Advanced Search
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Arab-Israeli Conflict
U.S. Secretary of State, George Shultz speaks to committee members about Arab-Israeli conflict which concerns, not only regional countries, but countries around the world, and the U.S. has a responsibility to the region, and is the only nation with the credibility, and therefore, the ability, to provide a crucial link to all sides; Richard Fairbanks, a special representative for the Middle East seated beside Secretary Shultz. U.S. President Ronald Reagan's plan is based on a "detailed, intensive review of the problem by the President and his advisors". This plan has been discussed with various government officials with knowledge in this field. The conclusions are that it is time to address the underlying Palestinian issues, and success depends upon broadening participation in negotiations. Shultz states that the United States will remain committed to the principles of the Camp David Accords and to the security of Israel. Shultz notes that the Camp David Accord is unique in that it has been successful in achieving peace between Israel, and still flexible to expansion with other nations and people; a view shared by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
11.52 Charles Rangel (D New York). Mr. Chairman? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The, gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, is recognized for 5 minutes. Charles Rangel (D New York). I yield one second to the good Father Robert Drinan (D - Massachusetts). Just to complete this colloquy, I think it should be noted that Petersen himself speaks this way. And I quote from the hearings of his conversation to this committee, I think it is fair to say that the first concession was made, concerning Mr. Stans. And that the decision was made by Mr. Kleindienst after a call to me from Mr. Ehrlichman which got rather heated." Thank you for yielding. Charles Rangel (D New York). Thank you, Father.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Now the awesome constitutional duty of each member of this committee is to make an impartial determination as to whether or not the evidence before us warrants a reasonable judgment that Richard M Nixon, as President, has seriously, gravely, purposefully and persistently abused and misused the power entrusted in him by the People of these United States.
U.S. House Subcommittee : Shreddergate Part 2
U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works hearing in progress; Representative Ronald Packard (R-CA) asks EPA legal counsel Robert M. Perry if the President had not sent his memorandum exercising executive privilege, would he have withheld documents from the committee? Perry states that they would not have withheld. The President's memo is the only basis for withholding documents from the committee.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The committee will come to order. Before the Chair calls upon the clerk in pursuance of the procedural resolution to read Article II, the Chair would like to make several announcements. First, there has been distributed the substitute which is going to be offered by the gentleman from Missouri and I have been advised that there is a typographical error which appears on page 2 in paragraph 3. And the word "lawfully" should be "unlawfully." And would the members please correct their copies. William Hungate (D Missouri). There is a second correction. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). If the members will correct their copies accordingly, but the clerk will, when the substitute is being read, please insure that that is noted. The Chair would also state that there are other technical changes which will be called to the attention of the committee. And as soon as the clerk has them before him and in typewritten form, they will be called to the attention of the members and properly distributed. I would like to state that there are going to be several roll call votes on the Floor of the House and it is the intention of the Chair that following the first quorum call or roll call vote that there will be a recess for a period of time which will be stated at the time that the recess will be declared. And it is the hope that we may proceed after that and in an effort to resolve this problem.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). I recognize the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier for purposes of general debate only not to exceed fifteen minutes. Representative Robert Kastenmeier (D - Wisconsin). Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the last, virtually eight months been engaged in this quest for facts, evidence and for truth and up till now the American people now have been very patient. And Mr. Chairman I want to commend you for stating tonight that we will proceed inexorably to a conclusion of these deliberations. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court s decision for I do not believe the Supreme Court decision will have or should have any immediate effect on our committee s deliberations. It would have been helpful to have this evidence before but we do not; we are prepared to accept the moment of truth and hopefully Mr. Chairman perhaps we can conclude this very week.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
Walter Flowers (D - Alabama). Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, my colleagues on this committee. In approaching this grave matter I said long ago that I will be guided by the facts and the Constitution and my own conscience. I honestly believe that I have been faithful to that commitment. I know for certain that I have nothing to gain politically or otherwise from what I must do here, but after weeks of searching through the fact and agonizing over the Constitutional requirements, it is clear to me what I must do. And I emphasize that this is my own personal decision, what I must do. I don t presume to influence any other person and I recognize that there can be differences on this grave matter.
