle, backside of rows of desks, people conferring with Congressmen, TV/Photographers, the room is small and very full--muffled sounds of debate are audible--this continues for several minutes--finally Chairman RODINO takes his seat, confers with Rep. Hutchinson, heard to discuss the impending controversy about the degree of publicity to be allowed the hearings--] [00.07.30--a side angle shot showing length of the row of Congressmen, all engaged in conferring with each other/aides--garbled conversations hint at CONTROVERSY in the upcoming vote.} [00.10.30]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974. Vote on motion to strike paragraph I of the Sarbanes substitute.
07.17 Clerk counting votes. The Clerk. Mr. Chairman? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The clerk will report. The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 11 members have voted aye, 27 have voted no. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). And the motion is not agreed to. And the committee will recess until 12 tomorrow noon.
Teague Committee Report
Teague Committee Report Olin E. Teague Chairman of the committee on science and technology
1983 - US House Floor Debate
Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA), House floor debate; remarks on corruption in Congress; reads Washington Post article; scandal involving altering committee transcripts; criticizes Democratic majority.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Flowers. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment or a motion to offer to subparagraph 8. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The clerk will report the motion. The Clerk. Strike subparagraph 8 of the Sarbanes substitute. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be limited to 20 minutes to be divided 10 minutes to the proponents and 10 minutes to the opponents. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Without objection, it is so ordered.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Peter Rodino ( D New Jersey ) The committee will be in order, and the committee will resume its proceeding; I now recognize, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, for purposes of debate only, not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Sandman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
[00.34.23] McCLORY states that continued noncompliance would be "Very Prejudicial" to the President, DUKE thanks both Representatives, returns to LEHRER. LEHRER [seated at desk, Capitol Projection over shoulder] says that the "Premiere" of the commitee was not the only news on the Watergate front of the day, other incidents, mostly from the REPUBLICAN Side, were felt as the controversy over NIXON'S transcripts grew more intense. First, VP Gerald FORD [projected image of Ford headshot] in a speech in Illinois said that "A grave situation had been created...." etc. by revelations of corruption and malfeasance, resulting in reduced public confidence in the government. Second, in Washington, the 3rd ranking REPUBLICAN in the House, said that the transcripts showed NIXON to be deeply involved, leaving only two options: [cut to grainy shot of Anderson speaking to a interviewer's microphone] Anderson says "The President is confronted with two alternatives today, one is resignation and the other is the conclusion of the impeachment proceedings" Anderson says he doesn't "demand" that NIXON resign, but that he suggests that the release of the transcripts has produced such a shock as to create a "Moral Crisis", that people have no confidence in the Presidency. At the moment, resignation seems most prudent. LEHRER continues, says that #1 REPUBLICAN in house, John RHODES of Arizona, told reporters that at that point, he would "accept" NIXON's resignation. Emphasis that he did not "recommend" that course. Also, Inerior Secretary Rogers MORTON spoke on issue of resignation and crisis, saying it was "deplorable" LEHRER notes that the country's most Pro-NIXON paper, the Chicago TRIBUNE, reversed itself to call for NIXON'S resignation. [projection of glum-looking b/w headshot of NIXON] LEHRER introduces columnist Robert NOVAK for an overview of the NIXON situation with DUKE. DUKE says two things are clear: 1st, the release of the NIXON TRANSCRIPTS has not helped but hurt the Pres. 2nd, over past ten days, REPUBLICANS are moving away from PRESIDENT. DUKE asks NOVAK if the withdrawal of party support is going to accelerate now. NOVAK says yes, last 48 hours have been terrible for NIXON, and that once REPUBLICAN congressmen realized that the TRANSCRIPTS were even worse than predicted, a stampede mentality set in, triggered by Senator SCOTT'S assertion of BETRAYAL by the White House. NOVAK says that this desertion has increased the likelihood of impeachment and has caused White House strategy to change substantially. NOVAK gave credit to NIXON's defensive TV speech, saying the President was trying to go "over the heads" of CONGRESS to reach people, but now that the details are known, the trust is gone, and that James St.CLAIR's ability as a lawyer is a key variable in how NIXON will fare. DUKE asks if the release of the