Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.37.23] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* LEHRER asks to point out that the beginning of the meeting has been delayed [shot of empty committee room] and viewers should be aware that live coverage will commence as soon as the committee is seated. DUKE AND LEHRER joke about the habitual tardiness of the committee. DUKE continues overview of allegations. Says this goes back to an old issue, was President responsible for aides' behavior, and in protecting his aides, did he participate in OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? VAN ALSTYNE says there is nothing in the drafted article to suggest that NIXON is strictly responsible for his subordinates, but it does bring up the theory of James Madison that a PRESIDENT may be held responsible for such actions if he fails to superintend, which is not a radical theory of constitutional law. The committee is not bound by strict standards of evidence in this case. The President's oath of office gives him a responsibility to actively attack violations of law, whereas law for ordinary citizens only requires one not to actively impede the course of law. Thus, impeachability under the Madison theory is not bound to standars of criminal proceedings. DIAMOND concurs, saying that people don't elect Presidents and Senators to be "only as good as us". DUKE asks about the President's receiving grand jury info and giving it to the suspects in the case, and the payment of money to Howard Hunt. VAN ALSTYNE says it's possible to conclude that NIXON thought the gift of money to HUNT was compassionate, not bribery, it remains that he can be derelict. DUKE goes through last 2 parts of the article, concerning false public statements and the promises made to defendants of favorable treatment in exchange for silence at trial VAN ALSTYNE wonders whether the false public statements charge is valid basis for proceeding. Lying by itself is not a crime, but in the totality, the charge fits into the concept of a "mosaic" of obstruction theory advanced by the pro-impeachment side DIAMOND says that it's a dangerous precedent to attempt to punish the President for lying, but agrees that in context it lends weight to the whole. LEHRER says that he was surprised by Rep. WALDIE'S raising of allegations that NIXON made a FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENT at a press conference, since it's not a crime. VAN ALSTYNE says that it's up to the pro-impeachment side to be convincing that the LIES had an overriding motive to help the effort to obstruct justice. DIAMOND says that calling such lies "criminal" is appropriate if it's a discussion of "political crimes"--the impeachment process is explicitly separated from criminal law, because it must encompass noncriminal but intolerable actions. [00.48.52] [LEWIS on screen with Rep. WALDIE ] LEWIS asks about the prospects for a vote by the end of the night. WALDIE says that he's not sure what's happening, and the prospects for getting through are dim, but the "lawyer business" has prevented getting down to substance. LEWIS asks if it's right that Rep. WIGGINS is going to introduce motions to strike at all 9 parts of the article. Asks WALDIE to explain this for the public. WALDIE says that this means an effort to remove from discussion the allegations. The main hazard of this is that for each motion, every member gets 5 minutes of debate, which adds up to a long time. LEWIS asks what the REPUBLICAN minority has to gain. WALDIE says that they perhaps hope to provoke irritation and partisanship that might cast aspersion on the committee and delegitimize the impeachment resolution. [00.51.20]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.33.46] The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. I thank the chairman for yielding Members of the committee, as we all know--as we all know subparagraph 2 is directed primarily to the area of electronic surveillance for alleged national security purposes. Since that. subject has not been debated before this committee, my motion to strike is to focus our attention on that subject. I would hope to yield to other members on the other side who have thoughts with respect to that. Mr. Chairman, are we operating under the unanimous consent provision? The CHAIRMAN. That is correct; 20, minutes for those in support of the amendment, 20 minutes in opposition. Mr. WIGGINS. All. right I should like to set the focus for this debate concerning electronic surveillance by recalling that these individual wiretaps commenced early in 1969 and continued for approximately 1 year thereafter. We have before us series of specific wiretaps which form the basis Of this allegation of abuse of power by the President. They can be categorized I think into the following four groups: First, the 17 wiretaps which were authorized by the Attorney General and at least the allegation is made by the President that they were instituted in the he interest of national security. In addition to that, we have before us evidence with respect, to three other wiretaps instituted by Mr. Ehrlichman concerning employees in the, White House and, with respect to that, the evidence does not extend to any Presidential involvement or knowledge. Then we have two isolated wiretaps which I will let the gentleman Characterize, ladies and gentlemen, characterize as they wish, We have Donald Nixon, and we have the. -wiretap of Joe Kraft. Now, that covers the evidence with respect to wiretaps before us. The clear, bulk of that evidence involves 17 wiretaps which were commenced in the spring of 1969. I want, to set the focus of the debate, by making one assertion which I believe cannot be contradicted, and that is that the law With respect to wiretaps which are genuinely and honestly in the national interest is that the President does have- that authority. In 1969 he has that authority today. It, is improper to Infer that It is illegal to Install a wiretap which relates to national, security matters. The sole, question is whether in fact, the President had that motive Or whether this was merely a subterfuge to install wiretaps for some other purpose. There being no question that even today, subsequent to the Keith case, that, wiretaps installed by the President for national security purposes are authorized by Congress at least have not been Prohibited by Congress, and have not, been prohibited by any decision Of the U.S. Supreme Court. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, we should focus our attention on the evidence, with respect to the, bona fides of the President in installing, these 17 wiretaps. If they were in fact pursuant to his concern about national security interests, they were, lawful and they cannot be condemned in these proceedings. But if in fact, they were installed for other purposes, then I would concede that they would be, probably unlawful and perhaps should be considered by this committee in an impeachment context Now, back in 1969, this Nation was involved In a war in Southeast Asia. This 'Nation 'was also involved in sensitive negotiations with the Soviet Union with respect to arms limitations. We have had evidentiary materials in abundance, in abundance, ladies and gentlemen, that there were leaks concerning the bargaining position of the United States vis-a-vis the Soviet Union which Caused enormous concern by the President's top advisers and by the President himself; there being no question, no question at all, that Henry Kissinger was greatly concerned about these leaks, and as a result, of those leaks a system of wiretaps On possible sources of that leak, those leaks, were instituted by the President. I am willing to attribute those directly to the White House and directly to the President, those wiretaps were there--what does the Chairman propose to do? Have I used my 5 minutes? [00.39.21]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.19.59] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is recognized. Mr. SARBANES. . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is imperative that every American appreciate that the abuses of power discussed here today, those that we have reviewed in the course of consideration of this article, placed in jeopardy our free society and our constitutional rights And that in the endangered our liberties and our course of this effort, there was also an effort to twist the proper functions of Government agencies so that rather than such agencies being your servants, serving you, there was a grave danger that those agencies -would become your oppressors. Stop and think for a moment, if you will, what it means if the agencies of Government are not administered in an even-handed manner; if people elected to public office, rather than considering it a public trust, believe that they are entitled to use the power of Government not to serve the people but to maintain themselves in person power. It is extraordinarily to assert, as has been asserted on occasion during the course of our discussion that because bad things in the, end did not happen, those who sought to make those bad things happen should not be held responsible. Stop and think for a moment. Those bad things failed ailed to happen, not because those at the top did not seek to make them happen, but because dedicated and committed people in various places in Government refused to be bent and twisted to improper purposes. The, Commissioner of Internal Revenue would not allow, in the end, that agency to be used in a discriminatory fashion against the American people. The FBI Director would not accede to the Huston plan, which for a brief period was approved by the President of the, United States, and which provided for covert mail covers, surreptitious entry, an illegal electronic surveillance, all of which J. Edgar Hoover discovered and it was Hoover in the end