Notification of Election to Standing Committee
U.S. House Representative John Murtha Jr. (D-PA) explains that the House Caucus has recommended to the full House that Rep. Sala Burton (D-CA) be placed on the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. He explains the changes in numbers and ratios between Republicans and Democrats with regards to the Committee on Education and Labor. Rep. John Erlenborn (R-IL) asks for Rep. Murtha Jr. to yield for a question: “I would like to ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, what consultation or notice was given to the minority concerning this proposed change?” Rep. Murtha Jr. responds: “As I understand it, the committee met the evening before it reported it out at 5:30, but, according to my understanding, in order to accommodate the Republican side, we added a member on both sides, which actually reduces the ratio of Democrats to Republicans.”
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Ray Thorton (D - Arkansas).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Ray Thorton (D - Arkansas). Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton, is recognized for 3 minutes and 30 seconds. Ray Thorton (D Arkansas). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that many of the views which have been expressed in opposition to the adoption of this article are similar to views which I ve expressed in urging that it should more properly be considered for inclusion in one of the general articles previously adopted. I would like in the short time that I have to refer specifically to some questions that have been asked during the debate. The gentleman from New Jersey referred to the words "direct evidence used in my perfecting amendment. For the purpose of the record, by those words I intended to refer to that evidence within the President's custody and control which is most direct, the original documents and tapes to which our subpoenas were addressed. Next, when I use the phrase that these papers and things were deemed necessary to resolve questions, I certainly did not intend to suggest that the committee lacked clear and convincing evidence upon which to base its decision, but rather that in resolving the question before us, our committee was seeking to obtain all of the evidence relating to the Presidential direction, knowledge, or approval of, actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. By its votes, this committee has already determined that there is clear and convincing evidence which has compelled a large majority, of our committee to reach its conclusion with respect to Articles I and II. But we are not charged with the simple duty of proceeding until we find sufficient evidence upon which to base our conclusions. We were charged with the duty of investigating fully and completely all necessary evidence and drawing our conclusions from that material. And our committee was impeded in its inquiry by the refusal to comply with our subpoenas. Now, we ve already dealt with the question as to whether the courts should be called upon to determine the extent of our subpoena authority in an impeachment proceeding and I think we correctly determined that the duty to enforce our subpoenas rested upon the Congress and not upon the courts. Mr. Chairman, there must be a sufficient nexus between the evidence subpoenaed and the independently impeachable offense for refusal to comply with the subpoena to be an impeachable offense. I believe that the evidence gathered by the committee establishes that at between the obstruction of justice and the refusal to comply with our lawful subpoenas. For the reasons I have outlined, I m prepared to vote for the article offered by the gentleman from Illinois as it is now connected by amendment to substantive offenses charged in Articles I and II. However, I would like to state that I consider the matter to be more appropriately included in the body of a substantive Article and that I will therefore, support the efforts of the gentleman from Maine to include it there on the House floor.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Mr. Chairman it is important to draw clear distinction between preserving the man and preserving the office. Mr. Nixon has consistently argued that this fight against the committee and the courts is designed to save the office. In fact I would argue this fight is designed to save one person, Mr. Nixon. Impeachment is the one way in which the American people can say to themselves that they care enough their institutions, their own freedom and their own claim to self government, their own national honor to purge from the Presidency anyone who s dishonored that office. This power of impeachment is not intended to obstruct or weaken the office of the Presidency. It is intended as a final remedy against executive excess, not to protect the Congress against the President, but the people against the abuse of power of a chief executive. And it is the obligation of the Congress to defend democratic society against a chief executive who might be corrupt.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Henry Smith III (R -New York).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Henry Smith III (R -New York). Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Smith. Henry Smith III (R New York). I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have spent all of today in the debate of this Article II which says that the President of the United States contrary to his trust as President and subversive of Constitutional Government, repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the Constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice, and the conduct of lawful inquiries, for contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch of the Government. And I think probably everything has been said about this that could be said. From the comments that have been made I would say that a majority of this committee believe that we will support this Article and believes what it says and there are, some who don't feel that the evidence as such that has been produced in this long proceeding that this committee has been involved in makes out a clear and convincing case that this is so, the President of the United States himself. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.18.00-plans to deal with the ERVIN COMMITTEE] Haldeman and Ehrlichman were disappointed that the efforts to influence the Senate resolution creating the. Select Committee had failed. as well as the White House efforts to recommend members to the Select Committee. Thus, the focus of the discussion was how to deal with the committee henceforth. It was during the, morning meeting In Ehrlichman's office at San Clemente that there was a discussion of the members of this committee. Ehrlichman said that the, White House could not look for any help from the, Democrats. I recall that, when we were discussing the Democratic members of this committee and I read from the. Congressional Directory the data on Senator Inouye, Ehrlichman said that his name, is pronounced "Ain't-no-way" and then said. indeed, there ain't-no-way he's going to give us anything but problems, [Laughter.] [Sen. INOUYE chuckles] The Republican members of this 'committee -were also discussed in that morning meeting. It was Ehrlichman -who was doing most of the assessing, but occasionally Haldeman would add a comment [00.09.10] Senator Weicker was an independent, -who could give the White House problems. Senator Gurney 'Would help the White House and would not have to be, told to do so. [GURNEY sitting placidly, appears not to be affected by the fact that the White House considered him a complete stooge.] I recall that Ehrlichman said that Senator Gurney needs the White House because former Congressman Cramer may take him on in his next primary. Senator Gurney was considered a Sure friend and protector of the' President's interest. Senator Baker was an unknown, and neither Haldeman nor Ehrlichman knew which way he might go. [00.19.34-BAKER gets a chuckle out of this] [Laughter.] Senator ERVIN. The audience will please refrain from demonstrating in respect to the testimony. Mr. DEAN. I might add that in a subsequent discussion I had -with the President he also reached a -similar conclusion regarding the, Republicans. He thought that Senator Baker might help, but. he, was not sure. He was confident, however, that Senator Gurney would protect the White House and would do so out of political instinct and not have to be persuaded to do so. The long and short of this morning discussion was that, the White House. had one friend--Senator Gurney--and the possibility of wooing and winning another. [00.20.19] Later, after the meeting had reconvened at La Costa. the discussion turned to a, general approach about how to deal with the Select Committee. Ehrlichman suggested that It should be publicly analogized to the ITT hearings--- that is, the hearings were a waste of time to the, Senate, they were, very partisan, and ultimately repudiated by the Senate. 'when Kleindienst was confirmed. [00.20.45] After a general discussion Ehrlichman and Haldeman concluded that the theory for dealing with this committee, should be as follows: The White House will take a public posture, of full cooperation, but privately will attempt to restrain the investigation and make it as difficult *as possible, to get information and witnesses. A behind-the-scenes media effort would be made to make the Senate inquiry appear very partisan. The ultimate goal would be to discredit the hearings and reduce their impact by attempting to show that the. Democrats have, engaged in the same type of activities. [00.21.18-allegation of entreaties by the White House to influence Sen. BAKER-Sen. BAKER seen listening to DEAN'S statement] During the meeting on Saturday afternoon of February 11, Ehrlichman instructed me to call Wally Johnson and tell Johnson that that at, he was to go visit -with Senator Baker during the congressional recess to find out, how Senator Baker planned to operate--that is, 'was he going to be, friend or foe--and to ask Senator Baker how the White. House could aid him, particularly regarding the selection of the minority counsel. Prior to making the call, I asked Ehrlichman if I should arrange to give Johnson some., kind of briefing before, he went to see Senator Baker, so that he -would know fact from fiction when talking with the. Senator about, the Watergate. Ehrlichman said that was not necessary. I called Mr. Johnson while, the discussions proceeded and passed the message to him. He said he would proceed immediately. At some point in the meeting, Ehrlichman raised the, question of whether or not the Select Committee was going to be able to obtain the, grand jury minutes and other investigative records from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, I said I did not know and then a discussion of possible legal options ensued. No one really knew what the law might be, regarding this matter, but Ehrlichman stated that the Attorney General will have to be told that. the Justice Department should resist turning over such records. and