Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
[00.10.30] [Showing how the hearings have come to be a MEDIA CIRCUS, the Chairman is instructed to time his gavelling to work with the cameras for photo and TV shots--RODINO does not seem amused] [Chairman RODINO gavels hearing to order] The CHAIRMAN, The meeting will come to order. Three months ago the House of Representatives considered H. Res. 803. The resolution read as follows: Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof & in accordance with the rules of the committee is authorized & directed to investigate fully & completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper. The House adopted that resolution by a vote of 410 to 4. We are proceeding under the mandate of that resolution. I do not need to stress again the importance of our undertaking and the wisdom, decency, and principle which we must bring to it. We understand our high constitutional responsibility. We will faithfully live up to it. For some time we have known that the real security of this Nation lies in the integrity of its institutions & the trust & informed confidence of its people. We conduct our deliberations in that spirit. We shall begin our hearings by considering materials relevant to the question of Presidential responsibility for the Watergate break-in & its investigation by law enforcement agencies. This is one of six areas of our inquiry. We expect to continue our inquiry until each area has been thoroughly examined. First, we will consider detailed information assembled by the staff. This consists of information Mready on the public record, information developed in executive session by other congressional committees information furnished by the Federal grand jury of DC & other information. After today the committee will meet regularly, 3 days a week, for all-day sessions beginning next Tuesday at, 9:30 a.m. The chairman will, as circumstances dictate be ready to notice such business meetings as may be necessary. During the initial presentation, special counsel and minority counsel will explain & summarize the materials. Our proceedings are governed by the rules of confidentiality that the committee adopted on Feb 22, and the rules of procedure adopted May 2. The committee has the power to modify or change these rules during, the course of the hearings. Some of the, materials which the committee will consider have been held confidential by the staff, by Mr. Hutchinson, and myself. This material includes tape recordings of conversations among President Nixon and his key associates. We will listen to these recordings during these hearings. After the Judiciary Committee has had the opportunity to consider this material it will decide if and when, in the national interest, this material should be made public. The Judiciary Comnnttee. has determined that, President Nixon should be accorded the opportunity to have his counsel present throughout the proceedings. Mr. James St. Chair is present today. After the initial proceedings are completed, Mr. St. Clair will be afforded the opportunity to respond to the presentation, orally or in writing, as determined by the committee. He & his Asst understand the committee's rules of procedure & the committee's rules of confidentiality, & they are bound by those rules. Our proceedings be conducted under the Rules of Cie House of Representatives. Technical rules of evidence do not apply. We are governed by the Constitution Which vests be sole power of impeachment in the House. A brief report of the day's proceedings will be issued at the end of each day's hearings. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.03] [in to NPACT logo] [shot Rep. WIGGINS arguing that "ABUSE OF POWER" can't be classified as a "high crimes and misdemeanors" ] [shot Rep. DANIELSON arguing that the offenses are 'uniquely Presidential' and that ordinary criminal laws are irrelevant to the case] [00.03.00] [opening sequence with weird rotating 3-d image of Capitol Dome] [00.03.35] [Jim LEHRER in studio] LEHER introduces the charge pending in the committee as ABUSE OF POWER and Violation of OATH OF OFFICE. there is expected to be a final vote on that article by the end of the night, almost certain to be adopted. [this is after the afternoon's debate has taken place] LEHRER says that the final vote may even swell to 28-10. The vote coming on what has "already been a bad day" for President NIXON. [grim-looking photo of NIXON shown on screen behind LEHRER.] LEHRER says that former Secretary of Treasury Connally was indicted by a grand jury for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice for the milk-producers campaign funding affair. Paul DUKE says that it has been all but conceded that IMPEACHMENT will be voted by the full house, with some REPUBLICANS estimating that as many as 60 HOUSE REPUBLICANS (1/3) may vote for IMPEACHMENT, as well as SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS. Notes that SENATE leaders MANSFIELD and SCOTT met today to plan for the TRIAL [00.05.50--Shot JUDICIARY COMMITTEE table, members settling in for hearings] As for the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, DUKE notes that the Presiden'ts defenders were defeated in efforts to limit the charges agains NIXON. Says that the Pro-NIXON side is "disheartened" to learn that the second article will likely be approved by a wide margin [cut DUKE in studio] Introduces interview by Caroline LEWIS with Rep. HUTCHINSON, the ranking REPUBLICAN on the Committee. [LEWIS standing with microphone next to HUTCHINSON, who wears a very conservative jacket and tie] LEWIS asks how the committee votes bode for the President's chances on the HOUSE FLOOR HUTCHINSON answers that the committee vote was strictly PARTISAN among the DEMOCRATS, with REPUBLICANS divided, which should not reflect the full HOUSE vote. HUTCHINSON claims there will be DEMOCRAT votes for NIXON and REPUBLICAN votes against him. He is not willing to make a prediction, but he says it's likely that the HOUSE will send the matter through to the SENATE for TRIAL. [cut LEHRER in studio--photo of REPUBLICAN HOUSE LEADER John RHODES on screen] LEHRER says that RHODES suggested that the PRESIDENT go on TELEVISION to lay out his defense publicly. This raises the issue of What NIXON can do or has been doing in his own defense. Introduces Chris GAUL to comment. GAUL says that it seems unlikely that NIXON will go on TELEVISION to defend himself at this point, that VP FORD in a statement said that NIXON was best served to leave the defense to lawyers. GAUL adds that it's not necessarily true that FORD speaks for the WHITE HOUSE, but he agrees that it's unlikely NIXON will make a public defense on TV. As to what NIXON can do next, it's not clear how confident NIXON is. GAUL says that among all of the CHARGES against NIXON, stupidity or lack of political savvy has never been one. LEHRER states that it seems the list of NIXON'S options is very short. GAUL notes that it's difficult to separate the WHITE HOUSE'S true actions from it's statements about its actions. For example, the WHITE HOUSE has argued that its staff is not even making a "headcount" of the HOUSE, which seems hard to believe. [00.10.21] [cut to committee room , Chairman RODINO holding gavel] DUKE comments that the meetings might actually start on time for a change. [return DUKE/LEHRER in studio] DUKE introduces guest commentators Jack MURPHY and Stephen HESS. [cut Chairman RODINO] v.o. LEHRER says the night's debate will be over the "HUNGATE Substitution" to the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT DUKE says that a final vote on the article could come within two hours. (this is the EVENING SESSION) [00.13.00]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.23] Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. I wonder as we try to talk about specifics so that the President would be in a better position to defend himself whether we really take into consideration that the mandate of this Committee is to report, to the. House of Representatives and it seems to me that if we got bogged down with specifics before the House of Representatives has worked its will, that perhaps we would not give the, general recommendation to the House that it. rightfully deserves. It is not our constitutional responsibility to impeach the President but merely to report to the House. So that it seems to me that we should not be talking about specifics but give the maximum amount of information to !he House of -Representatives so that they can deal with the problem constitutionally. Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Doar, I wonder if I could direct a question to you, I wonder if in past impeachment cages it has not been the procedure that the Judiciary Committee has recommended and then on some occasions the I-louse of Representatives itself has formally drafted and prepared articles of impeachment which were then submitted to the Senate. In other words, it is my recollection that there may have been cases -where the House judiciary Committee simply made a recommendation that the House itself had the responsibility of drafting and adopting the articles of impeachment based on the recommendation. and I wonder if we couldn't do it that way. What is your feeling about that? Mr. DOAR. My understanding is that has been the past practice. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thought that was the--- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maine has expired. