Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.25.23] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired. The gentleman of from California is seeking recognition Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, the article having been read, is it open for amendment at any place? the CHAIRMAN-. The article open for amendment at any point. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. WIGGINS. I am prepared to offer an amendment, but if we are going to have general debate on the article I will withhold. The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman will defer? Mr. WIGGINS. Surely. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. CHAIRMAN. The CHAIRMAN, Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized at this point to discuss generally this proposed article of impeachment. It seems to me that this really gets at the crux of our responsibilities here. It directs our attention directly to the President's constitutional oath and his constitutional obligation. There is nothing mysterious about this, and there, is nothing, evil and Malicious about it. It directs the attention directly to this responsibility that is and has been reposed in the President. This certainly is no bill of attainder. We care not thinking this up to as an offense and then charging the President with a violation of it. We are calling the President's attention to the facts that he took an oath of office, and that he had in his oath of office a solemn obligation to see to the of faithfully of execution of the laws. This is quite different and distinct from the elements of criminality that are involved in article I charging the President with a conspiracy, and with all kinds of criminal acts of misconduct and obstruction of justice and so on--an article which I did not support because I do not believe the facts support that kind of charge. Now. some of those who have been expressing themselves in support of article I clearly have included feelings of deep hostility, and bitterness and political bias. On my part, article II, based on 'the take care clause of the Constitution which specifies a solemn obligation of the President to take care to see to the faithful execution of the laws, I want to make perfectly clear that I harbor no malice, I attribute no evil thoughts or conduct to the President of the United States. I express no bitterness, no hostility. What I do want to make clear that the President is bound by his solemn oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and to take care to see that the laws are faithfully executed. While many of the paragraphs contained in article II may appear similar to those that are found in article II, which I opposed, it important to note carefully that the pattern of conduct which is delineated in article II is quite distinguishable from that in a article I. For one thing, I would point out there is no clear proof In The fact that, others surrounding the President have been guilty of acts of gross misconduct. However, there is a clear violation of the President's responsibility when he permits multiple acts of wrongdoing by large numbers of those who surround him in possession of greatest, responsibility and influence in the White House. The establishment of the Plumbers, and many of the attributed to them are wholly unrelated to the Watergate, and that is the same case -with respect, to his misuse of the FBI and the CIA and the IRS. Nothing to do with Watergate for the most part. But these clear acts of misconduct which, it seems to me, are important for us to take note of. In other words, the acts and conduct upon which I feel an article of impeachment should be presented to our colleagues is strictly constitutional, which relates narrowly and directly to The President himself and his personal oath of office. While this article may seem less dramatic and less sensational the Watergate break-in and coverup, it is nevertheless a positive and specific responsibility, and a positive and responsible approach to our power On our part as investigators of misconduct. One purpose of the impeachment process, it seems to me, is to Set a constitutional standard for persons occupying The office of the President. Thus. if we approach our task in constitutional terms, we will be setting such a standard. I view the duty of the House of Representatives as something other than serving as a district courthouse to hold the President accountable for statutory violations of the criminal law. I think we can agree that the President should not commit crimes, If we are to set a constitutional standard, we must take a different view of the facts. We must phrase our charges in constitutional terms so that the Presidents to come may know what is meant by our actions. If we are to establish our proceedings as a guide for future Presidents, we should speak- in terms of the Constitution and specifically in terms of the President's oath and his obligation under the Constitution. It Will be of limited value to admonish a future President not to obstruct to justice or engage In a coverup. However it will aid future Presidents to know this Congress and this House Judiciary Committee will hold them to an oath of office and an obligation to take care to see that the laws are faithfully executed. I realize that there is no nice way to impeach a President of the United States. I realize also that the distinction between the criminal conspiracy theory of article I and the purely constitutional aspects of article II may be misunderstood. But, its a member of this committee, the most I can do is to exercise my independent, judgment and to search deeply my own conscience. Both reason and wisdom dictate the judgement I am going to make in support of this article II is right. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of gentleman has expired. Under the rules of Jefferson's Manual and the rules of the House. The chair IS constrained to state that perfecting amendments take precedence, and the Chair did state this. The members, however, who want to speak to the substitute will have their time reserved for them. I am going to recognize at this time those members who wish to Offer perfecting amendments. [00.31.45]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.02.03] Mr. SMITH......beginning of the bombing that was secret. And I think that perhaps our passage of the War Powers Act. the passage by the Congress and the signing by the President has made this question moot as to future Presidents. I agree with Mr. Waldie, the gentleman from California, that the here will offer guidelines to future Presidents. The mere fact that we are debating this matter, the mere fact that we are talking about it, the mere fact that we are agonizing about it a little bit, it is a troublesome matter, and there are too many aspects that are unknown. and I am going to oppose it. But I think we should, this committee should have gone into it more deeply than we did. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The. gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish, is recognized for 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, Mr. Chairman, the question before us naturally is, is the unauthorized bombing an impeachable offense. Was it treason? I do not believe so. Was it bribery? Clearly not. Therefore, is it a high crime? And the high crimes that we have been talking about these past 5 days are crimes that would show a contempt for the Constitution. Now, we know where the authority to declare war lies. It is in the Congress. Therefore, I think the question comes down to whether this unauthorized bombing was a contempt of this institution, the Congress of the United States. The fact, is that we in the Congress share responsibility. The facts Of the lack Of concealment have come out In this debate, and I do not think it was necessary to characterize not only the political leadership but, the committee leadership in both parties, in both the House and the Senate as having been carefully selected. But, these Men did know, on our behalf, and so the Congress does have this responsibility. I liken this particular proposed article to that which concerned unauthorized impoundments. In both cases, as has been said in this debate, the fact was that for decades the Congress itself was giving ground to the Executive, in both cases the acted far too slowly for many, but the fact is today it has acted With the budget control and the anti-impoundment legislation which is now law, with the War Powers Act, which is now law. So, Mr. Chairman, I cannot absolve myself or my colleagues for our Part of the blame by heaping It exclusively on the President. I yield back- the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois Mr. Railsback, is recognized for 3 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman. I cannot help think' what short memories we have. I was a part of a Republican task force which, in 1968, visited some of the northern university I- campuses and I remember we visited Harvard, Northeastern University and MIT. It was shortly after the Harvard bust that we visited that campus and we interviewed people that were with the SDS, we interviewed the student government leaders. and we interviewed a group called the Afro-Americans, and we listened to the most bitter frustration, disillusionment, concerns, distrust about that particular establishment. And they conveyed to Us in no uncertain terms that, the disillusionment and frustration which they felt was caused by false and misleading statements that had been made by the different administrations one after the Other. The fact that they had been told that we were going to be out of Vietnam in another-6 months, and they had been promised that the war was almost over, only to find that there was an even greater commitment of American troops. Recently many of us had a chance to read a book by a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. David Halberstam who wrote about our involvement in Southeast Asia with particular reference to the Kennedy and Johnson administration. I want to refer to just one particular reference that he makes. "Machismo," says Halberstam, "was no small part of it." Johnson "had always been haunted by the idea that, he, would be judged as being insufficiently Manly for the job that he would lack courage at a crucial moment." Westmoreland and McNamara are guilty because of their misplaced confidence in ground troops. LBJ was the real war criminal when be deceived the American people, in July 1965 by deciding to send over 100,000 to 125,000 troops, but telling the. American people that it was only .50,000 and that it "does not imply any change in policy whatever." In fact, notes Halberstam. "it was the beginning of an entirely new policy 'which -would see What was the South Vietnamese war become primarily an American war, I suggest to you that, LBJ was no more accountable probably than The President preceding him, and the, President preceding that President, that he was no more accountable than this Congress, those of us that sat in this Congress, approved policies, failed to exercise congressional oversight. [00.08.20]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
