Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Cambodia Bombing Article of Impeachment. Delbert Latta
We have already taken some actions without my support in this committee which if adopted by the House and the President is impeached on the basis of the Articles recommended to the Senate would set dangerous precedents and reduce the Office of Presidency to merely a chore boy for the Congress of the United States. And I think it is important that we continue to have in this country coequal branches of government. That we don't reduce that Office of President to a chore boy. That we let him remain as Commander in Chief. It seems as though we forget that responsibility that is given to him tinder the Constitution. A Commander in Chief sometimes has to take actions to protect the lives of his troops. And here we had a commander in action, a commander in chief taking decisive action to save lives Harold D. Donohue (D Massachusetts). The time of the gentleman has expired.
U.S. House Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.353)
U.S. House Representative Clarence Miller (R-OH) thanks Rep. Mary Rose Oaker (D-OH) for yielding time to him; adult, predominantly Caucasian, males and females seated at the House Rostrum with adult Caucasian male Chairman of the Whole House rising from the Speaker's Platform. Rep. Miller commends the chairman of the committee for bringing House Joint Resolution 353 to the floor, condemning the Soviet Union in shooting down Korean Air Lines #007. Echoing Rep. Oaker, Rep. Miller calls for sanctioning the ferroalloys coming to the U.S. from the Soviet Union. It is something the President has legal authority to do; more time is given to both speakers. Rep. Oaker reiterates the opportunity presented to the U.S. to do something which is completely within its own national security interests. Chairman of the House recognizes Rep. William Broomfield (R-MI) who yields five minutes to Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY). Rep. Kemp walks to the well of the House.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Charles Sandman Jr. (R New Jersey). I thank you very much. It looks like I can t yield on the limited time that I have because I would like to make a summary of what I have witnessed here and I know the people have too. Is it not amazing how that magic vote has held so firmly. Even to a point where the gentleman who moved all of these motions to strike didn t even support his own motion. Can you imagine the discipline. Uncanny, to say the least. And this is why I suggested that when we opened our session today that this would be such a fruitless waste of time and it has been. And 220 million people know what you are up to. You didn t kid anybody. You tried to sell them a bill of goods. And we didn t, with all of our arguments, persuade a single vote. There s no way humanly possible to do that at this forum. And this is why I suggested to my colleagues there will be another day, and God bless us that we have the right to have another day, and that s going to be on the House Floor.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973
DO NOT USE McNeill states that this is the end of the longest day of the hearings thus far, and that the committee will no doubt spend many more hours questioning John Dean. All the leaked bombshells about Nixon s involvement in the coverup were addressed, as expected, by Dean. Also, some sidelines that may be lost for a while as the Committee concentrates on White House involvement, including the charge that the judge of the DNC civil case against the Committee to Re-Elect agreed to cooperate with the White House, a charge denied by that judge. Dean testified that White House OUSE staff hotshots were spared the publicity of appearing directly before the Grand Jury, how other witnesses (Segretti) were treated with kid gloves by the prosecutors, but forced to answer questions asked by curious grand jurors. Also recollections of how the White House attempted to influence the Ervin Committee including Senator Baker.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Samuel Dash, attorney. Could you tell the committee exactly what Mr. Strachan's role in the White House was and his activities and responsibilities? John Dean. Mr. Strachan was placed on Mr. Haldeman's staff to serve as the liaison individual from the White House to the reelection committee. And to deal with other members of the White House staff who were working on problems relating directly to the political phases of the reelection problem. I was aware of the fact that he was having frequent contact with Mr. Magruder regarding the reelection committee that he had received copies of documents that any of us would send regarding election law problems or other people who send to the reelection committee so that he was aware of everything that was going out of the White House as well as coming into the White House from the reelection committee.
U.S. House Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.353)
U.S. House Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY) at the well of the House, being given an additional minute of time by Rep. William Broomfield (R-MI) and the adult Caucasian male Chairman of the Whole House Committee; adult Caucasian males and females seated at the House Rostrum. Rep. Kemp believes that the response to the Soviet Union shooting down Korean Air Lines #007 cannot only be rhetorical in nature. The best thing Congress can do is to support the modernization of the U.S. armament program, negotiate from a position of strength with Soviets at the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty talks, respond with more than rhetoric to human rights violations, and more. Congress must support U.S. President Ronald Reagan's foreign policy toward the Soviet Union with more than just rhetoric. Chairman of the House recognizes Rep. Clement Zablocki (D-WI) who yields two minutes to Rep. Jerry Huckaby (D-LA).