transcripts is hurting NIXON by virtue of constituents being outraged by the content and pressuring their representatives to distance themselves from the President. NOVAK says he thought the White House made a critical error in thinking that the general public would not read the details of the published transcripts, which turned out to be hot sellers at bookstores and everyone seems to be reading it in some form. LEHRER asks what the possibilities are with the big REPUBLICAN defections, that party leadership might ask NIXON to resign for the good of the party NOVAK says that would be a drastic scenario, and that in his opinion, "NIXON has no intention of resigning today, whether he will tomorrow, I don't know", it is likely that NIXON will stick around until a full vote of the House is made, and make a decision based on the results of such a vote. DUKE asks if NIXON has fallen into a state of unreality or fantasy. NOVAK says "Absolutely", and that he had always considered Nixon a bad politician in the sense of broad strategy with a bad sense of public sentiment. NOVAK cites the statements of NIXON, THROUGH WHITE HOUSE STAFF that the released tapes would be "exculpatory" and have many critics "eating crow". Now, it is more a question of whether NIXON's opponents can present a winning case. DUKE says that it is obvous to him that the chances of impeacment are greater without REPUBLICAN support in congress for NIXON. NOVAK concurs. LEHRER thanks guests, signs off [full screen of capitol dome image--NPACT letters on black screen--PBS network ID.] [00.45.47--tape out]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, is recognized for 5 minutes. John Seiberling (D Ohio). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try not to take 5 minutes. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has made a constructive suggestion if I understand it correctly. As I understand it, you are not demanding that the Articles necessarily spell out, all of the specific details, but that we have before us in considering the subparagraphs the evidentiary facts outlined in some way so that we can see what staff thinks are the things, at least some of the things that support them. Is that correct? Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Yes. Yes, if the gentleman will yield. John Seiberling (D Ohio). I think that is a very excellent suggestion.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
33.34 John Seiberling (D Ohio). I would like to comment on one other matter. I think that these 11 hours or 12 hours have not been wasted. I think if we can arrive at some consensus to how to proceed along the lines like this we are not wasting our time. I do feel that time is very pressing. The country has grave problems which are being impeded, the handling of which are being impeded by the uncertainty caused by the impeachment situation and we must, we owe it to the country to move ahead. I would also just like to make one other comment and then I am going to yield to the gentleman from Missouri, and that is that we would, we could I have spent days and days wrangling over the specifics of a very detailed Article of Impeachment here, much more than we have been discussing the principles of what should be the article of impeachment. And I think that the staff and the people who drew this up have really approached it in the right way and can give proper notice to the President. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
34.47 William Hungate (D Missouri). I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I was interested in the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, who is an experienced trial attorney. I would inquire of him if we are not facing the problem of where we have a pleading drawn that somebody was hit on such and such a day and such and such a street, and he is hurt. And you file a motion to make it more definite and certain, and the man comes in and says, well, his head and his scalp were contused and abused and his ears and eyes. And then he tells so much that you don t know any more when you get done than you did when you started. I am sure the gentleman has had that sort of experience in the trial practice. And is not what we are doing trying to strike some middle ground on this? William Hungate (D Missouri). I yield to the gentleman from Iowa his time. John Seiberling (D Ohio). May I say I received a telegram tonight from a prominent businessman in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which I believe is the gentleman's district, saying that he thinks that this proceeding is going in a very, very fine way. And I think the gentleman from Wisconsin has helped to contribute to that. I yield, who was it William Hungate (D Missouri). I want to yield to the gentleman from Iowa, if you would please, Mr. Mayne. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). Well, it would be my experience, if the gentleman from Missouri yield, that we would at least state the name the date and the nature of a misstatement not in an accident case, which this is not, but in a case involving misstatements or alleged fraud or anything involving dishonesty as is the thrust of this subparagraph. John Seiberling (D Ohio). If the gentleman Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). I think it would be defective. John Seiberling (D Ohio). I would like to yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, if the gentleman from Iowa is completed. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). I am completed.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
