Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.41.29] Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think this is perhaps the most important thing that -we have been debating since these current deliberations began. What is at. issue here is executive privilege. We know that throughout the Constitution there is the running theme of separation of powers, and checks and balances. There are three areas where the President has challenged executive privilege. One is against Congress -where there is a legislative purpose, and clearly he has a valid claim to executive privilege in that instance. He claimed it in the instance of the criminal prosecutions, and the Supreme Court has by a unanimous eight to nothing decision rejected his claim. If the Supreme Court rejected it in that instance, certainly the Supreme Court would reject his claim vis-a-vis the impeachment inquiry by this committee. I would not have. supported this article prior to the Supreme Court decision, but, now that we have it, there is no valid claim on the part of the President to ignore our subpenas. Now, heretofore I have had many discussions with my colleagues, Mr. Conyers of Michigan notably, who felt so very strongly about this and at that time the question of executive privilege was a debatable one. It no longer is. The historical precedent we are setting here is so great because in every future impeachment of a President. it is inconceivable that the evidence relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands of the executive branch which is under his controls. So I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling if we do not pass this article today, the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless, Now, my friend from Wisconsin. Mr. Froehlich, says that we. should have gone to court to enforce our subpenas. Perhaps he is correct. Perhaps we should have. But in our system of justice, the individual who is mandated by the subpena has the right and the opportunity and the obligation, if he challenges that subpena, to move to quash the subpena. The President did not do that. He merely ignored it and having ignored it, the compulsion of our lawfully offered subpenas and still he has ignored them. I I would have hoped that, when the Supreme Court decision was handed down a few days ago he would have immediately delivered that Material to the House Judiciary Committee. He did not. So I urge that My colleagues support this article offered by Mr. McClory because if we do not, we will be for all time weakening the House of Representatives' power of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes and, incidentally , the Chair would like to state that its mathematics were not quite, right. The, gentlemen are entitled to 3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield my 35 seconds to the next speaker in support of the article. The CHAIRMAN. We -will recognize them. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like at the, outset to say that I was one -who had not made up his mind, had no opinion, when the question -was put for or speaking either in favor of it or against this article. And to help me come to a conclusion, I would like to ask a couple, of questions, first of all, of counsel, and that is, if this-if there were no article III, what would be the effect in a trial in the Senate, of the Senate's ability to obtain the material that we have heretofore subpenaed? ? Mr. JENNER, Congressman--may I, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Jenner. Mr. JENNER. Congressman Fish, the. subpena facts discussed -would be admissible under article I Watergate and coverup, as part of the issue of continued coverup. However, since article I is Watergate and it does not afford an affirmative charge -with respect to the fact that the failure to respond to subpenas is an impeachable offense. In my judgment, if included under article I that would have made that article duplicitous So that if the committee is to recommend to the House an impeachment -with respect to the President's refusal to respond to the subpena, it is necessary that the committee state that in terms of a separate article. Mr. FISH. I thank the gentleman. My next question would be directed at the author, Mr. McCLORY. Mr. McClory, is it your view that if in the course of a trial in the Senate the--or before that, the President should voluntarily come forward with the material that we have heretofore subpenaed, that it would be possible for the managers on the part of the House to drop, this article? Mr. McCLORY. If the gentleman will yield, I will respond by saying emphatically yes. that the President has' been given all kinds of opportunities to come forward and even at that late stage if he came forward with the evidence there, is no reason why we could not drop the article III entirely. Mr. FISH. I thank the. gentleman. [00.47.30]
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Arab-Israeli Conflict
U.S. House Representative and Chairman, Lawrence Fountain (D-NC) announces that the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee has convened today to hear the U.S. Secretary of State, George Shultz, speak on the current situation in the Middle East and U.S. President Ronald Reagan's peace proposal. He then proceeds to make a brief statement for the usual Chairman of the Committee, Rep. Clement Zablocki (D-WI). Rep. Zablocki's statement is favorable to the President's peace proposal, and if followed through, should bring stability to the Middle East and resolution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Rep. Fountain welcomes Secretary Shultz to the committee, and is honored to preside over this hearing as a retiring member of Congress. However, before Secretary Shultz speaks, Rep. Fountain introduces and invites his colleague, Rep. William Broomfield (R-MI) to speak.
