Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.22.08] Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, let me continue elaborating on the events that transpired immediately, immediately after the arrest of five employees of the Committee To Re-Elect the President, one employee of the White House, two employees of the White House that were fugitives immediately thereafter on June 17, to determine whether the President began implementing, immediately a policy of coverup, and I say he did and the, evidence justifies that. it 'Was evolving policy but the essential component of that policy was coverup. protect the 1972 election, but the information that occurs from Saturday June 17, immediately after the burglary, through June 22 enormously important information. These people are involved in the scenario as it is referred to at that particular moment in time. In Washington are Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Liddy and Mr. Kleindienst and Mr. Dean. In Key Biscayne are the President, and Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ziegler and *in Los Angles are Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Mardian. The. phone conversations between those three varied points in this country practically burns up the wires immediately on Saturday as they discussed enormously dangerous event. Dangerous to whom? Dangerous to the President. The, first notice that the President got of it, according to Colson, was when he called the President--the President called Colson, as President had apparently heard from Haldeman who had already heard that Hunt, employee of the White House, was involved Hunt, he of the Plumbers and the White House horrors. When President was informed by Colson of what had happened it is alleged the President, threw in ashtray across the room. Vial, is not, the reaction of a man who is not aware. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend until the committee is in order and the committee is not in order. The gentleman from California. MR. WALDIE. I thank the chairman and I thank the committee. That is not ,in action of -in individual who is learning for the first time in his life that there has been a burglary in Washington. D.C. I There are. burglaries that occur in Washington. D.C. with sufficient frequency that when the Presidents are informed, they don't throw ashtrays across the room. The next thing, we understand on that same day Mr. Liddy, one the burglars, goes to the Attorney General, and at the direction we are told of Mr. Mitchell, the former Attorney General, goes to Kleindienst, the very brain of the, burglary. and says to Kleindienst you have got to get our boys out of jail. And Kleindienst said, "Get out Of here." Interestingly enough, that's all Kleindienst said or did. He didn't say what are our boys doing in jail, or who are they, let's get to the bottom of this. And what are you doing out of jail. The Attorney General didn't say that. So, he understood what was going on. Mr. Ehrlichman called the President. Actually he didn't, he called Mr. Haldeman on Sunday, the day following the burglary from Washington to Key Biscayne, and he told Mr. Haldeman of the involvement of old Mr. McCord, a security officer for the Committee to Re-Elect President, and the involvement of Mr. Hunt, who was an employee of the White House, and whom the President knew had been involved In plumbers activities He told Mr. Haldeman that Mr. Haldeman was told by Ehrlichman that Mr. Mitchell had authorized, with Haldeman, a plan to procure political intelligence by bugging. He told him it was financed by CRP funds. and that Hunt and Liddy were in this team that had been involved in previous activities. NOW, do you really believe that Haldeman, the closest confidant advisor of the President, on Sunday, June 18, when told these startling and damaging facts did not convey them to the President in Key Biscayne? Was he that disloyal that he would not convey to the president something as enormously important to the President's election? That does not add up to common sense. Of course, he had convey it to the President, The next thing we know in terms of Presidential involvement is that the President called Mr. Colson, a good friend of Mr. Hunt, on Monday, from Key Biscayne. The President calls Mr. Colson and they talked for an hour. Mr. Colson had probably had more phone calls from more people in high levels of Government over those 1) days since the break-in than anybody in America, because Mr. Colson had brought Mr. Hunt into -White House employ, and they were worried about Mr. Hunt because Mr. Hunt at that point was a fugitive. They only knew he was employed by the White House, but they wanted to know, is he, off the payroll of the White House. So, everybody was calling 'Mr. Colson, including the President, and everybody that called testified 'they called Mr. Colson to find out about Hunt. Mr. Colson said that why the President called him. They discussed Watergate. It was common knowledge in Washington, there had been a burglary and President wanted to carry on a little conversation from Key Biscayne, calling Colson in Washington on a subject just to talk about a burglary. You know he asked Colson what he knew about Hunt. Then, June 20, all the President's men gather in Washington and the meetings that take place are these: Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Mitchell meet. Dean and Kleindienst join with them on the morning of the 20th, and they discuss strategy for Watergate. That's all they really discuss, and there is really no question about that in anybody's--- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [00.28.31]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.12.21--Recess declared] [DUKE voiceover says that members had a "working lunch" behind closed doors to work out the impasse, with a further compromise, with DEMOCRATS offering some specifics] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for recognizing me and yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland. Mr. SARBANES./ I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, there are two points I want to clarify stemming out of the discussion that was held this morning. The first deals with the procedural aspects of this matter with respect to the detailing of the factual material that underlies the article of impeachment. And there I want to make three things very clear. First, the President's counsel has been here throughout the proceedings All of the factual material that the committee has considered, all of the statements of information, all of the summaries were provided to him on a daily basis just as they -were provided to us. So the Contours and the details and the pattern and the interrelationship of the factual matters have been spelled out fully to the President's counsel. Nothing has been concealed from him. Second, this committee once it makes its decision, will have to make a recommendation to the floor of the House of Representatives and at that point what -we bring forth will be supported by a report which will have to detail the underpinning for the action that we have taken. So the material -will again be spelled out there for the benefit Of our Colleagues in the House before they make their decision. Neither at this' point, nor in the House, is the President yet on trial. He is only on trial when the matter reaches ]the Senate. And third, when the matter does reach the Senate the President's counsel is in a position to seek further specification if he deems it necessary, although it is my conviction that his participation here and the further report that will have to be prepared for the Members of the House of Representatives will fully provide him with all of the material necessary to prepare a defense for the trial which will take place in the other body. Now, that is the procedural side of this thing. Let me turn for a moment to some of the substantive things. Time, of course, is not, going to permit me to sketch out all of these matters which underlie the, allegations in this article. But I do to set some of them out so there is some appreciation of the detail that lies behind the charge that is being made against the President the, United States and contained in this article I for the purposes OF, impeachment. Let us look- at the pattern of conduct that began subsequent- to the break-in on June 17. The President professed ignorance of both the involvement of the Committee to Re-Elect the President and White House Involvement in Watergate in the face of discussions of Watergate on or before June 20, with Haldeman, Colson, and Mitchell, persons aware, of such involvement and the President's closest advisors. On the morning of June 20, Haldeman Mitchell Ehrlichman, Kleindienst and Dean met in the, White House in the early morning. Later that morning Haldeman met -with the President. The