who went to the President and insisted that this plan not be implemented. What happened then? They went outside of the agencies of Government; unable to bend the agencies to their purpose, they decided to go outside of Government and develop their own establishment That is what the Plumbers -was. It was not a legitimately constituted law enforcement agency. It was an irregular ad hoc group established to carry out certain activities, and how, was it paid for? In part, it was paid for through money raised privately. We spoke earlier of how a private person was contacted to bring", money to the White House to be furnished to the Plumbers in order, for them to carry out the break-in of the doctor's office, and that the, money was returned to the private person who provided it in following manner: Mr. Colson called up the attorney for one of the milk producer cooperatives and asked him to have the cooperative make a contribution to a political committee called, of all things, People United For Good Government, and a $5,000 contribution was made, by the, milk cooperative to that political committee. That check was cashed, and. the man who provided the original money, in order to carry out the break-in , went to the treasurer of the political committee and recovered his $55000. Now, stop and think of that. You have an irregular group, not part of an established law enforcement agency, and its activities are being funded through money raised privately. Think of the implications of that for all Americans. Mr. Chairman, I submit we came perilously close to losing our basic freedoms. And it is for that reason that we must act affirmatively here tonight. This is a long step forward in restoring the health of our Constitutional system. We' do it, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to that Constitution. We do it with a strong sense of responsibility and a powerful belief in America and in the decency and the honesty of her People. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.25.55] $
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.40.40] Ms. HOLTZMAN. Let me proceed with some other points. We have discussed the question of the tax deduction for the gift of papers which is very sizable. I think that in order to understand that, we ought to take a look at some of the other matters that were not reported on the President's tax returns during the period 1969 to 1972. In 1969, there was a sale of Mr. Nixon's New York apartment. He failed to report $75,924 from the sale of this property. In 1970 there was a sale of a portion of the San Clemente property. Mr. Nixon failed to report a capital gain of $54,581. From the period of 1969 through 1971, the, Joint Committee staff found that the President did not report royalty income which he should have reported. In 1972, Mr. Nixon failed to report the use of approximately $5,000, apparently from campaign funds, that were used to purchase platinum and diamond earrings, Mr. Nixon's, President Nixon's gift to his wife On her 60th birthday. Now, let me just state--- Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order that I would like to make. Mr. BROOKS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DENNIS. And my point, of order- is that there is absolutely no testimony in our record on the subject to which the gentlewoman from New York is referring and, therefore, it is not legitimate to argue it here. We. just have not heard anything on that subject. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman's point of order is not -well taken, The gentlelady is referring to what she believes, and what has been evidence. that has been before the committee. Mr. DENNIS. Well. I would like to see where it was before the committee I bet no one can point it out. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well---- Mr. BROOKS. I be heard on the point of order? Mr. MEZVINSKY. Let the gentlelady finish. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to Certain- The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady I is certainly qualified to speak for herself. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I -was, referring to the -draft of the final report of the, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities of the U.S. Senate. which we received and I personally received only a week or so ago. and that refers specifically to this matter. And I believe that we had some briefings, at least I did, with respect to this matter from the staff -Now, let me proceed with respect to I ],is $5,000, the $5,000 apparently from campaign funds that was used to purchase diamond earrings. Now, Just one- thing about this is interesting to note, that this $5,000 was taken out, of a bank by Mr. Bebe Rebozo in June 1972 and went through two separate banks and three separate accounts in 1 day. We have heard of laundering money in the Watergate matter, and I Would suggest that this bears a strong resemblance to that. Finally---- Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentlelady yield? Is the, gentlelady asserting the truth of these matters? We do not have any evidence of that. That is just a draft report. Even the committee does not assert the truth of that. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I do not think that there is any question about that, Mr. Wiggins. The, CHAIRMAN. If the, members would like to interpose objections they should address the, Chair. And I think the gentlelady is reference to material that has been properly before the, committee. Many of these. documents have been received at the request of the Chair, with the concurrence. of the, members from the various committees of the Congress, and this is a matter that is properly referred to. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I am objecting on the ground that it is not before us. If this report has been made a part of our record and introduced into our evidence here, then I would not object, but I do not believe that it has been. It is a Senate report which there may have been mention of here sometime. I do not, recall it was ever Placed in our record, and certainly it was not testimony before us. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the gentlelady is recognized, and the gentleman's point of order is not sustained. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I thank the chairman. I just would like to point out that the Senate. select committee's report raises other serious questions, and unfortunately neither the Senate committee nor our committee was able to fully explore these, some of which showed that apparently $45,000 worth of improvements at Key Biscayne were. paid personally by Bebe Rebozo. Now, one of the problems has been in terms of getting the records regarding these transactions and whether or not, in fact, you find campaign funds deflected at a very large and substantial amount, for the President's personal use. I think all of these are very serious questions, and I think that they are very difficult questions, because if this country is going to work on a system of voluntary tax payments, then certainly the President of this country ought to set a standard of Strict, scrupulous obedience to the law and strict and scrupulous obedience to the tax laws. And I would thank the Chair for recognizing me and I would yield whatever time I have remaining to Mr. Brooks from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. one of the members, my distinguished colleague, I believe it was Mr. Lott from Mississippi, was concerned about whether we had Cambodia or taxes tonight or tomorrow or in the afternoon, and he reminds me of the story of the hard-working mother who gave her son two ties for his birthday. The next morning be came down with one of the ties on and she said, "Son, you didn't like the other tie." [00.46.07]
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee: Arab-Israeli Conflict
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Arab-Israeli Conflict: U.S. Secretary of State, George Shultz seated at witness table, flanked by Nick Veliotis, Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, and Richard Fairbanks, a special representative for the Middle East; adult Caucasian men and women seated and standing in BG, adult Caucasian male and female press corps taking photographs in front of the witness table, adult African American male Capitol police officer stands with his back to the camera in FG. Male colleague speaks briefly to Secretary Shultz in hushed tones, gestures for an adult Caucasian male to come speak to him before the Chairman of the Committee, U.S. House Representative and Chairman, Lawrence Fountain (D-NC) calls committee to order; including Ranking Member Rep. Fountain, Rep. William Broomfield (R-MI), Rep. Edward Derwinski (R-IL) and Rep. Paul Findlay (R-IL).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Wayne Owens (D Utah). I will try to find some new materials and make reference to them. During the, course of preparation for this final debate I think the most significant, the most interesting document that I went over was a compilation by the committee of the Presidential statements on the Watergate break-in and its investigation. And I went through with a red pen one night, spent 3 or 4 hours on it, and underlined all of the statements of the President during this period of time which I found to be as I assessed the evidence, either false or misleading, or less than a straightforward candid statement. And as I go through this I find that there are red marks on almost every page, and it was a very telling point for me. Paul S. Sarbanes (D Maryland). Can we have order, Mr. Chairman. Wayne Owens (D Utah). I would like to refer Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman will defer until the committee and the gentleman and ladies in the audience are in order. The gentleman will proceed.
