Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Senator Joseph MONTOYA (D-NM). Mr. Kehrli, How many people were separated or transferred to the Committee to Re-elect the President from the White House? Mr. KEHRLI. I don't have that exact figure with me. I can look that up. Senator MONTOYA. Would you furnish it for the record? Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir I will. Senator MONTOYA. And how many people did you have at the White House during the course of last year, what was the largest number you had on the staff? You mentioned that now you have approximately five hundred on board. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Well, at one point we were around five ten and our FY74 budget is for four eighty and we will be down at 480. Senator MONTOYA. So you are fluctuating a reduction of approximately thirty people. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator MONTOYA. And do you have any on board from other departments? Mr. KEHRLI. At this point in time ... Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator MONTOYA. How many approximately? Mr. KEHRLI. I don't have the figure on that, I can give you that figure ..... Senator MONTOYA. Okay, give me a round figure, more or less. Mr. KEHRLI. Oh, maybe fifteen. Senator MONTOYA. What was the cause for the reduction in the budget request? Mr. KEHRLI. The president's request that all parts of the executive office cut back and that's basically it. Senator MONTOYA. Now, during the course of the campaign, you were in charge of paying everyone on the White House staff, were you not? You were more or less the one who made the payroll? Mr. KEHRLI. No sir, well I was indirectly in charge of the payroll. We have an accounting operation consisting of career government employees who handle the payroll and the details that go along with that. Senator MONTOYA. How were those people from the White House staff who accompanied the president paid per diem when they remained at some places overnight during the political campaign? Mr. KEHRLI. They were paid out of funds from the Committee to Re-elect. Senator MONTOYA. You had no, you did not authorize the payment of any funds to these people out of White House funds? Mr. KEHRLI. Not that I know of. And again, as I said we bent over backwards trying to make sure that anything that could come anywhere near being considered political was paid for out of the committee to re-elect. And in fact, I'm sure that in many cases there were events that were not political in any way, shape or form, but to avoid any question we paid for them out of committee to re-elect funds. Senator MONTOYA. Mr. Chairman, in view of the committee's policy that we not prolong the testimony of this witness, because he was called for a different purpose other than for matters of substance, I will defer any further questioning if he is going to appear again. (MS committee)
DNC Committee Members
Democratic National Committee members at platform hearing. U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) asks Mayor of Syracuse, New York, Lee Alexander (D) to say a few words on behalf of the country's mayors he represents on the national committee; microphone passes by Russell Pace and Samuel Shapiro. Mayor Alexander is happy to see so many officials attend the platform hearings, states mayors have used this platform hearing to file a national urban policy statement. Alexander believes the Democratic Party is the party of the injured, damaged, and bypassed. Ferraro reading along as Alexander describes cities as prime depositories for the painful conditions of the elderly, minorities, and the poor. The cities, as centers of commerce, are also centers of trouble for small businesses created by Reagan administration.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Charles Rangel (D - New York). Now, I just want to say with all of this information with Dean talking about the cancer and no one takes issue with the fact that the President is talking, and we heard the conversation. And I will yield if I have, time, but what bothers me is March 27th where the President is talking to Mr. Haldeman and he wants to get all the information that he can from the grand jury. And he tells Haldeman to ask Kleindienst. He said put it on the basis it's John Mitchell that wants the information from the grand jury and so everyone can't say it's the White House raised hell about it because we are not raising hell, just tell him that he owes it to Mitchell. And here's the last part and I ll yield. He says "I think you have got to tell them. Look Dick" that s Dick Kleindienst "let me tell you that Dean was not involved." Well, the President says on March 21st to himself that Dean had confessed. Paul Sarbanes (D Maryland). Would the gentleman yield? Charles Rangel (D New York). Wait a minute, now. The President said and it is President's words, that Dean felt he was criminally liable for his action in taking care of defendants. March 21, Nixon talking to March 27, Nixon talking to Ehrlichman. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired. Charles Rangel (D New York). He said "Tell them, Look Dick, Dean was not involved." Now this is not taking anything out of context, and then the President goes on to say "Tell Kleinienst that nobody in the White House was involved."