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Before we proceed, the Chair would like to state some propositions. First of all, we do know that we are proceeding under a very unique proceeding. Impeachment has offered us except for the case of Andrew Johnson no guidelines, no precedents. It is a fact, however, that the rules of evidence do not apply as such. The rules that will be the rules that will apply should this impeachment proceeding move on into the, House and then to trial in the Senate will be the rules that the Senate will adopt. We do know as a matter of fact from impeachment proceedings and the research that has been extensive, and I-all I need do is recall to the Members of the House that the House of Representatives has indeed impeached without any articles of impeachment except merely to impeach, and that at on a mere motion, a privileged motion of any member of the House, that the House could move to impeach. So that therefore this discussion and this issue requiring specificity in order to lay the groundwork for articles of impeachment seems to me to be begging of a question which I think has long been settled. What we do here is to proceed with deliberations concerning the Proposition that certain articles of impeachment be recommended by this committee to the House of Representatives, Mr. RAILSBACK. Will the chairman yield? The CHAIRMAN. In the, report I hat the. committee will then furnish the, House of Representatives that Information will be specifically included together with that--counsel for the President as has, been properly pointed out by the gentleman from Maine would be Provided with all of the information which is contained in the summary of information which details all of the specifics and that prior to trial in' the Senate, upon proper request by counsel for the President, should it reach that stage, discover and other proceedings, that these material would be then provided. And I believe that this affords all of the opportunity for fairness in this to insure that the House of Representatives not act as a trial body under the exacting rules of evidence as we know them because this as a. matter Of fact, and all of US are aware, I think, who; have been long wrestling- with this question, that the House of Representatives is indeed not the trial body but the. body merely recommending articles of impeachment, even if they may be in the broadest sense. [01.14.51]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.33.38] Mr. DANIELSON. Proceeding on to the Senate select committee, we do have testimony from some of the tapes furnished to us by the White Douse that various times in the proceedings the President counseled his aides to, if they did appear, to stonewall it to say nothing, to say they could not recall, to take, the fifth amendment. to do anything but not let the plan come, out. This, I submit, is a, specific example of an effort to obstruct-and-interfere with the lawful functions of that committee . And, third , I refer to our own committee, the house Committee the Judiciary. In connection with the, coverup plan, which I submit is still going on, the President has openly and notoriously and knowingly persisted in defying this committee, In its lawful subpenas and has failed and refused to turn over the documents that we have requested, I respectfully idly submit that we should include within subparagraph 4 congressional committees. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. 'Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the motion of the gentleman from California to include the language. The problem is will the prosecutors in this case be able to prove the charge. Let me review my recollection of the evidence with respect to whether the President interfered with a congressional committee. First in the context of the Patman hearings, bearing in mind, ladies and gentlemen, that there was no Patman hearing. What we had was an intention on the part of the Chairman, Mr. Wright Patman, to do something which he announced publicly, but the, members of his committee including six Democrats, would not go along with him. He was thwarted, not by the President, but by the Members of Congress who were on his committee, and that hearing, that congressional activity never got Off the, ground. I am not willing to attribute to the 20 members who voted against the chairman of the Banking and Currency Committee an corrupt motives and do not regard them as coconspirators in this case. Moving next to the Senate Select committee the only interference of the PI President with the conduct of the Senate select committee was for a period of time a consideration of the invocation of executive privilege with respect to his aides testifying before that committee. As we all know, shortly thereafter, that policy, which was characterized as stonewalling, it, that is the invocation of executive privilege--that Policy was abandoned by the President, and the policy thereafter was that all of his is aides would go before the Senate select committee and testify freely, without claiming privilege and, of course, we know that is, in fact, what occurred. The legal question, the legal question on the basis of those facts is whether or not we are going to punish the President in the context of impeachment for considering the invocation of executive privilege. Now' if so, future Presidents are in jeopardy, because the executive privilege concept is still alive and well in American jurisprudence. Finally, with respect to interference with this committee, I think that probably we will debate that more extensively in the context of a Separate article, and so I will not address myself to it now. But, in essence I say to my friend we are still talking about punishing the claim by the President of a right, to withhold evidence by reason of his assertion of either executive privilege or a claim of nonrelevancy, and I do not. understand that our system of Government prohibits the punishment of a good faith claim on a narrow and otherwise confused legal issue, and so in conclusion, I will say to my friend, I don't oppose Your amendment at all. I just simply indicate that the facts to date do not support it. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, may I respond very briefly? Mr. WIGGINS. You can if I yield to you and I will be pleased to do so. Mr. DANIELSON. I thank the gentleman. I am sorry. I thought he. had concluded. I do not disagree with My colleague's argument I want to make eminently clear and I thought I had that, the vote of the, members not to hold the committee meeting was certainly not, corrupt. They were-- the background to which I have alluded was not brought to' their attention mid I make no assertion and no implication that there was any Corrupt voting. On the other portion I agree that whether or not this article can be approved is a, matter of proof and that -would have to be resolved, of course, at the appropriate time, in the trial in the Senate. But we are bringing here on impeachment-all we are doing is bringing an accurate accusation. I think there is sufficient evidence to warrant that the matter be tried and therefore, I urge the adoption of my amendment. Mr. McCLORY Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman . I intend to support this amendment. While I do not favor the. entire article, it Seems to me that nevertheless, in perfecting this article we should include the words "and congressional committees" as suggested by the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson because in MY, opinion the defiance of this committee by the President in refusing to provide information to this committee is a, serious situation and one which in my opinion, suggests valid grounds for an article of impeachment. I propose at, a later time to offer a separate article on this ground and I would like to call attention to that fact that following the President's refusal to respond favorably to our subpenas, we notified the President on May 30 that this would be regarded as an impeachable offense, if he did not comply with our subpenas.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
39.42 Carlos Moorhead (R California). One thing that has come up continually and I think I ought to comment on it, and that is concerning Mr. Dean's position as having been ordered or not ordered by the President to make an investigation. There is no question but what in the White House, Mr. Dean was the person that all the members of the White House staff looked to for information and took their information to concerning anything connected with Watergate. Mr. Colson testified to that in testifying before the committee here a few days ago. It can't be any surprise, either to members of this committee, to know that the President felt that Mr. Dean had a mission in going up to Camp David and preparing a report. Because in the tape that we heard that was presented to us by the committee, the President may not have ordered Dean to make a report when he was at Camp David, but he suggested to him that if he went to Camp David, it might be a good opportunity for him to think about a report that he might make back to the President. We are arguing with semantics when we try to make that a major issue in this impeachment hearing.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.16.39] Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition On my Own part. The CHAIRMAN The Chair- will have to recognize the, gentleman on the other side first. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.' Froehlich. for 5 minutes. Mr. FROEHLICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When Lott had the floor he. asked a very important question. I would like You, Mr. Chairman, to reply or the staff to reply. Who is going to write the committee report that will go to the floor that will show the members of the House specifically what is behind each individual paragraph in this article of impeachment? Is the staff going to write that ? Does I he committee have any right to review, to approve that report as a ("1-0111) or is it, going to be written outside, of our view and without our knowledge? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is advised that any report, is a committee report find that the report -would then, of course. if any individual member wanted to exercise individual views, additional views or views other than the views of the majority of the committee, could-, so do. But the report, however, would be a' report prepared by the committee and the report of the committee circulated to each of the members and, of course. all of us would have to recognize that as has been done, as will be done, that the assistance of staff is always employed but nonetheless the work is the work of the committee and unless, that committee report, is authorized by majority of the committee it does not become a report of the committee Mr. FROEHLICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jenner. when you indicated that some time, prior to trial in the Senate a demand could be made by the attorney for the President for something, akin to a bill of particulars, what point in time were you I referring to? Mr. JENNER. I think I was responding to Congressman Hogan's question as to whether the President's counsel could wait. until just before the Chief Justice opened the trial and then move with respect to the he articles of impeachment. I don't wish to compromise Mr. Hogan but I think that was the question he asked. Mr. FROEHLICH. I don't want that answer, Mr. Jenner. I want the answer as to what point in time would it be proper for the President's attorney to demand in behalf of the President a bill of particulars as to this impeachment. Mr. JENNER. Subject to rules adopted by the Senate, he can do so time after the Bill of Impeachment is lodged with the U.S. Senate. However, he must do so at a reasonable time before trial. Mr. FROEHLICH. And where is the bill of particulars? Mr. JENNER. The House of Representatives, that is, the managers for the House of Representatives. Mr. FROEHLICH. Would you say that this could be an unconstitutional delegation of the sole power of impeachment to a small group of individuals in behalf of the House of Representatives as a whole since the power of impeachment as you so eloquently have stated time and time again rests solely in the House of Representatives. Mr. JENNER. think. Mr. FROEHLICH. Solely Mr. Excuse me. Mr. FROEHLICH. Solely in the House of Representatives. Mr. JENNER. Congressman Froehlich I think not because a bill of particulars is but a pleading. It goes only to the scope and specifies particulars the proof and not to the article of impeachment. As to the time the respondent must request a bill of particulars, that will be fixed by rules to be adopted by the Senate. None of this goes to fundamentals. It is only practice, pleading and procedure. No delegation of power is involved. Mr. FROEHLICH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have just paged through the October 1973 publication of this committee on Impeachment and I am looking at the article for Senator Blount in 1798 and I am looking right at the article for impeachment of Judge James H. Peck and I looking at the article for the impeachment. of Judge West H. Humphrey. And I am looking at the articles of impeachment for Judge Charles 'Swayne. And each one of these articles of impeachment are specific. They tell the date, they tell the place, they tell the occurrance, they tell what was wrong and what laws were violated if there were laws -violated. And it seems to me that in fairness and in justice to the President of the United States, after 8 months and over $1 million, that this committee could come to a conclusion as to what the specifics of this impeachment are in detail and with specific charge and I am ready as I indicated yesterday in some instances, in some cases if the case is put in the proper form and the proper shape, to vote for an article of impeachment. But I don't think that the articles placed before us are in specific enough detail to bring me to that conclusion today. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie. [00.22.08]
