Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.26.30] MURPHY states that the Committee's vote to impeach on the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS charge is arbitrary, and that the Committee's solution to the conflict with the Executive Branch over Constitutional protections and powers has not been consistent with the Constitution. LEHRER asks WILL if the introduction of the final three ARTICLES will detract from the strength of the first two, specifically citing the TAX FRAUD and CAMBODIA BOMBING charges. WILL says that the final three articles may be an aesthetic failure, but that practically, the other articles will not be affected. Says that NIXON is not in trouble because of Parliamentary irregularities, and that a final judgement will not be made on a Parliamentary basis. States that if the third Article was ill-advised, there remains two more sets of hearings through which the ARTICLE may be weeded out. Furthermore, in rejecting the CAMBODIA ARTICLE, the committee demonstrated moderation and discretion that give its decisions more credence. DUKE brings up the CAMBODIA Article. Asks the guests if they agree with the opponent's argument that Congress was in complicity with NIXON and previous presidents around the issue of undeclared war. WILL hesitates to say complicity, but says that Congress was definitely involved in the BOMBING of CAMBODIA. DUKE points out that it was only certain, handpicked, friendly members of Congress who were notified of the decision, with tacit or explicit direction not to share the information with the Congress at large. WILL says that he thinks NIXON can convincingly argue that there was a practical necessity which compelled the incomplete informing of Congress about the bombing, on condition that publicizing the bombing would have violated Cambodian neutrality, and that as a practical matter, says WILL, Congress cannot be trusted to keep secrets from the Press. LEHRER reminds viewers that they are awaiting the convening of the evening session of the committee [empty committee bench shown] to debate a charge of TAX FRAUD and PROFITEERING against NIXON. LEHRER asks MURPHY in legal terms which of the three approved ARTICLES will be easiest to prove to the full HOUSE and then to the SENATE. MURPHY says that the theory in operation in the HOUSE would make ARTICLE II the easiest to prove, as the standard of proof that seemed to be required would allow the President's failure to superintend his subordinates to stand as an impeachable offense. DUKE notes that WILL appears to disagree. WILL discusses the "MADISON RULE" of SUPERINTENDENCY, which would hold NIXON responsible for his subordinate's misdeeds. WILL refers to the speech of BARBARA JORDAN, who argued that in fact there were plenty of "smoking guns" to implicate the PRESIDENT directly in wrongdoing. MURPHY agrees that there are a number of "smoking guns", but that analysis of the Article, including the attempted WIGGINS Amendment, indicates that the Committee majority shied away from the burden of proving direct involvement by NIXON. WILL says that MURPHY isn't "keeping his eye on the ball", that listening to 38 LAWYERS appears to be confusing and to be obscuring the truth. Says that the charges are going to be investigated by exceedingly practical men of politics, and that they will be unlikely to accept that a degree of insubordination could possibly exist in the NIXON White House such that the subordinates could have acted without direction or approval. MURPHY disagrees, saying that the ARTICLE does amount to a ratification of SUPERINTENDENCY because evidence cannot be shown to demonstrate NIXON'S active participation or orchestration of crimes. WILL again tells MURPHY to keep his eye on the ball, that both REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS conceded that the White House was on a crime spree, even Rep. SANDMAN acknowledges this, and argues that no one can practically argue that NIXON had nothing to do with it. LEHRER reminds WILL, however, that the key issue is to prove NIXON was responsible for misconduct in some way. Asks if WILL is suggesting that the HOUSE members ultimately will vote not according to a Constitutional theory, but according to whether they think NIXON should take blame for the corruption of the White House. WILL says that practical resolutions to doubts will be found, either in the WHITE HOUSE TAPES or in the idea that it's impossible that NIXON did not know of the misdeeds going on in his own White House. [00.38.07]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.38.07] LEHRER tells WILL and MURPHY that there is a break coming up, and asks them to prepare a list of nominees for Floor Manager for both the pro-impeachment and anti-impeachment sides in the FLOOR VOTE. [shot of empty committee room] LEHRER [v.o.] describes the order of business for the night as a vote on the MEZVINSKY article charging TAX FRAUD. LEHRER introduces LEWIS at Capitol Hill, to discuss her daily work during the hearings. LEWIS notes that she always stands for the camera at a mark designated for NPACT reporters, which is next to similar marks for the other stations in an entrance of the Rayburn Building that has been taken over by the electronic media. Notes that some print photographers are around and "bump into us when we're on the air", [camera pan over the area to shoe show the several cameras and reporters, loud sound of conversation.] LEWIS discusses the RAYBURN building infrastructure in detail, calling a "white elephant" in political circles because of its extreme ugliness. [DUKE/LEHRER in studio] DUKE corroborates the ugliness of the Rayburn building, notes that the Committee members have not