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing
U.S. Undersecretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger first clarifies that debate is a legitimate part of the legislative process, but argues that debate did take place four months ago; adult Caucasian males and females seated in BG. A bipartisan compromise was reached that allowed U.S. Marines to be stationed in Lebanon for eighteen months. Eagleburger admits that four months later, there has been a change in the situation in Lebanon, specifically with the loss of hundreds of Marines. However, Eagleburger argues that the purpose of the Marines has not changed. The Marines continue to be a “neutral symbolic peacekeeping force there to assist the constitutional government of Lebanon. Not Mr. Gemayel or any specific government in Lebanon, but indeed the constitutional government of Lebanon. And the government now conceived to be the government of Lebanon is, I believe by all parties, recognized to have arrived at its position through constitutional means."
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Robert Drinan (D -Massachusetts).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Robert Drinan (D -Massachusetts). Robert Drinan (D Massachusetts). Mr. Chairman, this article is so overwhelming that I do not think that it s an exaggeration to say that history will judge this as comparable to the moral rebellion centuries ago at Runnymede. They were our legal and moral ancestors because they revolted against tyranny. But I want to pay tribute tonight to two men who made this possible. I am honored and humbled because these two men happen to be my constituents. One is a Democrat and one is a Republican. And I speak about Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson. When they followed their own conscience, 3 million citizens wired their Congressmen and this inquiry began. These two good men never realized that their decision not to submit, not to go along, would force every Member of Congress and every American citizen to make the same moral decision. They were the first to see the repeated abuses of the constitutional rights of citizens on which this committee is to act tonight. Mr. Cox, the former Solicitor General of the United States, distinguished professor and author, he would not back down, he would not become a part of the coverup. And Elliot Richardson, the former Attorney General of Massachusetts, Secretary of HEW and Defense, he gave up his entire career rather than tarnish his soul and permit himself to be a part of the coverup. I pay tribute to these two men. Without their courage, the victory for justice which we witness here tonight could never have happened. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope their courage-will continue to be contagious. I yield back the balance of my time.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 28, 1973
[00.24.24-WEICKER asks DEAN about DEAN informing WEICKER that there was an effort by the White House afoot to embarrass WEICKER.] Now, Mr. Dean, I came to our meeting of May 3 when I, along with members of my staff and your counsel, met with you. Would you describe to the committee that incident which took place, during the interview at which point in time you asked to leave the room with me? Mr. DEAN. The meeting was arranged by counsel and counsel thought since it was becoming imminent I -was going to appear up here and you wanted very much to talk with me that I should indeed cooperate and talk with you. I told them at, that time, that I didn't Want to get into any depth of testimonial areas but I was happy to discuss sort of the outer parameters of some of my areas of knowledge because of your membership on the committee. [00.25.29] Before we commenced that discussion at some, point in time I thought I Ought to inform you of the fact that I had just raised a minute ago, that I was aware of the fact that there was an effort to embarrass you, and I didn't want to get into that discussion in front of your staff or anyone else, I thought it had come to me, I didn't know the substance of it and I thought as one. person to another I ought to just tell you what I knew about that and bring it to your attention. Senator WEICKER. What -was my response to you? Mr. DEAN. That they -were barking up the wrong tree. Senator WEICKER. Would you say that 30 seconds, a minute would be--- Mr. DEAN. I would say at the most. We turned around and went right back into the room.' Senator WEICKER. All right. [00.26.16] We next move, to an incident that occurred within the last, several days whereby a reporter in Washington, D.C., was informed by Mr. Charles Colson that he was involved in the giving of moneys to my campaign and that he had reason to believe, that the money -was not properly handled, and quite frankly I was being a disloyal Republican and the time had come to swing around. When pinned to substantiate this request, there was absolutely no substantiation by Mr. Colson. But that was enough to finally go ahead and get me a little mad, and so a couple of days ago I indicated over NBC television prior to these hearings that efforts were still being made to pressure this committee, and indeed yesterday I received a call from the White House from Mr. Len Garment, and he was most concerned about my statement, wanted to know what the facts were.. [00.27.54-WEICKER continues to speak rather indignantly about attempts by the White House to embarrass and discredit WEICKER or other committee members] I indicated to him the Colson story which I have just read here. I did not indicate to him our meeting, I did not indicate to him the attempt of the White House to communicate with another individual who, for the time being, I shall leave nameless. I then told Mr. Garment that Mr. Colson was his problem, he wasn't my problem. And the time had come either to step forward and make charges or to go ahead and disavow these attempts to smear a member of the committee. But I don't think that is enough, and so this morning I communicated with -Mr. Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor. I think I have had sufficient, personal experience both in reading the taped telephone conversation and with this nebulous threat as to campaign funds so that, in my opinion, there is the possible violation of yet another law. And after all the violation of laws is the business of the prosecutor and not this committee and, therefore, I have communicated all the facts that I have discussed here with you With the prosecutor, and I have asked him to look into the possible violation of section 1505 which is the obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, and the last part of the section says, "Whoever corruptly or by threat of force or by any threatening letter, communication, influences obstructs or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which such proceeding is being had before such department or agency of the United States or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which such inquiry or investigations is being had by either House or any committee of either House or any Joint Committee of the Congress shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both." [00.30.29]
Rep. Ferraro at Committee Hearing
Group of elderly adult Caucasian males and females take seats together at the witness table. U.S. House Representatives Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) and Claude Pepper (D-FL) among Congressional members seated on panel at House Permanent Select Committee on Aging Hearing. Adult Caucasian male filling drinking glasses with water for the elderly adult witnesses seated at the table; adult Congressman (o/s) introducing the first witness, Dr. Albert Sabin, and describing his work with vaccines. Rep. Ferraro seated with her adult Caucasian male Congressional colleagues, including Chairman of the Committee, Edward Roybal (D-CA), listens as Dr. Sabin begins his testimony regarding his recent health issues --- which nearly killed him --- his recovery, and the healthcare costs associated with his recovery. VS of Rep. Ferraro; she leans in to speak to Rep. Pepper seated beside her.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment.