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 James Mann Statement
Master 10607 part 2 Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative James Mann ( D - South Carloina )
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
[00.59.53] Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise, in opposition to the motion to strike and I would like to refer back to the statements earlier of the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, who, in debating this same motion was just to strike subsection 1 of this article to the effect that the President has made false and misleading statements to investigative officers and others. Mr. Wiggins again spoke of the celebrated June 22 statement by the President, in his press conference. to the, effect that there was no White House and no Committee for the Re-Election of the President involvement in the. burglary which had taken place 5 days earlier and he said that there was no clear and convincing evidence as to when the policy, this policy of obstruction of the investigation which is at, the, heart of the. Sarbanes substitute, that there is no clear and convincing evidence as to when the policy came into effect. I would like to state and then take you to several items of evidence which all Members are aware of, that that policy clearly came into effect sometime between the 17th of June and this statement by the President, on the 22d of June. I think the strongest, case can be made from inferences and from a reasonable application of what all Congressmen know is the procedure in all of Our officers. All the President's men. in essence, are aware from evidence that the Members are aware of. were aware prior to June 22 and several days prior. as a matter of fact, that Mr. Hunt then technically on the rolls of the White House. had been involved in the, burglary and that Mr. Liddy then, and who -was continuing to serve as chief counsel to the. Committee for the Re-Election of the President, everyone knew, that those two men had been involved in the burglary prior to this time and we know in our offices, I would say members of the committee, that, we, follow those things and it is impossible. to believe that the President could have, been aware of the burglary which we, know he -was and to have been aware that it could have involved people, in his campaign committee Or in the White House and not to have asked the question, but out, of the, President's own words we know that by June 22 he was aware Of Mr. Hunt's and Mr. Liddy's involvement, that in Mr. Colson's testimony to this committee be clearly indicated that on the 19th, 2 days after the burglary, that, he had a conversation with the President and the President's response, Was to throw--as reported to Mr. Colson--was to have thrown an ashtray across the, room in disgust when he learned that, the Committee for the Re-Election of the President was involved in that burglary, and we have the Presidents own memo to himself as has been Called earlier on the night of June 20 when he indicates that in a conversation With Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mitchell had informed him that personnel from the committee had been involved in the burglary. And we know from Mr.--from the President's statement of May 22, 1973, in reference back to the days immediately following the Watergate burglary, when he says within a few days the name of Mr. Hunt Surfaced in connection with the investigation and he, uses that in reference to the time that he--that the CIA involvement became known to him which clearly indicates and is tied in prior to June 22. So clearly the President has indicated in the evidence available to this committee, and it has got to be clear and convincing, that he did know that Mr. Hunt had been involved, again technically on the rolls of the White House, and that Mr. Liddy, still the chief counsel to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, had been involved, both members had been involved, and yet with that background and with that in his conscience, with that in his mind--- [01.04.03--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Hamilton Fish IV
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Hamilton Fish IV (R - New York)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.45] [shot of committee bench, members standing to leave, conferring. v.o. Paul DUKE] DUKE states the committee has wound up its formal debate, bringing this stage of the NIXON impeachment process to an end, with five days and parts of six nights of debate resulting in the approval of three articles of Impeachment. The committee will then have to compile a formal report for the HOUSE. [00.38.13--cut DUKE in studio] DUKE continues to sum up the results of the proceedings, calling them "historic", the first time since 1868 that a President has been cited in ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.. States that Impeachment is now "a nightmarish ordeal" for President NIXON, with the next step a HOUSE VOTE to pave the way for a possible SENATE TRIAL. [cut LEHRER seated in front of screen showing photo of JUDICIARY COMMITTEE at bench.] LEHRER says the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE had been conducting its inquiry over nine months. It began with the debate over Articles only six days ago, needing four days to approve the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE article by 27-11 vote, one more day for the ABUSE OF POWER article by vote of 28-10, and the final day seeing the approval of the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS article by 21-17 vote and the denial of the BOMBING CAMBODIA and TAX FRAUD articles by votes of 12-26 against each article. Notes that the closing sentence of each ARTICLE states that the charges are such that NIXON warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office. DUKE asks if LEHRER shares his opinion that the hearings took on much greater significance through the course of the debates and votes than they appeared to have at first. Says that CONGRESS took a very firm stand to protect its powers. DUKE introduces reporter Carolyn LEWIS at the Rayburn Building,[ LEWIS shown on screen behind LEHRER, standing with Reps. WALDIE and WIGGINS.] LEWIS introduces the two congressmen as those who have been "on opposite sides of the fence". Asks WIGGINS what he feels has been achieved in the six days of debate. WIGGINS says that the President has been impached on three articles, although he personally doesn't regard that as much of an achievement. Says the conclusion was unwarranted, respects the opinion of WALDIE to the contrary, says there will be further opportunity to debate on the HOUSE FLOOR VOTE. States that the committee has fulfilled its duty to make recommendations to the HOUSE FLOOR. LEWIS poses question to Rep. WALDIE. WALDIE states that the Constitutional education that has been provided to potentially a great part of the country has been a worthwhile accomplishment. States his hope that the debate on the HOUSE FLOOR will remain of such a high caliber as the Committee's debate. Commends Rep. WIGGINS on his eloquent and stalwart defense of the President, although "he has a very weak case" [draws laughter from WIGGINS]. LEWIS asks WIGGINS how he feels he will go down in history after his performance in the debates. WIGGINS replies in jest "very rapidly, I suppose". Adds that this was a fleeting moment of history, he feels its significant to have participated, but he doesn't feel as though he will be more than a footnote to the record. WALDIE says that in his book, WIGGINS will be more than a mere footnote. Says that if the committee goes down in history, it should be for acting fairly, responsibly, and conscientiously, whether or not people agree with the vote, they should be remembered as men and women of good conscience. LEWIS asks WIGGINS if the proceedings will help restore faith in the system of government or possibly raise the status of Congress in the Public eye. WIGGINS states that this is the first time most people have had the chance to see the committee work, and in fact deliberations like this go on all the time, with committees giving similarly well-considered and vigorous debate to all types of governmental matters. WALDIE agrees, says that the HOUSE may well have been elevated, although the Judiciary Committee is not atypical of the Congress as a whole. LEWIS asks WIGGINS what he will do when he goes home. WIGGINS replies he will go to bed, perhaps shower first, and get up in the morning to prepare for the FLOOR VOTE. WALDIE says he is going to start preparing for the FLOOR VOTE that night, because he will need to get the edge on WIGGINS. WIGGINS says that WALDIE has more work to do, both men laugh. [DUKE/LEHRER in studio] DUKE states that that interview underlined a remarkable BIPARTISAN unity among the whole committee, although the men were opponents, they displayed tremendous good will, in spite of the White House Press staff's charges of "lynch mob" and "Kangaroo Court". Says that, to use a cliche, it was an example of Democracy in Action. The decision was made across partisan, sectional, and political lines. LEHRER states also that it was a "classic case of lawyers", that WALDIE and WIGGINS, at the two poles of opinion on impeachment, could retain tremendous goodwill afterward, that the heated debate is part of the profession of lawyering, and not a personal grudge. [00.47.26]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00--NPACT logo----Rep. RAILSBACK] Rep. RAILSBACK