Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Henry Smith Statement
The constitutional duty of this committee in regard to impeachment possibly that of the House and possibly that of the Senate, always a sad duty is a particularly sad one here. In that it contemplates the possible impeachment and conviction of a President who has ended our direct participation in a bitter and divisive war which was not of his making and who history may show has done more than any person now living to bring about peace and brotherhood in this world. Through his bold initiatives in establishing communication and basis for understanding with other powerful nations and other powerful peoples and through his initiatives carried out by the painstaking and tireless work of dedicated aides in creating the climate for and the support for a real seize fire in the Middle East and now in Cyprus. But even so, if this President has been guilty of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, as stated it is stated in the Constitution, than it is the constitutional duty of the House of Representatives to impeach him and the constitutional duty of the Senate to convict him.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
Reporter Caroline Lewis says there is no definite indication of that, but that a "very grim looking VP Gerald Ford did visit the HIll to meet with many Republican members of the Committee, it's not known whether an offer of information was made.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey), I recognize the gentlemen from Massachusetts for the purpose of general debate on his resolution where not to exceed fifteen minutes and every other member of the committee will be recognized for purposes of debate not to exceed fifteen minutes following Mr. Donohue s presentation. Mr. Donohue. Representative Harold Donohue (D - Massachusetts). Thank you again Mr. Chairman. This historic debate and the motion I have just offered to this Committee have their roots in the most fundamental precept of free men that no individual is above the law. On July 20, 1787, the Constitutional convention had before it the great question, Shall the executive be removable on impeachment? Mr. Governor Morris, a delegate to that convention, spoke out forcibly in opposition. He wanted no impeachment clause in the draft of our Constitution, but he listened intently. At first, Benjamin Franklin and then James Madison argued on behalf of such a clause. And finally, just before the question was voted, Mr. Governor Morris announced that his opinion had been changed by the arguments presented in debate. The impeachment clause was adopted by the convention and became Section Four of Article Two of the Constitution of the United States. And the solo power of impeachment was vested in the House of Representatives under Article One Section Two of the Constitution.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Mr. Chairman, in my conviction, the hour for this decision has arrived. To this end, I believe the time has come to report to the House such resolutions, articles of impeachment or other recommendations as we deem proper on these enormous matters. I have carefully observed the witnesses appeared before this committee, heard their testimony, listen to the summations of council on both sides and I have fully studied all of the evidence. Mr. Chairman, I am most willing to listen to any further debate that may develop on the impeachment articles. I am prepared to vote on this momentous question before us and I can but simply say this. My vote will be consciously cast in what I most sincerely believe is in the best interest of our country. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.14.56] [Capitol Dome graphic with title "IMPEACHMENT DEBATE JULY 29, 1974"] [Jim LEHRER in studio] introduces the airing of videotaped coverage of the morning session of the committee by summarizing the conclusion of the evening session, and the vote to adopt the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, dealing with ABUSE OF POWER by NIXON. vote was 28-10, all 21 DEMOCRATS and 7 of 17 REPUBLICANS. Of REPUBLICANS who voted against the first article, Rep. McCLORY (R-IL) was the only one to change sides on ARTICLE II. LEHRER summarizes the charges of ARTICLE II. Paul DUKE gives summary of the PARLIAMENTARY developments of the day. First, Rep. HUNGATE (D-MO) offered a substitute ARTICLE to the one previously offered by Rep. DONOHUE (D-MA). The PRO-IMPEACHMENT majority defeated attempts to strike out two of the charges dealing with the IRS, the PLUMBERS, and WIRETAPS. DUKE says that Rep. WIGGINS (R-CA) was responsible for two of the motions to strike, with the third being raised by PRO-IMPEACHMENT Rep. BROOKS (D-TX) as a PARLIAMENTARY MANEUVER to give the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side a forum to air their evidence that NIXON abused the IRS. DUKE says that all votes on the ARTICLE passed in favor of the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side by better than 2-1. LEHRER calls on reporter Caroline LEWIS on CAPITOL HILL [LEWIS shown on screen behind LEHRER] LEWIS describes