Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Bob Latta
Bob Latta (R Ohio). I just want to point out one thing before we vote on this very important article. And it is a very important article. History will record this as a precedent, a precedent, and in the future whenever any Congress wants to impeach a President of the United States, it can cite this article as a precedent. Now, whenever you have, as the gentleman from Virginia has pointed out, a majority of any committee that has subpoena power decides to send down to the White House a subpoena that the Chief Executive does not choose to honor, he is subject to impeachment. Now, this is a dangerous precedent and I think when we are talking about diminishing the powers of the Presidency, here is another example of that and I don't think we should take this long step toward further diminishing the powers of the Presidency.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
(DO NOT USE images with Jim Lehrer) Caroline Lewis says there is a prevailing mood of relief, because a second failure by Nixon to comply would have been such a flagrant obstructionist move as to make impeachment absolutely automatic, [presumably a scenario undesirable on partisan grounds for Republicans, and on the grounds of lost opportunity for grandstanding by Democrats.--m.c.]. However, questions remain about the timing of the evidence being passed on from the court case to the Judiciary Committee, raising the issue of delays, but that most members seem inclined to begin the debate and introduce any new evidence as soon as it is received.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
There are other critical questions that must be decided. We must decide whether the President abused his power in the execution of his office. The great wisdom of our founders entrusted this process to the collective wisdom of many men, each of those chosen to toil for the People at the great forge of democracy in the House of Representatives has a responsibility to exercise independent judgment. I pray that we will each act with the wisdom that compels us in the end to be but decent men who seek only the truth. Let us be clear about this, no official, no concerned citizen, no Representative, no member of this committee welcomes an impeachment proceeding. No one welcomes the day when there has been such a crisis of concern that he must decide whether high crimes or misdemeanors, serious abuses of official power or violations of public trust have in fact occurred. Let us also be clear our own public trust, our own commitment to the Constitution is being put to the test. Such tests historically have come to the awareness of most peoples too late when their rights and freedoms under law were already so far in jeopardy and eroded, that it was no longer in the People s power to restore Constitutional government by democratic means.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
(DO NOT USE image of Jim Lehrer.) Paul Duke, Are you suggesting, however subtly Mrs. Tuckman, that you believe this is a kind of last chance for Congress to stop the errosion of its own power and to impead the full of power toward the White House which has occurred?
Rep. Ferraro at Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Claude Pepper (D-FL) reads paper statement aloud at Permanent Select House Committee on Aging Hearing; adult Caucasian male aid seated in BG. Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) seated next to Rep. Pepper, listening; zoom out to wide view of adult and elderly adult Caucasian males and females taking part in the hearing and in attendance; adult Caucasian male taking photographs.
U.S. House Sexual Misconduct Investigation
Adult Caucasian males kneeling in FG, taking photographs as U.S. House Representatives Louis Stokes (D-OH), Floyd Spence (R-SC), and Attorney Joseph Califano, Jr. stand in front of podium. Rep. Stokes begins the press conference by stating the responsibility of the House to police itself. Announcing reports will be filed to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, regarding the U.S. House sexual misconduct and illicit drug use. Adult, predominantly Caucasian males, kneeling or standing, and filming or taking photographs while adult Caucasian males and females are seated, listening, and reading the report findings on their laps; Rep. Stokes (o/s) providing a background of events leading to this press conference. Line of cameras filming with an adult Caucasian and African American male behind two cameras, adjusting the lens. Rep. Stokes states that he will provide a summary of the investigation and report on three actions that were voted upon by the committee.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). Let us look first at this Huston plan which the President, our President, your President and my President, approved. This Huston plan which I read in anger twice or three times says that dissent is tantamount to treason. And because it is tantamount to treason, the President has the right to bring to bear against any dissenter the force of the CIA, the force of the FBI, illegally. That a person is subject to having his mail opened or his house broken into or his phone tapped because he dissents. And it s not at all clear from the evidence before this committee that the Huston plan was not carried out. And let us look at the leaks that everybody has talked about. Did they justify the ends we have seen? Does anybody argue that the wiretap of Joseph Kraft by a private operative on behalf of the White House is Constitutional or legal. And that the President can put his imprimatur on that? Does anybody argue that that is within the bounds of the Constitution? I can't believe it.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. George Danielson (D - California).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. George Danielson (D - California). George Danielson (D California). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman has not yet been recognized. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. George Danielson (D California). Well thank you again Mr. Chairman, I am very proud and honored to associate myself with the remarks of my dear friend, and very great lawyer, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Donohue. Mr. Chairman, our debate today has distilled the issues of this article to where we all know and can clearly see that they constitute a clear threat And an attack against our Constitution which is the essence and the soul of our Republic. We cannot and must not fail in a responsibility which is ours. And so again, with heavy heart and great sadness we must vote for this article of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti, is recognized. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the motion of the gentleman from Alabama for a number of reasons. First, let me say that there are not sufficient allegations for this committee to know exactly what the charge is. There are not sufficient allegations for the respondent, the President of the United States, to know what the specific charge is. A simple reading of the paragraph will indicate exactly what I mean. "Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants." What prospective defendants? If we know who they are, and we certainly ought to know who they are if they exist after 7 months of investigation. Why could not the staff or the proponent of the resolution the Article of Impeachment here have named them? It goes on to say: "And individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect fair treatment and consideration , and so on. What favored treatment and consideration? "In return for their silence or false testimony or rewarding individuals." What individuals? And what rewards?
