Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Earlier this year the President promised full cooperation with our inquiry, consistent with his responsibilities to the Office of the Presidency. But despite that pledge the only materials which we received have come from the grand jury and from the special prosecutor, except some that have accidentally fallen into our hands. On May 30, we sent the President a letter advising him what the consequences were of his failure to comply. We said In meeting our constitutional responsibility the committee members will be free to consider whether your refusals in and of themselves might be A ground for impeachment. The committee has taken this stand because of the President s noncompliance with the committee s subpoenas. A defiance of the powers of the Congress and impairing our ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In this sense, it seems to me, the President s failure to comply threatens the integrity of our impeachment process itself. His action is a direct challenge to the Congress in the exercise of its solemn Constitutional duty.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Henry Smith Statement
I take this opportunity Mr. Chairman of expressing my respect for the other thirty seven lawyer members of this committee, who have bore the grueling work of this inquiry for months. And I take this opportunity also to express my respect for and thanks to the members of the impeachment inquiry staff and the regular staff members of this committee for the dedicated professional jobs each and every one of them has done during this historic project. The massive amount of information, documents, testimony and legal precedence they have gathered, assimilated, organized and presented with skill during these months of this inquiry are almost beyond belief.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Henry Smith Statement
Mr. St Claire, the President s lawyer, has suggested a standard of clear and convincing proof and Mr. Doer the chief council of this committee s impeachment inquiry staff appeared to endorse that standard. Except for one area, I am not satisfied that there has been produced before this committee clear and convincing proof of the President s personal involvement in actions which would be impeachable. The testimony is generally not solid and clear. It raises inference after inference. Many negative ones against the President and some positive ones in his favor. But there is precious little solid hard evidence of his personal impeachable misdeeds.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
Walter Flowers (D - Alabama). Now, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to vote on this article of impeachment but before so doing, I want to address my colleagues on this committee and particularly my colleagues on this side of the aisle, my Democratic colleagues. Make no mistake, my friends, one of the effects of our action here will be to reduce the influence and power of the Office of the President. To what extent will be determined only by future action in the House or in the Senate. We have heard some eloquent statements and I honestly believe there has been more sincere thought and soul searching put forward on this terrible proposition than on anything else have ever been connected with in any way. This is an extremely difficult vote for most of us but let s face it, it s less difficult for or some than others. Some have had to reflect on whether they could or would vote to impeach a President of their own party, a Democrat, if you will, if the facts justified it. I hope they never have that chance. I hope not one of us ever has to look into another matter of impeachment again. But I suggest to my friends here that they don t have to wait 107 years to vote on the next impeachment to prove responsibility. They will undoubtedly have many instances as time goes on to prove their capacity to make those hard decisions that will have to come before this Congress or the next, or the next.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.44.33] [LEHRER/DUKE in studio] DUKE says this is the first ARTICLE of IMPEACHMENT voted against a President by a Congressional Committee in more than a century. Vote was 27-11, a "decisive margin" ensuring that a resolution will be sent to the HOUSE FLOOR, where a majority vote would send it to the Senate, where a two-thirds vote would convict and remove from office. DUKE summarizes the gist of the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE article as lying, encouraging others to lie, withholding iformation, interfering with investigations, payment of hush money, attempt to misuse the CIA to obstruct the FBI, improperly giving grand jury information to witnesses to influence testimony, False public statements to deceive public, and leading convicted conspirators to believe they would get favorable treatment for silence. DUKE says to LEHRER that he found the vote to be a "profoundly moving experience". LEHRER says that he will leave alone the question of the validity of the article and its prospects for successful impeachment and conviction in Senate, but he is struck by the different sounds of the voices in the vote, the Midwester twangs, high voices, deep voices, etc. Says he doesn't want to sound corny, but he gets a feeling for the diversity and size of the United States from the voices of the committee members