commenting that the committee's bipartisan coalition for the serious articles of impeachment is about to engage in "political overkill" [cut Rep. CONYERS] Rep. CONYERS comments that members are acting as if the debate is a final vote for impeachment rather than doing their duty as a committee and passing articles on to the full HOUSE for deliberation. [title sequence with 3-d rotating Capitol Dome image] [Jim LEHRER in studio--this is the opening of the television coverage of the day's debate--telecast starts with the evening session live, with taped daytime debate to follow.] LEHRER welcomes audience, stating that the Judicial Committee will close out its role by the end of the night, with the final tally being a firm recommendation to the HOUSE that NIXON be impeached, tried, and removed from office on three ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT--OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, ABUSING POWER, and DEFYING COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS. LEHRER notes that the fourth Article, pertaining to the CAMBODIA BOMBING was rejected. Unless there is a change of heart, the committee is expected also to defeat the Article charging Nixon with TAX FRAUD and PROFITEERING from his office. [cut Paul DUKE] DUKE says it is now clear what the final Impeachment Resolution will look like. The first charge, OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE, was resolved through four days of debate, and was approved by a 27-11 vote. The second charge, ABUSE OF POWER, was approved by a vote of 28-10. The third Article related to failure to comply with SUBPOENAS, and was approved by a smaller 21-17 vote. The fourth article, charging violation of Congress' War Power by the secret bombing of CAMBODIA, failed to pass, by a vote of 12-26. DUKE says that the night's aorder of business will be the final Article proposed, dealing with NIXON'S taxes and proposed by DEMOCRAT Edward MEZVINSKY of Iowa. The vote is expected to come after two hours of limited debate. LEHRER introduces Christopher GAUL, White HOuse Reporter, to comment on President NIXON'S reactions and course of action with regard to the WHITE HOUSE TAPES. GAUL says that NIXON lawyer James St. CLAIR delivered the tapes as required to Judge SIRICA that morning for the criminal trial. Says that NIXON is going to claim EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE on some sections of the tapes, in a brief to be given to SIRICA. LEHRER asks what it means for the W.H. Press Secretary to claim EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE. States his belief that all tapes will be given to Judge SIRICA, but not all will then be handed over to Special Prosecutor JAWORSKI. GAUL confirms this, and says it is the judge's decision whether the claim of Privilege is valid. LEHRER asks about the news with regard to NIXON personally. GAUL says the latest eyewitness account was from Treasury Secretary Simon, who met with NIXON that day and described NIXON'S state of mind as positive and affirmative, with apparently no regard to IMPEACHMENT. Says that Secretary SIMON's opinion was that NIXON would not be impeached. DUKE asks if such a vote of confidence by Sec. Simon is just a formality GAUL says that if he were in the Sec's shoes, he'd be hard pressed to say that the President was feeling awful, but that from some film that he's seen, it doesn't appear that NIXON is doing too poorly. LEHRER thanks GAUL, turns to next issue. The night's proceedings are characterized as pertaining more to the person of Richard NIXON than to his conduct of his office. Calls on Carolyn LEWIS at Capitol for a report [LEWIS shown on TV screen behind LEHRER] LEWIS states that the committee will spend two hours looking into the President's taxes and expenditures for NIXON'S homes, as proposed by Rep. MEZVINSKY. Says that the ARTICLE is not given any chance to pass, but that the debate will be a prime-time chance to air personal charges against NIXON. [cut LEHRER standing at "scoreboard" in studio--photos of Rep's. stuck to board under AYE or NAY] LEHRER announces a review of the voting breakdown in the committee article by article. Goes through first Article I, discussing BIPARTISANISM of support for first two ARTICLES. States that the coalition broke down on Article III. [00.14.09]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.21.59] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to point out that while the rule has yet to be established since that will be a matter before the Rules Committee, the Chair is certainly going to recommend that there will be full and free debate, as this is a matter of such moment and be Considered as it should be considered deliberately and fully by the full House, and therefore, I think that the members recitation of what could be expected is indeed in order. Now I recognize for a parliamentary inquiry the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, at the appropriate time I will wish to Offer a perfecting amendment to paragraph 4 of article 1. I wish to reserve the right of offering that amendment, and I do inquire as to when would be the appropriate time? The CHAIRMAN-. Perfecting amendments are in order at any time. The, bill is now being read by way of vehicle of the substitute and it is amendable at any stage. Mr. DANIELSON. Should the amendment be. offered at the time we take up subparagraph 4: for consideration? The CHAIRMAN. No; the,, amendment may be offered at, any time. But I am now going to, for the purposes of recognizing Mr. Hogan, , who has already proposed perfecting amendments, I will recognize him for 5 minutes. The clerk, however, has not read his amendment. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two amendments at the desk, 'Mr. Chairman, and I would ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to address myself to both of them at the same time, and that we vote, on them at the same time. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection it is so ordered. The, clerk will read the amendments The CLERK [reading] Amendment by 'Mr. Hogan: [text of amendment] On page I or article 1, on the second paragraph, and on page 2, paragraph 5 strike "illegal entry," where it occurs and insert in lieu thereof "unlawful" entry." Amendment by 'Mr. Hogan: On page 1 of paragraph 3, quoting subparagraph " (number 1)" after the word "making," insert the following new language: Causing to be made." The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, we should be aware that my amendments are to the Sarbanes substitute which is before us. Mr. DENNIS. 'Mr. Chairman, we have no copy of the second. amendment Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe they are being distributed . Am I recognized, Mr. r. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN_ The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I returned last night my wife, who had been watching deliberations on television, reminded me that many of the prior Impeachments -were not, handled by the Judiciary Committee, and she wondered if the deliberations would take as long if Speaker Albert had entertained sending it to a select committee made up of no lawyers, if it would take us as long to complete it. She also then said that she understands full. well why lawyers are barred from serving on grand Juries. Having said that, I have before the committee two what I guess could be fairly--be characterized as legalistic amendments. However, I do think they are important. Addressing myself to the first one, Mr. Chairman, where we use word "illegal entry," rather than unlawful, I noted that in the Code title 22m, section 1801, a burglary is entry with intent to break and carry away any part thereof. And while the Watergate. burglary is very frequently referred to as burglary, it, is not strictly speaking, according to the D.C. Code, a burglary. It is a breaking and entering. So, what my amendment does it tries to track the language Of the statute in title 22, section 3102, relating to unlawful entry on property. It also I understand, tracks the language in some of" the indictments on conspiracy . Now, I do think that while it may seem to be a miniscule change, I think it strengthening the situation by having it more accurate. Second, Mr. Chairman. in paragraph I after the word "making," include "or causing to be made," as I think the record substantially supports the addition of this language. While the President did personally, in fact. make false and misleading statements, he also induced others to make false and misleading statements. So, I would urge that both of these amendments, which. I consider perfecting amendments, be adopted 'I yield back the balance of my time.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.47.26] [LEHRER/DUKE in studio] DUKE comments that to him, it seems that the debate was of exceptional caliber, with only a few scattered low moments. He was struck by speeches on many occasions, but he was perhaps hardest hit by Rep. MANN's speech that the rule of law and justice must apply to the President regardless of party, and that MANN will deliver justice fairly according to his own Oath of Office. Introduces guest analysts Jack MURPHY (Georgetown Law School) and George WILL (Columnist). Asks how damaging to NIXON the hearings have been, and what lies ahead. MURPHY says from a legal perspective, it's very damaging, that a bipartisan majority voted heavily in favor of two articles of impeachment, and perhaps from a political perspective, it's even worse, deferring to WILL'S analysis. Adds that the hearings have been a celebration of high-minded and principled debate, with very few exceptions to civility. Says that it was a mistake for the majority to allow debate on the TAX FRAUD and CAMBODIA articles to last so long because those articles are susceptible to the interpretation of being vehicles for political grandstanding. The debate around those was more acrimonious. States that as a general rule, though, the interview just seen with Reps WIGGINS and WALDIE shows the high level of the debate and the classiness of the proceedings, that can't help but bolster the confidence of the public in the Congress. WILL says that legally, this is just another step on the road, but concurs with MURPHY that what DIDN'T happen was significant--on the more serious issues, the debate was serious, and, while the debate did fall to triviality on the more trivial articles, it will be remembered as a lofty debate of serious mattes. Says it was a good civics lesson for the TV audience. What the results mean is that "a broad, bipartisan majority voted two powerful articles of impeachment", and Pro-NIXON members in the full HOUSE VOTE will have a very difficult time claiming that the recommendations of the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE were PARTISAN or based on inadequate evidence. LEHRER asks if, given the impending HOUSE VOTE and possible SENATE TRIAL, the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE will just be a fleeting moment in history