the day as one of exhaustion, the debate not as vigorous or angry, but more willingness to compromise and go along with the results. Did not take as long to reach a vote as with ARTICLE I. Not the agonizing ordeal of ARTICLE I. DUKE introduces guest commentators Jack MURPHY (law professor, Georgetown University) and Steven HESS (political scientist, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, and former NIXON staff member) to talk about the videotaped debate from the morning session. MURPHY points to the early exchange between DANIELSON and WIGGINS as to whether an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE is actually charged in the ARTICLE, persistent efforts by the PRO-NIXON side to force the wording of the ARTICLE so that IMPEACHMENT sponsors in the Senate would be bound to prove direct involvement by NIXON in his subordinates' wrongful actions, and the continuing debate on specificity. Says there will be some good "lawyering" seen in this part of the debate. Finally, points to the debate on WIRETAPPING as of interest to all Americans. Says that the ambiguities of the law are resolved more in favor of the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side. DUKE asks HESS if it's any longer possible that the REPUBLICANS could regroup around NIXON and save the Presidency. HESS says it's unlikely. Given the way 1/3 of the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS supported IMPEACHMENT, and the fact that REPUBLICANS have only 187 out of 435 votes in the HOUSE at large, it's not good for NIXON. LEHRER thanks the guests. Introduces the videotape coverage. Says there are very serious underlying arguments to limit the scope of the charges, but which have little success [01.22.51--cut committee bench, v.o. continues] LEHRER describes the WIGGINS/DANIELSON debate over whether the ARTICLE alleges any offense that can be considered to constitute HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, thereby being an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. DUKE describes the objections by Rep. SANDMAN (R-NJ) to the charges of IRS ABUSE--SANDMAN argues that no audit was resolved unfavorably to anyone on the ENEMIES LIST given to the IRS by JOHN DEAN-- and Rep. HOGAN (R-MD) arguing that the WHITE HOUSE actions with regard to wiretaps impeded the operation of justice in the ELLSBERG AFFAIR, as the White HOuse sought to conceal its illegal wiretapping. LEHRER says that the third hour is marked by Rep. MOORHEAD'S (R-CA) argument that wiretaps were a vital NATIONAL SECURITY measure, Rep. EILBERG (D-PA) argument that the "BIG BROTHER" tactics of POLICE STATES like the Soviet Union have arrived in the USA, DUKE continues to summarize the final hour, in which Rep. FISH (R-NY) argued that the PLUMBERS unit was prompted by the PRESIDENT'S embarrassment and anger at the publication of the PENTAGON PAPERS, not by NATIONAL SECURITY concerns. [01.24.05--Chairman RODINO brings committee to order]
Speaker O’Neill with Committee Members
Speaker of the House of Representatives Tip O'Neill (D-MA) seated in a room with middle-aged and elderly adult Caucasian male U.S. House committee chairmen; Rep. Jim Wright (D-TX) nearby. Speaker O'Neill states that Rep. Wright should be the chairman of the unnamed committee and names another committee chairman, off camera, to be on the subcommittee because of his experience. O'Neill goes on to name other committee chairmen proposed to be on the new committee, and asks for volunteers; adult Caucasian male photographers in BG. One of the men wants to bring up another issue. Speaker O'Neill makes it clear that the ideas to stimulate the economy should be focused on 1982 only. One of the men, off camera, voices concern about the purpose of the committee, if it is to focus only on 1982. Long term economic factors means you cannot "divorce" 1982 from 1983.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
DO NOT USE Cut wide view of studio, Paul Duke, Jim Lehrer. They discuss the potentialities of the hearings being delayed to wait for more evidence and of deals being brokered to bring evidence directly to the judiciary committee rather than using the Federal court as an intermediary.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
While the investigation has been far reaching and has in my opinion delved into some peripheral areas. I cannot help but recognize that on the major subjects which have been investigated the work of the committee and of our committee staff has been both objective and bipartisan. I would like particularly too observe that we have been assisted by able council to make a general observation that the members of the minority staff, Republican staff have contributed substantially to the overall work product of our inquiry. Despite our partisan differences, I would add that you Mr. Chairman have in general been very fair with the minority. The American public need have no fear that the Republican interests have not been ably and appropriately served by our ranking member Mr. Ed Hutchinson of Michigan. And by my other distinguished naval colleagues who sit on the Republican side in this committee room.