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) gives his opening statement. Sen. Dole hopes the final stage of deliberation has been reached with HR 4961 (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982). Dole traces back on how the bill has reached this point. The Senate version of this bill was passed in response to the first budget resolution for the 1983 fiscal year. Dole says steps must be taken to reduce the deficit by 378 billion dollars over the next three years, including 98.3 billion dollars in new revenues and 15.9 billion dollars in spending reductions. Dole says the Senate Finance Committee has acted to cut 16.7 billion dollars over three years through changes in Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, and other areas; achieving savings of 18.6 billion dollars with improvements in the US Savings Bonds program.
Chairman Ichord of the House Committee on...
Rennie Davis at podium for press conference on the The House Committee on Un-American Activities investigation into the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Davis says, “...but was denied the opportunity to testify. I want to charge at this time that clearly these sessions were totally politically motivated as an effort to try to retrieve the enormous humiliation that was heaped on the Democratic Party at the time of their convention in Chicago. Police spies and disgusting and libelous testimony; a one-sided point of view that the disruption in Chicago was caused by the demonstrators rather than, as the world knows, by the police, by the courts and the agencies of the city of Chicago and now by HUAC, that is trying to bury the issue that we attempted to raise in Chicago, which is the issue of Vietnam." Off-screen male reporter asks, “Don't you feel that the chairman gave your side-- as it were-- ample opportunity to be heard?" Davis replies: "Virtually all the time that was spent in these hearings was given to, first of all, the researcher of the committee, Mr. Gallagher, and then secondly to three police agents who were brought in from Chicago, who made the most incredible kinds of charges that I have ever heard. It made me sick to my stomach to hear. There was no opportunity to cross-examine any of those witnesses. There was no way in which we could have a full public debate on what happened in Chicago with the Chairman of this committee..."
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.48.10] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am having a little trouble with the mechanics here. Mr. Chairman, last night Mr. Froehlich and I discussed his suggestion at least the members of the committee have before them a set of memorandum prepared by the staff, setting for the precise, evidence at the staff feels supports each one of the paragraphs of this article of impeachment. And I do think that that would be a very worthwhile. I understand that the staff has not yet had an opportunity to put the evidence in a definitive form that subtends these specific paragraphs. In lieu of that, the purpose of the discussion here is to get before us for purposes of debate the evidence that we believe, those who support the articles, and that is the purpose of this discussion. Now, I would just like to fill in a couple of items here that have been touched upon by the gentleman from Maine, the gentleman from California, but that it seems to me to be spelled out a little bit more. Reference was made to the fact that on June 23, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman met at the President's direction with the head of the FBI and the Deputy Director of the CIA, Patrick Gray and Vernon Walters, but I think that we ought to get a little more information before us on that point. Remember that the risk that the link between the Committee to Re-Elect the President and the break-in burglars became more imminent a couple of days after the break-in By June 22, Mr. Gray had informed Mr. Dean that the $100 bills had been already traced to -Mr. Barker's bank account in Florida and that Mr. Dahlberg and Mr. Ogarrio in Mexico had been identified, and that the FBI planned to interview them. On June 23, Mr. Dean reported this information to Mr. Haldeman, who immediately reported it to the President. So there is no doubt that he President knows about, that. It is also undisputed that on June 23, the President directed Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman to meet with Director Helms of the FBI and Mr. Walters and express White House, concerns and ask Mr. Walters to meet with Gray and communicate those concerns to him, Now, what were those, concerns? Mr. Haldeman told Mr. Ehrlichman, who told Mr. Helms and Mr. Gray, that the FBI investigation was leading to important people and that it was the President's wish, because an FBI investigation in Mexico might uncover CIA activities or assets, that Mr. Walters suggest to Mr. Gray that the FBI should not pursue the matter, especially into Mexico. Now, the facts are these, that Mr. Helms said that there was no FBI problem in Mexico--CIA problem in Mexico, that it was not involved in this at all and second, the fact is that Mr. Ehrlichamn told the--told Mr. Gray not to keep the investigation away from the CIA but to limit it to the five men who had been arrested in the break-in in other words, keep it away from the rest of the, world. Now immediately after the meeting with Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Walters met with Mr. Gray and expressed concerns, and Mr. Gray agreed to hold up the FBI investigation into the Mexican connection. And that where stood for about, another 10 days until finally Mr. Gray--Mr. Walters came over to see Mr. Gray because, Mr. Gray had asked -Mr. Walters to put it in writing, and at that point the CIA said, we can't put, it in writing, and Mr. Walters said that the CIA -was being used and so -was the, FBI. Now let's go on to later in the summer Of 1972. During the summer of 1972, Mr. Dean and others were told by the FBI of the perjury and false statements of Mr. Magruder and Mr. Porter. Was this information given to the authorities? No. Why wasn't it? I think it is reasonable to infer that this Was Part Of the containment plan that the President later congratulated Mr. Dean for. [00.53.25]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.34.38] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doar, in response to a question put it to you by Congressman Flowers, you indicated that it was the intent of the staff in its report to specifically document, with evidence and with references to the, particular subparagraphs of each article. Is that right? Mr. DOAR. That is correct. Mr. RAILSBACK.. Will that documentary statement be submitted to us for our consideration, to each individual? Mr. DOAR. Well, that is the judgment of the committed, Congressman Mr. RAILSBACK. I take it it is going to go into the report and I take it that we will have a right to either provide separate views or dissenting views or minority views? Mr. DOAR. I am certain there is no question about that. The CHAIRMAN. Might the Chair interject that since this is not a matter for counsel to decide, but this is a question of policy that has been pursued by the House of Representatives, every member has a right to submit additional views. The views would not be the, views of the staff. The views would be the views of the committee. The committee would report and not the counsel. Counsel would not be writing the report. The report would be written by the committee. Mr. RAILSBACK. I hope that didn't come out of my time, but I thank You for the explanation. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for extra time. Mr. RAILSBACK. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I personally at this point in time think that perhaps it is a good idea to have a motion to strike on each of those counts so that those of us that are Concerned about the various allegations have a right to submit our beliefs and our concerns. And this particular paragraph, which is item one in the Sarbanes substitute and has to do with false and misleading information, happens to be, as everyone knows, one of my major areas of concern. In, drafting your report, it would seem to me that you would want to consider a conversation that took place on March 27, 1973, when the President instructed Ehrlichman to meet with Attorney General Kleindienst and tell him that, Dean was not involved, had no prior knowledge, and that neither Haldeman, Ehrlichman or Colson had prior knowledge, but there was a serious question being raised about Mitchell. It is my belief that this is the time they were going to set Mitchell up. On the following day, Ehrlichman telephoned Kleindienst and executed the President's instructions. He relayed the President's assurance that there -was no White House involvement in the break-in; but that serious questions were being raised with regard to Mitchell. This happened following the famous March 21 conversation, when John Dean -went into some detail to involve Ehrlichman, Haldeman, himself, Magruder and Porter. Then I think I would go to the Series Of events that took place in mid-April, which was after John Dean decided to blow the whistle on April 8, followed by Magruder on April 13, followed by LaRue, on I think the 14th, when he said the jig was up. And then finally, Silbert called Henry Petersen. Petersen in turn got in touch with Attorney General Kleindienst, Kleindienst in turn got in touch with the President and meetings were arranged between Henry Petersen, and the President. The President met with Henry Petersen on April 16,1973, from 1:39 to 3:25. At this meeting, the President promised to treat as confidential any information disclosed by Petersen to the President. This was at a time when Kleindienst had decided to recuse himself. In other words, because of his close association with John Mitchell and others. he decided it was not proper for him to lead the Watergate investigation, and this job was assigned to Henry Petersen. The President emphasized to Petersen that "you are talking only to me and there is not going to be anybody else on the White House staff In other words, I am acting counsel and everything else." The President suggested that the only explanation might be to dig more. When Petersen expressed some reservation about information being disclosed to Moore, the President said "let's just--better it with me." At that meeting, the President, or Petersen supplied the President With a memorandum which he had requested