Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Paul Duke and Jim Lehrer Commentary
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 James Mann
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative James Mann ( D - South Carolina )
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974. 19.30 Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, for 5 minutes. Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. In support of the amendment. Mr. MOORHEAD. I think one thing, and that is that the people, of this committee, should realize exactly what is going on here this afternoon, and that is that all day the staff and the members of the majority have refused to give us a detailed complaint to be filed against the President of the United States so that he could tell exactly what he is charged with. the other side has gone into an attempt to present, a lot of evidence, a lot of facts that they claim is evidence, to this committee that really is not supported by the materials that we have taken In their best context. I know Mr. Flowers is doing the, thing that he feels is important for him to do in bringing up each one of these motions to strike. But he obviously is against them or he would vote for them. And then each one of the members of the majority, those wanting to have impeachment is reading a copy of a paper, prepared I suppose by our million-dollar staff. The words sound so very close to being alike and the same kind of version that, obviously they have been prepared by someone with a tremendous imagination.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative Robert Kastenmeier (D - Wisconsin) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.06.35--cut to committee room] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. 'The Chair wishes to announce that pursuant to the policy adopted when we considered the rule of procedure for this debate, that it contemplated that there be general debate for a period not to exceed ours and that it -was understood as agreed policy that the balance the time for the consideration of amendments to the articles would consume more than 20 hours. The Chair -wishes to point out that having commenced with the consideration of the articles yesterday for purposes of amendment, 12 hours have already been consumed of that time. However, as the committee certainly understands, the committee can extend time for consideration of the articles for purposes of amendment until -we have resolved the entire question. The Chair would like to state that in the light of some of the motions to strike -which are presently before the Chair, the Chair intends to recognize after a motion to strike has been proffered as an amendment to article I and to each paragraph thereafter that after an hour's debate has expired, the Chair is going to entertain a motion to move the question and that the question will then be in order. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Will the chairman yield? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the chairman for yielding. I Would not want there to be any misunderstanding about the time limited for debate. MY recollection is, Mr. Chairman, that in earlier version of the rule which was adopted, there was a 20-hour limitation for amendment but that in the final version the wording was worked around the concept of the 5-minute rule and the provision does not limit debate to a total of 20 hours, and that while there was an expression of hope that it could be accomplished in that length of time, still if 12 hours have already been consumed and we have not yet disposed of article I, it becomes very obvious, Mr. Chairman. that it will be necessary to consume more than 20 hours to handle these articles and in order to extend, beyond 20 hours, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it would take any formal action of the committee to extend the time for debate beyond that 20 hours. With regard to limiting debate on a motion to strike to 1 hour Mr. Chairman, an I would indicate that I certainly would interpose an objection to that. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object- The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. [continuing]. And I shall not object, I would like to say, and I hope that others will agree who took the position I did yesterday that the argument, was exhausted as far as I am concerned yesterday on the articles of impeachment along the line that I suggested. A vote has been taken. There. are amendments on the desk that have my name on them and I would like to withdraw those because they are aimed at the same point of law that we discussed at great length yesterday. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will be able to proceed with article I with the degree of discipline that existed yesterday and with last night, no doubt continuing today. There is no way that the outcome of this vote is going to be changed by debate and 1, therefore, hope that; we can with dispatch cover the Sarbanes substitute and there will be no objections from me, no amendments from me, nor will there be any motions to strike from me. [00.11.44]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.47.30] Mr. FISH. I thank the. gentleman. Mr. Thornton, if I could address a question to you, where in Your amendment to the article offered by Mr. McClory you use the language that you discussed a few minutes ago -with Mr. Butler, " demonstrated by other evidence to be, substantial grounds", are you referring there to the substantiation for the subpenaed materials that we received in each instance when a subpena was before us prepared by counsel showing the direct need that the-the, necessity for the subpenaed material by this committee in the course of its inquiry? Mr. THORNTON. If the gentleman will yield, I am referring to the evidentiary material which had been collected and presented to us in Support of the subpenas which were then issued. Mr. FISH. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Just an observation, and I will be glad to be challenged by anybody about this. The matter of going to the court for determination between the executive and the, legislative branch, it seems to me that the decision was made by the President himself that it was equally irrelevant to him whether to go to the court or to the Congress, but rather, he, made the determination himself as to what was relevant and necessary. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 1/2 minutes. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr., Smith, for 3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, this committee subpenaed tapes, memoranda and other records of the President. I voted to issue most of those subpenas. The President has furnished some of the material and he has furnished transcripts of many of the tapes and he has declined to furnish the balance, asserting his constitutional right of executive privilege, and the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers among the three coequal branches of this Government as reasons for his declination to furnish. The committee asserts its constitutional right to reach and have this evidentiary material under the sole power of the House to impeach civil officers of the United States. As was set forth by Mr. Froehlich, here we have a constitutional confrontation between two coequal branches of our Government. Mr. McClory said Congress is pitted against the executive. It seems only natural and proper to me that the third coequal branch of our Government ought to be the umpire or arbiter of this confrontation of claimed constitutional rights and duties, particularly when that branch happens to be the one whose formal function it is to declare the meaning and effect of the Constitution. And so it is that I am one of the six members of this Committee who voted to submit the enforcement. of our subpenas to the courts, a position for which there is impressive support from constitutional scholars such as Prof. Alexander Bickel of Yale. However, the majority of our committee felt otherwise. I think this was a mistake, particularly in view of the recent Supreme Court decision -which upheld the subpena of some of the same material from the President by the Special Prosecutor. Most of us on the committee feel that our case is even stronger than that of Mr. Jaworski but I think it is still a case and I am surprised at 38 lawyers who vote not to submit their case to court, even though they are Congressmen and are asserting the alleged superior and supreme power of the Congress.I still think we should have gone to court to enforce our subpenas. We may have, but probably would not have, taken some additional time. However , even so, in a matter as important. as the impeachment of the President, we should have made this effort to obtain the tapes and the other material through the courts. If we bad received them, -we may have achieved some clear and convincing proof to connect the President personally and directly with the things which cannot be condoned that went on in the Committee To Re-Elect the President and in the White House itself. In my judgment, we do not have, that evidence today. Or the President may have refused to obey all order of the Supreme Court to deliver the materials sought, and clearly my judgment, this would be impeachable conduct. One, other aspect of court enforcement of our subpenas ought, to be, mentioned. We have, a long tradition in this country that the accused in a criminal case shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. In fact, this what amendment 5 of the Constitution says as Part of the, Bill of Rights.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.22.09] Mr. McCLORY. Nevertheless we are now faced with this decision at this hour of decision, with determining whether or not the President is or is not in contempt of Congress, and if he is whether he has denied the Congress to the extent that we should recommend his impeachment. I .think that this is an important article It is a case where the Congress itself is pitted against, the Executive. We have this challenge on the part of the Executive with respect to our authority, and if we think of the whole process of impeachment, let us recognize that this is a power which is preeminent, which makes the Congress of the United States dominant with respect to the three separate and equal branches of government. It bridges the separation on of powers and gives us and reposes in us the responsibility to fulfill this mission. And the only way we can do it is through acting favorably on article III. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. Mr., THORNTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a perfecting amendment at, the desk. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. Thornton. In the first paragraph strike out the material commencing with "The subpenaed down through "Constitution of the United States." and insert in lieu thereof the following: The papers and things were deemed necessary by the committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. THORNTON,. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee , the matters which have been raised by the proposed article by the gentleman from Illinois deserve our very serious reflection and thought. I have previously expressed my own views that the failure to comply -with subpenas does constitute, a grave offense. and I have also expressed that ]in my view that offense should have been included within one of the substantive articles which has been previously presented and adopted by his committee. I think it could have been considered as an abuse of power, or even more logically as an obstruction of justice in interfering with this committee's exercise of its constitutional duty. However, that did not occur during the, course of the adoption of the articles which have been presented, and I do not see Mr. Doar at the table, but I -would like to direct the attention of Mr. Jenner, if I may, to paragraph (4) of article 1, as amended by the gentleman from Ca California, Mr. Danielson, to include within that article a failure to produce materials required by congressional committees. Are you familiar with that article as amended? Mr. JENNER. Yes. I am, Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. In your view, would that article permit the introduction of evidence with respect to the subpenas which have been issued by this committee? [01.26.30]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.21] Mr. MEZVINSKY. When considering the Article on Abuse of Power, really what the Committee is doing is looking at the type of presidential conduct which the Founding Fathers knew the System could not tolerate. We see now, the abuse of the, IRS. There -wasn't any IRS -when the Constitution of Was written, but I'm positive that abuse of this agency, is the type of problem the drafters of the Constitution foresaw. I believe the reason that the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback and the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, and so many others are So concerned about this matter is the realization that the abuse of the IRS can poison the system. When the system of government is threatened, the abuse of the IRS becomes one of the most hideous of all the charges. And why? Because we all pay taxes. We know that the IRS has personal information. We know that it is 'Is based on voluntary action, honesty and our conscientious efforts to pay our taxes. It is really self-confession when we file, our taxes. We know that and we understand it. I think there is apprehension sets in because we realize that Richard Nixon's presidency has really leveled a serious blow to the IRS. We have talked about the enemies list-, but I would add that there is another use to be discussed--a list of friends. Now, what do we see about the friends, and why is the friends list as significant as the enemies Because impeding the due administration of the Internal Revenue Act by issuing a directive from the White House to turn off an IRS audit is a violation of the law. It is another kind of cover-up. It means another kind. of protection. And we have evidence to show that is exactly what happened. And let me tell you, my friends, though we are involved d in a constitutional issue, we know that some are groping for proof of criminal violations. Now if you decide to help your friends by stepping in on an IRS audit, that is an interference with the due administration of the Internal revenue Code and cite this as an example; which is not only a significant abuse of office, but it is also a criminal offense, a Violation of section 7212, Under that section, if you interfere with the -due administrative administration on of the Internal Revenue Code is a, felony and being put in prison. And I would bring that to the attention of the members of this committee. I would also like to rate that the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue, Taxation looked at this issue, and that investigation is still going 'on and the, Joint Committee in fact. has asked for re-audits of those "friends", those on whose, behalf there was direct contact we're talking about the tax affairs of some of the closest associates and friends of the White House, and we have testimony direct that, in fact, the White House was involved. Now let me point to One item that is Very interesting to me, and that the whole focus on September 15 discussed by the gentleman from California, whom I respect, Mr. Wiggins. No direct testimony, We have Mr. Dean just talking about it. He, is talking about it supposedly 'in in the abstract. Well., let me say this. It is not in the abstract, it is right on target. Let us reefer to March 13, 1973, and what do we see? We see a direct involvement, direct discussion at page 50 where they are talking About issues. What does the President say directly. "Do we need any IRS stuff." That is the answer to direct involvement, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.14.10]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.11.44] Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman? Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. If I might be recognized for a short minute, knowing of my friend from New Jersey's conservative bent which I shareI would ask if he would be opposed to my borrowing the paper that has already got at the desk and at all of our desks and adopt for in purposes the same motion to strike that he has proffered to subsection 1, I would be prepared at the appropriate time to offer this motion to subparagraph 2. It is important to me, to know here in these debates that we are having this week, in this committee, on the allegations that are contained in article I and if there are any other articles to them, the specifies the charge. I believe this is important. The gentleman from Wisconsin I think agrees with me on this. We discussed it here in the committee last evening. So I propose, Mr. Chairman, I take this time merely to point out It, would be my purpose to offer a motion to strike the Various paragraphs to seek out the information that would support the paragraphs from the members of the counsel. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman. ? THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I would like the clerk to read. The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will defer, the Chair was not recognizing the gentleman for purposes of offering an amendment since I believe that at this time the Chair is going to state that it is going to be its policy to first recognize those who have perfecting amendments, and I had already indicated to Mr. Hogan that I would recognize Mr. Hogan for that purpose. MY. RAILSBACK. Am I recognized for the other purpose, then ? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be recognized, and I would like to also state that if the gentleman from Alabama was asking that, his name be substituted for "that of Mr. Sandman which appears on the motions to strike that are on the clerk's desk, if there is no objection, I will entertain that so that the gentleman would have that properly before the clerk's desk if it is not.. Mr. RANGEL. -111'. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I think I still have the time, do I Not? The CHAIRMAN. the time is reserved to the gentleman for offering his motion after the gentleman from Maryland, RAILSBACK. No. That is not what I wanted to speak on. I wanted to congratulate my friend from New Jersey. He says it is about time [Laughter] for doing something that I think is very wise and very Prudent and very thoughtful on his part and also in the best interests of this committee, and once again I think that he has shown his good sense. As far as my good friend, Mr. Flowers, is concerned, I hope that if he does move to strike every single numbered item that we maybe can expedite the debate on each item because frankly, I think lot of us thought that there was a great deal of repetition last night, and I think we ought to be able to either present the case for or against in a little bit more expeditious manner. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. [00.15.19]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.41.34] [cut to DUKE in studio] DUKE announces that in a few moments the remaining few motions will be taken and the first vote on ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT will take place. [PBS network ID] [PBS programming promos] [00.45.08--title screen "Impeachment Debate"] DUKE notes that FLOWERS is calling for strike amendments, but only as a PARLIAMENTARY MANEUVER to spell out in the record what the charges entail. [00.45.33--cut committee room] Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment to subparagraph 7 at the clerk's desk. The, CLERK [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Flowers, Strike subparagraph 7 of the Sarbanes substitute, Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, there has been no motion filed on subparagraph 5 or 6, because it is my judgment that both of these subparagraphs have, been adequately covered in other evidence presented to the, Committee here, and in connection with subparagraph 7 I would yield to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel. [00.46.13]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. As I understand flip House rules, we must vote at each session of the committee whether the committee shall be open Or closed. Is that correct? Therefore. we are really only voting On today's session? The CHAIRMAN. This. as the Chair will again state. the session that Would be closed, of course would relate to today, it any subsequent and, time the Chair could entertain another, motion. But, the motion that put to the Chairman this time is a motion to close this hearing in order that we hear this initial presentation in accordance with rule 11, 27M, which suggests that Where there. Is the possibility that any information may tend to degrade or defame that, the session be an executive session. Therefore- Mr. SEIBERILING. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may pursue this inquiry just a little bit, it Is my intention to support the motion. However, it is my understanding of the rules that at the next session of this committee, if it is to be a closed session. a similar motion will have to be made and approved and that at, each subsequent which isdesired to be el closed? of The CHAIRMAN. The question that the gentleman is propounding suggests that we will be continuing & we are going to be continuing this hearing. We will be recessing from time to time Mr. SEIBERLING. But each day, I mean at each day's session, at the start of each day, a similar motion must be, approved, as I understand the rules. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman. parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. McCLORY. Is it not, the rule of the House, that we are bound by and we do not need any motion, we do not need any action by this committee? All we have to do is comply with the rules of the House which is -what the chairman is suggesting in the action 'we are taking at the present time. Mr. RANGEL. Parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I will recognize the gentleman from New York for a parliamentary inquiry. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, under this motion, on the, requirements of confidentiality, does the staff of the President of the United States, who are now present, are they governed by these rules? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has Mready stated that, the counsel for the President and his assistant are governed by the rules of confidentiality and the rules of procedure. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Chairman, do I understand since there is no access on the part of the committee to the materials, do I understand that the Chair is representing to the committee that these materials do., in fact, tend to degrade or defame? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is stating that in accordance with the rules, all that has to be suggested in the motion is that they may tend to defame or degrade, and not that there is a finding of fact. Mr. WALDIE. Well, may I ask if the Chair is suggesting that the materials may tend to degrade and defame? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is merely acting on the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. WALDIE. Then may I make the parliamentary inquiry to the gentleman from Massachusetts Mr. DENNIS. Point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Parliamentary inquiry will not be directed to anyone else but the Chair and the gentleman recognizes that. However, I would state to the gentleman that the gentleman has Mready been told that this is the rule and that there is no need that there be a finding Of fact. Therefore, the gentleman's inquiry out of order and the Chair now puts the question.