DUKE concurs, citing the unanimity of the DEMOCRATS and the six REPUBLICANS who voted for the ARTICLE as evidence of a strong coalition for impeachment. LEHRER says that beyond the vote count, he was more impressed by the fact that geographic divisions didn't seem to affect the vote, nor did age, conservative beliefs, legal experience, were not prejudicing factors in the vote DUKE says it proves that, as some people have argued all along, that the factors of public opinion and NIXON'S image in the media did not appear to influence the vote, as most members seemed to vote according to their beliefs of the legal issues in question. [DUKE addresses LEWIS, shown on the projection screen in studio] LEWIS says the feeling from the CAPITOL among observers was that it was difficult to believe that the vote was taking place "to your President, under your Constitution". Stillness in the room as the vote took place, realization that this was a historical event with potential long-reaching effects. LEWIS says that the ARTICLE must first go to the HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE to be approved for the FLOOR VOTE, then between 60 and 100 hours of debate on the FLOOR, which could take about ten days of hearings. [LEHRER standing at "scoreboard"] says the vote has just been seen, so there's no need to go into much detail, but reviews the composition of the Pro-IMPEACHMENT side, 21 DEMOCRATS, with the possible exception of Rep. FLOWERS, were not in question until the end [closeup of board as LEHRER points to photos of REPUBLICAN members who voted for the ARTICLE] LEHRER names Reps BUTLER, HOGAN, COHEN, RAILSBACK, FISH, names Rep. FROEHLICH as a surprise vote for the ARTICLE, in spite of FROEHLICH'S opposition to the article in many speeches. Mentions that the REPUBLICANS are very unified on the PRO-NIXON side, with the exception of Rep. McCLORY, who has said he will introduce an article of his own on the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS issue., and Rep. SMITH, who has indicated that he would vote for an article based on the BOMBING OF CAMBODIA, which is not likely to be proposed. [00.53.48]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Charles Wiggins (R California). My problem is this, just what is abusive conduct? What does it mean? I suggest that that is an empty phrase having meaning only in terms of what we pour into it. It must reflect our subjective views of impropriety as distinguished from the objective views enunciated by society in its laws. It ought to be clear to this committee, a committee of lawyers, that such a phrase as "abuse of power" is sufficiently imprecise to meet the test required by the Fifth Amendment. In my view, Mr. Chairman, the adoption of such an article would imbed in our Constitutional history for the first time, for the very first time, the principle that a President may be impeached because of the view of Congress that he has abused those powers, although he may have acted in violation of no law. If that is true, then we truly are ratifying the statement attributed to the now Vice President that impeachment means exactly what the Congress says it means at a given moment. By declaring punishable conduct which was not, illegal when done, this Congress is raising the issue of a bill of attainder, contrary to the express terms of the Constitution. The argument of ex post facto legislation is now before us. If we are to (tape ends)
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Barbara Jordan Statement
Representative Barbara Jordan ( D Texas ) This morning in a discussion of the evidence we were told that evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of CIA by the President is thin. We are told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June 23, 1972. The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June 17. What the President, did know on June 23 was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy administration. We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this Committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The Committee subpoena is outstanding and if the President wants to supply that material, the Committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for 8 hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Senator ERVIN. Senator Talmadge..... Senator Herman TALMADGE (D-GA). Mr. Kehrli, who determined which people in the White House organization went to the Committee to Re-elect the President? Mr. KEHRLI. I don't think there was one person who determined it, I think it probably was a joint decision that was made based on the needs of the White House and of the Committee. If the committee had a need and there was someone at the White House whom we, who was not in a position that, or was in a position rather that they could leave, and they felt that they could do a better job at the committee, then they were able to go to the committee. I don't think there was any one being that said you will go. Senator TALMADGE. If there were more than one person that made the determination, who were they? Mr. KEHRLI. I would say that, and I don't know for a fact, but I would image that it was probably made based on discussions between the head of the Campaign committee and Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, other people on the staff. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell and who else? Mr. KEHRLI. Mr. Ehrlichman. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Ehrlichman. Now did you see any memorandums from the Committee to Re-elect the President circulating in the White House? Mr. KEHRLI. The only one that I saw, that I can remember is one that came over with the committees list of telephone numbers on it, we didn't circulate it. Senator TALMADGE. That was the only one? Mr. KEHRLI. Yes. Senator TALMADGE. Did you ever see or have knowledge of any communication either written or oral between Mr. Mitchell and the White House staff, prior to the time he resigned as Attorney General, concerning campaign activities? Mr. KEHRLI. No. Senator TALMADGE. Did you see any after July the first, the date Mr. Mitchell resigned as Campaign chairman? Mr. KEHRLI. Not that I remember. Senator TALMADGE. Did you ever receive funds from the committee or the finance committee for campaign activities? Mr. KEHRLI. No. Senator TALMADGE. On whatever. Mr. KEHRLI. Well, the only I, my personally, the one point, I was the contact on the White House staff for payment of bills that were incurred by the President during the campaign. We went out of our way to a great degree to make that any travel, any events, anything whatsoever that the President did that could be in the least way be construed as political, were paid for by committee funds rather than by appropriated funds. Senator TALMADGE. The only funds you received then were for the Presidents political activities and solely for that purpose. Mr. KEHRLI. That's right. Senator TALMADGE. And they were dispensed for that purpose. Mr. KEHRLI. That's right. Senator TALMADGE. Were there ever any regular meetings held between the White House staff and the committee officials? Mr. KEHRLI. Not that I know of. Senator TALMADGE. None at all? Mr. KEHRLI. No, not that I know of, but as I said I was not in the mainstream of communication. Senator TALMADGE. Your knowledge, never at any time and under no conditions. Mr. KEHRLI. That's right. Senator TALMADGE. That's your answer? Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you sir, no further questions.
House Hears Petrillo Testimony
Dull and dark in contrast and imagery Appearing before House Labor Committee, James Petrillo defends his control of union musicians. When asked if he doubted president's opinions on the HCL, Petrillo says Mr. Truman is potential member of the union. 'He plays the piano.'
House Subcommittee Shreddergate Investigation
Committee Chairman U.S. Representative James J. Howard (D-NJ) questioning EPA Chief of Staff John Daniel at House Public Works and Transportation Committee hearing on shredding of public documents carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency, asks Daniel if it's true that HPW and Transportation Committee investigators were in the room with the shredders. Daniel says he cannot answer because the room in question is under supervision of G. Lucero. Howard asks Daniel if any one person is responsible for what is destroyed on computers or shredding machines; Daniel no. Howard asks Daniel if he really does not know what has been shredded; Daniel again refers the Committee to G. Lucero, EPA Director of Waste Programs Enforcement. Rep. Gene Snyder (R-KY) requests that G. Lucero be sworn in to give testimony; Howard agrees.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Edward Hutchinson
It was expectation, my hope, I would even say expectation, in the beginning that the President and the committee could through negotiation and discussion on the part of counsel work out a way in which the President could voluntarily, would voluntarily make available necessary material and I joined with the chairman of the committee in letters to the President making such requests.
Church Committee Hearings - Tom Charles Huston
Church Committee Hearings - Senate Hearings on Intelligence Activities - Tom Charles Huston, Nixon White House Aid - Houston Plan Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Church Committee Hearings - Tom Charles Huston
Church Committee Hearings - Senate Hearings on Intelligence Activities - Tom Charles Huston, Nixon White House Aid - Houston Plan Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Church Committee Hearings - Tom Charles Huston
Church Committee Hearings - Senate Hearings on Intelligence Activities - Tom Charles Huston, Nixon White House Aid - Houston Plan Senate Caucus Room, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Don Edwards (D - California). It is a problem, and certain selected members and the members who were chosen to be told about the bombing in Cambodia were very carefully selected. They were selected so that they would keep quiet about it, apparently. And in the Senate hearings, Senator Symington said I have been on this committee, this is my 21st year. I knew nothing whatsoever about the secret bombing in Cambodia. I put up money, and apparently nobody knew about this except maybe two or three Senators at the most. If we are asked to appropriate money for one thing, and it is used for another, regardless of its effectiveness, that puts us in a pretty difficult position. I think personally it is unconstitutional because you dropped over 100,000 tons on this country and I had no idea that you dropped even one. Nor did the other members of this committee, except those chosen few, all of whom, I might add, all supported the war, which I did once and later changed in 1967."