on April 15. the day before, summarizing the existing evidence that implicated Haldeman Ehrlichman and Strachan. Then there was a, telephone conversation later that same day, April 16, and in my opinion, this is even more clear. The President, when talking to Petersenm, asked him if there were any new developments that be should know about, and he reassured Petersen, "Of course, anything you tell me, as I think I told you earlier will not be passed on, because, I know the rules of the grand jury. Petersen then recounted to the, President the developments of that day on the Watergate investigation. The following morning, on April 17, the President met with Haldeman, somebody who had been implicated, both by Dean on March 21, and also implicated by Henry Petersen. Early in the meeting President relayed Dean's disclosures -which had been given to him by Henry Petersen, the Special Prosecutor. The President also told Haldeman that the money issue was critical. And I quote. "Another thing, if you could get John and yourself," referring to John Ehrlichman, in my opinion, "to sit down and do some hard thinking about what kind of strategy you are going to have with the money, you know what I mean." The, CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired. [00.40.46]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.26.20] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the, gentleman from Massachusetts has expired. All time has expired and the question is on the motion of, the--- Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, you have not recognized anybody on this side. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair did not intentionally overlook the minority side. I do not know whether it was subconscious, but nonetheless yield to--I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN, Thank you. I sure did not want to be counted out without a shot. The thing that amuses me the most today, what a difference 24 hours makes. Yesterday they had so much testimony they were afraid to put in nine simple sentences. 'Now today every other word they breathe is the word "specify". Isn't that unusual?, So unusual. Everything specific. But they have, not changed one word in the articles, have they, not a word. There has got to be a reason for this resistance. There has got to be a reason. You know what the reason is. When you tame it down to a time and a place and an activity , they do not have it. All they have is conjecture. They can tell you all about what Dean told somebody, Ehrlichman told somebody, what somebody else told somebody. This is going to be the, most unusual case in the history of man. they are going to prove the whole case against the President of the United States over in the Senate with tapes and no witnesses. Won't that be unusual? And this is what it all amounts to. Now, if I went through this thing paragraph by paragraph I could cite, with great detail no Presidential involvement, They know it, you know it, and I know it. Now, let us get down to a couple of these things, real specifics. Will we ever forget Petersen's answer to my question, the most daring question asked in the whole investigation to the Chief, the Chief of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice? When I asked Mr. Petersen, did you receive any information whatever from the very beginning up to the, present time that involves Presidential wrongdoing, that was a dangerous question and Mr. Petersen's answer was none. That is a pretty solid witness, I would say, for the President. If you go right down the list of all nine witnesses that, came before this committee, including the great John Dean you got the same kind of testimony. So witnesses are a lot stronger than this stuff that you are hearing here today. You can take it out-'of context, you can play up a particular article, you can do as Newsweek did, use only half of a sentence and leave off the five most important words. It is terrible, sure it is, but you and I know as lawyers it is not the kind of evidence that is going to convict anybody. Now there was such a coverup here, so much of an interference, between the President and his people, is it not unusual that not in a single case did the President ask for immunity for any of them. In fact, his move was to the contrary. He did not want any of them to have any immunity. He wanted them to tell the truth and he told every one of them, tell the truth, and it is reflected in this testimony that he said that. We, can say all we -want about these various things. John Dean, a man who had a mechanical memory, he could remember split seconds of what he was doing 9-1/2 years ago, almost consistently, but he could ,not remember what was in the papers that he burned up, the only thing he could not remember. Then when Hunt was involved in this thing and Hunt's safe was drilled, sounds like somebody did something they should not, does it not? Well, what happened? John Dean was told to take all of that stuff down to the FBI. He was told to do that. And he took everything down 'to the FBI except the two notebooks involving him and had information in that he said he could not remember what they said. The Patman Commission--this is the joke of the century. You know, when you pick on a big man, everybody gets in the act. You can see 'what has happened here. So it was with Mr. Patman. He had as much business involving himself in this case as anyone in the audience did. In fact, he tried a one-man investigation. You heard a little bit about that. And it was so bad that even the Democrats on that committee, which is a standing committee of the House, voted against his right to subpena a single witness. That is the kind of jurisdiction Mr. Patman had. So there was not any interference, here that meant anything. And we can go right on down the list. [00.31.41]
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Tom Railsback Statement
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Statement of Tom Railsback ( R - Illinois )
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.48.42] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Holtzman, for general debate only and for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK MS. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join w/ the other members of this committee in thanking you for conducting these proceedings w/ dignity & fairness consonant w/ the solemnity of the occasion. Mr. Chairman, as we sit here to measure President Nixon's conduct against the standard set in the Constitution of the US each one of us has questioned what the Constitution means & what our oath of office imposes on us & each member on this committee is publicly groping, for the right thing to do. I am overwhelmed by the stark contrast this presents to the President's words & actions. Nowhere in the thousands of pages of evidence presented to this committee does the President ask what does the Constitution say? What are the, limits of my power? What does my oath of office require of me? What is the right thing to do? In fact those thousands of pages bring To light things that I never even dreamed of when this proceeding began. Wherever we looked in this inquiry we found Presidential conduct was sorry & disgraceful Mr. Nixon allowed the people's tax money to be used for the enrichment of his personal properties. Hiding behind the enormous respect for his high office, he failed to report income and claimed tax deductions totaling almost $1 million. He appointed & kept in office as Cabinet members and close advisers persons whom he knew to be seriously unfit. He repeatedly and knowingly deceived the American people who trusted him and wanted to trust him. He surrounded the highest office in this land with scandal and dishonor. The thousands of pages before this committee are witness, in my opinion, to a systematic arrogation of power, to a thoroughgoing abuse of the President's oath of office, to a pervasive violation of the rule of law. What we have seen is a seamless web of misconduct so serious that it leaves me shaken. And what affects me most deeply is the evidence that Richard Nixon sought to subvert the two essential principles that have shaped an and preserved our 198-year history as a free people. He has obstructed, impeded, & corrupted the workings of our system of justice & he systematically used the awesome power of his office to invade the constitutional rights of the people. Some have said there is no direct evidence. It is for this reason that I want to show, using examples from Watergate, that it is principally, out of the President's own mouth and through his own words that we find the strongest evidence of the high crimes & misdemeanors he has committed. Watergate, June 17, 1972--five men working on behalf of the President were arrested for breaking into & bugging the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in Washington. Nowhere in the thousands of pages of evidence do we find any suggestion that President Nixon tried to bring all the facts he knew to 1 light or to bring to justice those responsible for this act. Instead, the evidence suggests that he consistently tried to prevent the truth from coming out. 6 days after the break-in, Mr. Nixon ordered the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation. The CIA was told that it was the President wish that the investigation stop w/ the five suspects that had been arrested & in fact the FBI investigation was impeded & contained. In the fall of 1972 President Nixon specifically ordered that the Banking & Currency Committee investigation into Watergate be stopped. In his own words, Nixon told his men to screw this thing up & in fact the House Banking & Currency Committee investigation was stopped before, it even started. By Mar 1973, we find the President plotting to thwart fact finding by the Ervin committee in the Senate or pages bringing per 122 On Mar 22 the President contemplated a number of courses of action. The first was in his words, "I want you all to stonewall it. Let them plead the fifth amendment, cover up or anything else, if it save it, save the plan." And in fact two of Mr. Nixon's closest aides were indicted for perjury before the Senate subcommittee. A 2nd scheme was to avoid the Senate select committee by going to the grand jury and these are the directions the President gave to aides for or testifying before the grand jury and I quote: "Just be damn sure you say don't remember," 'I can't recall, I can't give any honest, an answer to that that I can recall, is it."