41.07 Carlos Moorhead (R California). One last comment that I would like to make and that is in connection with all of the evidence that we have had and the things that we have heard. A few good rifle shots and a good solid target would be a lot more effective than the shotgun blast at thin air that have had these hearings. David Dennis (R Indiana). Will the gentleman yield? Carlos Moorhead (R California). I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
[00.22.22] [cut to LEHRER/DUKE in studio, LEHRER standing at "scoreboard"] DUKE comments that LEWIS has managed to draw a very strong indication from McCLORY that he is prepared to vote for one or more ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. After some discussion, LEHRER moves the square block with McCLORY'S photo from the "MAYBE NAY" to "MAYBE AYE" section of the board. The consensus is that no NAY'S have probably changed, but that Rep. SMITH is likely a "NAY" vote for sure because his interest in the bombing of CAMBODIA is unlikely to become an ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. [the photo square is moved from "MAYBE YEA" TO "NAY".] Of the "MAYBE AYES", LEHRER says that Rep. RAILSBACK is the only one to have spoken today, and did not commit to one position, in spite of indications that he was leaning toward voting for impeachment. LEHRER and DUKE reach the consensus that those are all the changes that can be made on the scoreboard. DUKE reintroduces TUCKMAN, asking her for her impression of the night's debate. TUCKMAN says that she was struck by Mr. HUNGATE'S remark that "the American People have a right to expect" certain kinds of conduct from the President. Says that this is a basic issue in the whole affair, and that many institutions are seeming to fail or not live up to expectatins of conduct. Makes the comparison to the Medieval period, a generally "bad time for humanity", in the idea of "three estates". Says that problems occurred in both times when one "estate" overstepped bounds or failed in it's scope to do it's job. [TUCKMAN apologizes for the rambling analogy, and is rather flustered, but it seems valid, if from left field] DUKE thanks TUCKMAN for her contributions, tells LEHRER that he was struck by the historic occasion. LEHRER announces the batting order for the next day, first Rep. WIGGINS, pro-NIXON, then Rep. CONYERS, a severe critic of NIXON, announces the beginning of coverage, signs off. [weird capitol dome rotating graphic with title "IMPEACHMENT DEBATE"--NPACT ID--PBS network ID] [00.30.54--tape out]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Delbert Latta (R Ohio) Let me just complete my comments concerning the national security. The threat was compounded by the fact that Mr. Ellsberg was a former staff member of the National Security Council itself and the prospects that he might divulge additional information, and the realization that the Soviet Government had already received a copy of the Pentagon Papers on June the 17th and might be the recipient of additional classified information. He also had had a broad area of access to the clearance to see classified information including SIOP, better known as the Nation's Single Integrated Operations Plan. Now what does this encompass? Nothing other than all, and I stress the word all, of this Nation's military contingency plans in case of war, including integrated conventional and nuclear options. That is what concerned the President. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Henry Smith Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). I recognize the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Smith not to exceed fifteen minutes for purposes of debate only. Representative Henry Smith (R - New York). Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen of the committee I know that we all feel the weight of the historic action we are about to take. After months of diligent inquiry into the question of whether or not the President of the United States should be impeached, it is a solemn duty we have undertaken pursuant to the requirements of the Constitution of the United States. How we decide here, how the House of Representatives may decide if we recommend impeachment, how the Senate may resolve the issue of the House shall vote impeachment of the President, are decisions which will affect our nation in one way or another for the rest of time.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