or if it wil be remembered more strongly. WILL quips that "fleet" is not a very appropriate word for the way the proceedings went, but notes that if there were 35 hours of debate for the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, there will probably be more than 100 for the HOUSE VOTE, and if it's televised, he doesn't know if the AMERICAN PEOPLE can stand it. LEHRER calls on LEWIS for further comment. [LEWIS in Rayburn Building hallway] LEWIS says the debate ended with a whimper, as the last hours of debate were neither enlightening nor productive, but the total impact is to give an insight to the public into the workings of the Constitutional system and the Congress. this will be a positive for the public. [LEHRER/DUKE in studio] LEHRER says that now it is possible to project a timetable for the rest of the Impeachment Process, noting the nine months of the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE's work, speculating that the HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE will require a week to set the rules of debate, including AMENDMENT protocol, television coverage, and limits on debate. Notes August 12, 1974 as the ideal start for the HOUSE FLOOR debate, although this may not be met due to delays with the earlier committees. Likewise for the projected deadline of August 23, 1974 for the final vote on the HOUSE FLOOR. Speculates that should a SENATE TRIAL be reached, it would start in mid-September and last approximately six weeks. LEHRER states that Majority leader SENATOR MANSFIELD has not committed to getting the trial done before the ELECTIONS, but is on the record with his desire to finish the trial before the end of the year. DUKE wishes viewers good night, introduces the beginning of videotaped coverage from the daytime session. [the rollcall of the committee on the TAX FRAUD vote is heard as the credits roll over a shot of the studio correspondents] [NPACT ID--PBS Network ID--promos for PBS programming] [00.59.45-- end of live coverage]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.14.09] LEHRER Reviews the voting record of each member in turn, pointing to photos with pen. DUKE says that it seems from the demonstration that the coalition has been pushed to its limit, and dissolved. Speculates that the first two articles will be strongest on the HOUSE floor, doubtful for the third. LEHRER notes that it remains to be seen who will be the Floor Managers for the Articles in the Floor vote. The committee will probably want to preserve bipartisanship in the HOUSE, pointing out Rep. RAILSBACK as a possible REPUBLICAN choice as Manager in the Floor Vote. LEHRER introduces the guest commentators, Constitutional Scholar Jack MURPHY and Columnist George WILL. To introduce questioning, LEHRER introduces a clip from the day's hearings featuring Rep. RAILSBACK, shown arguing that the third article and others represents OVERKILL. LEHRER asks if the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS article carries the same clout as the first two did. WILL responds that he doesn't think that ARTICLES III-V represent "political overkill". States that the CONTEMPT of CONGRESS Article was part of a very hotly contested Constitutional debate, and that the charge of political overkill doesn't wash when you consider that the second ranking REPUBLICAN on the committee sponsored the Article. States that moving on the CAMBODIA BOMBING was a disservice to the committee itself, but that the final vote of rejection by a bipartisan majority indicates strongly that that issue is dead as far as impeachment is concerned. States that Rep. RAILSBACK may be laying it on a little thick about the potential for overkill, says that the evidence as presented will compell the committee to reject weak articles. MURPHY says that as a lawyer, he had some problems with the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS article in that the vote was extremely narrow and partisan. States that legally, he's disturbed that the committee was so eager to set a precedent that it did not have to set, the Supreme Court could have been asked to rule, and two strong Articles of Impeachment have already been approved. States that a more frivolous Congress in the future might use the PRECEDENT to set up a President for political reasons. His opinion is that the Impeachment Process will not be hampered if the article is not passed, offers as illustration the evidence obtained by this committee through non-Executive sources. DUKE asks MURPHY if he agrees with Rep. DENNIS'S argument that the Article III is simply a setup, a manufactured attempt to get the President to incriminate himself. MURPHY states that he does agree with DENNIS, and that the committee has taken it upon itself to rule on a very delicate point of Constitutional law. [00.26.30]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.29.03] The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Aye. The CLERK. 'Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg. Mr. EILBERG. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes Mr. SARBANES. No The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. Aye. The, CLERK. Mr. Danielson. . Mr. DANIELSON. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Jordan. Ms. JORDAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. -NO. The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS, No. The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinsky. I Mr. MEZVINSKY. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. No. The CLERK. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. No. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN-. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. -No. The CLERK. Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. 'NO. The CLERK. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. No. The CLERK. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. No. The CLERK. Mr. Moorhead. Mr. MOORHEAD. No. The CLERK. Mr. Maraziti. Mr. MARAZITI. _No. The CLERK. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. No. The CLERK. Mr. Rodino. The CHAIRMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report. The CLERK. Twelve members have voted aye. 26 members have voted no. The CHAIRMAN. And the article is not agreed to. The Chair announces that this concludes the work of the committee under the proposal, resolution, which was adopted last week, and to the, terms of the resolution and as a result of our action, the Donohue resolution. together with those articles that have been agreed to will be reported to the House. Additionally, under the rules of the House, each member will be entitled to 3 calendar days in which to file supplemental, additional, or minority views, and then the form of the report of the, committee which will go the full House. The, Chair in this case, however, will allow until the close of business on Tuesday next, August 6, for members who wish to file such views. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman. will there be available to the members, prior to next Tuesday, a draft report prepared by the committee Staff? The CHAIRMAN. The committee Staff will be preparing the report and It, will be ready on Tuesday, next, and If the members are interested In inquiring of the committee staff as to the work, the committee staff, however, will not be required to have the. report ready until next Tuesday. Mr. McCLORY. Well, Mr. Chairman, the reason 1 asked is that it would assist the. members with respect to separate, additional, or minority views. and so on if we could have available preliminarily the draft report of the committee staff, and then we could determine to what extent, we want to file individual or separate or minority or whatever views. Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the Chairman yield? Will the gentleman yield? Mr. McCLORY. I will be happy to yield. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I am also interested in this so-called bill of particulars, or a memorandum of the facts. Is that going. to be circulated so that we can have an input or see what facts are going to be used in reference to supporting the individual subitems in articles I and II? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises that what we are now discussing is the question of the committee report, with views of the various members who -wish to filter the additional or minority or supplemental views. Those bills of particular that have been referred to during the course of the consideration of this resolution, those particulars will become part of the report in the manner in which we have already agreed to by the staff. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman. I would just, like to Mr. CHAIRMAN. Or by the committee. Mr. McCLORY. I would like to clarify further Mr. RAILSBACK. I hope it is by the committee. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman. I know that the document that we prepare and send the House will be one which will have permanent interest and have permanent value, and in MY own Case, insofar -is any additional views that I might prepare. I would want to have sufficient time to be certain that they are consistent, with the precedents and accurately project My views, and that is why it would help me, and I am sure it 'Would help other members, if possibly we could have by this weekend a draft report, from the committee staff so that we could thereafter prepare any additional views that we might want to file, The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise that I think at this time what the Chair has advised with regard to the Matter that we have just considered, I will conclude this committee Meeting at this time and -we will take up such other matters in an appropriate committee meeting where such business will be undertaken. However, I might say that. staff is always available to the members in order that, they may be assisted in the filing of whatever views they May seek to file. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask this additional question. Then is it your intention, Mr. Chairman, to have a committee meeting before, the time for the filing of the report on next Tuesday? The CHAIRMAN. Yes the Chair so states. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. So, the committee stands adjourned until further call of the Chair. [00.36.45--closing gavel, DUKE v.o. announces the end of the proceedings as members stand to leave, reporters run around in front of bench]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.47.58] The CHAIRMAN. The time, has expired. All time has expired, and the question now occurs on the article as offered by the gentleman from Michigan. All those in favor of the articles, please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it. Mr. LATTA. Rollcall. Mr. Chairman. Mr. CONYERS. Rollcall. The CHAIRMAN. A call of the roll is demanded and call of the roll is ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye when their names are called. and all those opposed no. And the clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. Aye. The, CLERK. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS, Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg. Mr. EILBERG. No. The CLERK. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. SARBANES. No. The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. No. The CLERK. Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. No. The CLERK. Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. Aye. The CLERK. Ms. Jordan. Ms. JORDAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. No. The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinsky. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. No. The CLERK. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. 'NO. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN NO. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. 'NO, The CLERK. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. No. The CLERK. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Moorhead. Mr. MOORHEAD. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Maraziti. Mr. MARAZITI. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. No. The CLERK. Mr. Rodino. The CHAIRMAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk -will report. The CLERK. Twelve members have voted aye, 26 members have voted no. The CHAIRMAN. And the article is not agreed to. The committee -will be recessed until 8 o'clock this evening. [00.51.46] [cut DUKE in studio, offers recap of the day's session--this is the end of the broadcast, the daytime session broadcast on tape delay after the evening session] DUKE says that the third proposed article, for defiance of Committee subpoenas was passed, while a fourth, for misleading Congress and the public about the BOMBING of CAMBODIA was defeated. At the night session, a fifth and final article citing TAX FRAUD was defeated. Jim LEHRER says this is it for the Judiciary committee, scene shifts to the full HOUSE for a vote there. If the HOUSE debate is to be televised, NPACT will be there. Signs off. [title screen "Impeachment Hearings"--NPACT screen--PBS network ID] [00.53.34--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.44.00] Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important to continue to present proof of the charges in the bill of impeachment. I am sure that there are going to be many byroads, and many other issues that will be brought -up, but I think it is vital that in these proceedings that the evidence be spelled out so that -we all can understand it better. In support of the first portion of the bill of impeachment, Mr. Sarbanes presented some very clear evidence of the President's knowledge almost immediately after the June 17, 1972, burglary at the Watergate. I think that anybody here can understand the reluctance of the White House and the President to have the public find out about this, and find out. of the connection with his Committee To Re-Elect of Mr. Hunt and the other people who -were arrested for the burglary. Well. one of the choices would have been just to let them go to jail, and call it a bizarre incident. I think it is fairly clear that this was the, choice, and every effort was made to have it appear to be just a bizarre incident. Yes, perhaps there could have been some connection with the White House with Mr. Hunt and so forth. Or another choice would have been just to admit Mr. Hunt 'worked at the, White I-louse, yes, had an office there, was in the White house phone book, and then down the road let Liddy. chief counsel, I believe for- the Committee To Re-Elect, surface. He was bound to surface, Well, why not take that choice? That could be ridden out perhaps by the White House, even as Watergate itself was ridden out. But, why do you imagine the President had to or felt he. had to encourage such a massive coverup after June 17, shortly after the burglary? Why not let it hang out', This was discussed quite a lot. We all remember that in the transcripts. Why not direct the FBI to go ahead and do a darn good job, and really complete the investigation as they started out trying to do? Why involve the CIA in this Unfortunate behavior? Why encourage almost demand, that the CIA to the FBI and say, stop, don't continue your investigation stop where you are. By all means, don't act into that money &at was found on one of the burglars. Well, incidentally, the efforts by Mr. Dean and the efforts to direct the CIA to influence the FBI not to continue the investigation -were successful. They were successful until Julie 5 when Pat Gray finally said no, I am not going to do it any more and went to the CIA. The CIA said of course we don't have anything to do with anything in Mexico where your investigation might disclose some unfortunate things that are going on down there or something clandestine by the CIA. Well, here is the key to it. Immediately the next day actually the White House, knew that Hunt was involved. His name was in the book. He had an office in the Executive Office Building, And Liddy had to be exposed somewhere down the line. The, money on the burglars could immediately be traced to Liddy, the Mexican banks, and then back to the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Sloan had given the money to Liddy to launder. That was all sure to come out. But, what would the exposure of Hunt and Liddy reveal In addition to their participation in the Watergate burglary and their connection with the Committee To Re-Elect the President and the White House? Hunt, just about the original plumber, came aboard the White House in July 1971. Suppose--and this probably would have happened if it. had all come out right there with a hard-hitting FBI investigation that after Mr. Hunt went to work as a plumber at the White House in late 1971 he composed the fake Diem cables, attempting to link former President Kennedy with the Diem assassination. He tried very hard to. sell those cables, not to sell them but to get Life magazine to write them up as real. It is very much to the credit of the magazine that they did not do it. On July 22, just a few weeks after Mr. Hunt became a plumber at the White House he went to the CIA, and obtained a red wig, a voice changer, and fake identification papers and so forth. He Put on this disguise shortly after that and went to Massachusetts to interview a Clifton DeMott in hopes of digging up some dirt on Senator Edward Kennedy. What else was Mr. Hunt doing during this period shortly before Watergate that would have been exposed? He had taken the famous trip to Denver, Colo., in the same red wig, with the voice changer to interview Dita Beard, who was in a hospital bed there, in connection with the ITT case. We all remember the famous Dita Beard-ITT memorandum. And then for all we. know, another project of the plumbers that John Dean testified to but did not come Off, might have been exposed-- The planned bombing, allegedly ordered by Charles Colson, of the Brookings- Institution so that in the confusion people could rush in and take out, a report that -was being written. But, more importantly, what would have been exposed. the burglary, the burglary in Los Angeles in September 2, 1972, of Dr. Fielding office in Los Angeles. Who was involved in that burglary that was also involved, participated, and was arrested at the Democratic National Committee? Mr. Barker, Mr. Martinez, Mr. DeDiego The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman I has as expired Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Butler. [00.50.45]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.26.30] MURPHY states that the Committee's vote to impeach on the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS charge is arbitrary, and that the Committee's solution to the conflict with the Executive Branch over Constitutional protections and powers has not been consistent with the Constitution. LEHRER asks WILL if the introduction of the final three ARTICLES will detract from the strength of the first two, specifically citing the TAX FRAUD and CAMBODIA BOMBING charges. WILL says that the final three articles may be an aesthetic failure, but that practically, the other articles will not be affected. Says that NIXON is not in trouble because of Parliamentary irregularities, and that a final judgement will not be made on a Parliamentary basis. States that if the third Article was ill-advised, there remains two more sets of hearings through which the ARTICLE may be weeded out. Furthermore, in rejecting the CAMBODIA ARTICLE, the committee demonstrated moderation and discretion that give its decisions more credence. DUKE brings up the CAMBODIA Article. Asks the guests if they agree with the opponent's argument that Congress was in complicity with NIXON and previous presidents around the issue of undeclared war. WILL hesitates to say complicity, but says that Congress was definitely involved in the BOMBING of CAMBODIA. DUKE points out that it was only certain, handpicked, friendly members of Congress who were notified of the decision, with tacit or explicit direction not to share the information with the Congress at large. WILL says that he thinks NIXON can convincingly argue that there was a practical necessity which compelled the incomplete informing of Congress about the bombing, on condition that publicizing the bombing would have violated Cambodian neutrality, and that as a practical matter, says WILL, Congress cannot be trusted to keep secrets from the Press. LEHRER reminds viewers that they are awaiting the convening of the evening session of the committee [empty committee bench shown] to debate a charge of TAX FRAUD and PROFITEERING against NIXON. LEHRER asks MURPHY in legal terms which of the three approved ARTICLES will be easiest to prove to the full HOUSE and then to the SENATE. MURPHY says that the theory in operation in the HOUSE would make ARTICLE II the easiest to prove, as the standard of proof that seemed to be required would allow the President's failure to superintend his subordinates to stand as an impeachable offense. DUKE notes that WILL appears to disagree. WILL discusses the "MADISON RULE" of SUPERINTENDENCY, which would hold NIXON responsible for his subordinate's misdeeds. WILL refers to the speech of BARBARA JORDAN, who argued that in fact there were plenty of "smoking guns" to implicate the PRESIDENT directly in wrongdoing. MURPHY agrees that there are a number of "smoking guns", but that analysis of the Article, including the attempted WIGGINS Amendment, indicates that the Committee majority shied away from the burden of proving direct involvement by NIXON. WILL says that MURPHY isn't "keeping his eye on the ball", that listening to 38 LAWYERS appears to be confusing and to be obscuring the truth. Says that the charges are going to be investigated by exceedingly practical men of politics, and that they will be unlikely to accept that a degree of insubordination could possibly exist in the NIXON White House such that the subordinates could have acted without direction or approval. MURPHY disagrees, saying that the ARTICLE does amount to a