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
[00.32.15] Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). We started, Mr. Chairman, at 11:00 this morning. The most important vote the members of this committee will ever cast in their life is a vote for impeachment. And we re dragging then through 12 hours today, more than that yesterday, months of this. And to take some time to think, we are not allowed to. We ve got to rush forward, we ve got to have this on the Floor. I think that is a mistake, Mr. Chairman. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.46] [very tail end of morning session, Chairman's gavel, cut to LEHRER in studio] [01.04.02] [PBS network ID] [promos for PBS programming] [01.07.11--title screen "Impeachment Debate"] LEHRER announces that the committee will move on to another paragraph of the ARTICLE [01.07.25] [cut Chairman RODINO, GAVEL] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order and I recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have an amendment at the clerk's desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment The CLERK [reading] Amendment by Mr. Flowers. 'Strike subparagraph 3 of the Sarbanes substitute. 'Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding on this, I would like to ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be limited to 20 minutes with the Chair allocating 10 minutes to the proponents of the subparagraph and 10 minutes to those who oppose it. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. And as the Chair Understands, the gentleman's proposition means that those who would seek to be recognized to speak in opposition to the amendment, whether they come from the minority Side or the majority side, would be recognized as an opponent or proponent, as the case might be. Mr. FLOWERS. That is my intention, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair will, without objection, proceed in that fashion . The gentleman is recognized. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this and thank the com- Committee for this so that we might expeditiously 'get along with the, consideration. I have talked with the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler, about this particular subparagraph, and I would yield to him at this time, I believe he has some material to explain about it. Mr. BUTLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, specifically -we. are concerned at the moment with subparagraph 3. You will recall that the article I is directed to a course of conduct or plan by the President designed to obstruct justice and that there is in addition' to that a following paragraph which says the means used to implement this plam include one or more Of the following, And this deals with paragraph 3 of the following which concerns itself -with approving, condoning acquiescing in and counseling of witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted' judicial and congressional proceedings. And I would address myself it this moment to Some of the specifies supporting the above paragraph of the article. I'm assisted in this regard by the staff which have helped us in preparation of this memorandum which was mentioned this morning early by the gentleman from Wisconsin. [01.10.30]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.39.32] Mr. MANN. But, what bothers me most of all are the loose statements, some Which we have Just now heard, that the, President is going to go to on trial, Without knowing what the charge is. The President if he goes to trial, is going to trial not only knowing what the charge is. but knowing, what every word, every i and every t, every bit of evidence that has been made available to this committee, which has been presented here in the presence of the President's counsel. If we get further evidence, I can assure you will have my support to see that the President's counsel is present when it is presented to this committee and that, he is present when it is presented to the House of Representatives, if -new evidence is presented at any time. So, what are we talking about sneaking tip on someone? The evidence all of it, will be available to the President tomorrow or the next day. He has gotten it up until now. He has some, of course that we would like to have. Now, I do not find that this proceeding, which admittedly has sparse precedent, is in violating the constitutional rights of anyone who stands before the bar of justice possessed of every fact known to the prosecution and possessed of the description of the charge against him. What surprise--what surprise can I conclude other than this is not a substantive objection; it is a procedural matter. It is a matter that I must suggest that I somewhat predicted as I realized that the arguments made here in front of these cameras would not be made for the benefit of me as a member of this committee. I do not think Mr. Sandman would be so strident or even so partisan if these proceedings were not being conducted to influence the opinions of the American People. But, I am here to study the law and the evidence, and to see that Richard Nixon gets a fair trial, that he is advised of all the evidence against him, and in my judgment , the charges that are included in article I notify him of what he is charged with. And they set out something extra , the means by which he is alleged to have committed that offense of obstruction of justice. Let us be reasonable. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield'? Mr. MANN. We have had the advice of Mr. Jenner who because of his objectivity stands stripped of his title as minority counsel, a man who was chairman of that body of the American Bar Association, the Advisory Committee to advise the Supreme Court on Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure, and the foremost expert in the United States, I submit on this subject. And he tells us that in his judgment this article is adequate to advise the respondent of the charges against him. Mr. WIGGINS. the gentleman yield? Mr. MANN. Fairness is what is required. I would settle for nothing less. And I submit that this article grants fairness in the highest tradition of American jurisprudence, and of the power of this body to exercise its serious power of preserving our Government through the power of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WIGGINS. Would you yield for a second, please? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, for 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, and reserve my remaining 2 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I am amazed that I have heard some of the arguments I have heard here today. I cannot believe this is the same group that made all of those speeches yesterday and the night before, everyone of them making that Constitution, the Constitution the most valuable thing that was ever made, and it is, and yet, so willing to cast aside the most important provision therein, the one known as due Process, that one now for their own convenience they will throw under the rug. Isn't it amazing that they are willing to do anything such as resistance to making the thing specific? Isn't it amazing they have so much, but they are willing to say so little? Isn't it amazing? They are willing to do anything except make these articles specific. It is the same old story, you know, when you don't have the law on your side, YOU talk about facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, you just talk, and that is what a lot of people have been doing today. Now, we talk about this going to the Senate. What about the House of Representatives? Are you going to get down there and say fellows, we have got so many stories to tell, here is 40 books that have been put together by Doar and Jenner, you just rehash those, you don't need anything else. Don't pay any attention to the constitutional law or else, just look over these things, and maybe this is the reason why they didn't want any witnesses. Never wanted a witness. [00.45.42]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.36.04] The CHAIRMAN. The, time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens, is recognized for 6 minutes AND 15 seconds. Mr. OWENS. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It, is true that no one is being fooled during the course of this debate, on the possibility of passing this article of impeachment. A vote for this article. I submit is responsible, is intellectually defensible, and I think it is merited by the facts, but it is obviously not going to pass. In order to execute the function to declare war, Congress must be Provided with accurate information by its Commander in Chief. This is a basic axiom with which I think almost no one agrees. In this particular situation--with which no one disagrees, I am sorry. the, gentleman from Maryland. In this situation, the President misled the public for 9 period of 4 years. Mr. Hogan, who just now corrected me, I correct him to say when he said there was no coverup that, there was a coverup for 4 years of the true. facts of this war in Cambodia. Others say this isn't necessary necessarily unique and some have said you are attacking the wrong person. It is President Nixon who wound down this war, a fact -which I admit, for which I am very grateful. But, I think it must be admitted and understood that the President ended this war only after being pushed into that resolution, into that solution by Congress. and it was last May, a year ago, May of 1973, I had the honor of voting to cutoff funds for the bombing in which resolution for the first, time passed the Congress as a which brought, about, some 60 days later the, final conclusion to the war in Southeast Asia. I think I would be less than candid if I did not admit quite openly that I think the last President of my party, misled the public in the same way. I think the publication of the Pentagon Papers indicated quite clearly that President Johnson misled the people, that the campaign of 1964 at a time when he was making speeches in one direction and representations in one direction, he was in -fact preparing to go another, and that the Tonkin