[01.32.14] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has as expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of this committee, Mr. Hutchinson, for the purpose of general debate and for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Hutchinson. STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD HUTCHINSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE FOURTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At, the beginning of this meeting last evening the chairman invited me to make some introductory remarks following introductory remarks made by him. And in order that it, might not appear that I was trying to make two speeches so closely in a row, - it was understood I would not be, recognized in this general debate & would waive seniority and be recognized at the end of the roster instead of at the head. My eloquent & distinguished colleagues have expressed a wide range of views on the impeachment process, and after this many hours Of thoughtful speeches I would be most hesitant to speak at all or to risk trespassing upon the endurance of all of those who have listened to this committee's deliberations, were it not for the gravity of the subject matter at hand. I have great respect for the man who occupies the office Of the President, but my respect for the Constitution is even greater. All Americans should be grateful for our Splendid Constitution. and for the foresight of our Founding Fathers in providing through impeachment a means for removing a President during his term Of office when circumstances necessitate so doing. The Constitution places the responsibility for initiating proceedings for the removal of a President in the House of Representatives. In this case, the House has demanded of this committee a report with a recommendation concerning whether the House should exercise its impeachment power directed at the removal of President Nixon. I have listened attentively to my colleagues, and learned Men and women all, who have argued with great intellect in favor of impeachment of the President. I remain unconvinced by their arguments. I believe their case is weak & I am unconvinced as well by their view of the impeachment process itself. As the thrust is placed in Congress to safeguard the liberties of the people through the awesome and extraordinary powers to remove a President, so must Congress' vigilance be fierce in that the thrust is not abused. The proper use of the impeachment power depends upon our Understanding of its proper purpose under the Consititution. The Constitution provides that a President may be impeached and tried, convicted, and removed from office for the commission of treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors. The meaning of the words treason and bribery are self-evident. They are crimes, high crimes directed against the State. To me the meaning of the words, other high crimes or misdemeanors, is equally obvious. It means what it says, that a President can impeached for the commission of crimes and misdemeanors which like other crimes to which they are linked in the Constitution, treason & bribery, are high----- [01.36.01--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
[01.26.03--continued speech by Rep. MANN, D-SC] And then his lawyer, Mr. Shapiro: "I have represented witnesses before congressional committees for something like 20 years in times perhaps as unhappy as these, with passions perhaps high as they are in these times. This is the most impressive committee performance it has ever been my pleasure to witness, both in terms of treatment of the witness, and the attention of the members of the committee, in connection with the questions that were asked, and the kind of consideration Chair has shown to other members of the committee and to the witness' the counsel, and I say as a citizen wholly apart from Mr. Colson's counsel and I want to separate that, you are very impressive people and I think you are doing a very impressive job." Now, what of these people that they are talking about this co tee. It is not a. group of volunteers. It is the Judiciary Committee of the, House of Representatives and the average tenure on this committee is probably 6 years. We have different backgrounds. different biases, conscious or unconscious. Different philosophies I am persuaded that the search for the truth is paramount of us and that each has the courage to vote for that truth because, like beauty, it is in the eyes and the heart and the conscience of the seeker. This is a big country and we, represent a cross section of that country. It is with some concern that I have been aware over these weeks of the detractors of this committee, those, who would attempt to discredit this committee, for whatever motivation, those who would fire the fuels of emotion that are based largely on a confusion that exists in our country today concerning the separation of powers and concerning the role of a Representative, in this Government of ours. Do yet in the United States the people still govern? Do they govern through elected representatives? In this era of power that our goverernmental system has brought us to in the -world where our involvement in foreign trade and foreign affairs puts the President out in front as the symbol of our -national pride and as the bearer of our flag, and here we have in the House of Representatives 435 voices speaking on behalf of different constituencies with no public relations man employed by the House of Representatives, and I wonder if the people want their elected Representatives to fulfill their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. you want us to exercise the duty and responsibility of the power impeachment, whether that means conviction or exculpation? You know, some of the things that cause me to wonder are the that keep coming back to me, "oh, it is just politics," or, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Are we so morally bankrupt that we would accept a past course wrongdoing or that we would decide that the system that we have is incapable of sustaining a system of law because we aren't perfect? There has been one perfect to whom one of those statements is attributed. But our country has grown strong because men have died for the system. You will hear "the system" used by each of us but we have built our country on the Constitution and that system contemplates and that system has resulted in men putting that system above their own political careers. That system has been defended on battlefields and statesmen have ended their careers on behalf of the system and have either passed into oblivion or into immortality. We have all read of the role of Edmund G. Ross in the Johnson impeachment and how he voted his conscience. Did we also know that about 20 years later he said that he would hope that his vote would not be construed as being in derogation of that constitutional power of impeachment, and that at a proper time on some future day some Congress would have the courage to fulfill its duty. How much I would have like to have had all of the evidence and I say now we are here, we are ready to receive additional evidence. It is not too late. How much I would have liked to have heard on the transcripts, let's do it because it is good for our country. I have expressed no prejudgment. I am entitled to the thoughts, the arguments of my colleagues on this committee. I am entitled to the time remaining to me to study the evidence, and when I vote, I do not ask that everyone agree with my vote, although I would hope that before they disagree that they would recognize my role and their responsibility to know the facts as I know them. But I would ask that they attribute to me and to every member of this committee compliance our oath, sincerity and conviction because it has been said that this verdict--and I use the wrong word, because I would not through egotistic exercise deprive the Senate of the United States of trying a proper case and reaching a proper verdict, and let us not on this committee fall into the trap of saying we are determining the guilt or innocence of the President--will determine whether or not the American people are entitled to a trial in an open forum which trial YOU have not had these past 9, 10, or 11 weeks or these past 6 months. Let. us not usurp unto ourselves the final judgments but perform our function to determine whether or not there is clear and convincing evidence' of impeachable conduct upon which the President of the United States shall be called upon to have the opportunity [01.35.55--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.26.24] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds remaining. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. with 30 seconds remaining I would yield 15 of that or half of that to my distinguished friend from New York, Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. I thank the gentleman. I would just like to say that I know most people listening to us know really. what is the fact here, that to faithfully execute the laws of our country does involve policing your lieutenants, and does involve an obligation to stop them when you see the course which they are following. And for those who are looking for the smoking pistol, I am just afraid they are not going to find it because the room is too full of smoke. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. I have been much impressed by the debate and the, comments of my colleagues on this committee. I think we have all benefited from 'it, and I would withdraw the motion to strike. The CHAIRMAN-. Under the Rules of the House, the gentleman has a right to withdraw the motion to strike. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman . Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, a point of parliamentary procedure. Doesn't he need unanimous consent to do that? MR. BROOKS. I would be pleased to answer that, The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond. The, Chair will respond. If the gentleman wants, the Chair will cite the rule and rule 19 of the Rules of the Rouse, if the, gentleman was operating under the House as a Committee of the Whole, he is entitled to withdraw the motion as a substitute amendment without even asking for unanimous consent. so. the gentleman is perfectly in order. There being no further amendments before the desk. the gentlemen are, now recognized, those -who so -wish, to speak under the 5-minute rule to the substitute amendment that was offered by the, gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Hungate. Mr. RAILSBACK. MR. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. I Chairman. if nobody wants to take, the time for the general debate I -would move the previous question Mr. DENNIS. Wait a minute. Mr. RAILSBACK. That's what I am asking. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman Mr. RAILSBACK. I withdraw. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to state that. under the rule adopted that every member has a right, to the 5 minutes unless he declines to use. it. Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, the late President Truman was mentioned along With the late Drew Pearson. Of course Truman does not need any defense from me. He was known to handle people who made attacks on him by saying some of them were prismatic prevaricators, liars any way you looked at them. But, it is not appropriate I think to be critical of those -who are deceased and we do know that Mr. Truman opposed passing the buck. He was almost as opposed to passing the buck, as Nixon is good at it. On Mr. Truman's desk there was a sign in the Oval Office that said: "The buck stops here." Now, we have had the other criticism of other Presidents who are deceased. President Lyndon Johnson. We have had discussions of the fifth amendment, and I am not going to tell you that I can tell you all about the fifth amendment and due process. But I think it is awfully hard to give due process to a dead man. So, I would hope that when the final record is written we would strike any attempt to make attacks of that kind and I would certainly Say that I would resist any that might be made with regard to President Eisenhower. IV, We were in the Army together. I can only quote the words of our distinguished former colleague, Brooks Hays of Arkansas, Mr. Thornton's State, who recounted the story of some boys in the Ozarks playing cards and one of them looked over -it the others and said, "Come on boys, play the cards fair. 1 know what I dealt, you." So, Mr. Chairman---- [01.31.41]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.31.41] Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HUNGATE. I will yield to my distinguished and learned colleague from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. I would just like to say to my good friend from Missouri that I really intended no criticism of President Truman who happens to be a gentleman that I admire myself, and if he did check into Drew Pearson, I would come close to thinking that that might almost have been justified. Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman for his comment and I know that as a distinguished trial attorney he would do nothing except what is proper. We have talked about people, and agents. and servants and employees and I would like to in just, my brief time talk some about Mr. Butterfield's testimony. I thought he was good. He was one of our better witnesses. He has not been indicted. Now, he said in some of his testimony,. after qualifying how much time he spent In the White House from his first day and that is as early as you can get sworn in and he is right up there next to the Oval Office and goes through some of this, then he. talks about Mr. Haldeman: "Now, -Mr. Haldeman, in addition to being the Chief of the White House Staff was in charge of everything other than the domestic international trade, congressional and national security. He was in charge of everything that had a personal connotation, the speech writing the appointments, the President's travel schedule, the liaison with outside groups, political matters by and large, Personal matters, communications with the media, et cetera." And then he says "I could go on now and elaborate a bit on the Haldeman staff. That is the staff I know best. That is the staff which was the biggest and had most of the people on it. But if a crunch matter came up, of course, they checked with Haldeman. Larry Higby was Bob Haldeman's alter ego. Larry Higby was to Haldeman what Haldeman was to the President." Then he goes on about Higby and Gordon Strachan and his responsibilities, He says that "he was responsible for keeping attuned to the political happenings around the country, and had a very close liaison to the Committee to Re-Elect." Then continuing in our testimony on page 29, he testifies: [quoting transcript] The President, first of all, is well organized always and highly disciplined as an individual. The whole staff reflected that. The staff was a very, very well organized, firmly run staff. Mr. DOAR. Could you give to the committee an indication of the President's work habits with respect to attention to detail? As you knew it? Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Yes; from my observations, from my having seen thousands and thousands of memoranda over this period of time--I May be using these figures loosely-- hundreds and hundreds of memoranda over this period of time, from working directly with the President and Haldeman, I know him to be a detail man. Then he goes on The President often, of course, was concerned whether or not the Curtains Were closed or open, the arrangement of state gifts, whether they should be on that side of the room or this side of the room, displayed on a weekly basis or a monthly or daily basis. Social functions were always reviewed by him, the scenario, after they came to me from Mrs. Nixon. Each was always interested in the table, arrangements. He debated whether we should have a U-shaped table or round table. He was deeply involved in the entertainment business, whom we should get for what kind of a group, small band, big band, black band, white band, jazz band, Whatever. He was very interested in meals and bow they were served and the time of the waiters and was usually put out if a State dinner was not taken care Of in less than an hour or an hour's time. He debated receiving lines and whether or not he should have a line prior to the entertainment for those relatively junior people in the administration who were invited to the entertainment portion of the dinners only and not to the main dinner. [end quoted section] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Did Mr. Dennis seek recognition? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I will Seek recognition, sure. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dennis Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues on the committee, think this article, if proof were here, would be more important in many respects than article I that, we dealt with earlier. But, the difficulty as I see, it is that whereas on article I you had a, difficult matter of balancing Proof mid deciding where the weight lay and whether a case had been made beyond a, reasonable type of a doubt. and I decided it had not been, but while you have that kind of a problem there, here we might have a serious case, if you had the evidence, you don't really have the evidence. And I cannot believe that we are going to impeach the President of the United States, without------ [01.36.03--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.17.38] Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman The CHAIRMAN. [Continuing]. Of the gentleman from Illinois. All those--- Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it, Mr. BUTLER. We are of the view that there, were further refinements which might be, made in the perfecting amendment of Mr. McClory by specifically spelling out some of the areas of inquiry, Would I be foreclosed after this vote from introducing such a perfecting amendment of the perfecting amendment of Mr. McClory? The CHAIRMAN. No. The gentleman would not be -foreclosed. Mr. BUTLER I thank the Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The question occurs on the amendment, offered BY THE gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory, as a perfecting amendment All those in favor please say aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have, it. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Butler is in the. throes of drafting a perfecting amendment with Mr.---- The CHAIRMAN. If there is no amendment before the desk- Mr. BUTLER. Mr. . Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's amendment, Mr. Wiggins' amendment is---- Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman--excuse me,. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Just a--- Mr. RAILSBACK. Could I make a parliamentary inquiry? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state, it. Mr. RAILSBACK. If Mr. Butler is in the throes of drafting, and I hope he is drafting it quickly---- Mr. HOGAN. He is. Mr. RAILSBACK. [continuing]. Then, will he have, an opportunity at that point before we vote on the gentleman from California's main amendment to offer his amendment ? Mr. WIGGINS. You wouldn't be stalling? Mr. RAILSBACK. No, I am just wondering. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to state that the parliamentary Situation is that the gentleman's amendment from Illinois having been adopted as a perfecting amendment the only amendment that now IS before the committee is the amendment which was offered by the gentleman from California. Mr. RAILSBACK. Well, then, Mr. Chairman, I -wonder if we could 'have like a 5-minute recess. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I have, a perfecting amendment at the desk. Mr. HOGAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEIBERLING. If the clerk- can--- Mr. HOGAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hogan Mr. HOGAN. My parliamentary inquiry Mr. Chairman, is this. If Mr. Butler's amendment is to be in order and be. considered, isn't it, true that the rules require that this amendment be in writing at the desk? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. Mr. HOGAN. So then I would assume that Mr. Butler would have to write it and have it duplicated and presented at the desk- before it will be considered by the committee. 'Mr. SEIBERLING. MR. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK[reading] Amendment by Mr. Seiberling Add at the end of subparagraph 4 "by employees of the executive branch or the Committee to Re-elect the President". Mr. WIGGINS. Read that again, please? Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, if I may be recognized to speak on my amendment Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like a copy. Mr. McCLORY. May we have the amendment read again, please? The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order until the clerk reads the amendment. The CLERK [reading] Amendment by Mr. Seiberling. Add at the end of subparagraph (4), "by employees of the executive branch or the Committee to Re-elect the President." Mr. WIGGINS. Did the Chair hear my reservation of the Point of order? Mr. SEIBERLING. Is the gentleman reserving his point, of order? -Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, I am reserving Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman. may I be beard on my amendment? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized Mr. SEIBERLING. It seems to me that the objections to the amendment raised by Mr. Wiggins are not entirely cured by the perfecting amendment of 'Mr. McClory because crimes and unlawful activities go all over the United States every day and at least we ought to tie it down to those that we. are really concerned about, and my perfecting amendment makes it Clear that we, are talking about other unlawful activities by employees of the executive branch or the Committee to Re-elect the President, which it, seems to me cover enough of the activities that are before us here to get in all of the evidence that we have been considering. And that is why I offer the amendment. [00.22.51]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.19.40] The, CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan if he--- Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes; I will be happy to take time now. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory is recognized for 4 minutes, Mr. McCLORY. Thank -you. I have an idea that the gentleman from California when he was inquiring about evidence which is not in our record may have been referring to LBJ's income tax returns and the practices that he had. Now, we are not reviewing his income tax which was substantial or any of his tax practices or anything like that. -We are here considering whether or not there is clear and convincing proof of tax fraud on the part of the President of the United States and we can't base that kind of a conclusion on suspicion. Now, there hasn't been any tax fraud found by the Internal Revenue Service, or the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue both of which have investigated thoroughly the, income taxes of the President, and the President has not concealed anything. I don't know anyone who has made a cleaner breast of his income and his deductions and laid bare his Federal income tax returns for all to see. And so there isn't any mystery, there is no concealment about this at all and there hasn't been any fraud found against the preparers of the taxes even though there may be pending some investigations in that respect. I looked over the report of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue and went through the various tax deductions that the President had claimed, including the deferral or attempted deferral of a capital gain or a loss with respect to the purchase of residential property after he sold his apartment in New York in the Hotel Pierre and bought property out in California but that right to defer the capital gain or loss was denied. I never heard of such a thing before. And, of course, with regard to the. deductions for gifts which had been taken by others, we know Hubert, Humphrey and any number of others who have made gifts, many other persons, not public officials who have made gifts of valuable papers. And it seemed to me as I reviewed this that the, Internal Revenue Service and the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue have resolved all the doubts against taxpayer Richard Nixon. Now, I don't think the President is entitled to special treatment but it seems to me he is entitled to fair treatment, and I question whether he has received it or not. Now, we did have before us someone who formerly was -with the Internal Revenue, a prosecutor. Well, certainly the prosecutor thinks that something should go before, a grand jury because it is easy for him to find things wrong and things that should be prosecuted. But. I also have a, question to ask him. I said, well I think he overpaid his taxes in some, areas. Does he still have a right to go to the Tax Court or claim a rebate or refund, and of course he does. Now, we are just talking here about the President's Federal income taxes but there is no evidence here, no clear and convincing evidence, no substantial evidence of any tax fraud and this proposed article should be summarily rejected because it doesn't belong here. Not because we feel sorry for the President or anything like that but because measuring it by the same standard that we have measured every other proposed article that has come here, there is no clear and convincing Proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the President And I yield back the balance of my time. [00.23.16]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.45.42] Mr. SANDMAN. Why didn't Dennis get his right to have the big man here, Hunt, the man who had demanded the money? The most important witness never testified before this committee because this committee doesnt want witnesses. This committee doesn't want to be specific. This committee just wants to rehash tales. That's what this committee 'wants, an and that I say is a miscarriage of justice. Now, three-quarters at least of all of the charges levelled -against this President will not be involved in any articles of impeachment presented to this committee tonight and everybody knows it. And the President is entitled to know which ones are left. And every lawyer knows that it is the only fair thing, to do. the only fair thing to do. You don't require an adversary to do all kinds of things. What is so wrong about simple sentence saying what happened, -what is so difficult about that? You have so much but you are so The CHAIRMAN. The 3 minutes have expired. Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman I yield--- The CHAIRMAN. You have 2 minutes remaining. Mr. MAYNE. I yield those. 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis, The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dennis is recognized for 2 minutes. DENNIS. I thank my friend from Iowa. I merely want to suggest that there are at least two points that deserve some thought. First, if you are going with Mr. Sarbanes' theory, you have got, to figure out when and how did the so-called policy come into being and prove it, because until and unless you do that, you cannot attribute the act of anyone else to the President of the United States. Second, if you are, going to rely on implementing the policy by the allegations here, you are going to have to come up with when and what were the specific occasions on which that policy policy -was implemented by for instance, making false statements to investigating officers, or counseling with witnesses to give false testimony. Now, those things either her happened or they didn't. If they did it is very easy to specify them and the law says that you have to do it. And it does not; make any difference whether the respondent knows or doesn't know some of the things you may have in your mind. He is still entitled to a, good charge. That is due process of law. And you cannot satisfy it by saying that statements in a committee report can perform the function of a good charge or that you don't have to pay any attention to the rules 'of evidence with the Chief Justice in the Chair, because in impeachment thing is somehow different. You have got the votes, of course. You can vote anything, but somewhere do the line you are, going have to follow the law and the Constitution and prove your facts. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling for 5 minutes. Mr. SIEBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I quite agree that due process is absolutely essential, that the Contittition requires it in an impeachment proceeding as in any other judicial proceeding under our Constitution. But, due process does not require any specific form of proceeding. It requires certain essential matters of substance, such as notice to the defendant or the person who is on trial as to the nature and the detail of the charges against him. Now as Mr. Jenner pointed out, under our modern practice -we do not do that any more in the indictment or the similar documents. We get into the details through other matters of discovery and that is just as much due process as to do it in the, old way. What was done years ago in the trial of Andrew Johnson is not necessarily the only Way to do it. But, even then I would like to read some authorities older than Andrew Johnson's trial. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers with respect to impeachment "The nature of the proceeding can never be tied down by such strict rules in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors as common cases served to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security." And Justice Story in his commentaries on the Constitution says: "It is obvious that the strictness of the forms of the proceedings in cases of offenses of common law are ill adopted to impeachment The adherence to technical principles. which perhaps distinguishes criminal law more than any other, are all ill adapted to the trial of political offenses in the broad courses of impeachment. There is little technical in the mode of proceeding. The charges are sufficiently clear, and yet in general form. There are few exceptions which arise in the a application of the evidence which grow out of mere technical rules and quibbles." Now, every time we talk the facts, why the gentleman from New Jersey wants to talk about procedure. And when we get to the procedure, the gentleman from Indiana wants to talk about the facts. And I suggest that the facts still need to be discussed as the gentleman from New Jersey originally started to ask us, and I yield the balance Of my time to the gentleman from California, who I thought was doing a pretty good job of it. [00.51.27]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
[00.30.58] Mr. DRINAN. Those who want the Congress 'to stand up in the future will say, I am never going to allow another President to ratify the concealment from the Congress of basic facts and give to the Congress false and misleading statements about anything domestic, about anything foreign, especially about bombing operation-, in a neutral nation. I hope that all of us will say with Jerry Friedheim that we knew at the time it was wrong and we are sorry. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, has 3 minutes and 45, seconds. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find myself in agreement with the arguments of the proponents of this article on the issue that gave rise to it and that issue is the falsification of information, the misleading of Congress, the failure to consult Congress on a matter as grave as an act of war. On the, 19th of March 1969, President -Nixon approved the secret bombing of Cambodia and ordered that information on it be limited to those who had an absolute need to know. A Year later, in April of 1970, the President made this statement in a public address to the Nation: "American policy has been to scrupulously respect the neutrality of the Cambodian people." That statement -was a bald lie. Now, as Father Drinan has said, the heart, of this issue is the secrecy, the falsification. of information, and thereby the deprivation Of Congress of the ability even to exercise its constitutional powers over appropriations and over making war. And I certainly agree that just Informing a few individuals in the, Congress is -not informing the' Congress. Yet, I also find myself in agreement with the statements of some Of, the opponents of this resolution, particularly Mr. Flowers, Mr. Mann, Mr. Railsback, and Mr. Cohen. They have 'shown a sensitivity to the situation that we are in because of the, fact, that Congresses have not; always lived up to their responsibilities, and have allowed this sort of thing to go on. My mind goes back to 1940 -when President Roosevelt ordered destroyers to escort ships to Great Britain, a belligerent, which was an act of war, and yet I thought that was a great idea at the time. Now, there are a couple of other reasons why I am opposed to this resolution. Here, [holds up documents] is a collection of documents that has been published that the committee reviewed on this issue and here is a question of--here is a collection of the documents that the, committee reviewed but that have not been published and the reason they haven been published is because the administration refuses to declassify them. They are top secret. And yet there is no justification for the secrecy. The war is over. But they also, by doing that, prevent us from using as evidence in this case before the public. Some of the documents which tie the President into this very act of concealment So the concealment is continuing and prevents us from effectively presenting the facts. And there is one other reason, and that is that the Congress has passed the War Powers Act and laid down some guidelines so that from here on out every President is on notice that it is the law, the black letter law, not just the Constitution, that he must advise every Congress as soon as possible, preferably before he initiates military action. I Yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Eilberg. The CHAIRMAN-. Fifteen seconds. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Ohio, I appreciate his yielding to me and I Would like to add that I suspect that the lessons of this era have been well learned and are extremely unlikely to occur again, that my concern in impeachment is with those events that are continuing in nature and that our focus should be in that area, and I am particularly concerned with the classified information which we Cannot use. Mr. SEIBERLING. May I complete my statement. I feel particularly strongly about this. I am not known as a hawk in this Congress, to put it mildly. I voted against continuing the bombing of Cambodia last summer for, even 1 more hour. Kent State University is in my district. Four Kent State, students died 4 years ago because of the fact that the President of the United States again abused his power and invaded Cambodia without consulting the Congress. And if there is anything that we can do, that we haven't done, to stop that from happening again, we should do it. But we should not use our impeachment power to Impeach this President for acts of the, sort other Presidents have taken with impunity the same sort of action and for. which the Congress bears a very deep measure of responsibility. [00.36.04]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Vote on Article III