ratification of SUPERINTENDENCY because evidence cannot be shown to demonstrate NIXON'S active participation or orchestration of crimes. WILL again tells MURPHY to keep his eye on the ball, that both REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS conceded that the White House was on a crime spree, even Rep. SANDMAN acknowledges this, and argues that no one can practically argue that NIXON had nothing to do with it. LEHRER reminds WILL, however, that the key issue is to prove NIXON was responsible for misconduct in some way. Asks if WILL is suggesting that the HOUSE members ultimately will vote not according to a Constitutional theory, but according to whether they think NIXON should take blame for the corruption of the White House. WILL says that practical resolutions to doubts will be found, either in the WHITE HOUSE TAPES or in the idea that it's impossible that NIXON did not know of the misdeeds going on in his own White House. [00.38.07]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.08.50] Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And all I know about this is what I read in the papers. On January 21, 1974, I placed in the record a statement that: Much controversy has arisen over President Nixon's tax write-off on his official Papers, and his assertion that the late President Lyndon Johnson gave him the idea. I think my colleagues will be interested in this editorial from the Houston Post regarding President Johnson's Papers, "In view of President Nixon's reference to the late President Lyndon Johnson as having given him the idea for taking a tax write-off on official papers, it is interesting to notice President Johnson's own record. LBJ is thought to have taken a tax deduction for $200,000 out of a total of 31 million papers. They dealt with his life up to the time he entered the Senate. Ralph Newman Chairman of the Chicago Public Library, who has worked for every President since Herbert Hoover, appraised the LBJ papers as he later did the Nixon papers. He set it value of $20 to $40 million on the papers. But President Johnson bequeathed all the papers of his Senate years, his Vice Presidency and his Presidency to the LBJ Library without asking any tax advantage for his estate." I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield for a, question? Mr. BROOKS. I have 1 minute and one-half left, and gentleman, ladies, I would like to point out something about, the President's knowledge. The record is replete With evidence, ample evidence, that Mr. Nixon did involve himself in the renovations at Key Biscayne and San Clemente both those made at his own expense and those made at public expense. At. Key Biscayne we paid $65,000 for a fence because of the President's personal involvement in the design, not because the Secret Service required it. During hearings before the House Government Activities Subcommittee, the following discussion took place between me, and the Secret Service agent, Earl Moore. [quoting] Mr, MOORE. After the initial drawing or design was presented, I think I passed along to GSA a comment from Mr. Rebozo that the First Family. the President and First Lady, would prefer something more conventional, probably something similar to the White House fence. And I think as a result, the GSA copied the White House fence. Mr. BROOKS. Did the Secret Service, request that the fence be a replica of the White House fence? Mr. MOORE. 'NO, sir. We only wanted to get a fence up there. [end quoted section] Now. in testimony before this committee, Mr. Butterfield was asked to what extent the President gave attention to detail. He responded that Mr. -Nixon was very interested in the grounds at Key Biscayne, Camp David, San Clemente, the house the cottage, and the grounds. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 10 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. In the discussion, art- we going to be confined to evidentiary materials before the committee, or are the members free to call upon other materials known to them only? The CHAIRMAN. the gentleman is advised that during this time of debate members are to discuss the matters before them, which is the matter of possible impeachable offenses as it relates to the article before them, Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, if I could, would the gentleman yield for clarifiication? Mr. WIGGINS. Sure. Mr. BROOKS. The source of this information was furnished to the committee and is a part of the committee, records and was made available to Mr. Jenner and Mr. Doar and to the committee if they wanted to read them, Mr. WIGGINS. Well, I appreciate that. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Chairman? Mr. WIGGINS. I think we are going to have some more new information shortly. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I am going to take I minute to make a comment concerning the matter of fraud I think It has to be shown and brought to the attention of this committee that we heard an expert witness who had been the head of the Criminal Tax Fraud Division of the Department of Justice. He was responsible for drafting the manual on the matter of fraud. He told us that considering the facts that we. have had presented to I including the taxpayer's failure to answer the questions submitted to him by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, he said, and I quote: [quoting] If no satisfactory response was forthcoming, it would be my Judgment that in the case of an ordinary taxpayer on the facts as we know them in this instance, the case would be referred out for presentation to a Grand Jury for prosecution. [00.13.46]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.28.57] Mr. BUTLER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has .1 minute. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like- The CHAIRMAN. One and a' half minutes remaining. I am Sorry. Mr. BUTLER. I will take what I have Mr. Chairman, and I thank you. I would just like to repeat what- I said earlier today, that the impeachment power In the House of Representatives is discretionary. Sound judgment would indicate that we not, add this article to the trial burden we already have, I will therefore vote against the article before us at this moment, and I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maine. Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like to say I would associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, in that this was indeed morally shabby conduct but I would also point out, that the gentlelady from New York said this committee has not fully explored the question nor has the Senate, and we should continue our investigation, we should not seek to ratify our suspicions and beliefs into clear and convincing evidence on, the issue of criminal fraud. Mr. BUTLER. Will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired. The gentleman from Iowa has 12 minutes remaining Mr. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Seiberling, I yield 1 additional minute. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you. I would like to address a question to the Chair. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, in view of some of the statements here that, some of the members feel that this question may be-that action on this question may be premature in that there is still incompleteness to the investigation of this whole matter. And I would like to ask the Chair if it isn't correct that the resolution House Resolution 803 under which we are operating. will authorize the staff to continue to keep the investigation open. on this particular point even after we have voted on this matter this evening. Is that correct? The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 803 under which this committee has been conducting its inquiry, the vitality of the investigation will continue and the investigation therefore Into this area will continue. Mr. SEIBERLING. I thank the Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman now has 11 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield 11 of those to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. 'Mr. Chairman, I want to explain a little further the detail as to how the---- The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman defer? Does the gentleman, who controls the time, and who has the right to assert his arguments last, does he intend to use all of the time now? Mr. MEZVINSKY. I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman has 11 minutes. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, to clarify the fact that the President does take a very personal interest in his activities, in our conversations before this committee and in testimony, Mr. Butterfield testified that Mr. Haldeman never did anything without the knowledge of the President. I want to quote from that testimony of Mr. Butterfield. [quoting] Mr. JENNER. Was there any occasion during all of the. time that you were at the White House that there came to your attention that Haldeman ever did anything without the knowledge of the President? Mr. BUTTERFIELD. No, never. Mr. JENNER. Dealing with White House affairs? Mr. BUTTERFIELD. No, never, Nothing unilateral at all. He was essentially, I may have said this, but an implementer. Mr. Haldeman implemented the decisions of the President, as did Mr. Ehrlichman, but perhaps to a lesser extent. But Haldeman especially was an implementer because the President ran his own personal affairs. He was not a decisionmaker. Mr. JENNER. Mr. Butterfield, would you repeat that for me? I didn't hear it. Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I said I did not know Mr. Haldeman to be a decisionmaker. He was entirely in my view an implementer I can hardly recall the decisions, any decisions that he made, unless that it was that the White House staff mess personnel would wear jackets or something along that line. He implemented the President's decisions. The President was the decisionmaker. The President was 100 percent in charge. [end quoted section] I want to point out that the last witness before this committee, Mr. Herb Kalmbach, the President's personal attorney who served as the President's personal representative at San Clemente, and during his appearance the following discussion took place between Mr. Kalmbach and our friend Mr. Jenner. [quoting] Mr. JENNER. A. previous witness has testified, as a matter of fact, Alexander Butterfield, that the President was "very interested" in the grounds at Key Biscayne, Camp David, San Clemente, the house, the cottage and the grounds. From your experience in serving in the capacity you indicated, is that a fair characterization? Mr. KALMBACH. It is. Mr. JENNER. And that arises from your personal knowledge and experience in dealing with this matter? Mr. KALMBACH. Yes. [end quoted section] Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman--would the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. I would rather complete this. Mr. RAILSBACK. Go ahead. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Kalmbach, in reply to another question- [quoting (Kalmbach)] Mr. Jenner, I recall walking with the President and Mrs. Nixon------- [01.34.50--TAPE OUT] +