Waco House Hearing on Toxins
Footage of House Committee Hearing on a toxin used in the Branch Davidian raid in Waco, Texas - according to WETA this tape was supposed to be Part 3 of the Whitewater Hearings for July 26, 1995.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Now, its pure speculation that by going to the Court that we would be able to get some kind of remedy. As a matter of fact, this committee has taken the position definitely and over and over again we did not want to subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. In the arguments which just took place in the case of US against Nixon, the question was asked of Mr. St. Clair and he responded quite correctly that the Congress had the sole jurisdiction of the subject of impeachment and this was not a justiciable subject before the Supreme Court. The Courts are excluded from our consideration of this. The House has the sole power of impeachment and we have expressed that.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.58] NPACT guest correspondent Steven HESS of BROOKINGS INSTITUTE discussing the charges against President NIXON in the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. HESS says it's logical to think that a person in NIXON'S position, upon finding out that some people had broken into the opponent's political headquarters on his behalf might have been "sucked in" to the coverup to protect his election chances. As for the ABUSE OF POWER charge, it constitutes conscious, planned, intentional actions rather than poor judgement in reaction to a crisis. This makes them much more severe in HESS's opinion. Serious issues of democratic government and CIVIL LIBERTIES are in question with the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. MURPHY agrees that the second charge is much more severe. Says that the ABUSE OF POWER charge is sort of a new animal, legally speaking. The charge of breaching trust and violating the OATH OF OFFICE is much closer to a civil charge than a criminal one. MURPHY says that this quesiton has never been raised before an American legislative body Paul DUKE comments that it's been a long day, summarizes the end result of the day, contends that many speeches were very moving, single out Rep. MANN (D-SC), Rep. FLOWERS (D-Ala.), says the point is made that Southern votes will scatter across the spectrum on the issue of IMPEACHMENT. It underscores that PRO-IMPEACHMENT forces are firmly in command in the committee, it may be beginning to gain strength in the HOUSE at large, and speculates that it appears that there may be pressure from REPUBLICAN lawmakers for NIXON to RESIGN. LEHRER thanks MURPHY and HESS. Previews the next day's hearings, debate on other ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, relating to the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, the BOMBING OF CAMBODIA, and PERSONAL INCOME TAX FRAUD. Says that videotape coverage of the entire day's hearings is coming up [01.08.33--PBS network ID] [Promos for PBS programming] [01.11.38--NPACT logo--dissolve full screen color photo of RICHARD NIXON, very grim expression--Jim LEHRER voiceover] LEHRER describes the final vote on the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. [committee room, camera pans to each member in turn as roll is called for vote] [01.14.56]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Henry Smith Statement
To determine whether there are valid grounds for impeachment has been the duty if this committee. We have a resolution and articles of impeachment before us. And we have for months examined mountains of evidence and listened to witnesses. There is here no charge of treason. So the question is do we think the President is guilty of the charges of bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors? The President says he is not. What measure or standard of evidence is necessary for this committee to say he is or may be guilty? I think it is something more than probable cause which is sufficient for indictment by a grand jury and something less than satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt which is required for conviction of a crime.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen. William Cohen (R - Maine). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't realize that I was seeking recognition, but I am glad to accept it. I would certainly like to follow up on a point just made by the gentleman from California, Mr. Edwards. In terms of what the duty of the President of the United States is and what the nature of these proceedings are because we have heard this time after time all day long placed in the category of a criminal proceeding. It seems to me last evening yesterday, we talked many hours very eloquently, very eloquently about the sacred obligation of our positions, the sacred trust that each and every one of us hold. And the sacred trust that the President holds. And whenever we talk about that position of trust, I am always reminded about the magnificent words of Justice Cardozo when he talked about the duty of a trustee, the duty of fiduciaries being something higher than the morals of a marketplace, the punctilio of an honor most sensitive. And that is the standard we should be looking at here, the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive. So, it seems to me rather incredulous when I hear some of my colleagues suggest that only if the President raises his hand and swears on the Bible before a court should he be held to a standard of misleading investigators or the American public, only then after he has sworn on the Bible under oath before a formal proceeding. I think we demand much, much more than that from our elected leaders. I yield back the balance of my time.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Vote on article II of the Donohue resolution
Clerk counts the votes. The Clerk. Mr. Chairman? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The clerk will report. The Clerk. Twenty-eight members have voted aye, 10 members have voted no. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). And the resolution is agreed to and pursuant to the procedural resolution, Article II as amended, is adopted and will be reported to the House. The committee will recess until 10:30 tomorrow morning.