Do not use narration. House debate on Cambodia Bombing.
U.S. House Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.353)
U.S. House Representative Leslie Aucoin (D-OR) speaks from the well of the House; adult, predominantly Caucasian males, seated at House Rostrum, adult Caucasian male Chairman of the House seated in the Speaker's Chair. Rep. Aucoin condemns the Soviet Union action in shooting down Korean Air Lines #007. Rep. Aucoin demands a full explanation from the Soviet Union, an apology to the world, restitution to the families of the victims, and assurances that steps are taken to prevent this tragedy from ever happening again. He strongly supports House Joint Resolution 353, thanks the bipartisan committee for bringing to the floor, and hopes it unanimously adopted. Chair of the House recognizes Rep. William Broomfield (R-MI) who yields three minutes to Rep. Matthew Rinaldo (R-NJ), who quickly asks to have his remarks revised and extended.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
John Conyers (D - Michigan). I appreciate his comments, and I would like to contribute this supplemental point of information. Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, during the last 27 months of his regime, filed 109 protests to the United Nations against the bombing. So that there cannot be argued that there is no information as to whether he acquiesced or not. Furthermore, just ask yourselves, have you ever heard of anybody approving getting bombed, a leader or a citizen? I think that is an absurd suggestion to begin with. Now, in connection with the possibility that we may have wittingly or unwittingly ratified the President's conduct in Cambodia. I d like to point out to you that the consideration of this article will determine whether or not we ratify the President's conduct. This is the first time, gentlemen and ladies, that this matter has been before the Congress and it is before this committee.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
52.14 Delbert Latta (R Ohio). So what you are saying, then, you are going to have a report in addition to the statements of information. John Doar, attorney. Well, there would be a committee report. That is my understanding what the Chairman has said. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). And you wouldn't be incorporating all 38 or 39 statements of information in that report. John Doar, attorney. Oh, no. Delbert Latta (R Ohio). But the President would still have to go to those statements of information to get the details of the charges being mad against him specifically. John Doar, attorney. Not the details of the charges, but if he had Delbert Latta (R Ohio). Let's get the specifics. John Doar, attorney. No, the specifics would be in the, there would be more specifics in the report. If he was, you could be more specific if you looked at the summary of information that we furnished last week.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Illinois. Robert McClory (R Illinois). Mr. Chairman, this committee has urged the President to provide us with the necessary and relevant information to conclude and do a thorough and complete inquiry. We ve issued the subpoenas. He has rejected those. Following the rejection of our subpoenas we warned the President, ill a letter of May 30th that if he did not respond we would consider this as a ground of impeachment. The President's counsel has urged and I think that he has urged appropriately that charges against the President should be in separate and specific articles. This is a separate and specific article and it is a separate type of charge, it seems to me. I hope myself that the additional evidence which will be presented, if it is presented in the Senate or at any other time would exculpate and exonerate the President. And I kept urging that during these weeks that I have been urging the President to respond favorably to our subpoenas. That same urging of the President has been directed by the Vice President and by the Republican leader of the House.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
These then are the issues which are disturbing me. As we approach this final phase of our assignment under the House resolution authorizing this comprehensive impeachment inquiry which my colleagues and I have been conducting and which we must resolve deliberately and responsibly within the next few days. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.14.21] [Continued opening statement of Maurice Stans] What I want, particularly to stress in this opening statement is the fact that this committee cannot effectively evaluate the work of the finance committee or my own activities without having in mind four fundamental distinctions": 1. The distinction between the functions and activities of the campaign committee and the functions and activities of the finance committee. 2. The, distinction between the election financing law which expired on April 6, 1972, and the new election financing law which was effective on April 7, 1972. 3. Within the finance committee, the distinction between the functions and activities or the chairman and the, functions and activities of the treasurer. 