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.46] Mr. CONYERS. Now, too many members have are beginning to think that we are casting the final decision on impeachment in the Judiciary Committee. Well, let me remind you that there are 400 other members that are going to decide this and I resent any implications of people on the committee suggesting what, ought and what ought not to be introduced now that we have two articles of impeachment, because anyone that does not like whatever other articles-including this one that is presented to them--has their obligation to vote against them. But I do not think that they intimidate or curtail the views of any member or, this committee as to what they are supposed to do. NOW, I introduced the first motion that would have accelerated the impeachment procedure by taking to the floor immediately an article for the refusal of the President to comply, because if there is anything we must pull out of this impeachment process, it is the impeachment process itself, which the President himself now challenges by raising the spurious concept that he has raised here. executive privilege has _no basis in an impeachment proceeding, and most scholars have said so repeatedly. And so with those words, Mr. Chairman, I fully and strongly support this article and hope that it will be reported by the largest number possible on this committee, and that it will be sustained by the majority of our colleagues on the floor. Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. CONYERS. Yes, 1 will. Mr. SEIBERLING. What this really comes down to is, does this committee mean what it says about conducting an impeachment inquiry, and mean it about the powers of Congress, or when we are really faced by a stonewall in the White House, do we just say "poof" and collapse? The CHAIRMAN./ The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis, is recognized for 4 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, 'Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, articles I and II can be debated on the law and on the facts as, indeed, they have been and will be. But this proposed article -we have before us now is utterly without merit. The President, in this instance, asserted what be claimed to be a constitutional right based on executive privilege and the separation of powers, and it is a right, incidentally, which under certain circumstances has now been recognized by the Court in the course of its recent opinion. We took a different position, and now we are going to say, without any resolution of that question, that because you, Mr. President invoked a constitutional position, we are going to impeach you. Now, that argument ought to carry its own answer. We elected never to test the question. We never went to the floor of the House and asked the House to vote a contempt as we might have done, and should have done if we thought he was in contempt. We elected by vote of this committee not to test the matter in the Court, as we have done, and even though as the Court reiterated the other day, the courts are emphatically the province to determine what the law is. We could have been parties to the recent suit or a similar suit, and we would probably have prevailed, and we know that the President would have complied, and we would have this evidence if we just had gone and asked for it in the proper forum. But, we refused to do that. Now, the full right to impeach does not carry with it the sole right to determine what the Constitution means. It does not make us the sole arbitrator of the Constitution. There is a bootstrap operation here, ladies and gentlemen, and we are in effect trying to say to the President that if you do not agree with our view of the Constitution we are going to impeach you. Now, that is not a reasonable position to take. The Court, in Nixon against Sirica the other day said this: "If a President concludes that compliance with a subpena would be injurious to the public interest he may properly invoke a claim of privilege." That is exactly what the President did. And it will reflect no credit on this committee if we try to impeach him for doing that. [01.14.43]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today the committee starts consideration. of the most awesome power constitutionally vested in the House of Representatives. During the past four months this committee's Impeachment inquiry staff has been assembling information under the committee's direction and counsel Will now Present to the Committee the information assembled. The power of impeachment is one, of those great checks and balances written in our Constitution to ameliorate the stark doctrine, of separation of powers. But impeachment of a President is most drastic, for it can bring down in administration of the Government. The Constitution itself limits the scope e of impeachment of a President to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. A law dictionary published in London in 1776 defines Impeachment as--The accusation and prosecution of a person for treason or other crimes and misdemeanors. Any Member of the House of Commons may not only impeach any of their own body but also any Lord or Parliament. And thereupon Articles are exhibited on behalf of the Commons, and managers appointed to make good their charge and accusation; which being, done in the proper judicature, sentence is passed. And it is observed that the same evidence is required in an impeachment in Parliament as in the Ordinary courts of justice. That definition of the term fairly exhibits, I believe, the understanding and meaning of the founders of this Republic when they wrote into our own Constitution the sole power of this House impeach the President. The standard it imposes is a finding Of criminal culpability on the part of the President himself measured according to the law. I trust that' the members of this committee embark upon their awesome task each in his own resolve to lay aside ordinary political considerations and to weigh the evidence according to the law. I trust that each of us is resolved during this inquiry, schooled, skilled, and practiced in the law as each of us is, to perform as a lawyer in the finest traditions of the profession. And in the view of the enormity of the responsibility cast upon us, I trust that in the days and weeks ahead each of us will according to the dictates of his own conscience, Seek the guidance of that Divine Providence which can be with us all and be everywhere for good, and which has so blessed this Nation and its people throughout our history.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
[00.06.21] Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. I rise of course, in opposition to the motion for strike and I must observe that for the second time in a row we have clauses that have attempted to persuade the American People and our colleagues in this immediate vital judgment that national security itself -was, a justification for illegal activities emanating directly from the White House and I am very sorry to say from the authority and the condonation of the President, of the United States himself. And I think that we cannot here today make this record too replete with the documentation that says once and for all that the bugaboo of national security will no longer suffice to intimidate the Congress or scare the American people into condoning activities of the kind that we have heard here in article II in these proceedings. I want to assert, and I am sure my other colleagues that follow, me will, that the President was in fact directly responsible for the creation of the Plumbers. It is documented in our evidence. The President publicly admitted it, that he approved the creation of a special investigative unit, the Plumbers. For the first time in our history the people this Nation. were treated to the spectacle of a secret 'intelligence unit operating not in the FBI, not in the CIA, nor the Secret Service, but, in the White House under the direction of White House employees reporting directly to the President of the United States. John Ehrlichman in his own trial, the Domestic Affairs Adviser of the President, testified that he asked the CIA, can you imagine, our foreign intelligence agency, to help and that he asked the CIA to help Howard Hunt at the direction of the, President of the United States. he said, "In my personal experience my requests of the CIA were always at the specific instance of' the President I never did make a step to ask the CIA to do anything without the President having authorized me to do so in advance." So the fact is that the President could and expected that the Plumbers, a clandestine secret organization, would in fact operate illegally. The President had, you -may recall, approved the Huston, plan a year before, knowing full well that it sanctioned admittedly illegal activity. According further to the notes of the President's former Domestic Adviser of his meeting with the President on July 6, 1971, the President asked "Could a nonlegal team on the conspiracy." Now, we have learned during these months in the euphemisms of White House parlance that stonewalling, modified hangout has a significance all its own and a nonlegal team suggests precisely that, and Ehrlichman' notes reflect the assignment of David Young, cochairman of the plumbers to a Special project. Mr. Ehrlichman testified further before, the grand jury that, the President of the United States had prior knowledge of the first trip by Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt. I am sure you remember those names from June, 17, 1972, to go to California to case the Fielding office. The CHAIRMAN. The 4 minutes of the gentleman have expired. The Chair calls attention to the fact that there is a rollcall vote, and the Chair will recess the committee until 7:30. And the Chair would also like to observe that at this time 8 minutes have been considered consumed by those in opposition to the amendment and 5 minutes in support of the amendment and the balance of the time will be reserved opponents and the proponents. The committee is recessed until 7:30. [00.11.22--DUKE in studio] DUKE describes day of "lawyerlike work" on perfecting amendments to refine the language, and the limiting and striking amendments offered by the PRO-NIXON side. However, the votes of the morning session indicated that the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side was strongly in command, and that the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT would be approved. LEHRER says that in fact the second ARTICLE was approved at the end of the evening session by vote of 28-10.. Says that more articles will be introduced in the next day's session, none of which are expected to get broad support, and some may not even pass. Signs off for DUKE. [title screen--NPACT screen--PBS network ID] [00.13.20--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974.