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) calls the situation frustrating since Congress has been denied papers which prevent them from fulfilling its obligation to the people. Howard says the only way out would be for Congress to withhold funding for Superfund clean-up sites, admitting that this would be a Catch 22 for Congress. Howard begins to thank the EPA panel for their testimony.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Senator SAM ERVIN (D - NC) Can you tell me, I think it was stated but I did not quite get it, how many men came from the White House staff to the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. ODLE. Initially, sir? Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. ODLE. Initially, in May of 1971 there would have been Mr. Magruder, Mr. Flemming, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Porter, myself and two secretaries. Senator ERVIN. Who subsequently came from the White House staff to the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. ODLE. Well, sir, a number of the people we see on those charts did. I could point, them out, for you if..... Senator ERVIN. Suppose you go to the chart, and identify the ones who subsequently came from the White House staff to the Committee To Re-Elect the President. [pan Odle walks to chart] Mr. ODLE. I probably should use this chart, because it's the larger one. Mr. MacGregar had been council. Mr. DASH. Identify that, chart, for us. [close-ups of charts] Mr. ODLE. I am sorry, this is the July 1 chart. Is that, the chart you would like me to review Senator, the second chart?* Senator ERVIN. Yes, Mr. ODLE. Mr. MacGregor was counsel to the, President for Congressional Relations, Mr. Flemming, I mentioned before, Mr. LaRue had been a consultant, I had been at the White House, Mr. Foust had been at the scheduling office at the White House, Mr. Timmons was still there, he never was a member of the staff but just exercised sort of supervisory responsibility for the convention. Mr. Shumway had come from the White House as we said earlier, Mr. Porter had come from the White House. Mr. Malek had come from the White House, Mr. Chotiner had come from the White House. Senator ERVIN. Where does his name appear on the chart? Mr. ODLE. Pardon? Senator ERVIN. The last person. Mr. ODLE. Mr. Chotiner, he was director of ballot security. Mr. Kaupinen, one of our political regional directors came from the white house. I believe that is all. Senator ERVIN. Is it correct to say that most of the people in positions of authority in the committee to re-elect the president came originally from the white house staff? Mr. ODLE. Well the campaign director and his two deputies certainly did. Most of the people from the finance committee did not. And I would say that uh, among those divisions which reported to the two depute campaign directors that it's about evenly split. Senator ERVIN. Course the head of the committee was a former attorney general John Mitchell who occupied the office of Attorney General about March of 1972, did he not? Mr. ODLE. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. Then he became the head of the chairman of the committee to re-elect the president. Mr. ODLE. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. Do you know who actually assumed the supervision of the committee? Mr. ODLE. He I believe resigned on as attorney general on February and came to the committee in March. But he took a long vacation in Florida, and I don't believe is was until around April that he really got directly involved in the campaign. Senator ERVIN. Did he have anything to do with the committee prior to the time of his resignation as attorney general? Mr. ODLE. Major decision memorandums were sent to him for decision. Senator ERVIN. The decision memorandums were subject to his approval? Mr. ODLE. Yes. Senator ERVIN. Before he left attorney generals office? Mr. ODLE. Yes.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
Paul Duke calls the hearings a "moment of truth" for 38 committee members. Having heard evidence, time to decide, expected to recommend impeachment, possibly by a large margin, some members have begun to draft articles of impeachment. Cut to shot of the hearing room with lots of press. Paul Duke says that the impeachment articles are expected to encompass at least: 1: Obstruction of Justice; 2: Abuse of Executive Authority; and 3: Contempt of Congress by failing to hand over evidence.