4. The, activities of the, finance committee before I joined it on February 15, 1972, and the activities of that committee after February 15, 1972. By the campaign committee I mean, of course, the Coin Committee for the Re-Election of the President. By the finance committee I mean the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President and its several predecessors up to April 6, 1972, and the Finance Committee to Re-Elect the President beginning April 7, 1972, together with their associated committees in each time frame,. During the period of my affiliation with the finance committee as its chairman, the treasurer was Hugh Sloan, Jr., until July 15, 1972, and thereafter the treasurer was Paul E. Barrick. I shall refer to the, treasurer as though it were the same individual, letting the time period identify which of these persons it relates to. Now, as between the campaign committee and the finance committee, the campaign committee had all of the responsibility for the planning of the campaign, the, development of its strategy and the execution of its tactics. The questions of bow many people to employ, the efforts to be expended in each State, the, determination of the relative use of direct mail, personal solicitation and media advertising, the kinds of appeals to voters, and the entire gamut of the political effort was developed, organized, managed and conducted by the campaign committee. In effect, their decisions fixed the, amount the campaign would cost. The finance committee had no part in any of these basic decisions. The role of the finance committee was directed toward a single objective--to raise enough money to pay the bills. The finance committee had nothing to say about which bills to incur. Under the arrangements in effect, the finance committee paid any bill or made any payment which bore the approval of an appropriate official of the campaign committee. The campaign committee was supposed to see that the amounts it OK'd were within the limits of an approved budget. It turned out that the controls did not work as they were intended, and spending overran the budget by more than $8 million, perhaps more likely $10 million. So, in practical terms, the two committees operated in watertight compartments. They were physically separated on different floors. The campaign committee ran the campaign and created the debts, the finance committee raised the money, paid the bills. There was only one forum for the exchange of opinions with respect to campaign Spending, and that was the budget committee. The budget committee consisted of three officials of the campaign committee and three officials of the finance committee. Formal meetings of the budget committee with recorded minutes did not take place until after Labor Day, 1972. A number of informal meetings on budget, matters were held before that, but most of those centered on the overall amount of funding at the National and State levels. The meetings of the budget, committee were not, in my opinion, very effective. Each one was opened by me with a general statement of the current cash position and the expectations of future contributions , which until the last few days of the campaign never equaled the expected spending. I pressed continuously for reductions, in Over spending, but the actual trend was constantly upward: At times, meetings became bitter, and I walked Out Of one meeting at which I thought there was absolutely no understanding of the difficulties of fundraising on the part, of those who were doing the spending. The budget grew to $40 million, then $43 million, and ended up in excess of $48 million find our latest accounting, which is not yet completed, shows it to be in excess of $50 million, Only a late surge of contributions as a result, of the effective organization we had built across the country, made it possible for us to end up with a surplus above that. Now, as between the, old law and the new law, prior to April 7, 1972, the controlling law on candidates for Federal office was the Corrupt Practices Act enacted in 1925. This act, made, a major distinction between fundraising for a candidate to secure a nomination--through primaries or conventions--and fundraising in a general election. There was no reporting required of any kind on contributions and expenditures to secure a nomination There was a requirement that contributions and expenditures in a general election be reported to the Clerk of the House. [00.20.40]
U.S. House Sexual Misconduct Investigation
U.S. House Representative Louis Stokes (D-OH) emphasizes the serious nature of the allegations and the steps the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct took to underscore the gravity of the allegations, such as hiring a special counsel; attorney Joseph A. Califano Jr. standing next to Rep. Stokes; adult Caucasian male seated before the dais, re-arranging materials and taking notes. Adult Caucasian and African American male taking photographs. Califano Jr. standing, listening as Rep. Stokes notes that the special counsel has found no evidence of widespread or improper illicit sexual conduct with Congressional Pages by members, officers, or employees of the House of Representatives during the period between July 1981 to June 1982. However, the special counsel did find three cases of sexual misconduct prior to 1981 and provides detail to those cases. Rep. Stokes emphasizes no other cases were found, adds that the committee voted to take the recommendations of the special counsel.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17,1973
DO NOT USE MacNeil announces matters of significance in the day's scheduled proceedings: Relationship of White House and Committee to Re-elect the President Shredding of documents Removal of Committee to Re-Elect Documents after Watergate break-in.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Edward Hutchinson