that I should get word back to the attorneys for the defendants that they should fight the release of these investigative records to the Senate on the grounds that it would have an adverse impact on their appeals. [00.22.51-in the days before he was a candidate himself...] When discussing how to handle the press coverage of the, Senate hearings, Haldeman suggested that Pat Buchanan be used as a watchdog of the press. Mr. Buchanan could prepare speeches on the biased press coverage. He could write op-ed articles and actually attend the hearings and be. a White House spokesman to take the pressure off Ziegler's daily briefings It was decided by Haldeman and Ehrlichman Mr. Baroody's White House attack group--a group of media-oriented White House aides who meet virtually every morning to determine how to counter adverse news or push White House, programs-should not be involved. There was also discussion during the La Costa meeting of the role the reelection committee would play during the Senate, hearings. It was decided that that the reelection committee should have a new titular head. Several were suggested and rejected and the matter was left unresolved However, it was decided that the reelection committee should beef up its legal and public relations staffs Paul O'Brien and Ken Parkinson should be given any additional legal staff they wished, as they would be responsible for handling witnesses from the committee who would be called to the Hill to testify. Mr. Van Shumway, who had been handling press relations for the reelection committee, would be asked to remain on and provided with any additional staff he needed. Mr. Moore would have general oversight of Mr. Shumway's operation. [00.24.20]
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974
[00.05.46] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has 1 minute 5 seconds remaining which will be yielded to Mr. Latta at the appropriate time. I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jordan, for the purpose of general debate, not to exceed a period of 15 minutes.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Mr. Chairman, in my view Richard Nixon has shown disrespect for the citizens of this nation and has violated their Constitution and their laws, engaging in official wrong doing. Society through its elected representatives condemns this conduct. Otherwise, we will cease to have a government of laws. I will therefore vote for impeachment of Richard M Nixon and I do this with the belief that the House of Representatives will agree in that his trial in the Senate will result in his conviction and removal from office. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973
[00.19.15-WEICKER reads from a taped conversation between EHRLICHMAN and KLEINDIENST that revolves around efforts to influence and discredit Sen. WEICKER and the ERVIN COMMITTEE] EHRLICHMAN. I see. You don't think that this is evidence of alienation to the point of no return, then. KLEINDIENST. -NO. You mean by Lowell? EHRLICHMAN. Yeah. KLEINDIENST. No, I don't. He's pretty disenchanted with the whole concept of it. ***Connecticut politician--- EHRLICHMAN. Well, use your own judgement on it, Richard. KLEINDIENST. [continuing]. On TV I guess seven or eight times this Sunday when I finished my testimony before my Appropriations Committee all three networks I referred to the letter Hunt sent to Sirica and I am also emphasized and repeatedly Said (a) the President wants this investigated, let the chips fall where they will but secondly, that if anybody has any information we not only want it, we expect to get it so we can investigate it and if necessary, indict other people and that anybody who withholds information like that is obstructing justice, But I did not refer to Weicker and my judgement right now is not to do so. EHRLICHMAN. OK, KLEINDIENST. If he get gets to that point, the hell with him. EHRLICHMAN. Well, our uneducated and uninformed impression was that he was to develop an attack line here on the White House or the President. KLEINDIENST. If that *** if we would conclude that that is what he's up to that he is completely alienated then I say we've got to take him on, EHRLICHMAN. Well, keep track of that and you'll be talking to Baker and you get a feel of it. [00.20.45] Senator WEICKER. And the phone conversation goes on--this is in the, possession of the committee. if any of the committee members desires a full reading of it, I will be glad to do that but I am definitely opening this along the line of our committee and the other members of the committee and I do not think the other members of the committee--- Senator BAKER. The document is in the files, and I understand was transcribed by committee staff. Mr. DASH. Actual Actually, this was given to the, committee by Mr. Ehrlichman or Ehrlichman's counsel, Mr. Wilson, under subpena, the actual tape we understand is in the possession of the prosecutors. Senator BAKER. Thank you. Senator WEICKER. Now, Mr. Dean, I will pick up the time sequence here, in a minute, but in and around this period of time, do you know of any other efforts to interfere with other members of the committee? ? Mr. DEAN. Senator, I do not. At that time, I was up at Camp David at this point in time, and I was unaware. of what, was happening and I had developed somewhat of a strained relationship with the with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Haldeman already by this time as a result of some of the things that had occurred on the 21st and 22d. And I believe the President was in Florida. [00.22.02-DEAN talks about