Chief of Staff met with the President. And his notes indicate that in that conversation with the, President Watergate was discussed. The part of the tape pertaining to the Watergate discussion is the 18 1/2 minutes that are missing and which an expert panel reported to Judge Sirica were manually erased. The President has refused to honor subpenas of this committee seeking conversations with Haldeman and Colson on June 20, On the 22d of June the President made a statement that Mitchell and Ziegler stated the facts accurately -when they said there was no basis for believing involvement. on the 23d of June the President had a meeting with Haldeman, his chief of staff, subsequent to which Haldeman and Ehrlichman met with Helms and Walters and in effect, directed them to indicate to the FBI that the pursuance of the investigation into Mexico should halted because it might encounter CIA activities . The day before, on the 22d of June, Helms had told Gray, the FBI Director, that there -was no CIA involvement and at the June 23 meeting, at that meeting initially Helms and Walters reported to Haldeman and Ehrlichman that there was no such involvement. On the 30th--on the 20th of June, Mitchell apologized to the President because some of his people had gotten out of hand. He regretted that he had not policed the people in his organization. We heard that tape. on the 30th of June there was a conversation with Mitchell in when the, president indicated that they must cut the loss from potential disclosures about CRP involvement in Watergate by having Mitchell resign as campaign director. On the 6th of July. in a conversation with the President., the Director of the FBI Patrick Gray, told the President the Members of 'his staff ware trying to mortally wound him. The President paused for a long time and then said to Pat Gray, you just keep on with your aggressive and thorough investigation. He did not ask Pat Gray then or later what he meant by that, who was involved, who was trying to do it, how they were trying to do it, On August 29th the President issued a statement concerning the. Dean report. He, went before the, American people and said he had asked John Dean to invest investigate gate the matter. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [00.18.42]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today the committee starts consideration. of the most awesome power constitutionally vested in the House of Representatives. During the past four months this committee's Impeachment inquiry staff has been assembling information under the committee's direction and counsel Will now Present to the Committee the information assembled. The power of impeachment is one, of those great checks and balances written in our Constitution to ameliorate the stark doctrine, of separation of powers. But impeachment of a President is most drastic, for it can bring down in administration of the Government. The Constitution itself limits the scope e of impeachment of a President to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. A law dictionary published in London in 1776 defines Impeachment as--The accusation and prosecution of a person for treason or other crimes and misdemeanors. Any Member of the House of Commons may not only impeach any of their own body but also any Lord or Parliament. And thereupon Articles are exhibited on behalf of the Commons, and managers appointed to make good their charge and accusation; which being, done in the proper judicature, sentence is passed. And it is observed that the same evidence is required in an impeachment in Parliament as in the Ordinary courts of justice. [Rep. HUTCHINSON attempting to create a definition of IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES) That definition of the term fairly exhibits, I believe, the understanding and meaning of the founders of this Republic when they wrote into our own Constitution the sole power of this House impeach the President. The standard it imposes is a finding Of criminal culpability on the part of the President himself measured according to the law. I trust that the members of this committee embark upon their awesome task each in his own resolve to lay aside ordinary political considerations & to weigh the evidence according to the law. I trust that each of us is resolved during this inquiry, schooled, skilled, and practiced in the law as each of us is, to perform as a lawyer in the finest traditions of the profession. And in the view of the enormity of the responsibility cast upon us, I trust that in the days and weeks ahead each of us will according to the dictates of his own conscience, Seek the guidance of that Divine Providence which can be with us all and be everywhere for good, and which has so blessed this Nation and its people throughout our history. [00.13.05]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.50] [Jim LEHRER in studio, seated at desk with large headshot of NIXON shown on screen behind him] LEHRER introduces the videotaped broadcast of the daytime session by summarizing the charges ultimately approved and rejected by the JUDICIARY COMMITEE against President NIXON. Paul DUKE summarizes the first hour's debate, in which Rep. McCLORY proposes the ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT charging NIXON with illegally refusing to honor the Committee's SUBPOENAS, "STONEWALLING" the investigation, and Rep. FROEHLICH says that the committee should have asked the Supreme Court to intervene rather than raising an ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT over the subpoenas. LEHRER summarizes the second hour of debate, in which Rep. EDWARDS says that the power of the CONGRESS to issue SUBPOENAS is an essential part of the IMPEACHMENT POWER, and cannot be defied by a President, and Rep. RAILSBACK calls the ARTICLE "POLITICAL OVERKILL". DUKE summarizes the third hour of debate, on the subject of the BOMBING OF CAMBODIA, in which Rep. LATTA argues that NIXON cannot be impeached for an action taken to save American lives, and Rep. COHEN charges that the abuse of War Powers by recent Presidents is in great part the result of the "sloth and default of Congress". LEHRER summarizes the fourth hour of debate on the CAMBODIA BOMBING in which Rep. WALDIE says NIXON should be impeached for abusing the War Power that belongs rightly to Congress, and Rep. FLOWERS calls the fourth ARTICLE of IMPEACHMENT a "bad rap" for NIXON. [01.05.58--Chairman RODINO gavels the meeting to order] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come. to order. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the form of article III at, the, clerk's desk. CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the article. CLERK. [reading]: Immediately after article II, add the following additional article. Article III. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability,. to Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June, 24, 1974, and -willfully disobeyed such subpenas. The subpenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the committee to its inquiry, authorized and directed by resolution of the House of Representatives to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, In refusing to provide these papers and things, he has acted in derogation of the power of Impeachment vested solely in the House of Representatives by the Constitution of the United States. In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional Government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, preliminary to presenting a discussion in support of my-of the proposed article III, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on article III, including the consideration of any amendments thereto, be limited to a period not to exceed 3 hours Debate on. any amendment shall not exceed 30 minutes, divided equally between the proponents and opponents of the amendment, The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. LATTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Reserving the right to object--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I think every member on this committee is fully familiar with this article of impeachment and made up his mind and I think 3 hours* debate time is much too long. I would hope that the gentleman would consider this and reduce that amount of time. The, CHAIRMAN. All right, I advise the gentleman from Ohio that the unanimous consent request is to the effect that debate not exceed 3 hours. It is not necessary that we consume 3 hours. Mr. LATTA. By the same token, Mr. Chairman, I could consume 3 hours. The CHAIRMAN. But any member of the committee may move the question after consideration of any amendments and that period could come prior to the 3-hour limitation. At any time prior to that at, The gentleman from Illinois. If there is no objection [01.10.08]
Chairman Ichord of the House Committee on...