Now, earlier, early on in this inquiry, I made a statement that I thought that in the face of an impeachment inquiry that the Executive the doctrine of executive privilege must fall. I have changed my opinion on that because the Supreme Court the other day recognized that the doctrine of executive privilege exists and has applied. We in the House, we have our privileges. I wonder if the people generally realize that any time that a Member of this House of Representatives is summoned into a court, that summons cannot be answered without the Member going to the House and getting permission of the House to comply with the subpoena. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired. Representative J Edward Hutchinson (R Michigan). My time has expired? I am sorry. I would like to have had more time.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 (1/2)
Barbara Tuckman, an author and historian, Well I was hoping to hear some statements of sense by the Committes that they represent the citizenry of the country. After all the House of Representatives is - represents the citizens. And I felt - I never loose my capacity to be shocked - I always thought I could.I really was surprised - not shocked - by the Republican statement two days ago - or was it yesterday - about Mr. Jenner and his not carrying out the functions for his client. I m really puzzled by the Republican, but their equating the retention of Mr Nixon in the Presidency
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
Never in our hundred and ninety-eight years have we had evidence of such rampant corruption in government. We must decide whether this corruption attached to the President, whether there is evidence that the President by his actions or inaction failed in his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law. We on the committee, both Republicans and Democrats, have taken our constitutional responsibility most seriously and have pursued the facts often without the cooperation of those possessing information and at times, in the face of planned efforts to mislead and divert us from the truth. It is our constitutional duty to determine whether there is sufficient cause to bring Richard Nixon before the United States Senate for trial and removal from office.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). Now, all of the people who were, involved in this thing point out one of them that got favored treatment, one. So much has been talked about. They make the most out of every word that this man ever breathed, the throwing of that ashtray. Why if I had a guy like John Dean working for me I would probably throw him out of the house not throw an ashtray. And so would you. At any rate, here is a man with all the troubles of the world on head and every little thing that he says is multiplied up to rooftops. They did not even give him any credit for ending a war or anything like, that. In fact, they got a little peeved that Henry Kissinger was doing so well and they thought he ought to come back and testify about something he said or he did not say in the Senate. Nobody here is interested apparently in the country. We are interested here I suppose in getting somebody.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities May 17, 1973 - Testimony of Robert Odle.
Senator ERVIN. Mr. Odle, you may be seated. I have only 2 or 3 very brief questions. Senator TALMADGE. Are you aware of any actual, political campaign experience in Mr Magruder s background? Mr. ODLE. Yes Sir. I believe he was involved in the 1968 campaign in Southern California. Senator TALMADGE. What about Mr Sloan? Mr. ODLE. Yes Sir. He was involved in the national finance committee in 1968 in New York. Senator TALMADGE. What about Mardian? Mr. ODLE. Pardon? Senator TALMADGE. Mr Mardian? Mr. ODLE. Bob Mardian, yes he was a I cannot remember he exact title. He was very actively involved, I believe, in the 1968 campaign. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Flemming? Mr. ODLE. Yes, Mr. Flemming was too. He was one of the regional directors of the 1968 campaign. He also was been active with Virginia politics. He was elected in Virginia. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Porter? Mr. ODLE. I don t know. I don t think so. Senator TALMADGE. Was the political activity of the gentlemen you mentioned, similar to the committee organization that you had on the committee to reelect the President? Mr. ODLE. Did they do similar things? Senator TALMADGE. Yes. Was their experiences in previous campaigns similar to what you had Mr. ODLE. Some of them were. For example in the case of Mr Flemming and Mr Mardian, yes. In the case of Mr Magruder, I don t think so. Senator TALMADGE. Now you testified in response to a question that there was little relationship, if any, between the Committee to Reelect the President and the Republican National Committee. In view of that fact, would it be fair to say, that the Committee to Reelect the President was in fact a campaign instrument solely under the control of the President and his top White House staff? Mr. ODLE. I would say that the Committee for the Reelection of the President was formed exclusively to reelect the President. That it had that as its one concern and its one goal. Senator TALMADGE. Was there no cooperation between them? Mr. ODLE. Yes sir, there was close cooperation between them. Senator TALMADGE. You stated in response to a previous question that there was very little cooperation. Mr. ODLE. No, I meant... What I think I said and what I hope to say is that there was no technical or legal relationship