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 Harold Froehlich
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Harold Froehlich ( R - Wisconsin )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Robert Drinan
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Robert Drinan ( D - Massachusetts )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Carlos Moorhead
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Statement of Representative Carlos Moorhead ( R - California )
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 Barbara Jordan Statement
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.31.20] Mr. HUTCHINSON. I Yield 5 Minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Railsback is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman and members of the, committee, let me, associate myself the remarks Of the gentleman from California who I think has accurately stated the facts. I Just want to elaborate a little. bit more on the facts as I know them to be. Let, me say that, I also don't question the sincerity of the, gentleman from Iowa in--I know of his concern about this particular area, but personally I can't help but think this is another case, where we have "impeachmentitis", which along with some of the other things that we -voted On earlier today, in an overkill. The, second affirmative act that, was claimed in the alleged presidential misconduct is the President's signature of his tax return which was done, on April 10. And I just want, to elaborate a bit on. what Mr. DeMarco testified to as well as Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. DeMarco, the President's tax counsel, explained in his interview with our inquiry staff the explanation to the President consisted of DeMarco pointed to the appraisal of the papers and stating, and I quote: "This is an appraisal supporting the deduction for the papers which you gave away." And according to DeMarco, the President's response was : "That Is fine." DeMarco said there was no discussion about the deed giving the gift of papers to the United St States. Moreover, DeMarco has stated that, there was no in-depth analysis of the tax return -while he was with the President. I remember seeing an interview of DeMarco after some of this came to light, where DeMarco indicated that he still felt that everything was proper. Then in addition to that. what has the President done when some of it, came to light? He agreed to turn it over to the Joint Committee of Congress given authority to make, a determination concerning his 1970, 1971, and 1972 returns. The committee made, its determination, which resulted in a finding of tax responsibility in the amount of something over $432,000, Plus interest, and it, is my understanding that the President agreed to it, although there is some discussion about, the 1969 liability. If he does pay that, which goes back before the statute of limitation, he will be able to take that as a deduction. My feeling is the President. who has been impeached by, this committee for two serious, grave acts and who has been assessed an income tax liability of $432,000 plus interest, I really think, I think- the committee had gone far enough, and I suggest that there is a serious question as to whether something involving his personal tax liability has anything to do with his conduct of the office of the President. And I suggest that -we rest with the three articles that have been adopted against him, and maybe let him have a little relief. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds out of his 5 minutes left. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to Mr. Mezvinsky. The CHAIRMAN. . The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Mezvinsky. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. No man in America can be, above the law. It is our duty to establish ,now that evidence of specific statutory crimes and constitutional violations by the President of the United States will subject all President now and in the future to impeachment. [01.35.52--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.19.11] Mr. DRINAN. Do I understand correctly Mr. Brooks that he has in fact paid the tax a assessed on the $94,000 ? Mr. BROOKS. He has paid a portion of that tax. A part of those improvements were made in 1969 and he has not paid the 1969 taxes 'although he, said in his news release, that he would pay them. Mr. DRINAN. But he is not legally required to pay the taxes? Mr. BROOKS. He was not then but he volunteered and said he would pay them. He did pay the taxes, as I understand it, in 1970, 1971, and 1972, a portion of which was that same type of emolument based on improvements to his personal properties. Mr. DRINAN. One last question, Mr. Brooks, if I may are these two items in your article inseparable, the items of taxes with which I and others here are obviously are having difficulty and the question of emolument? Are they so inseparable that they must remain together? Mr. BROOKS. Certainly either could be a separate article of impeachment. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa now has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Hutchinson, has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cohen is recognized. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, would you indicate to me When 2 minutes of my time have expired'? The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman will be notified. Mr. COHEN. First, I would like to say that I do not wish to ascribe any malevolent motives to the majority members of this committee and the timing of this issue. I think it IS an important issue which should be discussed and prime time is as good as any other. I would also like, to suggest to Mr. Brooks that it is my hope that this committee will, lit its good wisdom see fit to reject both of the ties that the gentleman has selected. Mr. Jenner, I would like to address a couple of questions to you, and if I could just have yes or no answers, because of the time limitation. My understanding is that the Joint Committee sent interrogatories to the President that were not answered, correct'? Mr. JENNER. That is correct. Mr. COHEN. Did this committee every send Similar interrogations to the President? Mr. JENNER. It did not. Mr. COHEN. Did this committee ever undertake any separate investigative work of its own on this matter? Mr. JENNER. Not of that character. Mr. COHEN. So even though the. Joint Committee said it did not deal -with the question of tax fraud, even though the Justice Department has not seen fit to prosecute the issue, and even though the Internal Revenue Service said it was civil negligence and not fraud, this committee has not done anything independent on its own to establish tax fraud is that correct? Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. We have undertaken some, interviews of course. Congressman Cohen, but we do not, have The capability to make the type of inquiry that a fraud investigation requires. Mr. COHEN. I understand that. Let me ask you this question. If the deed as to the 1969 papers had, in fact been properly executed prior to July 1 of that year that it became' effective, would the President's deduction have been allowed on the information that we have based it? Mr. JENNER. Yes, subject to the question of whether the deed was delivered. Mr. COHEN. Right. Now it seems to me that our investigation--the question before us is whether or not the. President had knowledge that the deed had not been delivered. Isn't that the real issue, as to whether the gift had been completed? Mr. JENNER. You are really asking two questions, To the last portion of your question, the answer is yes" as to whether the gift had been completed. Mr. COHEN. And he wouldn't necessarily know whether the gift had been---- The CHAIRMAN The gentleman has consumed 2 minutes. Mr. COHEN. he wouldn't necessarily know whether the gift had been delivered necessarily by looking at his tax return, would he? Mr. JENNER. That, is very difficult. It depends on What knowledge he had. Mr. COHEN. But not on the tax return itself? Mr. JENNER. 'Not from the face of the return, unless he, knew the return didn't correctly reflect what he otherwise knew. Mr. COHEN. Just one final point. I have heard the IRS praised day after day by my good friend, Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland, for its Integrity, that it did not bend and yield to the pressures' of the President of the, United States and the question I would ask, if in fact there was criminal fraud involved. ask yourself this question. Wouldn't this independent agency have asked the Justice Department to bring it before the grand jury for prosecution? Now I yield to my good friend from California. Mr. Waldie. [01.23.35]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
[00.02.01--in to NPACT letters on black screen--freaky build effect in which a 2-D image of Capitol Dome rotates on axis from a vertical line to full view of dome, then in a very '70's way "morphs" into a spinning globe--title "WASHINGTON/IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY/HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE"--voiceover introduces Jim LEHRER--LEHRER seated at studio desk projecton of Capitol Photo over shouldr]LEHRER notes that the official impeachment proceedings got underway today [shot of House Judic. Comm. projected] Debating whether there is sufficient evidence to render impeachment, says that at least the 20 minute portion visible to the public was not too dramatic, marked by parliamentary squabbling, over the issue of PUBLICITY--eventually voting to go into EXECUTIVE SESSION. LEHRER says that only 6 very liberal Democrats voted against the measure, naming Jerome WALDIE and John CONYERS as leaders of the dissenting group. [00.03.55--cut to a wider shot showing whole studio] LEHRER announces the upcoming video replay of the entirety of the public portion of hearings, to be followed by an interview with two members, Democrat Barbara JORDAN (Texas) and Republican Robert McCLORY (Illinois) . [two Representatives are visible in the wide shot--in a very postmodernistic (very trendy at this time of national self-reflection?) view, LEHRER's feet are visible inder the front of his podium. After this says LEHRER, guest commentators will comment on events outside fo the hearings, as it has begun to show more signs of the top REPUBLICAN PARTY leadership moving away from PRESIDENT NIXON, as rumors of a possible RESIGNATION by NIXON were denied by the White House. LEHRER introduces the video of the public part of the day's hearing
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
38.50 Carlos Moorhead (R California). I m sure that from the debate that his taken place here tonight, largely between the two gentlemen from California, Mr. Waldie and Mr. Wiggins, it must be apparent that the facts are confusing. That if you want to take a particular point of view or the other, you can prove almost anything, especially if you are willing to take hearsay evidence and some of the other irrelevant evidence that has been offered before this committee. It s important that the evidence that is to back up any charge must be strong and persuasive and of a kind that is admissible in court, and we as a member, members of this committee have the right to see to it that the specifics that are available are sufficient to support any charge that had been made.