Representative Richard Ichord (D-MO) at podium for press conference regarding The House Committee on Un-American Activities and the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Ichord is surrounded by microphones and reporters. Off-screen male reporter asks Ichord, “You've been at it a week at taxpayers' expense. What have you accomplished, in your mind?” Ichord says, “The hearings have been very fruitful. More than 80 organizations participated in the Chicago disturbances; that there were 10 major organizations; that there were Communists and various subversives involved in these organizations; and that many of the people did have connections with foreign communist power.” Off-screen male reporter asks if he is going to issue contempt citations. Ichord states that punishment is for the courts and not the committee. “It is the purpose of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, as I construe it, to investigate the facts, find out the nature and extent of subversion and intelligently inform the Congress of those facts so that we can legislate to protect ourselves from subversion and still retain the Constitutional liberties which we all cherish so much." Middle-aged adult Caucasian male reporter asks if anyone was in contempt. Ichord replies, “I would say, as a lawyer, yes. During these hearings, the Chair has been extremely lenient. I think there have been many instances of contempt, that there is a prima facie case of contempt. But as I stated before, that's not the purpose of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. We are just gathering the facts.”
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.51.20] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* [LEWIS with Rep. WALDIE] LEWIS asks WALDIE about the PRO-NIXON charge that the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side is denying NIXON due process by withholding the exact charges from him until his trial. WALDIE says it's not true, NIXON'S ATTORNEY has been present for all of the committee's proceedings, a report based on the allegaitons will go both to the President and the House, which will be highly specific. The argument is disingenuous. LEWIS says that many people wonder why Chairman RODINO would allow such tactics and behavior on his committee. WALDIE says that RODINO is a very fair man and doesn't want to seem partisan or heavyhanded. The minority is thus able to abuse the chair's tolerance. He supports the Chair's style of conducting the hearings. LEWIS asks whether this is going to turn into a war of attrition WALDIE says that reason wil sooner than later win out, and the debate should return to the evidence tomorrow [LEHRER in studio, screen shows members arriving at committee bench] LEHRER says they are waiting for the meeting to start, says that he is glad for DUKE to have convinced him to scale back his conviction that an ARTICLE would be drafted by the end of the night to :"may". Laughs all around. It looks like there will be a struggle. DUKE says that in his experience as a Capitol reporter, a bill took three months of debate in committee before it could be sent to the floor for a vote. Don't be sure that the resolution will be easy. DUKE asks the guests if they think the committee has proceeded in a proper way and done a good job, considering that no impeachment has been considered since 1936. VAN ALSTYNE says that it's academically chic to criticize Congress, but that the committee has been very professional, starting with the Chair's evenhandedness. Also, the character of counsel is shown to be fine. DIAMOND says that he is a fan of Congress, and that most criticisms of "do-nothing" stem from the Congress doing something contrary to the wishes of the observer. Says the proceedings are starting to reflect constituencies' wishes, etd. DUKE asks if it is true that 19th C. Congresses were more forceful and active, that many great laws once originated in Congress, but now Congress waits for the President's recommendations? DIAMOND says the problem is the great increase in government at all levels, which are actually a juncture of Congress and the Executive, giving Congress an interpenetration into Executive functions. LEHRER ASKS about the effect of TELEVISION on the committee. VAN ALSTYNE says there are some obvious effects, that some of the debate is grandstanding and repetitious, but a feedback is important, in terms of opinion, and that it is therefore proper, overall DUKE mentions that NIXON claimed not to have been watching, only out of force of habit. [01.03.53--TAPE OUT] p
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Wayne Owens (D Utah). Now, I would like to refer back to a Presidential news conference of August 22, 1973. Again, this is several months before the tapes were released, at a time that the President indicated he would not release any tapes. In this press conference the President made several assertions which I think were less than candid in his statements to the press, and through them, to the American People. He said that in the summer of 1972 Mr. MacGregor who had replaced Mr. Mitchell as director of his campaign, "Mr. MacGregor conducted a thorough investigation in 1972 about the involvement of White House personnel." Mr. MacGregor has testified before the grand jury, sworn testimony that is before this committee in evidence that he received no instructions from the President and that he did not conduct a thorough investigation about the involvement of White House personnel.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.15.19] Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. I want to join in the praise given to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey for withdrawing his motions to strike in the interests of saving time, -and then ask the distinguished gentleman from Alabama if indeed it is his purpose to bring facts before this committee as relates to specifies of Presidential wrongdoing, and certainly not to strike but to serve as an educational function and recognizing that a motion to strike may serve as that parliamentarian vehicle. I was wondering whether the distinguished gentleman from Alabama would accept either staff or members reciting specific dates and Times that support that particular article. I Think if the question really is one to educate the general public, then perhaps we could recite that information , but certainly whether any of the members of this committee agree on the standard of evidence that we will be using, there is no question that we do know what evidence we are using at this time. We may differ on the quality and the quantity that we think is necessary to support an article of impeachment, but I ask the, distinguished gentleman from Alabama that if indeed he wants to educate the general public and have specifies, would he not consent to those specifies being either by staff or members to support the article, so we can move on and finally get an opportunity to vote on this historic question. Mr. FLOWERS. Is this directed to me, Mr. Rangel? Mr. RANGEL. Yes. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. FLOWERS,. I think that the only way in which we can elicit this information is through this vehicle or motion as it, Pertains to each one of the subparagraphs which tend to support the general statement in paragraph 2. My purpose is to elicit the information and to find out' what evidence there is. and I would hope that the staff and members of the committee would be able to respond expeditiously, as my friend from Illinois says, and we, will not, take a great amount of time, but I do not think that we should sacrifice thoroughness for expedition here. Mr. RANGEL. No. My question is, Mr. Flowers, if we were to read paragraph 2 and' if In fact staff or a member of this committee would give, you information and specifics as to what the President did or did not do to support that paragraph would you accept that and be prepared to allow the committee to vote as to whether or not this is sufficient evidence to support that paragraph? Mr. FLOWERS. I will say to the gentleman from New York that the only way a member can win the floor is to offer an amendment at this point, and there is no other parliamentary device for a member to, gain the floor, having already used up the 5 minutes which we were allocated in general debate on this article and, for that, purpose, I do not see that the parliamentary situation would allow that. Mr. RANGEL. If you stick to the -word "debate," there is no question that we have to deal with the motion to strike, but I am certain that the Chair would allow us as Mr. Sarbanes goes down the paragraphs, to give that specific information which we have used to support it and then, if that was done, there would be no need for 38 members to debate it. It would be a question as to whether we agreed with it and we could vote on it. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it, Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I have, as you know, a proposed article and proposed article III, and I just want to be sure that I understand what our procedure will be for today. I understand that you will entertain perfecting amendments which will be discussed and that then you propose that with respect to motions to strike, articles, for purposes of--- The CHAIRMAN. Debates. Mr. McCLORY [continuing]. Debates, and for getting additional information such as the gentleman from Alabama suggests, that you will entertain a motion to close debate, a motion on the previous question at the end of 1 hour's time with regard to each one, of the paragraphs. Is that correct ? The CHAIRMAN. Or if a member would move the previous question earlier. Mr. McCLORY. But not to exceed 1 hour of discussion with regard to information on with respect to each of the subparagraphs. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. McCLORY. Thank You, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an inquiry. Let me say I concur in Mr. Sandman's statement. We are certainly not bowing just because we want to be bowing. We are bowing to the obvious and the obvious is that we do not have the votes. We are not deserting our position. We think it was a proper position. Yesterday those who believed as deeply as we did were not resorting to dilatory tactics, as has been reported in some places, but we definitely felt that the President of the United States should be able to answer the, charges that were being made against him, and they were not specific. They are still general, and that is the way they are going to be, they are going- to remain. But I vould like to at this juncture, Mr. Chairman, point out That there, has been some misinformation going Out across the country that, had we been successful and made these articles specific, that they could not have been amended on the floor of the House. I know the Chair knows and every member of this committee knows that we are not going to grant in the Rules Committee a closed rule on this matter. It will be, an open rule and subject to amendment on the floor. So if there are any additional charges that -wish to be brought or times or places under any of the articles that have been mentioned here that wish to be included, it could have been included by amendment on the floor of the house. I would just like to make the record straight that here is one member and I am sure that there are going to be 14 other members on the Rules Committee when this matter comes up there, going to be voting an open rule. [00.21.59]
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference on spending. Conference Chairman, US Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) makes opening remarks and welcomes the attendees. Sen. Dole commends the conference members and Congressional staff members who worked on the proposed legislation. Dole briefly discusses the Senate's scheduled proceedings for the day.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.06.59] Mr. SEIBERLING. I would just like to point out that every time this has come up in the past, Presidents starting with George Washington and going through to Franklin Roosevelt have conceded that in an impeachment inquiry the House can obtain whatever information the executive branch possesses. I would just like to read you what a House, committee said back in 1843 when President Tyler, after initially objecting, finally turned over to the, committee some materials that they had requested. If the House possesses the power to Impeach, it must Likewise possess all the incidents of that power-the power to compel the attendance of all witnesses and the production of all such papers as may be considered necessary to prove the charges on which impeachment is founded, If it did not, the power of impeachment conferred upon it by the Constitution would be nugatory. It could not exercise it with effect. Three years later President Polk made this statement: It may be alleged that the power of impeachment belongs to the House of Representatives, and that, with a view to the exercise of this power, that House has the right to investigate the conduct of all public officers under the Government is cheerfully admitted. In such a case the safety of the Republic be the supreme law, and the power of the House in the pursuit of this object would penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Department. It could command the attendance of any and every agent of Government and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial, and to testify on oath to all facts within their knowledge. . . . If the House of Representatives, as the grand inquest of the nation, should at any time have reason to believe that there has been malversation in office by an improper use or application of the public money by a public officer, and should think proper to institute an inquiry into the matter, all the archives and papers of the Executive Departments, public or private, would be subject to inspection and control of a Committee of their body and every facility in the power of the Executive be afforded to enable them to prosecute the investigation. Now, the Supreme Court last week held that in a Presidential case, the President's power to withhold documents, his power of executive privilege must yield to the legitimate requirements of proof in a court case. If that is true in a criminal case involving third parties, how much more so is it true in an impeachment investigation, investigating the very conduct of the President himself; Lord Coke has said "This King cannot be judge of his own cause," and yet if a President can withhold the key evidence from a committee investigating his conduct of his office, he in effect has become the judge in his own cause. We do not need to submit this to court. We have the power as acknowledged by Presidents in the past and we should exercise that power, and the only effective way we can exercise it, when a President refuses to respond to our subpenas, is to include that as one of the impeachable offenses and give the Senate, as the court of ultimate resort, the right to pass on that offense. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The maker of the, main position, you see, has dug himself a hole and the purpose of the amendment is to help extricate himself from that illogical position. The situation is this. This committee yesterday and the day before viewed the evidence and found it, I am told, overwhelming. I believe our good counsel called it a surfeit of evidence. I take that to be a good bit, Mr. Doar. And voted to impeach and remove the President based thereon, found it to be clear and convincing. And now we seek to impeach him because he did not give us enough evidence to do the job. Now. I would think that you have an option here, if you wish. Yon' can frankly acknowledge. the inadequacy of the evidence to impeach the President and perhaps impeach him for failing to provide that evidence, or on the other hand, you can vote that the evidence is sufficient to impeach the 'President as you have done and to recognize that the matters subpenaed were not in fact necessary to the conduct of this committee's inquiry. That word "necessary" is important. you understand because that" word is found in the authorizing resolution which gives its the power to issue subpenas at all. We made a tentative judgment as to necessity when we authorized the subpenas, but by your vote yesterday and The day before, you conclusively demonstrated that it was not necessary. Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. I will in a moment but not, until I am prepared to do so. Mr. McCLORY. All right. Mr. WIGGINS. NOW, look at the Thornton amendment in terms of what it does to Mr. McClory's amendment. Mr. McCLORY's amendment says that the matters were necessary, deemed necessary, to deter whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard Nixon. manifestly that is not so or your votes were improper. Recognizing that, I suspect my friend from Arkansas has proposed a perfecting amendment in which he says there were conflicts in the evidence and the subpenaed material was desirable, perhaps not necessary, but desirable, to resolve the conflicts. Well, that may be so, but you understand your vote yesterday and the day before indicated a positive resolution of those conflicts. They no longer are unresolved. Now, if logic and -common sense still has any place to play in these proceedings, I would think that we had an election. We elect to impeach on the basis of the evidence before us or we elect to impeach him for failing to provide that evidence. Those who voted for the first two articles cannot have, their- cake and eat it, too, and maintain logical consistency by voting for the third, in my opinion. In my opinion, this article is inconsistent with the prior two. I will be happy to yield to my friend from Illinois. [00.13.52]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
[00.20.57] Mr. MOORHEAD. And I think that, of course, they have a, right to express their opinion but I do think that -when we are considering such an important thing as the impeachment of a President that we ought to stick to the evidence that we have, and the very best interpretation of the evidence that we have. Some of the things that have been stated are just not borne out by the facts. I Just received a copy of the recent version that, was just given, It was stated first on June 22, 1972, the President publicly adopted as his position, and as factually accurate to the previous statements of Mitchell and Ziegler that the White House had no involvement whatsoever in the Watergate break-in, and that, the CRP had no legal, moral or ethical accountability for the break-in. There is absolutely no evidence that the President, had any knowledge of the involvement of White House people at the time that he made this statement. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. He had been told that there was no involvement. It was also stated that the grounds for this section were that on August 20, 1972. The President publicly stated that at the President's direction Dean had conducted a complete investigation which indicated that, no one in the White House staff or in the administration Was involved in the Watergate, and that the CRP -was also conducting an investigation of the Watergate. Ehrlichman directed Dean to conduct an investigation to see if anyone in the White House was involved. No one presently employed in the White House -was involved. as was stated. True, there had been one man in the White House that had been there previously that had left. The, third statement was given that on October 5, 1972, the President publicly stated that he wanted every lead carried out by the FBI to the end, "because I wanted to be sure that no member of the White House staff and no man or woman in a position of major responsibility in the Committee for the Re-election had anything to do -with this kind of reprehensible activities." This statement was true. The President did tell Mr. Gray to pursue his investigation. This goes down the line, and I do not intend to go through all of these various sections, but I want one thing very clear, and that is presentation of the live witness before this committee, from the present, it is apparent that Mr. Dean was the man in the White House that had the, responsibility to look into the Watergate investigation. And Mr. Colson told us here, with no ax to grind, that everything was forwarded to Dean that pertained to the. Watergate. Dean was the man that they looked to for any investigation that -was done. And when we listened to the tape of the conversation between the President and Mr. Dean prior to Mr. Dean going up to Camp David, the President's comment, and I do not remember the exact words, was well, this will give you an opportunity to think about the things that have happened and to prepare a report. Mr. Dean went to Camp David, did not prepare a report, although he was again specifically ordered to do so while he was there. I guess his involvement was too deep for him to really be able to prepare something. And as a result, Mr. Dean came back without the report for the President. But, it is perfectly clear that the President looked to Dean for the investigation, for information on this matter. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman FROM California has expired. The gentleman from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [01.25.02]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.38] MR. McCLORY. I recall. when the President came before the joint session Of the Congress in January he said words to the effect that he wanted to provide full cooperation with the Judiciary Committee consistent only -with the operation of his office. Now, I suppose that qualification was more significant than it seemed to be at that time because the words that came across to us were full cooperation with the House Judiciary Committee. Now, -where is that full cooperation with the House Judiciary Committee? Well, -we have had some tapes and we have had some transcripts, The transcripts we got, of course, were transcripts that were issued to the public, not issued in response to this committee, but publicized, the edited transcripts as they are called, or the White House transcripts. And the tapes, -where did they come from? Well, they did not come from the White House, they came from the grand jury and they came from the Special Prosecutor's office. As a matter of fact, of the 147 tapes that we requested, we did not receive a single one from the White House. Now, if you ever saw an example of stonewalling, the prime example of stonewalling is right there, and now that is an expression that comes out of the White House, but where is the stonewalling occurring? It is occurring with regard to the Congress of the United States and with regard to this committee. Now if we do have the sole power of impeachment, and if we do have the authority to investigate, then it is important of course, that we do receive the kind of cooperation that I thought would be forthcoming. I have done everything I could to try to impress upon the White House the