Television and the White House
Seal of The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences affixed to a podium; zoom out with "NET Journal" and "Television and The White House" title cards superimposed, revealing a long table on stage with adult Caucasian men and women seated in the FG. John Cannon, President of the Academy's Forum Committee, speaks at the podium, providing an introduction to the unprecedented meeting of three former Presidential Press Secretaries who will discuss the changing role of media in the White House along with chosen White House Correspondents. Cannon introduces Frank McGee, Dan Rather, Bill Moyers, Pierre Salinger, James Hagerty, and moderator Edward Morgan.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
Barbara Tuckman, an author and historian, Well, I think the first thing that I m thinking about is the opportunity for the House of Representatives and all the Congress, to retrieve the role that the Constitution gave it and that has eroded so dangerously over the last 30 years. I think in a way, in a sense, it s the Congress that is as much, if not on trial, at least facing a serious moment in its history, as much as the Presidency, because it seems to me that through its volute mission over the last 3 decades, it is the Congress that has allowed the abuse of power by the Presidency and it s time we got it back. I think the significance for the American people is in the action of the House first of all as much as what will happen in relation to the Presidency.
U.S. House Sexual Misconduct Investigation
U.S. House Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) and Attorney Joseph Califano, Jr. walking down a hallway with another middle-aged adult Caucasian male and adult African American female, going into a room with door reading “Committee on Standards of Official Conduct”; middle-aged adult Caucasian male security guard standing outside the doorway.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.37.51] [applause for NIXON, the moderator takes podium, gestures NIXON to return for a final word] NIXON thanks the four sponsoring groups, mentions that he has spoken to all of the groups at some time or another, and wishes that he could shake hands with all individually. [applause, NIXON sits, the moderator thanks NIXON, applause, NIXON leaves stage, waving to crowd, is escorted out door by S.S. agents--uh, that's S-ecret S-ervice] [00.40.09] [cut to LEHRER in studio] LEHRER describes the speech briefly, promises a summary and commentary after a break [PBS network ID] [00.41.50--in to title screen, shot of judiciary committee members at bench with title "Impeachment Debate"--pullback to LEHRER in studio with title screen projected over shoulder] LEHRER summarizes the President's speech [00.49.19--LEHRER concludes summary--cut to shot of LEHRER and Paul DUKE seated] LEHRER asks DUKE for comments DUKE says that the speech was "Standard Republican Fare", and seemed tailored to a business group, with no spectacular pledges, and general freemarket formalities--tight spending, tight money, etc. Says that NIXON is advocating that inflation is the more severe problem than unemployment. says that many economists feel that raising unemployment is the only possible remedy for some severe inflation, and that NIXON has with this speech implied that he is willing to take such steps. DUKE says that inflation is at 12%, very high for the American economy, and that there is no consensus among economists, most suggesting combination measures, and that the inflation can only be controlled gradually. DUKE describes the President's economic prescription as "Old Time Religion". LEHRER concurs that the speech was to a friendly audience and stressed the free market, and was well, received, and there was no mention of the impeachment, DUKE cuts in to say that NIXON did remark about his budget submissions the next year, implying that NIXON intends to remain in office. LEHRER agrees, and notes that NIXON did not show any signs of strain over the impeachment inquiry. [00.48.11]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