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 19
Senator Sam ERVIN. Thank you very much (unclear) ...willing to come back at some future time .... Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. ...and also willing to supply for the record the information in which Senator Montoya asked you a moment ago about the number of people and the identity of the people who transferred from the White House staff to the Committee to Re-elect the President. Mr. KEHRLI. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much. Mr. KEHRLI. Thank you.
DNC Committee Members
Democratic National Committee platform hearing; Mayor of Syracuse, New York, Lee Alexander (D) speaking, U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) listening, reviewing statement. Russell Pace and Samuel Shapiro seated between Rep. Ferraro and Mayor Alexander. Zoom out to adult Caucasian and African American males and females in attendance. Mayor Alexander describes mayors as "the fellas in the boiler room" and "realists", and repeats the concerns of mayors across the country in the face of the Reagan Administration's economic policies; zoom in to Rep. Ferraro speaking privately to Samuel Shapiro. VS of adult Caucasian men and women listening to testimony.
Rep. Ferraro at Committee Hearing
Dr. Albert Sabin continues testimony, suggesting ways to improve the Medicare system such as limiting payments to non-profit institutions; Dana Andrews seated beside him, adult male sitting on opposite side of Dr. Sabin subtly mouths along with the testimony Sabin is reading. Adult Caucasian, predominantly male, Congressional members of the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Aging seated along the dais, camera zooms in to U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) speaking to Rep. Claude Pepper (D-FL) seated next to her; adult Caucasian male photographer sitting on floor against the dais, camera around his neck listening to testimony.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Barbara Jordan Statement
Representative Barbara Jordan ( D Texas ) The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body, the legislature, against and upon the encroachments of the Executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge. The Framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee Hearings on Presidential Campaign Activities, May 17, 1973
Mr. DASH. Now, down towards the bottom you have Mr. Hugh Sloan under scheduling, under Mr. Dwight Chapan. And it appears on this chart that he left the White House on March 6th, 1971. Mr. KEHRLI. That's correct. Mr. DASH. Do you know where he went when he left the White House? Mr. KEHRLI. He went either to the Committee to Re-elect the President or the finance committee and I would have to check that. Mr. DASH. Alright. And I see on the chart also at the bottom under, I guess a line down from Mr. Haldeman to a box marked Political H. Dent, and then under that Mr. LaRue. Mr. KEHRLI. That's right. Mr. DASH. And a date of leaving February 15, 1972 or do you know where Mr. LaRue went when he left the White House? Mr. KEHRLI. I assume he went to the Committee to Re-elect the President, I don't have that..... Mr. DASH. If the facts would show that I take it. Mr. KEHRLI. Yeah. Mr. DASH. Now, are you of your own knowledge, and I know that we have asked you to come here to assist us in reconstructing the White House staff and relationships around the time relevant to the 1971 - 1972 period that would cover the resolution in which we're engaged in dealing with the Watergate matter. Mr. KEHRLI. Right. Mr. DASH. And that this was the purpose of the developing this chart. Beyond being able to describe the various relationships of these people and their roles on the chart, do you have any further knowledge as to their relationship with the Committee to Re-elect the President? Mr. KEHRLI. No I don't. Mr. DASH. Do you know anything about the duties of Kathleen Chenow? Mr. KEHRLI. No I don't. Mr. DASH. Mr. Chairman I have no further questions.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
Includes Senate Committee Chairman Sam Ervin reading letter from President Nixon stating a refusal to turn over White House tapes; Senator Ervin reacts (at TC 00:16:16).
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) The first tape of March 21, 1973 worried me to death. When I went to bed that night I made up my mind. The President is cooked. He doesn t have a chance. But the following morning I heard another tape that was made only 3 hours later on the same day. And that completely did away with what was happening on the first tape. So you can t use one tape, as this fair magazine has done. You can t use one part of the tape as the Washington Post did. You have to use it all in context to arrive at the truth. And this is what I suggest we do. It is not the purpose of any media to make the news. It is the purpose and the objective of the media to fairly report the news. Now to say, as this committee did over many weeks, everything that Haldeman knew, Nixon knew. That s not proof.