House Subcommittee Shreddergate Investigation
House Public Works and Transportation Committee conducting hearing into shredding of public documents by the Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. Representative Gene Snyder (R-KY) asks Committee Chairman James J. Howard (D-NJ) if he may make some Unanimous Consent Requests, which Howard grants. Rep. Snyder asks that members of the EPA panel who have testified have one week to supplement any answers given in their testimony; Howard grants request. Snyder asks that Committee members have two days to submit additional written questions to the EPA Panel; Howard grants the request.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey) with his gavel pounds his gavel. The room does not come to order, he gavels again. Various shots of the people appearing before the Committee.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Caldwell Butler (R - Virginia).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Caldwell Butler (R - Virginia). Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler. M Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). I thank the gentleman from Virginia. A number of our colleagues have said that the evidence presented today fails to support the impeachable offenses. I know that they do not want to give the erroneous impression that they have been involved today or in any of these recent deliberations in a presentation of evidence. What we have been involved in is debating amendments to these articles of impeachment. The evidentiary presentation took 10 weeks of our time after months of staff work. So we shouldn't give the impression that what we have been presenting is evidence. But what we have seen is the results of all of that labor and having all 38 members of this committee study that evidence for 10 weeks in long sessions day after day, hour after hour, an overwhelming majority of this committee can subscribe to the idea that that evidence supports these articles of impeachment. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman has time remaining. M Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). I yield back the balance of my time.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi whom I overlooked, Mr. Lott. Trent Lott (R Mississippi). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the hour is late and I ll be brief. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Mayne and also speak briefly in support of the motion to strike by Mr. Sandman. I think that he probably did not intend necessarily to offer motions to strike on each amendment, but I think it has been clearly demonstrated here by what has been said that we do have a need to see what the specifics are so that we can debate and agree, if possible, on what will be included in the Articles. Now we ve already pointed out earlier that there was a mistake the first allegation in support of this section. And I have another that I could speak to with regard to the President giving false and misleading statements to Petersen on March 21, but I think enough has been said about this. I think now that the point has been made very clearly by the last few speakers, on both sides of the aisle that we do need to find some way to come up with the particulars. And I urge the committee to go ahead and get on with this vote on the motion to strike and make some determination as to what we can do or some way that we can find to be more particular so that we can debate the real issues, the real facts that have been asking for an opportunity to discuss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). All time has expired, and the question is now on the motion of the gentleman from Alabama. All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye. Chorus of "ayes." Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). All those opposed? [Chorus of "no."] Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The noes have it, the noes appear to have it and Mr. SANDMAN. On this I demand the yeas and nays. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from New Jersey demands a rollcall vote, and the clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of the motion please signify by saying aye, and all those opposed, no.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
The Clerk. Mr. Donohue. Harold D. Donohue (D Massachusetts). No. The Clerk. Mr. Brooks. (No response.) The Clerk. Mr. Kastenmeier. Robert Kastenmeier (D Wisconsin). No. The Clerk. Mr. Edwards. Don Edwards (D - California). No. The Clerk. Mr. Hungate. William Hungate (D-Missouri). No. The Clerk. Mr. Conyers. John Conyers (D Michigan). No. The Clerk. Mr. Eilberg. Joshua Eilberg (D Pennsylvania). No. The Clerk. Mr. Waldie. Jerome Waldie (D California). No. The Clerk. Mr. Flowers. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Present. The Clerk. Mr. Mann. James Mann (D South Carolina). No. The Clerk. Mr. Sarbanes. Paul Sarbanes (D Maryland). No. The Clerk. Mr. Seiberling. John Seiberling (D Ohio). No. The Clerk. Mr. Danielson. George Danielson (D California). No. The Clerk. Mr. Drinan. Robert Drinan (D Massachusetts). No. The Clerk. Mr. Rangel. Charles Rangel (D New York). No. The Clerk. Ms. Jordan. Barbara Jordan (D Texas). No. The Clerk. Mr. Thornton. Ray Thornton (D Arkansas). No. The Clerk. Ms. Holtzman. Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). No. The Clerk. Mr. Owens. Wayne Owens (D - Utah). No. The Clerk. Mr. Mezvinsky. Edward Mezvinsky (D Iowa). No. The Clerk. Mr. Hutchinson. Edward Hutchinson (R Michigan). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. McClory. Robert McClory (R Illinois). No. The Clerk. Mr. Smith. Henry Smith III (R New York). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Sandman. Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Railsback. Tom Railsback (R Illinois). No. The Clerk. Mr. Wiggins. Charles Wiggins (R California). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Dennis. David Dennis (R - Indiana). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Fish. Hamilton Fish Jr. (R New York). No. The Clerk. Mr. Mayne. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Hogan. Lawrence Hogan (R - Maryland). No. The Clerk. Mr. Butler. Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). No. The Clerk. Mr. Cohen. William Cohen (R - Maine). No. The Clerk. Mr. Lott. Trent Lott (R - Mississippi). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Froehlich. Harold Froehlich (R - Wisconsin). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Moorhead. Carlos Moorhead (R California). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Maraziti. Joseph J. Maraziti (R New Jersey). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Latta. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). Aye. The Clerk. Mr. Rodino. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). NO Jack Brooks (D Texas). Mr. Chairman? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Mr. Brooks, Jack Brooks (D-Texas). May I be recorded as no. The Clerk. Mr. Brooks votes no. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). And the clerk will report.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
Clerk counting. The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, 11 members have voted aye, 26 members have voted no. 1 member has voted present. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). And the motion is not agreed to.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Earlier today the Supreme Court announced that the President of the United States is required by law to comply with a certain subpoena duces tecum served upon him in the case United States versus Mitchell and others, by submission of the subpoenaed material to the trial judge for his private examination. And that the judge shall deliver to the prosecutor only those portions which are relevant to the case, returning the balance of the documentation to the President without disclosing its contents. Since this Committee has requested the tapes of the same conversations from the President, and then subpoenaed them, the question arises whether our Committee should proceed further. Until the availability of the additional evidence to the Committee is determined. Many members on this side Mr. Chairman, feel strongly that we should not. We believe the American people will expect us to examine and weigh all available evidence before we decide the momentous and most difficult issue before us. Even now Mr. Chairman, we hope that the Chair will consider whether in view of the events of today the Committee ought not first to determine to postpone consideration of articles of impeachment until the evidence now becomes available through the court, can be available to this Committee.
House Subcommittee Shreddergate Investigation
House Public Works and Transportation Committee conducting hearing on shredding of public documents by the Environmental Protection Agency. Committee Chairman U.S. Representative James J. Howard (D-NJ) thanks EPA Chief of Staff John Daniel for his closing statement, expresses the Committee’s frustration with the situation, criticizing the EPA for only making available the documents it wants the Congress to see. Howard says government institutions cannot withhold evidence in a democracy. Howard says he has been notified that any subsequent statements made by the EPA panel will be statements not made under oath. Howard recesses the hearings until tomorrow at one o’clock when the Committee will hear Albert Brashear (EPA Chief of News and Media Relations), Richard C. Hoffman, Christian Rice, and Rita Lavelle (former EPA Assistant Administrator). Howard recesses Committee. EPA Panel gathers their belongings.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). I recognize for the purposes of general debate only the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Brooks, not to exceed fifteen minutes. Representative Jack Brooks (D - Texas). Thank you Mr. Chairman. This committee has heard evidence of governmental corruption unequalled in the history of the United States. The cover up of crimes, obstructing the prosecution of criminals, surreptitious entries, wire tapping for political purposes, suspension of the civil liberties of every American, tax violations, and personal enrichment at public expense, bribery and blackmail, flagrant misuse of the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS. Eighteen individuals have been convicted or pleaded guilty and six have been indicted for criminal activities directly related to Mr. Nixon s reelection efforts or activities which originated within the White House. These individuals are not obscure government officials but include cabinet officers, personal assistants, and the closest personal advisors to Richard Nixon.