The Clerk. [reading] (4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, Judicial, and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and concerning other matters.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.53.48] LEHRER concludes his presentation of the "scoreboard" DUKE introduces guests WILLIAM VAN ALSTNE, Constitutional Law scholar from Duke Unviersity, and MARTIN DIAMOND, Political Science professor from Northern Illinois University, Asks for impressions on the vote DIAMOND says that it is draining, either from the length of the deliberations or the historical weight of the vote. Comments that he is not too concerned about the exact vote at this point, but the question of why the impeachment power exists. Argues that the impeachemnt clause was included not to weaken, but to strengthen Presidential power. That the enormous power of the Executive must be checked in some way to remain legitimate. Says that impeachment is the third line of defense for the people against a bad President, after the vote and the check of Congress. It would be disastrous for the Congress to try to use impeachment to bully a President, but that the behavior of the Committee does not indicate that such will happen. It would also be dangerous to demand such a high standard of proof that impeachment could never be achieved, Notes that "HIGH OFFICE CAN COVER ITS TRACKS". The "golden mean" is to be sought, cites James Madison's definition of IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES as "grave offenses against the Constitutional system". DUKE asks VAN ALSTYNE if the Committee has struck a "golden mean" in its draft of the article, between stringent proof and lax evidence? VAN ALSTYNE says it's fulfilled one function, with the question remaining if the ARTICLE is a valid one, Constitutionally. He doesn't think any court will ever rule on the question, but many people will wonder. He says that it is a valid ARTICLE, not to prejudge the PRESIDENT'S chances of winning acquittal, but that the kinds of charges in the ARTICLE are to his mind the kinds of charges intended in the Constitution. It is not a mere disagreement on matters of policy, like a Recall petition. It is based on the difficult task of establishing Criminality in the White HOuse. Says that the actual situation of this impeachment is unique to history, as the first impeachment in the FEDERALIST era of Supreme Court Justice CHASE was an attack on the FEDERALIST party by the JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS. The JOHNSON impeachment is characterized as a revolt by CONGRESS against EXECUTIVE POWER in a more general sense. The failure of this effort was right, because it was an effort to grab power by Congress VAN ALSTYNE says that this is absolutely the first time that the IMPEACHMENT CLAUSE has been used in response to allegations and evidence of outright criminality by a President. The task of the Senate would be much more difficult because the ARTICLE is worded so as to make it impossible to oust the President over matters of Policy. VAN ALSTYNE expresses confidence that the process is going along properly DUKE summarizes the day's results and implications thereof. LEHRER signs off until the next evening of coverage. [PBS network ID] [01.02.31--TAPE OUT]
DNC Committee Members
Democratic National Committee members at platform hearing. Adult Caucasian and African American males and females applaud as U.S. Senator and Presidential Candidate Gary Hart (D-CO) walks in, shakes hands with U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) and Mayor of Washington, D.C. Marion Barry (D) before making his way around ballroom, taking seat at table facing main panel; adult African American female standing next to Sen. Hart pouring a glass of water from pitcher.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. David Dennis
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. David Dennis (R - Indiana). Harold D. Donohue (D Massachusetts). The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. David Dennis (R Indiana). Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this decision to bomb Cambodia was a matter of high military and diplomatic policy made by the President in his capacity as Commander in Chief in order to attack an enemy sanctuary and protect troops in the field in an ongoing war which he had inherited. It was made with the knowledge of the leadership of the Congress of both parties. It was made with the knowledge of the reigning Prince of the country involved. It was made in a war which basically was supported by a great majority of the Congress of both parties for a great many years and was supported at that time. It was made in accordance with plenty of past practice such as the Bay of Pigs which has been mentioned. And to be honest about it, if the same thing were done tomorrow in a popular war nobody would say anything about it now. If the Congress wants to legislate in this field, it can, as it made rather clumsy effort to do last year. But to at this time use the weapon of impeachment against the President for this action which was taken in the past and supported at the time by almost everyone involved would be both unrealistic and unfair and I do not believe for one moment that this committee will seriously consider doing so. I yield back the balance of my time.