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Vote on Article III
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Reading Article II
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 Reading Article II
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.33.01] Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri if he wants to respond. Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The language of 4, if you refer to the first few lines of that, when you talk of concerning other matters he has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by falling to act, when he knew or had reason to know his close subordinates, et cetera. Now, -we are talking of situations of which he should know or should have reason to know, and as we have said earlier, the doctrine of impeachment cannot really be very narrowly confined. It is as broad as the king's imagination. It has to be. If I can define it closely enough, there will be somebody to figure a way around it. Take the Kleindienst situation. The testimony, the evidence before the committee, as I recall it and would state it is that Mr. Kleindienst received what we would I guess call a chewing out from the President, in rather plain and forceful, clear language, and concerning a specific matter. And then when he was before the Senate committee they were asked if anybody had approached him concerning the matter, ITT, as I recall. and he in effect. said -"well, he might have casually mentioned it". Well, I am telling you that the chewing out that, he, got was such that you would remember it no matter who gave it to you, and certainly if it came from the President he would remember. Now, we still find him, the President after this date, going before the American people and saying when he knew that this testimony had been given, and when he had reason or knew, or had reason to know that the testimony was, not true, and upholding the testimony of Mr. Kleindienst in that situation. Now, there are other examples. I am told in the Jaworski consideration in the false Diem cables, these are, the sort of things that would be, covered here. . I yield back the time. Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman from Illinois yield? The CHAIRMAN. How much time, has expired? Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. DENNIS. I thought you had some time. That's all. The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman please defer. There are 7 minutes that have been consumed in opposition and 4 in support. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and the reason I do is because We were specific in our allegation in the first portion of that paragraph, where we limited the failure to faithfully execute the. laws into the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Now, I happen to believe that the matter of Mr. Kleindienst and the antitrust case----- [01.36.05--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.47] [in to Paul DUKE in studio] DUKE announces that Rep. SARBANES will defend his compromise amendment to the ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT charging OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in debate. [promos for other PBS programming] [01.07.15--title screen--DUKE in studio] [01.07.34--cut committee room, wide view of bench] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I -would like to take a moment or to speak on the substitute. It, of course sets out a substitute for Article I of the resolution of impeachment. think perhaps the thing that I could do that might be most the members of the committee is try to review very quickly the changes encompassed in this substitute as compared with article I as introduced on Wednesday evening.. I appreciate the fact members of the committee have reviewed carefully article I on Wednesday evening and in fact this substitute is in response to that careful examination of article I which has taken place. It is an effort to clarify language, clear up concepts, and this matter in a position where the debate can go more to the substance and less to the form of the article as it is before the committee. If the, members -will follow the original article and will follow the Substitute, there is very little, change in Paragraph 1 other than to clarify the language, The President of the United States." We are using throughout "Committee for the Re-election of the President" which is of course, its proper name and such changes in official references are also made with respect to the Department of Justice. There is stricken in paragraph 2 the phrase "has made it his continuing policy to act" and alternative language inserted so that at the sentence reads, "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" et cetera. The language near the bottom of paragraph 2 is amended to read, "to cover up, conceal, and protect those responsible;" There is stricken in paragraph 3 the language "or others" which previously followed the word "following." The means that are set out are illustrative of the policy that is contained in paragraph 2 which is basically the gravamen of this article and it was felt that the use of that language, "or others" was unnecessary and really superfluous. The first subparagraph listed follows essentially the previous language although limited to the investigative officers and employees of the United States. Subparagraph 2 of the substitute was subparagraph 6 of the original article; It, has been placed here in all effort to group together means which seems to be related to one another and it seemed appropriate that it should be listed here with I and rather than further down on the list. This is an effort, obviously, amongst other things. to introduce some additional logic into the structure of this article. Subparagraph 3 is essentially the same as subparagraph 2 of the original proposed article. In subparagraph 4 the language. "or endeavoring to interfere" has been added to the original provision "interfering with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, th Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force." Two changes clarifying the official titles of those agencies are also made. Subparagraph 5 strikes the language, "and concealing the payment of money" and substitutes "condoning and aquiescing in the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money." And then this subparagraph which previously went on to read: "for the purpose of obtaining the silence of participants in the illegal entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee and other illegal activities" has been amended 'to read "for the purpose of obtaining the silence, or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses, or individuals who participated Such illegal entry and other illegal activities. In other words, the scope of that subparagraph encompasses individuals who participated in the influencing of the testimony of witnesses or potential witnesses. Subparagraph 6 of the substitute is identical with subparagraph 5 of the original article with the addition of the words "an agency of the United States" at the end of the sentence. Subparagraph 7 of the, substitute makes some changes in what was formerly subparagraph 8 of the original article. After the language, "disseminating information received from officers of the, Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations" has been added the following new language: "conducted by lawfully"---- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the gentleman be given 2 additional minutes [01.14.12]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.56] Mr. MEZVINSKY. And really. the only thing that lends credence whatsoever to the claim that a gift was made prior to the July 1969 change in the law was the fact that the deed on its face said that it was executed in the spring of 1969. But what do we find as a fact? The fact is the IRS ruled that the deed was actually signed in 1970 and was falsely backdated, Now, I know that the White House has argued and some of my colleagues might contend that this pattern of deception which resulted a personal enrichment of the President was really manufactured by his aides and without his personal knowledge. But we know that Mr. Nixon takes, an active interest in his personal financial affairs. We know that he was involved in very detailed fashion and personally executed a deed for a much smaller- gift of papers he made in 1968. We know that. he went over his 1969 tax return page by page and attested to its accuracy before signing on the bottom line, under penalty of perjury. We know that he personally discussed the tax benefits of this one-half million dollar gift with his lawyer. And we know that Mr. Nixon knew that he never signed a deed for the gift. So really what is the question for this committee? We have. to consider whether we can believe that President Nixon, who has told us he has practiced a lot of tax law, did not know the truth about a of over one-half million dollars, the largest gift he has ever given in his life. I think we are all a-ware that some have argued, and this is a key point in our debate, that a President can be impeached only for criminal conduct, and then there are others who contend that this tax matter, although involving criminal conduct, is not an impeachable offense because it involves "unofficial conduct". Now, I think we should take a look at the President's conduct and see whether or not it is impeachable. All of 'is on the committee know that if one of us took an unlawful deduction for a half million dollars on our tax returns, we, would be subject to criminal prosecution. The President's signing of his tax returns may not be an official act but is likely that if it weren't for his official capacity, he, too, would be prosecuted for willful tax evasion. But unfortunately, due to his special position, really only the impeachment process can call the President into account for his actions. We, must also con confront this is evidence as ,in extension of the abuse of IRS. Last, night we, heard members--Walter Flowers, Alabama, Tom Railsback, from Illinois--speak so eloquently about, the abuse of IRS and how it corrodes the system. Well. let. me, say that, I think this falls in that category because we have a, President who, due to his position, could assume that his tax returns were not subject to the, same scrutiny as those of other taxpayers. Rather than taking care to insure that his tax returns complied with the laws, he took advantage of the Presidency to avoid paying his proper tax. And really what is more significant, and this to me is the key, is that this poses a serious threat to our tax system which operates on the premise that everyone is expected to be honest. The reason it works so well is that we expect the laws to be, equally applied to every taxpayer, whether he is a resident of Iowa or Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arkansas or whether he resides in the White House. And when the President of these. United States-, refuses to be bound by the revenue laws and if he. escapes the judgment here as he, evaded his taxes, then it is not just, the treasury that is poorer. The, very integrity of our system of self -government is diminished. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 10 minutes. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield to--does the other side care to take up some time? [01.25.54]