Church Committee Hearings - James Angleton
CURTIS R. SMOTHERS, Minority Council. Let me then raise with you another question regarding Mr. Huston's role. If you would, counsel, turn to page 24 of the same transcript. Mr. Angleton, the question is raised as to whether Mr. Huston was in fact the White House authority, but in addition as to whether he was competent to manage such a group as the one that was involved in the preparation of the Huston plan.If you would turn to the last Angleton statement on page 24, let me read into the record your comment at that time and ask if that still represents your view. Talking about his experience in the intelligence area, he was very knowledgeable. He had obviously gone into this matter at some length prior to the meeting. He knew prescisely what none of us really knew, that is the depths of the White House concern. In fact, the most dramatic moment, I think, was at the beginning of one meeting. At some stage in the meetings after preliminary draft had been put forward, he found it totally unacceptable, and his comments were to the effect that the subcommittee was not being responsive to the President's needs. Does that accurately reflect your comments? James Angleton, CIA Counterintelligence. It does indeed. I think it is almost a direct quotation as it relates to his insistence, after one of the sessions. He began the next session with the statement to the effect that the committee was not responding the drafting committee was not responding to the President's requests and was not responsive to it.
U.S. House Sexual Misconduct Investigation
Adult African American and Caucasian males and females gathered in front of table stacked with papers and copies of a report; couple of adult African American females grabbing papers from different stacks and organizing them to give to waiting men and women. “U.S. House of Representatives: Committee on Standards of Official Conduct” typed on top page of the report; zoom out to two ladies continuing to organize papers to hand out to the men and women standing around them.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 25, 1973
[00.02.00-DEAN testifying about White House efforts to impede the congressional PATMAN COMMITTEE investigation] Mr. DEAN--- he had been working to prevent the hearings from occurring in the first instance through his conversation with the Republican leaders and members of the committee. This he knew would put him in an awkward position. I began receiving increasing pressure from Mitchell, Stans. Parkinson and others to get the Justice Department to respond to the September 8 letter of Congressman Brown as a vehicle that Congressman Brown could use, in persuading other Republicans not to vote in favor of the subpenas, Congressman Brown felt that with this document in hand he could give the Republicans and others something to hang their Vote, On. I had continued my conversations with Henry Petersen and, after the indictments had been returned he said that indeed he did feel that the Justice Department should issue such a letter because of the potential implications Of the breadth of the Patman hearings. The letter was sent on October 2. 1972. I have submitted to the committee a copy of Congressman Brown's letter and Assistant Attorney General Petersen's response. [00.03.05-Mrs. DEAN is inexplicably smiling vacantly] Mr. DEAN. A number Of people worked on I getting the votes necessary to block the Patman committee hearings Mr. Timmons discussed the matter with the House Republican leaders who agreed to be of assistance by making it a matter for the leadership consideration. which resulted in direction from the leadership to the members of the committee to vote against the hearings. I was informed that Congressman Brown had been working With several members on the Democratic side Of he Patman committee to assist in voting against the hearings or as an alternative not to appear for the hearings. Timmons informed me that he was also in direct Contact with one of the leaders of the Southern delegation who was being quite helpful in persuading the southerners On the committee not to vote for the subpenas or in the alternative not to appear at the meeting on October 3. Also, Mitchell reported to Me that he had been working with some people in 'New York to get the New Yorkers on, the committee to vote against the hearings, He told me, and I cannot recall now which members of the New York delegation he reefered to, that he had assurances that they would either not show up or would We against the hearings. I in turn Passed this On to Timmons, but I did not tell him the source of my information. On October 3 the vote was held and the subpenas were defeated by a vote of 20 to 15 and another sigh of relief was made at the White House that we had leaped one more hurdle in the continuing coverup. [00.04.24] On October 4. 'however. Chairman Patman requested a GAO investigation, and I was asked by Stans what this would mean. I told him that would be primarily between himself and the 'GAO but that since GAO had no subpena power to compel testimony, the scope of their investigation would have limits. He said he, felt that he could work with Elmer Staats, who was an old and good friend. and not let this matter out of hand with the GAO. On October 10, Chairman Patman. decided to proceed without subpena power, and sent letters to MacGregor Stans. Mitchell. and myself Everybody who received such a letter declined to appear and Patman held his hearings with empty witness chairs, and as I recall the press accounts, "lectured" the missing witnesses. [00.05.20-DISCUSSION of further matters which the White House was compelled to cover up before the Election-more "dirty tricks" by the White House.] THE SEGRETTI MATTER. I would now like to turn to the so-called Segretti matter. I have been informed by committee counsel that the subject of alleged political sabotage will be taken up in subsequent hearings. However, I have been asked to explain in full the pattern of coverup which evolved in connection with the Watergate and related matters and MY explanation would be less than complete in presenting my knowledge of the subject if I were to omit the so-called Segretti matter, While the matter was not directly related to the Watergate, the coverup of the facts Surrounding Mr. Segretti's activities was consistent with other parts Of The general White House coverup which followed the Watergate incident. I will not go into extensive detail at this time. rather I -will give the highlights of the pattern that followed regarding the dealings Of the White House with Mr. Segretti. I first Ward of