Rep. Ferraro at Committee Hearing
U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) speaks to the concerns of her constituency regarding the Medicare system; elderly adult Caucasian males and females in attendance. She believes action needs to be taken to address the rupture in the Medicare system without affecting benefits; adding that there are additional concerns with the Medicare budget deficit. Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Aging, Rep. Edward Roybal (D-CA) recognizes Rep. Robert Wise (D-WV).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. John Conyers
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. John Conyers (D - Michigan). John Conyers (D Michigan). I thank the gentleman for his very acute perceptions this subject and I would like to point out that I don't think anyone making a decision of whether to support this article or not on this committee could begin to assert that telling a few Members selected throughout the Senate about the bombing would constitute the notice that is required of such a high constitutional level, especially when the President was at the same time through separate reporting plans intentionally misleading not only the American people but the Congress as well. Now, a historian, Henry Steele Commager, made one statement that I would like to attach I think appropriately to the considered judgments of my friend from California. He said, It would be a pity to impeach Mr. Nixon on grounds that are technical or vulgar if such offenses are all that is involved. The Nation could afford to wait three more years for the moment when Mr. Nixon would be automatically retired to that private life which he so richly merits. Harold D. Donohue (D Massachusetts). The time of the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie, has expired.
U.S. House Floor Debate : Simpson-Mazzoli Bill
Chairman of the Immigration Committee, Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D-KY) states his objection to striking the language of the amendment entirely on the grounds that then the House goes into negotiating with the Senate on an “all or nothing basis”. The Senate version of the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill would allow the President to mandate a program after the three-year study. At least the current House version of the bill allows for a middle ground. Reps. William Donlon Edwards (D-CA) and Daniel Lungren (R-CA) briefly argue about what the subcommittee requested from the full committee; Rep. Edwards referencing a national identification card while Rep. Lungren rebutting that it could be an implemented program, but not one that allowed any kind identification card. Elderly adult Caucasian Congressman standing in for the Speaker of the House mediates debate time, adult Caucasian males and females seated around House Rostrum.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Charles Rangel (D New York). Mr. Chairman, it, is pretty clear to me that Mr. Sandman has pretty much made up his mind as it relates to articles of impeachment. But, I do deem it a little unfair to use parliamentary procedure when in fact his motion to strike deals with each and every article that is outlined in Article I of our impeachment articles. It-seems to me that he has made an admission to this committee that he was moving to strike paragraph I of the Sarbanes substitute, not because he did not believe that the. President had made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers, but because it was his personal belief that this type of information should be included in the articles of impeachment. Well, if Mr. Sandman is going to take this route because of his personal belief as to how the articles should be drafted, he has at the desk nine amendments. If the Chair continues to be as generous in his ruling to give 5 minutes to each member to discuss these blanket Motions to Strike, as suggested by Mr. Sandman, then it would have consumed 27 hours of this committees time to deal merely with Mr. Sandman's Parliamentary questions.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from California is recognized on a point of order and will state his point of order. Charles Wiggins (R California). Mr. Chairman, my point of order is that Article II fails to state an impeachable offense under the Constitution. May I be recognized on my point of order? Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman is recognized on his point of order. Charles Wiggins (R California). Mr. Chairman and members of the committee it is quite clear of from a full reading of proposed Article II that the gravamen of that article is abuse of power on the part of the President of the United States. That concept of abuse is stated in various places by use of the word misuse and in use of the word degaration of Constitutional rights as distinguished from in violation of those rights. The question, ladies and gentlemen, is whether an abuse of power falls within the meaning of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," since we can impeach on no other basis. If it does not then my point of order should be sustained. If it does, then we should proceed with the consideration of that Article.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey) The committee will come to order. Before I begin, I hope you will allow me a personal reference. Throughout all of the painstaking proceedings of this committee, I as the Chairman have been guided by a simple principle, the principle that the law must deal fairly with every man. For me, this is the oldest principle of democracy. It is this simple, but great principle which enables man to live justly and in decency in a free society. It is now almost 15 centuries since the Emperor Justinian, from whose name the word "justice" is derived, established this principle for the free citizens of Rome. Seven centuries have now passed since the English barons proclaimed the same principle by compelling King John, at the point of a sword, to accept a great doctrine of Magna Carta, the doctrine that the King, like each of his subjects, was under God and the law. Almost two centuries ago the Founding Fathers of the United States reaffirmed and refined this principle so that here all men are under the law, and it is only the People who are sovereign. So speaks our Constitution, and it is under our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, that we proceed through the sole power of impeachment.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
51.30 Delbert Latta (R Ohio). Where would the President have to go to find out the charges being made against him specifically? John Doar, attorney. Well, the President would have the Article or Articles of Impeachment. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). Which would be general. John Doar, attorney. Which would be general. The President would have the report of the committee. The President would have the summary of information. And the President would have the statements of information. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). He would have to go to all of those? John Doar, attorney. Well it isn't a question of reading them all. They would all be keyed so you could get from one to the other very easily. It is not, it is not a difficult job of getting in and out of this material if you have the proper Index.