U.S. House Sexual Misconduct Investigation
U.S. House Representative Floyd Spence (R-SC) thanks Chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Rep. Louis Stokes (D-OH) before stating that the actions and recommendation of the committee should provide ample evidence of the Congress’ commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the obligation to deal with improper behavior of its members. Rep. Floyd calls the investigation thorough and impartial both in appearance and fact, and one that was conducted in bipartisan manner. Rep. Stokes then introduces attorney Joseph A. Califano Jr, Special Counsel to the Committee. He states he will not read his entire statement, but stands by it, then proceeds to reference the vote on House Resolution 518.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Henry Smith Statement
Except for the area of the secret bombing in Cambodia at the President s order between March 18, 1969 and May 1, 1970 for I have not yet made up my mind. I should have to vote against impeachment of the President on the state of the evidence which we have seen. This is why I was delighted today when the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that the President must deliver the tapes and memoranda s subpoenaed by special prosecutor Jaworski. I believe that this means that this committee will at last have this material available for inspection. So we can determine once and for all whether the President is guilty of impeachable offenses or whether he is not. I think it is absolutely imperative that this committee make the effort to secure this evidence. I believe that any other course, in the present state of the evidence before this committee would be self defeating and not worthy of the effort which has already gone into this inquiry and investigation. I thank you MR. Chairman for recognizing me and if my understanding of reservation of time as of yesterday afternoon is still valid I reserve the balance of my time. Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). I would like to advise the gentlemen from Massachusetts the policy committee was enunciated yesterday. That there is no reservation afforded to any member.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. Vote to adopt Article one, Watergate Coverup
Clerk counting tally. The Clerk. Mr. Chairman? Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The clerk will report. The Clerk. Twenty-seven members have voted aye, 11 members voted no. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). And pursuant to the resolution, article I, of that resolution is adopted and will be reported to the House and the committee will recess until 10:30 Monday next, Monday morning.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.20] [LEHRER notes that Chairman Rodino has taken his seat to reconvene the hearing] [cut to committee room, shot showing center of bench] [DUKE observes that Chairman Rodino has left the room again] [cuts to Caroline LEWIS outside room, interviewing Rep. Trent LOTT, wearing a dorky haircut.] LEWIS asks LOTT what went down in the meeting with Gerald FORD that day. LOTT explains that the meeting is not a partisan one, or a meeting set up by FORD to try to persuade congressmen away from impeaching, but a regular meeting of a social group, to which FORD often attends. LEWIS doesn't buy the story, and rephrases the question, LOTT rephrases his answer Cutting to the chase, LEWIS asks LOTT which way he is leaning on the impeachment question. LOTT says he's trying to keep a low profile and not make premature statements, and declines to comment, saying his vote will be his statement. In response to the next question, LOTT hedges on the question of a delay. but says that eventually the evidence in question will have to be heard [cut back to studio, LEHRER and DUKE seated] LEHRER iintroduces the next speaker, Rep. Charles Sandman (R-NJ) as an ardent supporter of NIXON. DUKE comments that many of the members must not have heard that the BOMB THREAT has been called off. [cut back to studio] DUKE raises the issue of Vice-President FORD, whether he is on the case on NIXON'S behalf, and starts to discuss a phone call made by FORD, [cut to committee room, as RODINO gavels meeting to order. The microphones are picking up several civil but adversarial conversations among the members] [voiceover LEHRER talks about RODINO in order to fill time before the first speech] Says that RODINO has not quite joined the ranks of Watergate celebrities like Sam ERVIN, but LEHRER mentions that RODINO is an amateur poet and a lover of Italian opera. [00.41.44--GAVEL] LEHRER v.o. notes there are still some empty chairs on the bench
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Charles Wiggins (R California). My problem, Mr. Chairman, is that I have no quarrel with abusive conduct when that conduct does in and of itself violate the law. If that be the case, then we should impeach because of those violations. I do have serious concern as to whether or not conduct which does not violate the law, but which may be characterized by this committee or the Congress as abusive falls within the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors. It s apparent from the proposed Article that its author believes that abusive conduct is impeachable.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey), The gentleman is advised that while he has fifteen minutes remaining the rule has, while he has fifteen minutes the chair has to state that according to the proceeding and according to the policy we have adopted that no time would be reserved. And therefore I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois Mr. McClory for fifteen minutes for purposes of debate only. Representative Robert McClory (R - Illinois), Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would judge from the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts that indeed he has come to a resolution of the momentous question that s before us. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman let me express the view that this impeachment inquiry undertaken by our House judiciary committee has been both historic and honorable. Impeachment is of course a political process. Both political in the sense of governmental action, and political in that it involves partisan interest and views.