I believe clear and compelling evidence does exist and leads inescapably to only one conclusion. President Nixon s conduct in office is a case history in the abuse of presidential power. The abuses documented by the evidence gathered by this committee are numerous. And will be discussed here and after as they have in part been discussed before. I hope too that some of the issues and charges which may not originally be in articles before us, whether they are on the bombing of Cambodia, or the presidential impoundment, be fully considered. And whether or not they constitute any final articles approved by this committee, they ought to be considered as a pattern of a whole in terms of presidential disregard for truth and for law.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.52.33] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is--the time of the gentleman from Iowa had expired. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, is recognized. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't propose to take up the 5 minutes and I hope that we can wind this thing up as quickly as possible and as gracefully as possible. There is nothing that I can do, I am sure, that is going to change the outcome of the vote,. But I would like to use these closing moments Of this long, and what some people -will refer to as a historic exchange to capsule -where we stand in my judgment and what I think -we Should be thinking about. Now., at the outset I don't think I am the most naive person in the world, but I like to believe that every man that has ever been President 'Of the United States had to be a good man and he had to be a great man or this great country would have never voted for him to be the leader of this country. It may be a surprise to some in this room but the President I -was extremely fond of that I had the good fortune to blow as everybody in the room did was not a, Republican. It was Lyndon Johnson. And I thought it was a horrible thing during the Bobby Baker talks that some people thought, well, maybe -we ought to try to impeach LBJ. That was wrong and. I hoped it would never start. Now, anybody who feels this way, and I kind of think the country feels this way, they would like to believe their President is a pretty. good man, and to do otherwise or prove to them. otherwise, it Would, take a tremendous amount of proof to do that, and it should, tremendous. You can't do this loosely. And this is important, The whole world is watching this proceeding and -what, we. do, we had better do right because. the effect of it is going to make a precedent for 1,000, years. That is the importance of the question as I see it. And because of this it disturbs me when I try to think of some of the problems in-- involved, the Ellsberg break-in and whatnot, I think maybe we are a little bit mixed up and maybe we ought to sit down for a moment and review where we are. was on a program one time in Long Island. I walked in the room with -a very famous man, a good Democrat, Senator Muskie. He got. a pretty good hand. I am sure. no one in the audience knew -me. But 'what applause there. was, I say they did it because of him. And then behind Senator Muskie, by about 3 or 4 minutes, walked in Daniel Ellsberg, one of the panelists on our program, and believe it or not, the stadium shook and I wondered why. Why did that happen? Here is a man who confiscated secret documents and against the law of the Nation he dispersed these documents. I thought that was wrong. And I couldn't -understand why this fellow came in there like a hero. But he is, This is a strange thing happening in this country. And now as a result of that, a mistrial was declared in that case and a man who is as surely guilty as guilty can be -was never declared guilty, was never penalized and instead we now talk about impeaching the President of the United States. I think our thinking is a little fuzzy here and maybe we ought to sit down and look over that once again and make sure we are doing the right thing. Is it more popular to give away secret documents, than it is to protect the security of a great nation? I don't think so. And I would like to believe in the absence of extremely heavy proof that what the Chief Executive did he did for a good purpose, and this is why I have the strong feelings in the, direction that I have and that is why I have argued the way I have in this proceeding. I don't take my obligation here any more lightly than any other person and I believe that what hat we are doing here we -ire acting as a judiciary in a sense. We are judging whether or not the President of the United States should be replaced. We are judging the rights that he has as an individual as -well as a President and it is not in line with what at least I learned in the 20 years that I went to school that he has any less rights than any other American, and no one can ever, make me believe that due process still isn't the law of this land and it is always going to be the law of this land, And for these reasons, I think we' have to not make an inference, against the President of the United States, if anything we have to make an innocent's -- an inference--that -what he did he did in the best interests of the country. This is what I would rather believe. The, CHAIRMAN. The, time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. SANDMAN. For this season, even though it is not going to be a popular position that I have taken, I know that, I am convinced it is the, right one, or at least 1 hope it is, and and only time will tell. [00.58.09]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger seeks to make a point to U.S. House Representative Donald Bonker (D-WA) that the Soviet Union had made clear what their intentions were, but for the sake of argument, if the Syrian and Soviet government did acquiesce to the idea of United Nations peace-keeping forces in Lebanon, the situation in Lebanon is so unstable in the view of the U.S., that it is unlikely U.N. members would want to a peace-keeping force into that situation; adult Caucasian males seated in BG. Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), off camera, states Rep. Bonker’s time has expired and turns to Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.55.03] [DUKE/LEHRER in studio] DUKE says this assures that the ABUSE OF POWER article of IMPEACHMENT will be sent to the House Floor in an IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION. LEHRER adds that one extra REPUBLICAN, as he had stated, Rep. McCLORY, voted for impeachment. Says that possibly three other ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT may have to be resolved by the committee. Charges about the BOMBING OF CAMBODIA, TAX FRAUD, Calls on Caroline LEWIS on Capitol Hill. [LEWIS on screen, zooms in ] LEWIS comments that it was indeed easier on the second time. Notes that the session was more businesslike in comparison to the contentious proceedings on the first article. Notes that everyone in the press is exhausted [return to DUKE/LEHRER] DUKE says it may be appropriate to review article, since it's certain to be included in the IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION. Says that it is directed at the President's ABUSE OF POWER. LEHRER continues, to say that the Article charges NIXON with an impeachable violation of his OATH OF OFFICE to execute the laws [cut photo of CONSTITUTION with title quoting the ARTICLE "...in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.."] [v.o. reads the charges which are shown in titles laid over the image of the CONSTITUTION--abuse of the IRS in violation of citizens rights, both by seeking to gain information and by attempting to initiate discriminatory audits.--misusing FBI, Secret Service, and other Executive personnel to conduct illegal wiretaps unrelated to NATIONAL SECURITY--Creating a secret police unit in the White HOuse which abused the CIA and engaged in unlawful activities--Failing to act when he knew subordinates were trying to impede investigations--interfering with agencies of Executive Branch] [DUKE/LEHRER in studio] LEHRER calls again on LEWIS with two committee members [LEWIS with Reps. FLOWERS and LOTT] Asks FLOWERS about a shift to a more businesslike attitude by the committee. FLOWERS replies that the Constitutional issues have been already stated, asks LOTT if he agrees, and that the committee will really "get down to business" tomorrow. Again asks LOTT if he agrees. LOTT says that although some "lawyer-type" arguments came out, for the most part it was very businesslike. perhaps the introduction of new Articles will bring the rhetorical tendencies back out. FLOWERS explains that he meant the committee will try to move even more rapidly tomorrow, that today was fast by the previous days' standards. FLOWERS says that he's inclined to vote against all of the other proposals, that are not to his standard of IMPEACHABLE ACT, mentions that he knows LOTT did not consider any of the articles to be IMPEACHABLE. LOTT laughs. FLOWERS says that it's hard for him to disagree with LOTT publicly because his in-laws live in LOTT'S district of Mississippi. LOTT adds that they are good constituents, too. FLOWERS says he considers LOTT a good friend and he has the highest personal regard for him LEWIS says that NIXON is "pinning his hopes" on Southerners, especially in the Senate. Notes that the men, both Southerners, are divided. Asks LOTT if NIXON will hold the SOUTH in the HOUSE voting. LOTT says its obvious that NIXON won't be able to get every southern vote, but that that is where his support is the strongest, in both parties. In the Senate, LOTT says he can't predict, but would guess that Southerners will be the strongest NIXON supporters. LEWIS asks LOTT if he's gotten feedback from his constituents on the debate. LOTT says it's interesting that every member has claimed 3-1 or 4-1 support for their positions from constituents. Says that most in MISSISSIPPI have said his stand against impeachment is right. FLOWERS says that he wouldn't say his own mail has been so broadly supportive, but in the HOUSE and the SENATE, he thinks that SOUTHERNERS will come in on all sides of the issue, voting from their convictions. LOTT says that SOUTHERNERS will have to "rassle" with the issue very dramatically, [01.03.01-LEHRER/DUKE in studio] LEHRER introduces guest commentators Steven HESS and Jack MURPHY Asks about the relative severity of the two separate ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. HESS says that he can't speak as a lawyer, but he would guess that legally speaking the two articles are like "comparing poison and bullets". [01.04.05--TAPE OUT]