Mr. Segretti when Gordon Strachan called me in late June and told me that the FBI had called a friend of his by the name of Donald Segretti, and requested to interview him in connection with We break-in at the Democratic National Committee. Strachan asked if I would meet with Segretti, I told him that I would and Strachan arranged a meeting at the Hotel where Segretti was staying. Strachan gave me a very general description of Mr. Segretti's activities and said that he -was a "dirty tricks"' type operator Who was being paid by Kalmbach. He told me that he, would rather have Segretti himself tell me what he had been doing because he, in fact, was not aware of all of Segretti's activities. He also informed me that Mr. Chapin had been Involved in hiring Segretti. I met with Mr. Segretti in the lobby of the Mayflower Hotel at which time he gave me a very broad description of his activities and said that he had had contact with a man by the name of Ed Warren, who, by having seen subsequent pictures in the paper. he assumed was Howard Hunt. I told Segretti to come to my office the next day and we would discus the matter further. [00.07.25]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Although on the basis of evidence those far received the case involving Watergate has been less than convincing. There are other subjects which the facts in which the facts are virtually otherwise undisputed and where the only unsettled question is whether or not an impeachable offense has been committed under the constitution, which I made reference. If the extremely serious subject of Watergate results never the less in a weak case against the direct involvement of the President, this should not be construed to mean that there has been no wrong doing in the White House. Watergate and the alleged cover up involves the offense of obstruction of justice, for instance, payments of hush money, inducing witnesses to commit perjury and others. These offenses have been committed at the White House or by the President s most intimate aides and friends. But if the President is not personally and criminally liable because the evidence does not directly and personally implicate him. Nevertheless we may appropriately ask has the President fulfilled his obligation to see to a faithful execution of the law. A solemn obligation imposed by the constitution. This obligation is above and beyond that of other citizens all of whom are required to obey the laws.
U.S. House Joint Resolution (H.J.Res.353)
Adult Caucasian male Chairman of the Whole House recognizes House Representative Clement Zablocki (D-WI) who yields one minute to Rep. Charles Bennett (D-FL); adult Caucasian, predominantly males, seated at House Rostrum with Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) speaking to adult Caucasian male and female. Rep. Bennett, speaking from the well of the House; thanks the committee for bringing House Joint Resolution 353, condemning the Soviet Union in shooting down Korean Air Lines #007, to the floor; Rep. Ferraro briefly in the BG, back to the camera. He questions whether any kind of verification is possible with a nation "of this nature". He also wonders about a "trigger happy attitude of a schizophrenic country that has so little confidence in its own ability, character, and leadership". Rep. Bennett, after being given an additional minute, questions these things in relation to how the U.S. must form its own defense strategies and policies. He urges the passage of the resolution.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Walter Flowers
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Flowers, is recognized for 4 minutes. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I have voted for two articles of impeachment here because I was clearly convinced that they should have been supported, and that the evidence and the facts justified each, although I had a great deal of reluctance. Now, here in this instance I am just as clearly convinced, and I do not have any reluctance whatsoever in voting against Article III. And I Seriously, seriously ask that my friends on this side and the two lonesome ones on the other side that that appear to be voting for it, and it is kind of lonesome over here on this side, opposing all I ask that you consider what we are doing here. And let us not kid ourselves. If this article were standing alone and I think that is the way we must look at it, but if it were standing alone, would we be seriously thinking about impeaching the President of the United States for this charge alone? I honestly think not. I honestly think note. Now, there may be some that disagree with me, but I honestly think not for the majority of this committee. And I do not see how we can possibly approach it in any other way. Perhaps we ve been too imbued with our new found power. We ve been thinking too much about the House having the sole power of impeachment. I do not know what, but I just think this is too much to impeach the President, too much for me to consider impeaching the President of the United States for. It s just not sufficient. Now, here are the kind of things that run through my mind, and again this is me. At some point, at least to me, there is a question of whether the President must comply with a subpoena issued by this committee. I think that at some point that the President, the Chief Executive has an opportunity to raise the issue of whether or not he has already given enough evidence. I don t think we anywhere near approached it in this instance, but we did what we had to do to insulate our charge of not doing what we had to do.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 16, 1973 (2/2)