Gulf resolution, supposedly his authority for fighting that, war, was attained at the cost of misleading Congress, purposely misleading Congress. How many impeachment resolutions, it has been asked quite recently in this debate, how many impeachment resolutions were introduced to impeach President Johnson, and I suppose the answer is none" but because none, were, brought against President Johnson and because he was not brought to account for his Misleading of Congress and -the Public. that cannot excuse this President. I am amazed, to use the terminology of the gentleman of New Jersey, that that argument can surface, that the sins or the impeachable offenses if they are, of one President can justify those. same sins of another President. This President indisputably ordered secrecy in the reporting and the nonreporting, falsification of documents of this war after having ordered the, war perpetrated. I have at my side 11 separate statements which President Nixon and his military advisers and commanders made to Congress, 9 to Congress and 2 to the public. Lies all. in absolute derogation of the President's obligation to Congress to provide them with adequate information, adequate and true information upon which they might fulfill their responsibility of whether we go to war or not. Committee members know that I, among others, keep harping that we, must find some lessons for the future out of this impeachment proceeding. I hope that -we. will set down a standard for Presidents and future wars. that something positive will come out of this sad--the history of this sad -war in Southeast Asia and the history of this sad proceeding. that put together -we -will say that if there are to be future wars, and I hope, as I know all members of the committee do with all our hearts that there will not be, that those wars will only be decided by the people through their Representatives in Congress just like the Constitution requires. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has yielded back his time? Mr. OWENS. Does the gentleman from. Maryland desire that I yield? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. OWENS. 1 yield to my colleague. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, could I make a parliamentary inquiry? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. SARBANES. IS there some way a member who, when we came here, was not prepared to declare himself at that time as either a proponent or- opponent and thought he ought to listen to this debate, can get some time to speak? As I recall, the time was parceled out on that basis and thus requires that the members, prior to listening to this 'debate, indicate and seek his time. I would like to ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 5 minutes which would be in between what was ,allocated to proponents and opponents. [00.42.05]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.46] Mr. WIGGINS......at that time the President approved of this OF whether it was simply a discussion in the context of the time 3 months before an election in this country. I yield back that time to my friend from New Jersey. Mr. SANDMAN. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. The CHAIRMAN. The. gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman. continuing the situation I think it is worth remembering that Commissioner Walters said on the occasion that Dean came to him that Dean stated that he had not been asked by the President to have this done and he did not know whether the President asked that any of this activity be undertaken And Mr. Dean stated here in this committee in answer to Mr. Railsback, "I don't know of any audits that were accomplished," and that the, Joint Commission Internal Revenue Taxation found that in fact, none of these people were audited. So that is the record on the situation. as to what actually took place as against a political conversation on the 15th day of September. And there is no evidence in the record anywhere that the President ever made any request except a hearsay statement by Clark Mollenhoff, who says that Haldeman told him that the President asked for a report on Governor Wallace's brother, which wouldn't stand up in any court, in the land, and there is no evidence that that, in fact, is the truth and it has been denied by two or three other people during the course of the testimony. And as Mr. Railsback said, there, are good people in this. There is Secretary Shultz, there, is Secretary--Commissioner Thrower, there is Commissioner Walters. All of them' turned Ehrlichman's efforts and Dean's efforts down. There is no evidence of a Presidential effort and the, thing that there is evidence. of is that Secretary Shultz and Commissioner Walters and Commissioner Thrower were Presidential appointments of Richard M. -Nixon. I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. SANDMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Thank you for yielding. I want to reemphasize, underscore in capital letters what has been said by the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, that no one at this table condones any such request that Mr. John Dean put forth, and certainly if the President of the United States had put forth that request I would think that would be an impeachable offense. Now, the question is did he or did he not authorize John Dean to do this? It has been pointed out when he went to Mr. Walters he specifically stated that he was not there at the President's request. I think it is important to note when this whole matter was submitted to Joint Committee on Taxation here in the Congress which is controlled by the opposition party that they Made this report: "The staff's investigation paid particular attention to the cases, of those, individual, mentioned in the press as victims of politically motivated audits. The joint committee staff has difficulty in discussing these cases specifically because of the, problem this would present in violating the individual's rights of confidentiality. Now this is the place I Want to emphasize. "However, none of these cases has the staff found any evidence that the taxpayer was unfairly treated by the Internal Revenue Service Because of Political views or political activities." Now. this conclusion is further supported by the House Judiciary Committee's materials, this committee's materials Commissioner Walters stated in his affidavit of May 6, 1974 with respect to a list furnished him by -Mr. Dean, "At no time did I furnish any names or names from the list to anyone or did I request any IRS employee, or official to take any action with respect, to the list." The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 2 minutes and the gentleman from -New Jersey has 6 minutes remaining Mr. SANDMAN. I would like the gentleman from Texas to take the next time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. 'Mr. Chairman. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa, is recognized. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this article is the. article on abuse of power. To me it really symbolizes -what the drafters of the Constitution really meant had in mind when they gave us the impeachment process. They were worried when they Just came out, of a revolution that they would find that a President that would abuse the Power Of the Presidency. One of the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Randolph. said he. advocated the impeachment process because he was specifically worried that if the President abused the power, it could very well lead to "insurrections" by the people. [01.09.21]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative J. Edward Hutchinson (R -Michigan) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.35] Mr. MEZVINSKY. That is correct. And I would hope with all respect to the gentleman from Ohio that, although we set it not to exceed 2 hours, but I would expect, that it very well could be less than 2 hours. But, the feeling was we should at least, have an airing of the issue, and it very well could take less than 2 hours, but, it cannot exceed 2 hours, and that would also include any amendments thereto. Mr. LATTA. Further reserving the right to object. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, in view of the past, experiences when we have set the time, it seems inevitably that we use all of the time, and believing that we probably can cover this adequately in 1 1/2 hours I would hope that the gentleman would request that we not exceed that period. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. BROOKS. Reserving the right to object. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. My distinguished friend from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky, I would hope, that we could retain the 2-hour limitation on and that would give only I hour for the explanation and discussion On a Very involved article which involves the President's taxes as well as emoluments under the Constitution. I would hope that we do it with that and -with the amendments, do it promptly within that 2-hour period. I think it is not an excessive amount and I would hope that the gentleman would withdraw his objection, as I certainly do my own. Mr. LATTA. Can we compromise on 1 hour and 45 minutes? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. SARBANES. I have a parliamentary inquiry Mr. Chairman. If there is an objection, do we then revert to the rules governing our procedures which would give each member of the committee 5 minutes to speak in general debate and also 5 minutes to speak on every amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. SARBANES. AN-ell, it seems to me the proposal put forth by the gentleman from Iowa is quite a reasonable one under the circumstances. Mr. LATTA. If there is no compromise, and I am. a man of compromise, but if there is no compromise we will take the 2 hours. I withdraw my objection. The CHAIRMAN. There being no objection. the unanimous consent request is ordered. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that I have the first 10 minutes of the 2 hours. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN. This, will come out of the gentleman's time. Mr. MEZVINSKY All Right. Thank you. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. I have an amendment at the desk The CHAIRMAN. . The clerk. will read the amendment . The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. WIGGINS. On page subparagraphraph 2 add the words "and fraudulently" after the word "knowingly." The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a few moments with respect to this amendment. and if perhaps there can be some agreement between myself and the author of the. article so as to make extended debate `on this question unnecessary. The reason that, the language "and fraudulently" is to the subparagraph is because there is an ambiguity on the face of the article between the introductory language. "willfully attempt to evade," which tracks the language of title 26, section 7201, and the language of subparagraph 2 which does not interject the element of fraud in Its text. It Is my belief that the gentleman from Iowa intends this to be a fraud case. and that there is no intentional Omission On his part with respect to subparagraph 2 to remove elements of fraud a-- the proper thrust of The case. mitt if' ]that is in fact his intention. then I see no reason for me to pursue my amendment since we are in agreement and I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Iowa so that he can state his intention. -Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you. I accept the amendment from the gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate that. And, 'Mr. Chairman, that being the case, and believing that the members of the committee will similarly accept, the amendment I think that it now narrows the focus of the debate. We will be talking about whether the President has committed fraud in the preparation and execution of his tax returns. and all debate on extraneous matters. although interesting perhaps to some, will not bear directly on the issue before This committee has been complimented. over the days immediately Prior I to this on the high. caliber of our debate, and I am confident that we will confine our debate this evening to the issues before us. especially after the adoption of the amendment which I have made. I move the previous question on the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying Aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed ? [No response.] Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman I thought cited a statute and I was interested in the title and the citation if I might before I vote. Mr. WIGGINS. Surely. Title 26, section 7201, which is the fraud section. Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state that the question had already been before the committee. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Calif California. All those, in favor of the amendment pleaseby saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed ? [No response.] The CHAIRMAN. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. [01.15.33]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974
[00.46.41] The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report. The CLERK. Twenty-four members have voted aye, 14 have voted no. The CHAIRMAN. the amendment is agreed to. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, _LNIr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which I would like read. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Railsback. On page 1, beginning at. line 11, after the word "intelligence" strike, all that follows through line 17 and insert in lieu thereof the following new language: "subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged, personally and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, Impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal, and protect those responsible; and to conceal existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities." Mr. RAILSBACK. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. This language. replaces the following language: "Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, made it his policy, and in furtherance of such policy did act directly and personally and through his close subordinates and agents, to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful Covert activities." Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I have a great deal of difficulty believing that Richard M. Nixon, at a particular point in time, Contrived any kind of a policy, or at least any kind of a policy that would continue to follow through, and I think the word "policy" gives the impression of an affirmative, orchestrated, declarative decision that occurred at a given point in time. I thought that Some of Mr. Wiggins' objections yesterday were very Well made. I think what the record reflects, however, is a course of conduct or, in the alternative, a plan of action over many months which was responsive to and developed as a consequence of events that occurred, and that is the reason for my amendment. It seems to me that we are going to be asked to prove the char charges that -we make and it seems to me that we would have a great deal of difficulty proving that the President had any kind of a, policy that could pinpoint as of June 23 or July 6 or August 29, but rather, that many of the things that he did -were in response to certain events that occurred. That's the reason for the amendment. [00.50.48]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.14.10] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. and the, gentleman from Texas has 6 1/2 minutes remaining And does the gentleman from New Jersey wish to be recognized? Mr. SANDMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, for 3 minutes Mr. LOTT. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. LOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Sandman. Mr. Chairman, this is certainly an area that can be used to inflame the emotions of the American people, because there are many out there that I know have personally felt that they are harassed by the IRS and they do not feel that they are on anybody's list. But, I think there are some key issues and points that we must stress and keep mind. There, is no evidence of any such misuse in the final anal analysis on the part of the President. The, Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation report should be noted in this conclusion, and I am going to cite some Sections from that report in a minute. Also, almost all of the alleged attempts to misuse IRS come from the person that used the, most influence supposedly within our IRS to get these audits. John Dean is the person that made these points with Johnnie Walters and others. Now, a, lot has been made of this missing 17 minutes of tape, Well, the fact is, we. do not have that 17 minutes and there has already been some contradictions about what is included in those 17 minutes, so I do not think we can base this decision tonight on something that -we do not yet have, and maybe -we will have later on, and maybe we should consider it, But it has been claimed that several individuals in the White House attempted to misuse, the IRS for partisan political purposes. It is clear that such alleged misuse, could only succeed if it were supported by the power and the authority of the President in the final analysis. On looking on all evidence available, it is clear the President did not make that action. and one point I want to emphasize, that Mr. Dennis Made a while ago is that these people have been praised so highly, Mr. Shultz and Mr. Walters and Mr. Thrower, and these people were appointed by the President, just as these aides were, like Dean. Now, let, me quote to YOU some of the sections in the report from the Internal Revenue Committee. "However, in none of these cases has the Committee staff found any evidence that the taxpayer AN-as unfairly treated by the Internal Revenue Service because of political Views and activities." "The staff believes that in three cases there are substantial questions about decisions made by governmental agencies about friends of the White House. But, the, staff does not have evidence that there was any pressure involved. The staff also believes that a number of enemies either were not, audited when the staff believes they should have been or were audited too leniently." And then in Mr. Dean's I response. after questioning by Mr. Railsback back, he says:" "So I don't know if the President got back in it or not. don't know of any audits that. were accomplished." In conclusion, I think that the record clearly shows that while some personnel at the White House may indeed have used improper intentions against the IRS the fact is in the final analysis, no IRS abuse resulted. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman from New Jersey has 3 minutes remaining. Mr. SANDMAN. I reserve and yield to the gentleman from Texas to use Some of his time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. BROOKS. I yield 6 minutes, reserving 30 seconds to myself, and 6 minutes I yield to the, gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Walter Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. And I yield 1 minute of my time to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback Mr. RAILSBACK. Thanks. Mr. Flowers. Let me just say, let's don't delude ourselves here. There was a conversation, the President was involved. The President knew exactly what John Dean had done on September 11. Not only did he not turn it off, in my Opinion, and according to John Dean's direct testimony, he told him to go back again. Now, some people argue that because nothing was, done that there is no Serious offense. Why wasn't there anything done? Was it because the President of the United States decided to turn it off and register his outrage? Is it because. these investigations did not occur because there, happened to be two rather dedicated public servants, one by the name. of George Shultz and then a rather good IRS Commissioner that would not have, anything to do with it. And I think that Commissioner Walters gave very good advice to Mr. Dean -when he was presented with this list. He testified he told Mr. Dean that compliance with such a request, and I quote : "Would be disastrous for the IRS and for the administration and would make the Watergate affair look like a Sunday School picnic." Mr. FLOWERS. . I thank the gentleman for his comment,. You know, my friends, a fundamental principle of our Government is that equal justice under law is a guarantee of every citizen. To put it another way, we. are a, Government of laws and not of men. This commitment to equal justice was written down in a few places, like in our Constitution, and in our laws, and in some court decisions . But I think just as important are some commitments to this principle that, must be assumed in our society. For instance, the assumption that the sensitive agencies of Government with peculiar power over- each one, of our citizens, like the police power, and the power to tax, will not be abused or misused for political purposes. This is a fundamental source of the, people's confidence in our Government. That the President and his men should have trifled with this source of power seems to me to be sufficiently grave to qualify as a component of an article of impeachment. Can you imagine, the President of the United States saying to an aide, "Do you need any IRS stuff?", Well, what happened on March 13, in the White House? Can you imagine the, President's lawyer, his counsel, his close, subordinates, Saying with impunity, and with apparent approval of the President, "We have a couple of sources over there. that I can go to, I don't have to fool around with Johnnie Walters," who was IRS Commissioner, we can get right in and get what we need." That also happened in the White House. [01.20.46]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.21.44] The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk -will report. The CLERK. Ten members have voted aye, 28 members have voted no. The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is not agreed to. I recognize the gentleman form from Maine for purposes of the offering an amendment. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. Cohen. On page 3, subparagraph 4, strike line 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following new language: "National Committee and the cover-up thereof and concerning unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-Elect the President. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized . Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I might just briefly indicate, this is the long-awaited amendment put together by Mr. Butler and myself, calling for greater specifies in the subparagraph 4. 1 think we all agree, at least I do and Mr. Butler, that the statement was too general. I want to commend Mr. Wiggins for drawing our attention to it and Mr. McClory for perfecting it, but I think those are the, specific areas that would warrant inclusion under that subparagraph and I would urge, urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentleman yield Mr. COHEN. I -will yield to the gentleman from Missouri. Hr. HUNGATE. I will be pleased to accept this as an improvement in the language and accept it, move it. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. Opposed. [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is agreed to. The gentleman from California is seeking recognition. Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have a motion to strike subparagraph 3 at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Wiggins In the Hungate substitute, strike subparagraph 3. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. Mayne. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. MAYNE. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This particular paragraph is the one which make the charge of setting up the special investigations unit, in the White House, so- called Plumbers unit. Now, I think that in considering this charge, it is necessary to think of the background under which the President made this decision and part of that background is what the gentlewoman from Texas has referred to as the climate of leaks, There is no question that there had been a series of very damaging and serious leaks for several years. One has already been referred to by Mr. Moorhead as the leak in 1969 of the secret estimates of the U.S. Intelligence Board of Soviet strategic strength, and particularly of Soviet first strike power. This was a highly confidential document, but it was released by some official, leaked to a reporter and appeared in the New York Times on June 18, 1969, stating our estimates of Soviet first strike power. [01.26.27]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.15.20] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah Mr. Owens. is recognized for 5 minutes Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield my 5 Minutes; to the gentleman from California to continue that, litany of Watergate activities that he was half halfway through. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California recognized for 5 Minutes. Mr. WALDIE. We will continue with this story of intrigue and high drama in high Government circles. As you recall, we last left, our group of people with the President, With the President less than a -week after the break-in announcing to the public facts acts that, in fact, he knew were not true. When he confirmed the statements of Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Mitchell that there were no Committee for the Re-Election of the President people or no White House people involved in that incident, there were, and he knew it. And that was the first publicly surfaced act of coverup -on the part, of the, President. But, very shortly thereafter the, President continued the coverup, a coverup that was necessary to protect that which all were most concerned about, the fact that he might it lose the election in 1972 if the", American people, understood that the White House was involved in Surreptitious entry. and illegal surveillance for political intelligence and all that litany of White House horrors. So on June, 23 another problem had arisen and that was keep those, folk quiet who had been arrested. the five that had been arrested that, night, Saturday night, June 17 as well as the two who were across the street in a roomful of electronic surveillance, Hunt and Liddy. It took money. It took money to keep them quiet, and if you did not pay them money they would tell. And if they told, everything would fall apart, and the election of the, President might be jeopardized. The first $10,000 of money we saw was delivered the night of the burglary when Mr. Hunt went back to the White House. if you will, into his safe, and took out $10,000 in cash, the only deal in cash in this operation, and delivered it on behalf of the burlglars to keep them quiet Then, Dean is operating to bring about the coverup, not to investigate, not to report, but to implement the coverup. And Dean goes to John Mitchell of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President in the period June 23, June 26, somewhere in that area and says Mr. Mitchell how about you folks putting up the money to bail these people out and to pay their attorneys' fees? And Mr. Mitchell say don't want anything of it. That's your problem. It s you young fellows over in the, White House that brought this idiot scheme to the fore by your Plumbers, by your Hunt and your Liddy, by your break-in of the Fielding' office. It was not the. Committee for the Re-Election of the President. It was Haldeman and Ehrlichman operating on behalf of the President and the Committee for the Re-Election of the President wouldn't finance any more of the coverup. So then Dean goes to the CIA, if you will, and he says to the CIA ,look, isnt there some way you fellows--you don't have to account to Congress or to anybody and they don't for anything but particularly they don't for money--can't you fellows in the CIA put up enough money to take care of the follows that were working on behalf Of the President. He said it was a national security mission and the CIA gets all turned on usually for national security missions but they didn't in this caste, and they said no, we are not going to Put up money for burglars, no matter for whom they were working and they didn't. So then he went back to Ehrlichman in the White House, and he said I really need the money desperately, these follows are about to blow, and he says I need to talk to someone who can raise big money,. and he went and was referred to the President's personal lawyer, Mr. Kalmbach, and the President's personal fund raiser. Now, surely it stretches credibility beyond endurance to believe that the President's personal lawyer, the President's personal fund raiser, would be enlisted in this illegal scheme of raising money with out having first gotten approval from the President. And I believe the inferences are abundantly clear that the President .granted approval on the part of Ehrlichman's Ehrlichman to refer Dean to Kalmbach came in that night, the 28th of June, mind you, 17th of June is when the break-in happened and this is 11 days later. That night he came in and raised $75,000 by nightfall and got that into the hands of the people that were buying the silence of the burglars. Now, that takes us up to the end of June when the next act in our drama unfolds, June 30. They call in John Mitchell and they say John, we've got to get you out of the limelight because the press has asked you questions because you are the chairman of my reelection campaign and you know too much, John. And John knew "everything. There was not anything John Mitchell did not know at that time about the break-in of the Democratic National Committee. And so they concocted a story, and it was concocted, we have the information on that conversation, and that story was that John and Martha were having trouble, which they probably were, and therefore, that would be the excuse by which he Would allege the necessity resignation But, it was, mind you, and so portrayed, as an excuse. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah has expired. [00.21.36]