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference
US House Ways and Means Committee & Senate Conference on spending. US Senator William Roth (R-DE) continues statement. Sen. Roth addresses conference Chairman Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS); saying critics of the bill offered no alternatives to the proposed bill, except higher taxes on the working people. Roth says politicians who called for tax reform were not present to vote on tax reform; saying they voted to take tax cuts away from working people, but leave tax loopholes intact. Roth says when tax reform was offered, they offered higher taxes on the working people. US Representative Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) and Dole talking while Roth continues his statement. Roth ends his statement, thanks Dole.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.46] Mr. WIGGINS. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. MEZVINSKY. And I will yield now to Mr. Danielson for 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is advised that he has now consumed 21 minutes ON the 60 minutes and there are, 39 minutes remaining , -1 and the gentleman from Michigan has consumed 12 minutes and there are 48 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY/ I now yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. Danielson, for 5 minutes. The, CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California. Mr. DANIELSON. The first little comment I -would like to make, I wish to make one thing clear in the record. Three of our members have stated ,it one time or another in these proceedings that the President cannot be indicted for a criminal offense while, he is in, office, I want to point out. that in my opinion that is an incorrect statement of the law. It is a -wholly gratuitous comment, and I do not agree with it, and I feel that the record should reflect it is not the opinion of the committee officially. The amendment which has just offered and accepted, offered by Mr. Wiggins, accepted by Mr. Mezvinsky, and adopted by the committee to add the word "fraudulently" into the operative portion of this article , I want to point out that was as not just a fine semantic difference. This is a very carefully calculated, very intentional amendment because by adding the term "fraudulently" after "knowingly" we have lifted the degree of the offense which could be charged by- this article against the President from that of a civil matter to one at least in the context of criminal tax fraud which requires a very high burden, A very high degree of proof a willfulness, Knowingly, intentionally, for perverse purpose Or whatnot. But it remained put on there for a good reason. I feel that if we are going to impeach a President for tax fraud it probably should be fraud of the highest degree. But, at least let's not assume that it slipped our mind that fraudulently is not a very significant word In this article. There was one other very interesting point. Since, this is not a criminal proceeding and if the House should impeach and the Senate should try on the ground of tax fraud and not find a conviction, since it, is not a criminal proceeding It would not be jeopardy barring a subsequent prosecution. When we consider this particular article, I want all of the members please to bear in mind Mr. Chairman that we do not consider matters of this type in a vacuum. When we consider the burden of proof in a tax fraud case or in any other- case of this type, we must consider and weigh all of the evidence against the background of common sense. The conclusions and impressions we have come to in our lifetimes of experience are serious matters. People are not held to a high degree of proof that we are splitting semantic hairs. We use, good judgment and common sense and we bear in mind at all times that people probably intend to do what they do in the serious matters in their life and that when we do something" as serious as claiming a $580,000 tax deduction, we are paying attention to what we are'- doing and are aware of the proportionate gravity of that act as above some other act that, we may be involved in Now, this committee knows, from press reports, that the. President had not denied that he owes the money which -was charged against him, a rather vast sum. the. exact figure I do not remember. The press reports also indicate that he has paid the sums due for 1970, 1971 and 1972. But the record shows that he has not yet paid the sum for 1969, the principal of which was $148,000--$148,090.97 which would carry Interest from 1969 and conceivably a negligence penalty of 5 percent which is about $7,500. In the evidence of fraud, one of the most common types of evidence that is produced in our criminal courts. at least, is evidence of concealment, evidence of misrepresentation, because in the orderly affairs of men, we do not conceal something unless we have something to hide. We do not misrepresent unless we do not want the truth known. So quite obviously when we, conceal or misrepresent, that is some indication of intent "of the actor. What evidence do we have in this case? Not a great deal but some that is rather significant. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, anybody a charitable deduction of $576,000 more than one-half of his net worth, without giving some fair consideration to that claim Or deduction? Certainly he would not do it casually. Certainly he, would not do it without fully intending to claim it. And certainly he Would have, asked his accountant or his attorney, "Joe, do you really mean I can take $576,000 off?" How often, Mr. Chairman, when you write off your $50 to St. Peter's Church have you wondered whether you had a check to cover it? Can I state and I do state, that our President when he took these deductions, in 1.969 and 1970, and so forth, was not naive. He, knew what be was doing, He had taken the same claim in 1968. And in this instance the appraiser looked it over after the, law had expired. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. DANIELSON. And the, deed is backdated. I respectfully submit this is enough evidence to have it considered by the Senate,.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.10.36] Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman and the members of the committee know, I do intend to support an article, perhaps two articles, of impeachment. But, I think that this article which is proposed, the substitute article proPosed by the gentleman from Maryland, is very faulty, very poor, and the, weakest article which I think the committee could recommend. Now, it has been correctly said that the process of impeachment is not a criminal proceeding but a civil one. We know that our counsel has confirmed that by recommending that we should only consider that the rule or the doctrine of evidence that must prevail here is that of clear and convincing proof, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what we have before us here is an allegation of a conspiracy. Now, It is called a policy and this Is the thesis which our counsel, Mr. Doar, has propounded when he took on this Partisan Posture in the, final days of our investigation, and the, thesis is that the President organized and managed the coverup from the time of the break-in itself or immediately afterward. And, of course, this is the thesis that my colleague from California and front Massachusetts are trying to develop. And it just does not, hold water. It is weak, It is fuzzy and it is contradictory. The theory just does not exist. Now, it may be that on the 21st of March, the next year, when the President learned about this and talked about it with Haldeman and Mr. Dean that, he got involved in another type, of activity. But, in June, and in September they weren't talking' about that at all. As a matter of fact on September 15, when the President talked about this subject, with John Dean, he asked John Dean: "What the, hell do you think is involved? What's your guess?" And what does John Dean say? He says "I think that the, DNC planted it, quite clearly." so that you see, at that time while they are trying to consider what the political implications are, they suggest that possibly the Democratic National Committee themselves planted the bug in order to try to trap the Republicans and it was kind of the political shenanigans that Were going on. And on September 15, if you consider that testimony, if you consider that tape fairly and clearly, and honestly, you will see, that they are talking about, the political implications, not Criminal implications', insofar as the. White House is concerned. And so, what it seems to me that we, I-lave got here, we have got a criminal charge and then we an, trying to, then we. are trying to support it by noncriminal allegations and noncriminal proof. Now, it is very well and good to say well, all of the proof is there, we have got -38 volumes But, you know the kind of proof I hat you are recommending that -was supporting this thesis of this policy or conspiracy is proof which consists of circumstantial evidence, of innuendo, 'of inferences. Now, what, is this President and his Counsel supposed to look at? It's in the 38 Volumes, that's fine. But, that IS not the kind Of specific [01.14.06--has a horrible time pronouncing "specificity"--HUMOR] allegations that the President is entitled to have. It seems to me that in connection with this article, in Connection With this charge of conspiracy, we, should be clear and definite. 'Where is the, direct evidence? 