Nixon Attorney Richard Moore & former White House aide Alexander Butterfield testify to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. At 00:53:06, Chairman Sam Ervin bangs gavel, calls Committee into session, swears in Mr. Butterfield. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) begins inquiry.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.20.40] The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, -which became effective April 7, 1972, changed that by eliminating entirely the distinction between a, campaign for nomination and a campaign for election, It required that all contributions and all expenditures in any political campaign be reported. Although the bill was signed by the President on February 7, it, did not become effective until April 7 because the Congress specifically allowed 60 extra days for operation under the old law. The distinction between election financing and nomination financing had existed for almost, 50 years, and countless candidates, for the Presidency, the Senate,, and the House of Representatives had observed the requirements of the one and the exemption of the other. In 1972, candidates for such offices in both political parties formed finance committees that did not have to publish or their transactions prior to April 7, and organized new reporting committees, after that date. In the President's campaign a Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President had been created solely to raise funds for the renomination , and this committee terminated its activities On April 6; it was not, under the law, required to file reports. A new Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President was created to operate beginning April 7, and it has filed all public reports required by the new law. We readily acknowledge that our fundraising operated under the old law until April 7, 1972, the Federal -Election Campaign Act of 1971; under this law the fact that contributions need not be reported gave, the. committee and its contributors a right of confidentiality The issue Of confidentiality versus disclosure of such information has never been fairly presented to the public. It has been made to appear that the committee engaged in secret, thereby concealed and suspect, transactions which would not have occurred had they been required to be disclosed. That is not true. The transactions were valid and proper and the question of whether they were to be reported Was a question of law that involved important rights of individuals. The committee's position all along has been that nondisclosure created no advantage to It, but that it was a right of' the contributor which the committee could not- properly waive. The right to live without undue intrusion is a long-respected benefit of the American system. Therefore the committee did not release the names of contributors before April 7. [00.23.47--shot of Sen. TALMADGE lighting up a huge cigar--presumably to help the time pass while STANS speaks] It, has never objected to any contributor disclosing his contribution. And on one occasion, just before the election the committee released a list of such contributors--up to March 9, 1972--only after consulting with those making the, larger gifts, Much has also been made of the fact, that a few records of the committee before April 7 were destroyed. The fact is that, the very large part of such records has been preserved, and the committee believes that the others can be reconstructed if needed. But, the important point is that there was no illegal act in throwing away any of these records, and even those that were retained could have been disposed of, Not only was there no statutory requirement that records of transactions before April 7 be preserved it, was not even necessary that any recordings be made at all. At least, that's what our lawyers told us at the time, and that corresponded with what we had been told in the 1968 campaign. The Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President, undertook to observe strictly all the, provisions of the new law, beginning April 7, and also urged its State committees to do likewise. Systems and controls were developed to insure that would be the case. Notwithstanding this, there have been a, few instances in which the committee has been cited by the General Accounting Office and the Department of Justice for failure to report transactions which occurred after April 7, and in at, least one case, the; Department of Justice has ruled in favor of the committee. The committee believes that it, has valid explanations for this small number of technical violations, and that, considering the hundreds of thousands of' contributions received and bills paid, its record of operation under a new and highly complex law that came into being in the middle of the campaign should be commended rather than criticized. [00.26.03]
U.S. House Sexual Misconduct Investigation
Special Counsel to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Joseph A. Califano Jr. continues speaking on the instances of proven wrongdoing, noting they are exceptions to the rule. The three exceptions were atypical of behavior in the House of Representatives between Congressional Pages, members, and employees, and occurred between three and ten years ago. Califano points out that within a ten year period hundreds of members of the House and tens of thousands of employees have interacted with one another and with Congressional Pages, and only three instances of illegal behavior have been uncovered. Califano believes it important to take allegations seriously, and have thorough investigation, especially in light of low public confidence in their governing institutions. If found, wrongdoing must be rooted out. Adult Caucasian female looking down at notes; pan to Califano speaking, who states the House has been fully vindicated and has fully discharged its duties.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Barbara Jordan Statement
Representative Peter Rodino ( D New Jersey ) I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jordan, for the purpose of general debate, not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. Representative Barbara Jordan ( D Texas ) Thank You, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague, Mr. Rangel, in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible. Earlier today we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States. We, the People. It is a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the 17th of September in 1787 I was not included in that "We, the People." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision I have finally been included in "We, the People."
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R New Jersey) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to attempt to cover all of the charges that have been made. I am going to isolate my statements to the major charge of the Watergate and Watergate cover up. If it were not for that I don't think we would be here tonight. I think it is altogether proper too, to commence by making a little bit of a review on what we have done, where we are tonight, and where we hope to go from here. My mind is unchanged as a result of the Supreme Court decision today. I believe that this committee should go on with its work. There are sufficient votes here for an impeachment resolution. This everyone knows. In fact, there has been that many votes here for a long time. There is no use kidding anybody about that. So regardless of what is the new tapes, a majority does exist here to impeach the President for some, reason or another.