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Committee Chairman U.S. Representative Peter Rodino (D-NJ) at House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings for U.S. President Richard Nixon, says, “The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes and 10 seconds; 2 minutes and 40 seconds.” Rep. Rodino recognizes Rep. William Cohen (R-ME), who proclaims his adherence to the claims in Articles One and Two of Impeachment, despite the fragile coalition. Cohen cites statement from Rep. Charles Wiggins (R-CA) that “Article Three is largely inconsistent with the votes for Articles One and Two”; Cohen does not agree, says the fact that one can reach a conclusion on clear and convincing evidence does not mean one needs to review all of the relevant evidence. Cohen argues that although evidence provided to Committee was sufficient to reach a conclusion, it does not mean the Committee was not entitled to all of the relevant evidence that President Nixon was not required to furnish all evidence, or that the Senate is not entitled to the evidence if they insist on a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Cohen cites former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: “One page of history is worth a volume of logic.” Cohen believes the evidence necessary to the Committee’s inquiry was withheld, that the doctrines of Executive Privilege and National Security have degraded; believes they have been invoked for illegitimate purposes. Cohen believes withholding evidence was a Presidential action calculated to impede the administration of justice. Cohen proposes an amendment to Article Three to set a precedent for the use of Executive Privilege, citing the spirit of the President Andrew Johnson impeachment trial was neither binding nor influential on this body. Cohen says he does not believe it should be set into law that no future president should be prohibited from invoking Executive Privilege or National Security as restraints on the power of the Legislative Branch. Cohen believes this case can be decided as a matter of fact rather than law.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.37.18--title screen "Impeachment Debate July 26, 1974"] [LEHRER seated in studio] LEHRER announces that the issue of debate is the specificity of the articles and DUE PROCESS [00.37.35--cut Rep. SANDMAN ] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to address a question to counsel and staff which has had the whole matter before- it for a, period of time, citing the precedents and the history of impeachment, as to whether or not there is a requirement that there be specificity in the preparation of articles for impeachment? I address that to our counsel. Mr. DOAR. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment it is not necessary to be. totally specific, and I think this article of impeachment meets the test of specificity. As the Congressman from Maryland said, there will be a report submitted to the Congress with respect to this article, if the committee chooses to vote this article, and behind that report will be the summary of information, as well as all of the material that was presented to this committee. Prior to trial in the, Senate, the counsel for the President is entitled to make demands for specificity through perhaps a motion similar to a to bill of particulars, and so that all of those details may be spelled out. But, from the standpoint of this article, my judgment is firmly and With conviction that this meets the tests that have been established under the procedures. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. McCLORY. Would the Chairman yield? Would the Chairman yield so that we might got an opinion from Mr. Garrison? The, CHAIRMAN. I address the Same question to Mr. Garrison. MR. GARRISON. Mr. Chairman. I have not frankly spent a great deal or time researching this question. But, I would say that while it may very, well not be a requirement of the law, it clearly can be said to be the uniform practice of the past to have a considerable degree of specificity in the articles, and I would cite the members of the committee to a publication of this committee of October 1973 entitled Impeachment, Selected Materials, and beginning on page 125 and concluding -on page 202. Every article of impeachment which has been tried in the Senate is set forth, and I -would be less than frank, Mr. Chairman, if I ,did not suggest that a, simple, reading of those articles would suggest an enormous amount of factual detail. As a matter of fact, to an extent that is actually not included in indictments. And they are not only times, dates, and places named, sometimes there are the sums of money that allegedly have been misappropriated. I would refer you, for example, to page 173 to the, fifth article against Judge English, in which the judge was accused of inebriety, and I am sure, much to his embarrassment the article goes on at great length describing exactly when and where he was drunk. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to address the same question to Mr. Jenner. Mr. SANDMAN. Now, what is his capacity, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is associate counsel of this committee associate to the staff as counsel, and for a while, and for a great while, served, by selection of the minority, as the minority counsel. Mr. Jenner Mr. JENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen. An article of impeachment as of the present day is to be viewed in the light of the progress made in the field of criminal Procedure by this Congress and by the progress made under the Enabling Act by the Advisory Committees of the U.S. Supreme Court adopting the Federal rules of criminal procedure./ And second arising out of the electrical cases, the multidistrict panel plan by which all complicated cases are reviewed whether they are multidistrict or otherwise, and as a result of that progress has been made with respect to the Federal rules of criminal procedure and the new Federal rules of criminal procedure, which have now been approved by the House of Representatives, and I believe this committee it is no longer necessary to specify either in civil or criminal complaints a range of specificity that accompanied the needs of a past era. And all that is necessary under the cases is that the bill, the complaint, and I respectfully suggest the articles of impeachment give but what is called notice, or notice pleading, and that is in itself sufficient. Under the Federal rules of criminal procedure, under the, discovery provisions, the President may obtain all of the 38 books, all of the summaries, all of the materials that are before this committee. As is at is the rules now in effect, not even specifically stated in rule 16, that even, Counting the new criminal rules that have been approved that are not articles of impeachment yet in effect. So that in considering present day you must have in mind the progress that has been made in those respects in the last decade. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman? Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize Mr. Edwards. [00.44.00]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative Harold Donohue (D - Massachusetts) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative Robert McClory (R - Illinois) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative Jack Brooks (D - Texas) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference on spending. US Representative Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) commends the spending and revenue bill the Senate has brought to the conference for discussion and markup. Rep. Rostenkowski says failure of this legislation before the conference would be destructive to the economy. Rostenkowski says the success of this legislation will need the full support of Congress and participation from the Executive Branch. Rostenkowski calls for "full court press" from the President of the United States (Ronald Reagan).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.24.08] Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman? Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman. from Massachusetts, Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I desire to yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding his time, Chairman, and it does give me an opportunity to try and summarize of this initial outline of facts. I think it is important that the facts understood, that a perception of the underpinning that rests The this article be generally appreciated. Let me go back for a ]moment. I was up to August 29. On July 8 the President and John Ehrlichman walked on the ill California and the subject of clemency for those involved in gate was brought up and Ehrlichman -reports that the President. rejected it and said they were going to consider that. But the essential question is why was it brought up at all with respect to men had not yet been indicted, fully 6 months in advance of trial, as it was contended at that point, Who had absolutely no connection the Committee to Re-Elect or with the White House. On August 29, as I was saying earlier, the President made," statement that John Dean had carried out --t comprehensive investigation, and reported that no one in the White House was involved. There was no such investigation. If the gentleman will allow me to continue, I want to try and get out some of these facts. Mr. SANDMAN. Is this a new statement or is this a rehash of what we had? Maybe this is a new statement. Is it? Mr. SARBANES. Subsequent to August 2.9, On September 15. the President met with H.R. Haldeman, his Chief of Staff, and with John Dean. Haldeman at that time said to the President before Dean came into the room that Dean had done a good job and had kept people from falling through the holes. Now, that was a piece of tape we picked up accidentally -when the staff went down to record at the White House and it proved to be highly relevant, even though it had earlier been asserted that it was not pertinent to Our inquiry. Then John Dean came into the room and our transcript, the committee transcript, taken from the tape of that conversation, has the conversation opening with the President saying "Hi, how are you"? Now, this was, the day that the indictments were returned in the Watergate matter. They were limited to seven people and it was assumed that it had been cut off at Hunt and Liddy and would not go higher. So the President says to Dean, "Hi, how are you"? Dean says, "Yes, sir." The President, "Well, you had quite a day today, didn't you ? You got, uh, Watergate, uh, on the way, huh"? And Dean says, "Quite a 3 months." That "quite a 3 months," by Dean is missing ladies and gentlemen from the edited transcripts of the conversation of September 15 which were submitted to this committee by the White House and which were made public to the, American people. Subsequently, in that conversation the President went on and said that a lot of stuff went on, that Dean had handled it skillfully, putting his fingers in the dike when leaks had sprung here and there, and that "You just try to button it up as well as you can and hope for the best and remember that basically the damn thing is just one of those unfortunate things and we're trying to cut our losses." Now they they succeeded in covering up through the November election and then early in the year things began to come apart. They started slowly and accelerated. And we have in January a discussion, the President and Colson, about clemency for Hunt. Again, Colson says that there, were no assurances made but the discussion was held. The subject was brought up. Why were they bringing up this subject to people for whom they denied any connection at an time? earlier And then in late February the President begins to have some conversatins with Dean and those continue in late February and into March and, of course, beginning with March 21 and coming forward things begin to snowball. ' Let me go to the March 21 conversation. It is imperative that you take the transcripts and read through them and that. you read through them not only in term-, of what is being said then as to what is happening but refer back to what happened earlier. There are discussions of how it developed, what the pattern was, what the problems were that came forth, and in that conversation on the morning of March 21, 1973, in which the President, John Dean, and H. R. Haldeman, the President's Chief of Staff, were all three present,, the President said to John Dean: "right. Fine. And, uh, my point Is, that, uh, we can, uh, you may welcome--I think it's good, frankly to consider these various options. And then, once you"---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired, Mr. SARBANES [reading] : "Once you decide on the plan--John--and YOU had the right plan, let me say, I have no doubt about the right plan before the election." Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman? ? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman I would I like to yield my time to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sandman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I would like to start with one simple question. It certainly deserves a simple answer. I have just heard a rehash of all of the excerpts from all of the tapes. ,My question to the gentleman from 'Maryland, who just presented those, is this a new document that you submitted? Or what was your purpose? [00.30.44]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Peter Rodino Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Henry Smith Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative Henry Smith (R - New York) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
[01.26.22] Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that while we were on our good behavior yesterday, we are back to the normal procedures that we have been engaged in behind closed doors for the last several weeks which are to effectively explode the myth that there has been a totally nonpartisan air to all of these hearings. I think that that is unfortunate. I was not aware when we started the televising of these proceedings that we were intending to duplicate the 10 weeks of evidentiary hearings that we had. I do think that we have in many ways done a disservice to ourselves and the American people today. We have members relating narrative that are embellished and filtered through the prism of their own partisan bias, and we have them and others call it evidence. It is not evidence. Mr. Waldie's narrative, while it might be suitable for a scandal magazine or a speech to his constituents, I think it is totally inappropriate here. His statements have had inaccuracies, embellishments, frivolities, irrelevancies, and allegations that have not been substantiated by the evidence. We should address ourselves in these proceedings, it seems to me, to the factual evidence which is supportive of the articles of impeachment which we are debating. We do not need humor. Our role is not here to entertain the American people, but to address ourselves to the constitutional responsibilities we were so awed with. Now, I oppose the motion to strike, and we have been belaboring the same point so many times over and over where ,Nf r. Wiggins Continues to call what we are about an indictment. It is not an indictment. We are not involved in a criminal procedure, and we should recognize that and stop deluding ourselves. I am disappointed in some of my colleagues. When Mr. Waldie talks about Mitchell lied, and Krogh, and -Magruder, and Porter perjured themselves, they are not the subjects of this impeachment. When he says the President knew full well that White House people were involved before a certain point in time is not supported in the record. When Congressman Drinan says that Stans was interviewed in his office and not before the grand jury, and he called this a compromising procedure, that is not the case. And the Justice Department and Mr. Stans are not the subject of this impeachment. It is not even unique or unusual for people of prominence to be interviewed outside the grand jury, and I remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that another distinguished gentleman whom I revere, from his home State, former Speaker John' McCormack, was not required to go before the grand jury when the investigation and prosecution of his own staff aides was involved. He testified- Mr. DRINAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HOGAN. Re testified before the Department of Justice, ass Stans did. Mr. DRINAN. Would the. gentleman yield 2 Mr. HOGAN. I will not, yield at this point. And my good friend and colleague from Maryland, while he is generally very calm and dispassionate, and logical, I think has done an outstanding job today in defending his substitute. even he has fallen into this trap. We all feel so strongly about these things that we have a hard time keeping our natural propensities in check. He was reading from the transcript where he made a, parenthetical remark where he got to the point where the President says to Dean, "Well, you had quite a, day, didn't you, you got Watergate on the way, huh?" And then he says, then Dean says. "Quite a 3 months." Then he made a parenthetical remark and said that, incidentally, that was not in the White House transcript. And the implication of that, is that there was deception on the part of the White House in leaving that part of the statement out. During the interim of the recess, I had checked what Mr. Jaworski's transcript. Special Prosecutor said, and for Dean's statement there, they have "[Inaudible] 3 months." which is not, what we have in ours. we have "How did it all end up?" and The next sentence, Mr. Jaworski's transcript says "How did this all end up?" Now, these are all inconsequential, but when you give the implications that the White House, without any substantiated proof, has tried to fabricate the transcripts, when -we ourselves have transcripts that are, not the same, as Mr. Jaworski's or the White House, I think we are Just confusing the issue for ourselves and the American people. I hope that When we return tomorrow we will all try to rediscipline ourselves and focus in on the articles themselves which are under debate and not try to propagandize this, because I think by doing so we are doing a disservice to these proceedings. And now I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. [01.31.39]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Wayne Owens (D Utah). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On October 5, 1973 the President had a press conference. This was, I think, 2 weeks almost to the day of the, time that Mr. Cox was fired, on a Saturday night, the so-called "Saturday Night Massacre and the following Tuesday, as members will remember, there was a total of 94 Members of the House who joined in impeachment resolutions. And following which the President gave up the tapes. But at the time of October 5 the President, at least there were no tapes that were available. The President is asked this question: "Mr. President, to follow up on the tapes question, earlier you have told us that your reasons are based on principles, separation of powers, executive privilege, things of this sort. Can you assure us that the tapes do not reflect unfavorably on your Watergate position. That there is nothing in the tapes that would reflect unfavorably?" And the President in front of the American People says this, "There is nothing whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the only time I've listened to the tapes, to certain tapes, and I didn't listen to all of them of course, was on June 4th. There is nothing whatever in the tapes that is inconsistent with the statement that I made on May 22 or of the statement I made to you ladies and gentlemen in answer to several questions, rather searching questions may I say, and very polite questions, 2 weeks ago for the most part. And finally nothing that differs whatever from the statement that I made on the 15th of August." I will not try to go into what these tapes have revealed, except to say that I think that the committee, most members of the committee, have commented at one time or another that it is the tapes which have presented the case, the real case, hard case of evidence against the President, which tapes were released within about a month of that time.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.07.39] Mr. SARBANES. I think there is some truth to what the gentleman says. but I do think that we ought to consider the point that has been made that in this take care paragraph there. are other unlawful activities which occurred to which the responsibility of the President ought to run, and which ought to be provided as part of the proof with respect to this paragraph. So, it seems to me, there is a choice available between simply eliminating the clause and having nothing, and developing language that provides a more definite standard than the language that is contained at the end of this paragraph. And I would suggest to the gentleman that if we could develop such language, it would enable us to maintain the substance of what 'we are talking about here, which the gentleman from Illinois referred to somewhat earlier and yet meet the basic thrust of the objection of the gentleman from California. Mr. THORNTON. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WALDIE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to suggest that we give some attention to the result of this amendment, if adopted, in too narrowly defining the inquiry of this article, particularly in that it, would, in my view, exclude the coverup of the unlawful, entry into the Democratic National Committee or at least the second stage of that, coverup, when what Was then being considered was the failure of the President himself to advise the Department of Justice of the involvement which he knew of his own men in the coverup which had occurred. The language as it would read, if this amendment were adopted, would limit that failure to take care only to those acts surrounding the, unlawful entry into the, headquarters of the, Democratic National Committee. If you were to add "and the coverup thereof," it might improve this amendment. However, that is not included in the effect of the amendment as adopted which in my view limits the thrust of this paragraph (4) to the break-in itself and nothing further. Mr. WALDIE. Well Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WALDIE. I respond, and I am still on my time, Mr. Chairman, and I only want to respond to Mr. Thornton's point which I think is well taken. If the language is limited only to a consideration of the events leading up to the unlawful entry, and not, the attempt to frustrate the inquiry into the events subsequent to the unlawful entry, the coverup, I think then that the point is awfully well taken. It was not ever my understanding that the initial words were limited only to the, unlawful entry, and that we included the coverup in the words "and concerning other matters." If we had to include the coverup by putting in the phrase "and concerning other matters," it is incredibly poorly drafted. My only impression is, and I would have to refer to the author. that the original words involving the break-in of the Democratic -National Committee headquarters included both the entry as well as the coverup, and concerning other matters has nothing to do with the Democratic National Committee burglary entry or coverup. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's 5 minutes have been consumed. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman? ? Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. The clerk -will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. McClory. In the Hungate substitute. strike from subparagraph (4) the word "matters" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "unlawful activities." Mr. McCLORY. 'Mr. Chairman? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. How do we get--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. DENNIS. How do we get to such an amendment in order at this time? There is amendment of the gentleman from California pending, and I would submit respectfully that, either that amendment must be offered to the amendment, or an amendment must be offered in the nature of a substitute to the amendment. and I do not believe that a So-called perfecting amendment, which ignores the pending amendment which goes back to the original test is in order. [00.12.23]