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.58.27] Mr. LATTA. Well now, how many investigating officers are there of the United States and who are they, and what are they, and employees of the United States. Well, in June of 1972 there were only 2,650,000 employees in the U.S. Government. In common decency and common sense. We ought to be more specific than that. Now, I cannot agree with everything that Mr. Jenner does, -who has been alluded to as an outstanding member of the bar, and he is- NOTE: *the following remarks were stricken from the record* But I know other members saw an item in the Wall Street Journal that they didn't agree with, the committee that Mr. Jenner is chairman of has just reported that they recommend the repeal of the anti-prostitution laws in the United States, which terms the state laws "one of the most direct forms of discrimination against women", the committee is chaired by Albert Jenner. Now, We don't agree with that. * [end stricken portion] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired- Mr. LATTA. Now, we can't agree with everything Mr. Jenner proposes---- [Rep. HOLTZMAN seems ready to pound on Rep. LATTA after that remark] [00.59.50--cut LEHRER in studio] LEHRER notes that the last comment by LATTA about JENNER will be discussed later. [01.00.04] [PBS network ID] [Programming Promos] [01.03.13--title screen--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER announces Father DRINAN, an outspoken critic of NIXON. [cut committee room} The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Father Drinan. For 5 minutes. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey states that we are unwilling to make the articles specific, and the gentleman from Indiana asks when and what. Let me give you some specifics that the President obviously knows. On June 20,1972, John Mitchell said that the Committee To Re-Elect had no legal, moral, or ethical responsibility for the Watergate break-in. Two days later the President publicly said ------ [01.04.03--TAPE OUT]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.51.27] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie Mr. WALDIE. I thank the gentleman, but a 5 minute segment of the Watergate saga is a pretty hard one. But, we left the principals after the President and Mr. Colson on Sunday, following the burglary, 'were. having an hour's chat, in which they discussed the Watergate, hilt Only in general terms and never discussed any particulars at all, according to Mr. Colson. And we don't know, according to the President. But, we do know something that happened on June 20. All the President's men gathered from all over this country back into Washington They came from California, they came in from Florida. and they came to Washington where they could meet and confer and de- what to do about this threatening calamity, the threatening calamity of the re-election of the President, the most important thing all of them had facing their entire lives. the re-election of this President, and their blind-dedication to that 'objective is just not even arguable. And after they met and discussed their policy, the President met with Haldeman, his closest adviser, and they discussed the Watergate. That is in Haldeman's notes. Everybody agrees there was a, discussion of Watergate on that tape, That 18 1/2 minutes is all that is missing. There is nothing else missing on that tape except the discussion Of Watergate, right after that big strategy session. Now, it is now determined that human hands erased that 181/2 minutes while it was in the exclusive and sole possession of the President. And it is attributable to sinister forces. My own inclination is to believe that it is ,in inescapable inference that the President had that 18 1/2 minutes erased because. it would have been so devastating in its incrimination of the President immediately in the coverup plan. But, there is something that was not erased. There was a dictabelt of a phone conversation or the recollection that the President had of the events that day. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Is the gentleman from Ohio seeking recognition? Mr. LATTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thought maybe they would never get down this far. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to sit this far away from the center of power. You get all of these statements before you get an opportunity to speak. And let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I was surprised as a member of the Rules Committee to hear that you propose sending these articles of impeachment in a general form. and attached thereto as a supplement I might say, in the report to the Rules Committee for consideration. Well, now Mr, Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee are, supposed to read those reports before. we make a finding and report a rule to the House of Representatives. And certainly you would not want us to void our own rules. I think that we ought to ponder about that, the same way that Members of the House of Representatives ought to ponder about what you are proposing. You are saying that we are going to send these general articles of Impeachment to the floor of the House, without being specific, without, saying the time, the place, and say to the Members of the House of Representatives who are not on this committee, go through those 38 or 40 volumes, try to sort out what we think as members of this committee are impeachable offenses, and make a judgment thereon. Is that what we are saying? If you are, other Members of the House, good luck. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to rethink what we are pro posing. A common Jaywalker charged: with jaywalking any place in the United States is entitled to know when an where the alleged offense is supposed to have occurred. Is the President of the United States entitled to less? Yes, he is entitled to know, even though the Constitution from which impeachment proceedings comes does not specifically spell out, but you have to do so. The sixth amendment is still in the Constitution, and are we going to waive it in this case? They did not waive it in. any other impeachment case. Are we going to set a new precedent here and waive that? Where are these civil libertarians? I think it is high time that we stopped to rethink what we are doing. Nobody is trying to delay the action here, because I well know that anytime that the chairman puts down that gavel and says call the roll, the votes are here to do exactly as you like. Whether or not Mr. Jenner Mr. Doar prepared these articles, which they probably did, they certainly ought, to agree with what they prepared, and I thought that was a question that really did not have to be asked by the Chair as to whether or not these gentlemen agreed with what they had prepared. I think that was useless. But, I think that it is important that we do something fair for the Other Members Of the House. Let us forget about the President of the United States. We are not the only Members of the House of Representatives who are going to be called upon to make a judgement And to throw 38 or 39 books at them and say here, here's what we meant, let Us just take a look at them. On the first page at the bottom, No. 1, he is charged with making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigating 'officers. [00.58.27]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.32] Mr. HUNGATE. [continuing] In the March. 21, 1973, transcript, relating to the, conversation from 10:12 to 11:55 a.m. Appendix 6 of the GPO conversations: *QUOTED SECTION* Mr. DEAN. There is no doubt I was totally aware what the Bureau was doing at all times. I was totally aware of what the grand jury was doing. I knew that witnesses were going to be called. I knew what they were going to be asked, and I had to. NIXON. [I infer that is the President.] Why did Petersen play the. game so straight with us? DEAN. Because Petersen is a soldier. He kept me informed. He told Me when we had problems, where we had problems, He believes in you and he believes in this administration. This administration has made him. I don't think he has done anything improper but he did make sure the investigation was narrowed down to the very, very fine criminal thing which was a break for us. There is no doubt about it. [Mr. HUNGATE. There would be another break if you narrowed this thing down to the head of a, pin.] NIXON. He honestly feels that he did an adequate job? DEAN. They ran that investigation out to the fullest extent they could follow a lead and that was it, -NIXON. But the point is, where I suppose he could be criticized for not doing an adequate job. Why did he call Haldeman? Why didn't he get a statement from Colson? Oh, they did get, Colson. DEAN. That is right. But see, the thing is, is based on their FBI interviews There. was no reason to follow up. There were no leads there. Colson said, "I have no knowledge of this" to the FBI. Strachan said "I have no knowledge of--you know, they didn't ask Strachan any Watergate questions. They asked him about* Segretti and the-" *END QUOTED SECTION* The CHAIRMAN. Vie time of the gentleman--- Mr. HUNGATE. [reading] AS a result of sonic coaching, he could be the dumbest pap paper usher in the bowels of the White House. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman and Mr. Railsback correctly observed Andrew Johnson impeachment, the committee brought to the general recommendation of impeachment. The House, approved then and only then was a committee appointed to draw Up charges to go to the Senate. Over there as someone observed there not only some added but there -were some ignored. I think one traps that we are falling into here is that we are drawing this grand jury analogy much further than it warrants. A number of US in our remarks in genera debate tried to indicate What an impeachable offense is, Now, if you subscribe to the idea, that an impeachable. offense must, be an indictable offense then perhaps you have some. justification for arguing that we are really here drawing an indictment. But such is really not the case. We are not a grand jury . [We are operating here under a constitutionally authorized extra-legal power. We are not involved in a criminal proceeding. So that when we go to the floor, we can go with as broad and nebulous an impeachment resolution as -we possibly desire to draw. It is amendable on the floor depending on what rules we operate under. It is even by the precedents amendable in the, Senate. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, could we have order? the CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, The gentleman will suspend until the committee is in order. Mr. HOGAN. But even beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I think -we are ally straining here as we talk about precedents. There are not really that many precedents. There have not been that many impeachments and there have been far fewer, there have been only about a. dozen impeachments and if my memory serves me, there were only three convictions and those impeachments are contradictory one with the other. So I think we are really not, looking at--the responsibility that we have here is to go forward with a recommendation to the House. That really all that we are about. Now, I personally think it -would be preferable to have specific charges naming places and dates and times and names but it is not essential and to argue that that is our responsibility under the Constitution is just ignoring what the Constitution gives us for the impeachment power. [01.25.00]