1, Sure, the gentleman talked about people lying As a matter of fact, the basis for this immediate involvement of the President is a press release, put out by John Mitchell which somehow they try to attribute to the, President. There is no indication, no proof in this hearing that the President ever Saw or heard or had anything to do with the press release or knew or didn't know whether it was false or true. It seems to me clearly what we should require, if we, are, going to charge the President with offense, which is what this is doing, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt because that is the standard which We, are required to apply in a criminal charge. So, I am hopeful that the, committee will either require that we do make these charges specific if they are going to be offered at all. or that we dispose of this proposed article and go by the one which relates to the President's oath of office in which the President did, indeed, fail to take care to see that the laws were faithfully executed and the violation of his constitutional oath. This does not require that kind of specific proof and allegation. And also I think we should turn to the subject of whether or not the President is not in Contempt Of Congress and subject to an impeachable offense because he refuses to comply with our subpenas and provide the information that we have required. So those are the things that we, should be looking at The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.16.08]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.49] Chairman RODINO gavels--LEHRER [v.o.] describes RODINO'S manner of gavelling. LEHRER and DUKE make small talk about the different tasks of a Judiciary Committee and RODINO'S tenure as Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The committee -will come to order. I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an article at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the article. The CLERK. [reading] Immediately after article III of the additional article IV. In his conduct of the Office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the Office of the President of the United States, and, to the best of his ability, preserve. protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take car(-, that the laws be faithfully executed, did receive emoluments from the United States in excess of the compensation provided by law pursuant to article II, section I of the Constitution, and did willfully attempt to evade the payment of a portion of Federal income taxes due and owing by him for the years 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, in that : (1) He, during the period for which he has been elected President, unlawfully received compensation in the form of Government expenditures, at and on his privately owned properties located in or near San Clemente, Calif., and Key Biscayne, Fla. (2) He knowingly failed to report certain income and claimed deductions in the years 1969, 1970, 1971. and 1972 on his Federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law, including deductions for a gift. of papers to the United States valued at approximately $576,000. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this article, including the consideration of any amendments thereto, be limited. The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman would defer, the clerk has not read. Or otherwise the gentleman can ask unanimous consent that further reading be dispensed -with. The Clerk will proceed to read the article. The CLERK. [reading] : In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore Richard 11. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank' you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous Consent that all debate on this article including the consideration of any amendments thereto, be limited to a period not to exceed 2 hours to be divided equally to proponents and opponents of the article, and debate on any amendment shall not exceed 20 minutes, divided equally between proponents and opponents of the amendment. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta* Mr. LATTA. I note that, we are 35) minutes, late in getting started, and I wonder if the gentleman would consider reducing his time to 1 1/2 hours. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to object I would like, to make this inquiry. You made reference to the fact of 20 minutes on amendments, but the 2-hour limitation that you suggested would include the 20 minutes, would include all amendments and all debate on the original article on all amendments? [01.09.35]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.39.21] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. Let me just finish my sentence, and then I shall yield to Others. Those wiretaps were in each case approved by Mr. Hoover, who -was then FBI Director, and in each case was approved by the Attorney General. I would hope the debate hereafter will focus on the, debate -with respect to the President's intentions with respect to the installation of those taps. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier. is recognized for or 4 minutes. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Actually, the debate to on this section was really already begun this morning by the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Hogan. I think this particular section of article II is central to the. whole theme of abuse Of power. As a free country, we have no higher course. than to protect really our people against this sort of abuse of power which can come in a modern age in terms of a police state. What we did as a Congress in fact as a committee, in 1969 to limit the use of electronic surveillance and wiretapping is as follows: In the Omnibus Crime Control Acts of 1968 which came out of this committee 6 Years ago, we Said that if any lawful authority is to conduct wiretapping or, electronic surveillance. it must have a court order except, except. and I shall read. that the power of the President, to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the -Nation against the following threats, mind you: (1) the actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power, (2)) to obtain foreign intelligence information deemed essential to the security of the United States, (3) to protect national security information against, foreign intelligence activities, and lastly, to protect the United States against overthrow by force or other unlawful means or against any other clear or Present danger to the structure or existence of the government. Now there have been a number of classes of wiretaps. some of which have been alluded to by the gentleman from California. Mr. Wiggins, not necessarily in order of time. The one referred to by the gentleman from Maryland back in 1970 by the Secret Service on Donald -Nixon, which I agree, any reasonable man has to assume occurred with the knowledge and consent and by the direction of the President himself. And subsequent wiretaps and bugging, whether in the Watergate case or implicitly in, the Huston plan. or those undertaken for the President by Mr. Ehrlichman in terms of Mr. Liddy, or Mr. Kraft abroad, Or the 17 wiretaps point to a pattern of use of taps which do not conform to the law as posed by this in 1968. And I submit they are not otherwise authorized by any other decision of the court or by law. Let us go back to the very beginning. How did we ever get there in the first place? How did the President happen to start engaging in wiretaps without any court order in such a mirage of activities? As you know, in any event, the procedure was that all taps would go through the Attorney General of the United States for his approval, whether or not these are warrantless wiretaps, and would be recorded, carried out by the FBI and fully recorded. And as the fact was, later in the year 1971, sensitive about these taps, Mr. -Mardian delivered this list of special White House taps to the White House itself in fact to the Oval Office to be secreted in a safe by Mr. Haldeman. In 1969, apparently following a New York Times article- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Does the gentleman from California wish to yield? [00.44.19]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 1974
[00.23.16--start of fade to LEHRER in studio] LEHRER mentions that the TV cameras were turned off, altthough the committee continued in Executiv Session for three more hours. Introduces Paul DUKE, to interview two committee members, BARBARA JORDAN and Rep. McCLORY of Illinois. [Camera tracks over to show 3 in interview] DUKE starts off by asking what happened in the Executive Session JORDAN answers first, saying that there was a presentation of evidence by counsel John DOAR that was not interrupted by questions as per. the rules of the committee, presentation of evidence through notebooks and charts DUKE asks McCLORY what phase of the investigatin was addressed McCLORY says that it was concerned with the Watergate Affair itself, describing the books of information prepared by counsel. Says the first of six subject areas is the Watergate Affair. DUKE stirs the pot by saying "And the Watergate Coverup?" McCLORY looks uncomfortable, says "Well...." JORDAN cuts in, saying emphatically "Yes the watergate coverup", asserts that "everybody knows" that a coverup was part and parcel of the matters the committee is charged with investigating. McCLORY looks anxious for a change of subject. Says he is reluctant to describe in too much detail what "information" was (ostensibly for the purpose of confidentiality of information from the Executive Session) DUKE says that it was DOAR's task just to lay out facts in that hearing JORDAN [in fine form] retorts "Congressman McClory would rather you say 'information' and not say 'FACTS'," asserting that most aspects of the investigation are known facts [i.e. the break-in] and are not in any sort of disupute. McCLORY counters that it is the committee's task to determine what are the FACTS, and that it is premature to declare anything a fact until the process is complete [paraphrase] . Says that the material should be described as "information" just for the purpose of keeping the committee from presuming anything in advance. JORDAN assents to this statement, but notes that it is known that PRESIDENT NIXON made public TRANSCRIPTS of conversations on Watergate-related activities, making it ridiculous for the committee to have to investigate whether there was a COVERUP, because obviously there was one. DUKE seeks to get past the SEMANTICS McCLORY interrupts to say that he merely wanted to lay out what ground had been covered in the hearing, but says that he simply wanted to avoid giving too much information out on TV. DUKE asks if any new learning took place JORDAN says no, the presentation was old news McCLORY says that he did learn a great deal, the detail was illuminating, materials were presented in volume and well. New matters brought to attention that could demand even more investigation. JORDAN agrees. DUKE says that that brings up the point that NIXON, his counsel, and the White House, have declared that they will not surrender any further tapes or transcripts to the committee. Asks if the committee has all of the information that it needs in that vein, and if they will insist on getting more through subpoena or other means. McCLORY says he would prefer to have full White HOuse cooperation, is dismayed that it hasn't come about, that it is a bipartisan investigation, implying that Nixon's noncooperation is a blow to the party. McCLORY attempts to spin it in a positive directin by saying that he is dismayed that NIXON hasn't released evidence which might show favorably on his side in the hearings. JORDAN says the days presentation indicated the presence of many gaps, and it is vital to go after it. Addresses