importance of this cooperation. Now) the President has raised the question of confidentiality of the taped material, and so we suggested that this material would be received not only under our rules of strict confidentiality, but that the President himself, or the President's counsel could participate with our counsel in screening out national security information. But, the President's position has been that he should be the sole arbiter of what he should turn over, and what he should not turn over. Well, if he is the sole arbiter, then how in the world could we conduct a thorough and a complete and fair investigation? Well, we just could not, Now, since we began this inquiry, of course, the President has been involved in litigation, and the case went to the Supreme Court. And, he made the same kind of a plea to the district court that he has made to us, that he should have the sole right, that there was an absolute executive privilege -which prevailed, and that he had the absolute right to determine what he would turn over and what he would not, turn over. Now, that doctrine was knocked down. That was knocked down effectively insofar as the court was concerned. Now, it is true that -were not involved in that proceeding. Some people thought we should have been, and perhaps we should have been. But, anyway, the doctrine was knocked down and the doctrine of absolute executive privilege has fallen. As a matter of fact, I have felt, and a number of my colleagues here on the committee have felt that the, doctrine of executive has no application whatsoever in an impeachment inquiry, because it would be impossible for the President or any other person being investigated to have the right and privilege to determine what was to be submitted in the course of the investigation and what was not to be submitted. In other words, we would be falling foul of the maxim enunciated by Lord Coke that person cannot be the judge of his own cause, and consequently, that doctrine cannot possibly prevail. Otherwise our authority would be frustrated completely. Now, I say this is fundamental and basic to our inquiry and I mean precisely that. I mean that if we are going to set a standard and a guide for future Congresses, for future impeachment inquiries, there is no more, important standard and guide than the one that we will determine with respect to article III, because if -we refuse to recommend impeachment of the President on the basis of this article TIT, if we refuse to recommend that the President should be impeached because of his defiance of the Congress with respect to the subpenas that we have issued, the future respondents will be in the position where they can determine themselves what they are going to provide in an impeachment inquiry and what they are not going to provide, and this would be particularly so in the case of an inquiry directed toward the President of the United States. So, it not only affects this President but future Presidents. And it might be that a Republican Congress would be investigating in an impeachment inquiry a Democratic President in a future instance. I hope we do not have any more impeachments, but in the case we did, the precedent that we might establish here would be, effective then. So, it seems to me that there is no greater responsibility which befalls us at this time than that to determine this question of the President's responsibility with respect to our subpenas. Now, earlier I had the thought and I set it forth publicly that I felt that when the President did not respond to our subpenas that we should take action to hold the President in contempt, or that we should censure the President, or we should have a resolution of inquiry, to get some action on the part of the House. I was discouraged in that respect. I was discouraged from leaders on both sides of the aisle, I might say, and I emphasized at that time that while I was withholding the action that I intended to take then, that I would face, a very serious dilemma at this stage, and so while we did not take action under the, contempt authority that we had, which in a Sense is quite difficult to enforce and to apply. [01.22.09]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.16.25] Mr. WIGGINS. I thank my colleague for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes remaining . Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WIGGINS. I just want to conclude two points that I did not consider when I had the time. The press conference has been criticized I zed as a statement by the President of the United States lying to the American people because he said there was no White House involvement. Now, the only involvement at that time known to the President possibly at attributable to the White House was Mr. If Hunt. We all understand that Mr. Liddy did not work for the White House and the facts are that Mr. Hunt did not work for the White House either. Now, I know that there has been some dispute in the, evidence as to that, but the, weight of the evidence, and if we are going to go by any standard of Clear and convincing, the clear and convincing is that he in fact, worked for the Committee To Re-Elect. I want to pass from that to one final observation which disturbs my friend from Illinois, and unfortunately he is not here, but he contended that Mr. Ehrlichman lied to the Attorney General about the lack of involvement of Mr. Dean and Mr. Haldeman and himself when he reported to the Attorney General in a telephone conversation the 28th./ I have before me exactly what he said to the Attorney General, and he said it in the presence of the President of the United States. This was what Mr. Ehrlichman said. [QUOTED] "OK -now, the President said for me to say this to you. The best information he had, and it Is that neither Dean, nor Haldeman, nor Colson nor I, nor anybody in the White House had any prior knowledge of the burglary. He said that he's counting on you to provide him with any information to the contrary, if it turns up, and you Just contact him direct. Now, as far as the Committee To Re-Elect is concerned, he said that serious Questions are being raised with regard to Mitchell, and he would likewise want you to communicate to him any evidence or inference from evidence, on that Subject." [END QUOTE] Now, the question is, did he lie to Mr. Kleindienst when he said that? You recall what I testified to just a few moments ago when the President said that he had cold, flat denials from these people that they were not involved. and that Dean told him as God as his witness, he was not involved. That is precisely the information the President related to Mr. Kleindienst the Attorney General, and I ask you, did the President lie on that occasion? Did he mislead on that occasion? The answer is, he did not. Mr. COHEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. I Will yield. It is not, my time to yield. The time is Mr. Dennis'. That is all the points I want to make. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will either use his time now, he cannot reserve his time as he has 1 minute remaining. . Nfl'. COHEN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DENNIS. Well, I will yield Mr. Cohen .30 seconds of my minute. Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. Mr. COHEN. I would like to address a question to the. gentleman from California about the President's statements to Assistant Attorney General Petersen and ask his opinion as to whether or not, having read all of the transcripts and information presented to this committee ,is to whether or not the President was correctly stating the facts when he told Mr. Petersen to stay away from the Ellsberg matter, the break-in because that was a matter of national security? Mr. DENNIS. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. I would say absolutely, yes; without equivocation, that was indeed, a national security matter, and the overwhelming evidence is that this entire operation had national security overtones. Mr. COHEN. The matter for which Mr. Colson pleaded guilty----- Mr. DENNIS. I have not yielded any more, and I will say that if the gentleman thinks those are fault, write them in here, and we will find out. Mr. COHEN. The gentleman does. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired. The gentleman from 'Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is recognized for 5 minutes. [01.20.52]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. FROEHLICH......constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the constitution and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due respect from the other. It further stated that in the last analysis it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Thus, the Court said, in essence, that the President was absolutely correct in defending his interpretation of the Constitution but that the Supreme Court's decision with respect to claim of executive privilege was dispositive in the last analysis. It then held that although the courts will afford the utmost deference in the Presidential need for confidentiality when the. claim of privilege is based merely on generalized interest in confidentiality the assertion of the privilege must yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial, that is, the tapes must be given to the district court for in camera inspection. I The decision of Supreme Court did not say that executive privilege was not a viable doctrine,. On the contrary, it said that certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers, the protection of confidentiality of Presidential communication has similar constitutional underpinnings. It also said the privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution Thus, the Supreme Court-, has stated emphatically that executive privilege is a constitutional privilege available to the President. Now, whenever a situation where ere' members of this committee, like Mr. Jaworski, are asserting the right to have certain information because under article I the House shall have the sole power of impeachment, but that clause says nothing about a President being powerless to assert what he understands to be his constitutional responsibility to protect his office. Therefore, at best -we have two great branches of government involved in a stalemate both arguing the Constitution. As the Supreme Court, said it is emphatically the province and duty of the Supreme Court to say what the law is. So if the members of this committee believe their position, they should have gone to court and asked the court to say what the law is. The committee has every right to assert its understanding of the Constitution but it is not the final arbitrator. It is not the judge and jury. Our Constitution gives the courts the responsibility to interpret the law and I would remind the committee that the President has,, responded to have judicial subpena served upon him and has recently stated he intends to fully comply with the Supreme Court rulings. So there is a remedy available to test these theories of constitutional authority to get information and that is to use the courts, not to attempt to impeach a President for defending what he believes to be his duty under the Constitution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the Thornton substitute. I also support the McClory original article, though I think the substitute is an improvement- And the reason it is an improvement is because it makes it even more clear that we are not stating a broad power to obtain Presidential documents in any type of congressional proceeding but we are limiting it to an impeachment proceeding which is what we have before, us". Now, it seems to me that no one can dispute that 'without the power to investigate, the impeachment power is meaningless. It is inconceivable that the Founding Fathers believed that a subject of an impeachment inquiry should be able to withhold relevant evidence from impeachment proceedings. Certain privileges founded in our concept of due process I believe are applicable even in impeachment proceedings, but certainly so-called executive privilege is not one of them. Impeachment is the express exception in the Constitution to the so-called separation of powers doctrine. The very purpose of the impeachment power is to discover and remove those civil officers who committed certain serious offenses against the state. Stonewalling tactics have no legitimate place in procedures which are designed to find the truth as rapidly and as completely as possible. Now, if this were a court case the question of privilege would be one for the judge of the court to decide but here, in the first instance, at the committee is the judge, acting for the full House, and the House thereafter, and if the House votes articles of impeachment, then the Senate, is the ultimate court of appeal in this matter. And it Is the Senate that can decide what the issues of law and fact are. [00.06.59]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.18.49] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler. for 4 minutes. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Whether the House of Representatives shall impeach or not, is in many ways a matter of discretion. We have a great deal of discretion as to whether or not we will impeach, and -within the framework of our decision as to -whether an impeachable offense exists or not, there is still the judgment which is reposed in us to determine. whether it is in the best interests of the country to impeach or not to impeach under those circumstances, In my judgment -we -will have placed after adoption of articles I and II by the House of Representatives. We -will have placed the issue of Presidential conduct sufficiently before the Senate of the United States for a determination of -whether, the President should be continued in office or not. And any additional articles -would extend the proceeding unnecessarily. We do not need this article. and it serves no useful purpose to pursue it, and I would recommend against it. The principal problem for me with reference, to this article is whether the conduct standing alone is ,in impeachable offense under the Constitution. I think not. I am concerned, however, that what we do in substance by article III is to impeach a President for a failure to cooperate in his own impeachment. and to me that is basically unfair. In ]my judgment the House of Representatives has a responsibility to go further down the road than we have at this moment before we impeach the President for his noncompliance with our subpenas. I would prefer that our determination be affirmed by the courts in an appropriate proceeding, or at least by a preliminary determination of a contempt in an appropriate proceeding before the House. The issue is also one of legislative responsibility. We are saying today, if we pass article III. that 20 members, a bare majority of the 38-member committee, can, for reasons, deemed as sufficient unto themselves, issue a subpena to the President, and recommend his impeachment, for their judgment as to the sufficiency of his partial compliance with the subpena, This article offends my sense of fair play, and I intend to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maine if I may. The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman has no time remaining. The gentleman's time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from' California, Mr. Danielson, for 3 1/2 Minutes. Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I support this article of impeachment and I would like to point out that the power of Congress to subpena any and every document from the President in the case of impeachment has been established as far back- as 1792 by President George Washington, and was restated in 1796, by President Tyler in 1843, President Polk in 1846, President Grant in 1876, President Cleveland in 1886, Theodore Roosevelt in 1909, and Franklin D. Roosevelt in an opinion by his Attorney General in 1941. I submit that we should continue to assert this very important right and responsibility of the House. Counsel, Mr. Jenner, has provided for me an excerpt from the recent decision in United States v. Nixon. By simply substituting the word or the equivalent of "House of Representatives" for "courts" and impeachment as a function, here is what you would find on pages 24 and 27 of the Supreme Court decision. "The ends of justice respecting exercise by the House of Representatives of its sole power of impeachment would be defeated if its judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the impeachment system provided in the Constitution and public confidence in that system depend on full disclosure of all facts. To insure that justice is done, it is imperative to this constitutional function of the House of Representatives that compulsory process be available for production of evidence needed by the House of Representatives." And on page 27: "On the other hand, the allowance of the privilege to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in an, impeachment inquiry -would cut deeply into the guarantee of due processes of law and gravely impair the basic constitutional function conferred solely on the House of Representatives." That, ladies and gentlemen of the committee and Mr. Chairman, that is what the Supreme Court would probably state if this issue were before it. And I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. [01.24.11]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.52] Mr. SARBANES; Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak because the hour is getting late, and I think it is necessary for this committee to move on and begin to consider these amendments. We must not delay inordinately in beginning to reach some resolution of this very grave matter. But some things have been stated that have forced me to try to respond. I agree with the gentleman from Indiana -when he says it is very important not to stray, perhaps in our excitement and concern, from a careful statement of what it is we are trying to express in this matter. I see he has left the room, and I regret that, but I intend to go on and make the points. Now, the gentleman from Indiana stated that earlier this evening it was said that due process of law was outmoded. No one said that here. The gentlelady from Texas made a very eloquent statement not only for the need for due process, but why it has been met. Why the Standards that this committee has followed meet the very highest test of due process. Second, the gentleman said that it had been stated in the course Of the discussion here that a defective article can be cured by a committee report. No one said that. What was said was that the article 'was not defective, that the article was valid, that this was good article. In fact it was stated in response to a question from the gentleman from Maine, that the Article went further than was necessary in providing additional notices material for the President, and that the report would then supplementing the article. Then it was asserted. it was asserted that, someone in the course, of this discussion said that the, rules of evidence do not apply in the Senate That was not asserted. What was stated was that in the previous proceedings. the Chief Justice ruled on questions of evidence, that the Senate has the authority to overrule him, and that the Senate does not necessarily have to follow the same, strict rules of evidence that would apply in a court of law. The Senate is sitting in all impeachment trials and is seeking the truth seeking to determine what is best for the country. So. I suggest that none of these sweeping statements were made. And while a debate is important, I think it is critical not to misstate what has come earlier. We can differ, but I think we, ought to recognize what has previously been said. Now, let me address myself to one other point that was made with respect to the President's statement on June 22. In that statement, the President said that he endorsed what John Mitchell had earlier stated, and John Mitchell had earlier stated that there was no involvement, either 'At the Committee To Re-Elect or of anyone else involved. That was Mitchell statement. The President endorsed the truth of that statement, and that, was read, of course, by, the gentleman from California. Now. the gentleman from California also referred to Mr. Hunt and said that Mr. Hunt had no connection with the White House, although it has been so asserted. The fact of the matter is that a very good case can be made that Mr. Hunt, indeed still had a continuing connection With the White House. That is in dispute. but look at what happened subsequent to June 17. Hunt's employment records at the White Rouse were falsified in order to indicate, through a memo. that Hunt had left such employment on March 31 and was not still a consultant to the White House on June 17. Telephone books used in the White House and the Executive Office Building as of immediately after June 17, which contained in them Howard Hunt's name and his telephone number were immediately recalled, brought back from all offices and that page with Hunt's name and number on it was removed from that book and another page substituted. Hunt's safe in his office in the Executive Office Building. of which he had made use, was drilled into, and the contents of that safe Were removed. And finally, Hunt was given instructions to leave, the country, which were subsequently countermanded, but Hunt -was given instruction to leave the country. Now, all four of these things happened immediately afterward, Now, the gentleman from California can contend that Hunt had no connection, but I suggest to him that there are facts to the contrary which indicate that Hunt may well have had a connection. And in any event, it seems to me important in that instance, and in the earlier matters, that these things be stated precisely, so that the differences between us are accurately perceived by the people. Mr. DONOHUE [presiding]. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. [01.26.22]
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 George Danielson
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative George Danielson ( D - California )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Trent Lott
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Trent Lott ( R - Misissippi )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 John Seiberling
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative John Seiberling ( D - Ohio )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Caldwell Butler
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Caldwell Butler ( R - Virginia )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Paul Sarbanes
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Paul Sarbanes ( D - Maryland )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 William Cohen
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative William Cohen ( R - Maine )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 George Danielson
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative George Danielson ( D - California )