his knowledge of attempts to influence or interfere with the ERVIN committee] Some time before this, I however, in discussing this committee, I recall hearing, and I cannot recall specifically who raised it, that a number of members of this committee, the Republican members, may have recalled campaign contributions during the 1970 election from the White House and some of that money might not have been reported and that should be examined. The records of that, of those contributions, are looked in a safe in my former office; they were deposited there by Mr. Colson. I have never read them. In fact, they were put in there with instructions that nobody on my staff was to look at them, including myself, and the thought was, it was to go through those and find out What was in there. I am not aware specifically of any of the details of any of the contributions that were made to Republicans or Democrats or anyone specifically. I know this was discussed though, at one point in time. Senator WEICKER. In other -words, this was one of the matters that -was discussed to look into as a means of--- Mr. DEAN. Senator, I believe it, was. Senator WEICKER. Of pressuring the, Committee? Mr. DEAN. Specifically, it was in reference to you and trying in some way to embarrass you. Senator WEICKER. I understand that and 'We are going to get to that. [00.23.29] I will have to pick up the next step on my own book. Around April 10 I was informed by an individual who is well aware of these contributions during the 1970 campaign that he had been approached by the White House and had been requested to indicate to them that something illegal or something wrong attached themselves to the contributions made to my campaign. His answer to the White House, and his answer to press people who had been sent by the White House, was that there wasn't -anything illegal and there wasn't anything wrong. But I was notified of this fact on April 10. [00.24.24]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
What about the offenses committed by Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Closon, LaRue, Dean and others. There is substantial authority for attributing their misconduct to the President in a strictly legal sense and require him to account for their offenses. But there s the higher constitutional obligation to see that such criminal acts are not committed or condoned. A constitutional demand to see that the laws are obeyed, particularly in the Presidents own house, which we call the White House. After receiving evidence for weeks and weeks, evidence which has been frequently peripheral as it relates to direct involvement of the president in Watergate and other crimes, I ask myself is this any way to run a White House or a country?
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
09.34 Wayne Owens (D - Utah). Thank you. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens, is recognized Wayne Owens (D - Utah). I thank the gentleman from Roanoke. I did seek the opportunity to ask one question of my colleague and seatmate here in reference to the conversation that we were having regards the President's request of Mr. Ehrlichman to see that Stans was not interviewed before the grand jury, but was interviewed outside and that the exchange the colloquy that he had with gentleman from Massachusetts. While it is true that Mr. Petersen testified before this committee that is not unusual and not ordinarily improper to make such a request for a so-called very important person. In this case, after Mr. Dean and Mr. Ehrlichman had contacted Mr. Petersen and Mr. Petersen refused to make that exception for Mr. Stans. Ehrlichman called Mr. Kleindienst, and bear in mind that all of this was done on the direction of the President. Mr. Ehrlichman then called Mr. Kleindienst, the Attorney General, and according to Mr. Kleindienst, he told Ehrlichman that he, Ehrlichman, was very lucky that Petersen had not, made an obstruction of justice complaint. And so, in this circumstance, you have situation where pursuant to the President's instruction, you have the Attorney General saying to Mr. Ehrlichman that he had done something improper, obviously. And that had come very close to being charged with an obstruction of justice complaint. Now, something strange happened after that the details of which are not in evidence before the committee because ultimately, in fact Mr. Stans was interviewed outside the grand jury. But this I think lends some weight to the charge that perhaps pursuant to the President's instructions there was improper activity on the part of his two chief lieutenants acting in this area, Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Dean, at least according to the administration's own Attorney General.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). Now, the most important statement of all affecting a clemency, and it s right in the Senate Select Committee testimony. John Ehrlichman who did a lot of things wrong, nobody said he didn t, but we are talking about testimony. What did Ehrlichman say when he walked with the President on the beach at San Clemente? He talked about clemency and the President said this is something that cannot be done and will not be done. That I think disposes of that argument. Now, there are 37 fair-minded people here that are going to vote their conscience and for God's sake, do it on this one because you have not done it on the other 8. Now, what earthly good has been accomplished by all of this? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Robert McClory (R Illinois). Will the gentleman yield? Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Just as soon as I conclude. All we have got to do is refer to the tape of March 21st, 1973, and after discussing clemency, he says very emphatically, No, it is wrong. That is for sure. No, it is wrong, that is for sure. And then again in the same tape, And the second thing is we are not going to be able to deliver on any of a clemency thing." What I submit to you, members of the committee, is that certainly members of his staff had made many suggestions to the President. They talked to him. He listens to them. And then he accepts or rejects. In this case, in my opinion he very affirmatively rejected clemency. And I Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). And what about the Internal Revenue Service? The 575 names of political opponents of this administration turned over? The President clearly approved that in a conversation of September 15th, and we have his words. He didn't expose these people. He didn't throw Haldeman out of his office. He didn't throw Dean out of his office. At a later date he said, "Do you need any more help with IRS?" And Mr. Thrower the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, submitted an affidavit to this committee in which he said it was a White House intention to try to create a personal police force out of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms part of the Internal Revenue Service.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
In his statement of April 30, 1972, President Nixon told the American People that he had been deceived by subordinates into believing that none of the members of his administration or his personal campaign committee were implicated in the Watergate break-in, and that none had participated in efforts to cover up that illegal activity. A critical question this committee must now decide is whether the President was deceived by his closest political associates or whether they were, in fact carrying out his policies and decisions. This question must be decided one way or the other. It must be decided whether the President was deceived by his subordinates into believing that his personal agents and key political associates had not been engaged in a systematic cover up of the illegal political intelligence operation, of the identities of those responsible, and of the existence and scope of other related activities effecting the rights of citizens of these United States or whether, in fact, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of the sacred obligation of his Constitutional oath, has used the power of his high office, for 2 years to cover up and conceal responsibility for the Watergate burglary and other activities of a similar nature. In short, the Committee has to decide whether in the statement of April 30th and other public statements, the President was telling the truth to the American people or whether that statement and other statements were part of a pattern of conduct designed not to take care that the laws were faithfully executed, but to impede their faithful execution for his political interests and on his behalf.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
We now proceed to consider the large mass of evidentiary material which was assembled during many months and presented to us by committee staff, and by the testimony of witnesses who have appeared before us. During the next few days, we will be weighing the evidence and acting upon it. After a period of general debate, we will be discussing amendments and voting upon them. And finally, the end product of our deliberations will be manifest. Either we shall by minority majority vote have recommended one or more grounds for impeachment against the President or all of those proposed for adoption will have been defeated. In our deliberations the people will have an unusual glimpse into the discussions of those charged with decision making in a unique judicial process. But perhaps ours is more of a political than judicial function after all. The fact is that of course judges and juries deliberate behind closed doors. But by the Committee s action in opening these discussions it has in effect determined that our function is more political then judicial. I think that the public should know that until now the only decisions made by this committee have been procedural ones. No substantive matter has yet been resolved.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Now in truth there were and there are no positive material instruments available to us such as those by which we can measure a precise distance or pronounce the exact time of day to guarantee the errorless performance of this duty. The human means through which we must try to make the right measurement of conduct that is required in this historical task exists only in the individual minds and consciences of each of the committee members. These are the basic resources by which each determines the substance and culpability of and in the evidence related to the several allegations that in the course of the conduct of his official office President Richard M Nixon engaged in certain activities designed to obstruct justice, to unlawfully invade the Constitutional rights of private citizens, to refuse compliance with the dually authorized and properly served subpoenas of a committee of the Congress, to misuse executive agencies for personal and political benefit, and that President Richard M Nixon, in other and diverse ways failed to fulfill his constitutional obligations to insure the faithful execution of our laws.