the issue of PARTISANSHIP, saying that it is not necessarily true that the Democrats want information for the purpose of incriminating NIXON, but in order to make an informed judgement. DUKE asks whether a majority of the committee will support new subpoenas to get the materials. JORDAN says yes, citing the 33 to 3 vote to issue the first subpoenas. McCLORY says he would prefer that the information be forthcoming voluntarily, it would be nicer and look better on the President's behalf, but that the committee will likely do whatever is necessary to get the materials it wants. DUKE asks whether another incident of non-cooperation by NIXON could be an ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. JORDAN states it's not proper for her to make a judgement on behalf of the whole committee about the nature of the President's non-compliance, but for her, a pattern of noncompliance could be an impeachable offense if the committee makes it to the point of writing a bill of impeachment. [00.34.23]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.35] [members stand to leave for HOUSE vote, LEHRER v.o.] LEHRER describes the upcoming debate on the ABUSE OF POWER article as an issue of NARROWING the charge. [dissolve-- committee room after the recess] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. At the time the committee recessed, the opponents of the, amendment of the gentleman from California had consumed 18 minutes, and had 2 minutes left and the proponents of the gentleman's amendment had consumed 15 minutes and have 5 minutes left. I will recognize now the gentleman from--Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must speak in opposition to the amendment of my friend from California because I certainly do not want to do anything to dilute or limit in any way whatever responsibility the President may have for the very outrageous attempts to use the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes. I consider the evidence shows that the approaches that were made by Mr. Dean and Mr. Ehrlichman to Commissioner Randolph Thrower and Commissioner Johnnie Walters to be absolutely indefensible. Our tax collection system in this country is based on a voluntary contributions basis, with contribution assessed and paid by people on a voluntary basis and it will certainly be destroyed if people cannot have confidence that it is not used to reward political friends and to harass political opponents. I think that not only does the President have a responsibility not to directly approve such indefensible action but he has ,I responsibility not to ratify it after it has occurred and has a responsibility over and above that to have enough idea of what is going on in his administration to be very sure that this kind of political prostitution of Internal Revenue Service does not occur. There is nothing in this record which to me Is more disappointing or more cause for concern of the continuation of free government than in the way in which this Internal Revenue Service was attempted to be used for this base purpose. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time for those in opposition has expired. I recognize-is there anyone seeking recognition in support of the amendment? Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. I would like to yield my time to the gentleman from California if he wishes some more. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate that courtesy, Mr. Smith, but it is not my intention to use any more time. I think the case has been made. Mr. SMITH. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The question occurs now 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? [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The, noes appear to have it. Mr. SANDMAN. On that I demand the yeas and nays. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey demands the yeas and nays. The, clerk will call the roll. All those in favor of the amendment of the gentleman from California please signify by saying aye. All those opposed, no. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. -No. The CLERK. -Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. NO, The CLERK. -Mr. Kastenmeier. -Mr. KASTENEMEIER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. NO.. The CLERK. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg. Mr. EILBERG. No. The CLERK. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. No. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. SARBANES. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. NO. The, CLERK. Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. NO. The CLERK, Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. No. The CLERK. Ms. Jordan. Ms. JORDAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. NO. The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman. MS. HOLTZMAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinsky . Mr. MEZVINSKY. -No. The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. No. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Ave. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. No. The CLERK. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. No. The, CLERK. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Lott. [ No response.] The CLERK. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. Aye. The CLERK. 'Mr. Moorhead. Mr. MOORHEAD. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Maraziti. Mr. MARAZITI. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Aye, The CLERK. Mr. Rodino. The CHAIRMAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will report. The CLERK. Nine members have voted aye, 28 members have voted no.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.53.55] The CHAIRMAN. The time. of the gentleman has a again expired. The gentleman from Iowa has 29 minutes remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. EILBERG. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman-* The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for .5 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. I have a slightly different point of view than my friend from Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is not a simple act of tax fraud or misuse of Government funds. It is a clear case of the President of the United States using the power and prestige of his office, to enrich himself to the point of grandeur. Who else would have the opportunity or- the power to decorate and landscape his home with unlimited Federal funds? During his time, in office Mr. Nixon has acted more, like an imperial ruler than any of his predecessors and it is obvious that he decided to continue to live in this manner after he left office. In order to do so he took an illegal tax deduction so he could build a huge personal fortune and he used Federal funds to make his homes into lordly manors. The decoration and landscaping of Mr. Nixon's homes was supposed to be disguised as necessary security measures, but like any greedy man, Mr. Nixon tried to take too much. There simply can be no reason why the tax money of the, American people should have been used to pay" for a $1,600 shuffleboard court, $10,000 for the removal of weeds, $2,800 for a swimming pool heater, and $587 for a flagpole at Key Biscayne. At San Clemente we paid $1,600 for den windows, $12,988 for new electric heating system when the old gas one was working perfectly, $3,800 for a new sewerline, $8,810 for a, sprinkler system and to remove, weeds, $388 for an exhaust fan, and $1,853 for another flagpole. There are, many other expenditures but this gives you a reasonable able idea of what was going On. Now, it might be, argued that, Mr. Nixon did not, approve these improvements, and that they were carried out, by his subordinates, notably the ubiquitous 'Mr. Haldeman. But even if the President did not, approve--and I do not believe that--where did he think all the money to pay for the. redecorating and landscaping was coming from? Does anyone really believe he thought he, was paying for it? it is my opinion that. he thought, this was his due even though it is clearly prohibited by article II, section 1. The section on provides for no increase in pay or emoluments. As for his taxes, Mr. Nixon sent, in a set of returns for the year's 1969 through 1973 that would have, had the Internal Revenue Service after any ordinary citizen like wolves after a sheep. Regarding the. deduction for the, Vice Presidential we have been over that, story many times. the story of the so-called tax deductible gift. Now, it, can be argued that the President did not know what was going on. It can be said that the tax laws are so complicated that only the lawyers understand them. In the case of the President of the United States, this argument has to be labeled as absurd. We were told that the President went over his tax returns with his accountants and lawyers line, by line. It must be, assumed that he noticed that, huge sums were, being deducted for the, donation of his Vice Presidential papers. Are we supposed to believe that he did not ask for the details of how this deduction worked? Are we to assume that his accountants and lawyers decided to commit tax fraud without telling their client? That is simply not how these people operate in normal circumstances and they certainly would not take such a chance when the President of the United States is involved. What I submit happened is that Mr. Nixon took advantage of the fact that the President's tax returns receive only the most cursory review, as events have brought it out--and that he tried to get as much be could while, he had the chance. Mr. Chairman, some time ago Mr. Nixon told the Nation over three television networks that he is not a crook. If he had not been President when be committed these crimes, that is exactly what the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department would have proved he is in a court. of law. It is said that the income tax issue is not a grave enough constitutional abuse." But, there is similarity to the offense in article II--in that the President used his power to cause the harassment of 'his enemies. There is evidence he sought to use the Internal Revenue Service to help his friends, for example, John Wayne and the Reverend Billy Graham. He also used it to help himself--for the IRS was used to short-circuit the, investigation Of the Joint Congressional Committee and the committee evidence was not pursued. I -would point out that none of the President's tax preparers or lawyers--although they told various stories--were subpenaed. Now, the question is turned over to Mr. Jaworski. Even if no article of impeachment is approved, I hope the Special Prosecutor will pursue the matter and that this committee and the House reserve to itself the right it to go further if there are new developments.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00--Opens with view of the legal staff, Hillary RODHAM is visible seated behind John DOAR--unfortunately, in closer shots of DOAR, her face is just out of frame] Testimony given by Special Committee Counsel John Doar and Assistant Mr. Jenner. Questions and Remarks given by Congressmen Wiliam S. Cohen (R-Maine), David Dennis (R-Indiana), Ray Thorton (D- Arkansas), Hamilton Fish Jr. (R-New York), and Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzmann (D-New York), Transcription of this clip is available upon request.