between the two. In advance of the convention, it would have been improper. But I also said, I think, that everyone at the National Committee was doing everything they could for the President. And that in fact there were relationships between the two committees. Senator TALMADGE. Why was it necessary to have two committees then? Mr. ODLE. Because, the President was but a candidate for the nomination prior to the convention. Now, I don t think there was very much doubt that the President would triumph, but there was a distinct possibility of a challenge from Congressman McCloskey and Congressman Ashbrook. They re republican too. And it would have been improper for the Republican National Committee to be working actively, as a body and officially for President Nixon, candidate Nixon, and ignore two other Republican challengers. Senator TALMADGE. Was there any doubt as to his re-nomination? Mr. ODLE. We hoped not. We were working so there would not be, but you ll recall we were looking back at a situation. We were looking back at Senator McCarthy s challenge to President Johnson in 68 New Hampshire and how effective that challenge was. Senator TALMADGE. It s been my experience that it is difficult enough to keep one campaign committee straight. When you have two in the field, it only complicates the problem. I repeat the question. You have testified there the multiplicity of people who came from the White House direct to the Committee for the Re-election of the President. Is it fair to say that committee was set-up, organized and directed from the White House? Mr. ODLE. I would say this, that those people who were at the White House had influence over the committee, they gave it direction, they assisted it, but the campaign director was not at the White House. He came from the Justice Department. I don t mean to try to get around your question Senator, I am just saying that it was not just exclusively a White House vehicle, I don t believe. Senator TALMADGE. There was no doubt as to where the ultimate authority lay in that committee was there? Mr. ODLE. No sir. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you Mr Chairman.
NPACT coverage of Church Committee Hearings - The mystery of the shell fish toxi
Lehrer turns to introduce House Select Committee on Intelligence headed by guest Otis Pike - committee investigating intelligence operations around the Vietnam Tet Offensive of 1968, the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cypress, the coup to over throw the military regime in Portugal and the October war between Israel and its Arab neighbors - in these investigations the white house has refused to turn over documents (00:50:40) Shot changes to that of Duke with Pike on couch in studio - Dukes asks if Pike is prepared to go all the way to court to get the documents requested of the White House and if Pike thinks the White House is taking advantage of the refusal as a way to kill the investigation - Pike answers yes to both questions (00:52:20) Pike feels that the decisions and actions taken by intelligence agencies reveal general incompetence (00:57:20) Shot returns to Jim at the news desk who closes out the show (01:00:48) NPACT and PBS logos (01:01:55)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Harold D. Donohue (D - Massachusetts). The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie. Jerome R. Waldie (D - California). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Harold D. Donohue (D - Massachusetts). Six minutes and 15 seconds. Jerome R. Waldie (D - California). Mr. Chairman, it seems to me in this process of impeachment what we ultimately are seeking to do is a constitutional process where at the conclusion, we will have redefined the power of the President. And we will in that redefinition hopefully have limited that power because if we impeach we will have come up with a conclusion that the power has been abused and that there has been too much power accumulated in the executive branch. If that is so, it would just seem extraordinarily unusual for this committee and the Congress in their examination, a historical examination, really the first of the Presidential power to ignore the exercise of the war power and to determine if in fact the war Power has not been abused and if the President has not accumulated too much authority in that regard.
U.S. House Subcommittee : Shreddergate Part 2
EPA Staff Chief John E. Daniel and Chairman on the U.S. House Subcommittee on Environment and Public Works, Robert Roe (D-NJ), having a discussion regarding access to documents being shared with Congress, and providing a list of the consultants who are acting as the expertise to the EPA. Rep. Roe then asks who, specifically, in the department would determine whether a document would be shredded or not, or if everybody has a say; House Rep. Norman Mineta (D-CA) seated next to him. Daniel replies that, except for documents specifically marked for safekeeping by the EPA, employees generally determine what documents are kept at their desk. Rep. Roe confirms that unless instructed otherwise, employees can decide what documents to keep or destroy. Roe wonders if the committee has a right to be puzzled, saying "if we have not been able to identify what we consider to be enforcement sensitive, because we have such volumes to work with, yet as we're going through that process, documents are being shredded." Daniel notes that the documents the committee has asked for have not been shredded; EPA officials Eugene Lucero and Michael Brown seated next to him.