yet arrived to begin, speculates that some of the members may be late because they are attending the annual CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL GAME in Baltimore, noting that Rep. COHEN is the star pitcher for the REPUBLICAN team, and that COHEN shut out the DEMOCRATS in the last year's game. LEHRER says that NPACT staffer David WEINER has provided a report on the mail and phone activities of Committee members and their staffs. Discusses the results, saying most members reported a fifty-fifty split in response from constituents. Mentions Rep. SARBANES as reporting a 50-50 split, but says SARBANES reported the negative calls and letters he received [pro-NIXON] as "overwhelmingly obscene and abusive". Says that Rep. WALDIE reported a 3-1 ratio of approval in his mail, but that WALDIE, like other members, has received letters containing small stones and the Gospel admonition that "he without sin shall cast the first stone". Notes that WALDIE and his staff have been issuing Scripture rebuttals. LEHRER notes some geographical disparities in the responses. Says that Rep. RANGEL'S district in New York City and including Harlem, has given approximately 95% approval to the votes, while Rep. WIGGINS' suburban Los Angeles district reported a 2-1 ratio in favor of NIXON, but was not without some strong Anti-Nixon sentiments, including an accusation that WIGGINS was "a crook if you defend a crook". Notes that Rep. RAILSBACK has had to split his mail into national and local piles, with a national ratio of 5-3 in favor of his position, and 60-9 from his own district. Says RAILSBACK also has reported a fluctuation in the ratio, with weak pro-Impeachment majority giving way to Pro-Nixon majority, giving way since June 15th to a 60-40 Pro-Impeachment majority. LEHRER says that most committee members have indicated that mail or phone calls will not influence their votes, but that that has not prevented people from writing. Says that Rep. SANDMAN reportedly needed four hours to open his mail earlier in the week. DUKE says public opinion does have a role, although he himself believes that most members will vote on the basis of their own personal opinions and convictions. Notes that a couple of weeks ago, House REPUBLICAN leader John RHODES of Arizona said that he was unsure of how he would vote on the issue if the chance arose, and subsequent mail to RHODES' office ran at a ratio of 8-1 in favor of NIXON. Now, it is assumed that Rhodes would be a great defender of the President, has not publicly made a stance, and declined to attempt to influence other REPUBLICAN Congressmen. States that this must be regarded as a setback for NIXON. LEHRER asks whether it is also true that RHODES had planned to set up some small-group debates among HOUSE REPUBLICANS, offering a chance for a clash between Pro-NIXON REPUBLICANS and Pro-IMPEACHMENT ones. Reintroduces WILL and MURPHY to comment on their "nominations" for floor managers for the HOUSE vote on the Pro-NIXON and Pro-IMPEACHMENT side. MURPHY disclaims his predictions since he is a lawyer and not a political pundit, but he thinks that most effective for the Pro-NIXON side would be a team of WIGGINS, the articulate advocate of NIXON's interests as "captain", Rep. DENNIS for his more aggressive and confrontational speeches, and Rep. LOTT as an effective Southern spokesman. For the Pro-IMPEACHMENT side, MURPHY picks a bipartisan group with some sectional considerations consisting of COHEN, FLOWERS, and MANN. WILL says that it seems fairly safe that Chairman RODINO will not be among the spokesmen for the ARTICLES on the HOUSE FLOOR, but there will be different managers for different ARTICLES. For Article I, says that Rep. SARBANES, as the author, is a logical choice, since the DEMOCRATS chose him to take the lead in the Committee debate. ARTICLE II would be well served by Rep. BUTLER as a proponent, and Rep. McCLORY would be vital to the passage of ARTICLE III. [00.49.19]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.49.19] DUKE asks WILL about unconfirmed reports that some REPUBLICANS have been asking NIXON to allow a Pro Forma vote for IMPEACHMENT in the interest of saving REPUBLICAN PARTY credibility down the road, as a "recognition of reality". WILL says that such a course of action is not going to happen, because "recognizing reality is not the White House's strong suit." NIXON should not be concerned about "getting REPUBLICANS off the hook". LEHRER interrupts to call on LEWIS with Rep. SANDMAN LEWIS asks SANDMAN if he has any idea who will manage the debate for each side in the HOUSE VOTE. SANDMAN says he has no idea, that the speaker will appoint the managers on the recommendations of both parties. LEWIS asks if he has any suggestions on the matter. SANDMAN declines to comment, it's not his role. LEWIS turns to the coalition behind ARTICLES I and II. Asks how/when the bipartisanship fell away to allow the Pro-NIXON side to win a vote. SANDMAN says that Rep. RAILSBACK would be in a better position to say since RAILSBACK worked with the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side on the first two articles. LEWIS asks for an assessment of the President's chances in the HOUSE. SANDMAN says if the vote was today, NIXON would be impeached, but at least 30 days lie between now and the vote, and a lot could change. LEWIS asks what kind of things could happen to save NIXON. SANDMAN says that there could be a realization that the committee has been rushing to judgement on shaky evidence, and that the stakes are too high to justify a vote for impeachment on "circumstantial" evidence. LEWIS mentions that the WHITE HOUSE referred to the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE as a "KANGAROO COURT", asks for his opinion on that matter. SANDMAN says he does not think that attack is justified, in fact it disturbs him, because he truly believes in the effort made by Chairman RODINO to conduct fair hearings. Although he's not happy with the results thus far, he accepts that as the course of events in politics. Notes that NIXON's lawyer was given a chance to present a defense to the committee, and did a good job of it, and that witnesses favorable to NIXON were called. Says it's a shame that the testimony of the witnesses was not public, as the political outcome may have been changed. LEWIS asks if the article on TAX FRAUD is legitimate grounds for IMPEACHMENT. SANDMAN says emphatically not, and that he hopes an IRS memorandum absolving NIXON of any FRAUD penalty is made public through the debate. LEWIS asks didn't the IRS ask the Grand Jury to investigate NIXON'S taxes? SANDMAN replies that the IRS could ask a grand jury to investigate anyone's taxes, that does not amount to proof or to an impeachable offense. [cut DUKE/LEHRER in studio--cut committee bench, DUKE notes the committee seems about ready--cut MURPHY and WILL in studio] DUKE asks WILL what he sees as the White HOuse strategy. WILL replies that as far as he can tell, the strategy is to delay the process until after the election, in hopes of favorable changes in the political waters, or perhaps the procedural issue of whether a BILL OF IMPEACHMENT that sits in the SENATE can be sustained after the CONGRESS that voted it changes, or whether the BILL would have to be scrapped and a new one debated. WILL says he doesn't believe that it will go so slowly. The WHITE HOUSE'S dilemma is clear in the words of Rep. SANDMAN, that if the vote were held right now, NIXON would lose, but that there is time for something to happen to change the situation. New tapes are coming out, but no one believes that NIXON would have fought so hard to keep the evidence hidden unless it was extremely incriminating. Further, the trial in September of WATERGATE defendants EHRLICHMAN and HALDEMAN will not help the President's case. It's possible that faced with long prison terms, one or more of the defendants might start to squeal. Finally, states that DC is crawling with investigative reporters who all think there are more "smoking guns" to be found. WILL says that he agrees with SANDMAN that things could change, but he can't think of any possible POSITIVE change that could happen from NIXON'S standpoint. LEHRER says it must be pointed out that the WHITE HOUSE TAPES, numbering 64 which are to be given to Judge Sirica, will be turned over to Special Prosecutor Jaworski after inspection by SIRICA, and may or may not ever be given to the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. DUKE says this is true in a legal sense, but the whole history of WATERGATE has been a history of LEAKS to the press of information damaging to NIXON. LEHRER states that there is no question the first release of WHITE HOUSE TAPE transcripts hurt NIXON terribly, both as evidence and by revealing the petty, vulgar, venal tone of NIXON's White House m.o., but speculates that the next batch of tapes could not have the same shock value, but only be of use in terms of evidence. WILL concurs, saying that the shock value has eroded. However, says WILL, he doesn't think that public opinion matters at this stage, as many Congressmen have gotten better at reading the evidence. Increasingly, the majority of people who don't have access to the evidence leaves a gap between the people and the Congress in understanding of the issues. This may be dangerous, but it's inevitable. LEHRER asks if others have been struck by the committee members' grasp of points of fact in the evidence in heated arguments. WILL replies that the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE is not representative of the whole HOUSE, and a substantial portion of the HOUSE would be incapable of following the story at all. Offers a story for comparison, of how Rep. LOTT was in the past highly ignorant of the charges brought against VP AGNEW. Argues that LOTT is well informed about NIXON, because now it's his business, but other members of Congress probably don't take such care when they are not involved. [cut committee room] LEHRER [v.o.] asks WILL if it is not true that the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE will have an important role in the HOUSE VOTE because they will be far and away most knowledgeable about the case. WILL replies that most Congressmen are generally wholly unconversant with legislation prepared by Committees, so ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT proposed by the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE will have a certain momentum when they get to the HOUSE FLOOR. [RODINO gavels] [01.03.57--TAPE OUT]
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]
Landscapes, soldiers, streets, beach, markets, signs, ceramic pottery
Temples (ext) city scapes, markets, children, mountains
Street scenes, soldiers, refinery, road construction, temple, beach ball, drinking orange juice
Landscapes, mountains, aerials, street scenes, commercial for El Al
Market, coastal areas, children, zoo
Landscapes, new construction, street scenes, beach scenes, coastal
Temple, harvesting wheat
Boat cruise, beach scenes, ocean floor, coastline, markets, street scenes, landscapes, construction
Mountain -pan
Crane hauling gravel in a truck
News in Brief: Sea Plow
News in Brief: Sea Plow "A new underwater "sea plow" helps to bury transatlantic telephone cables on the ocean floor. It digs a trench into which the cable is laid, protecting it from dredges and fishermen." Aerial of ship at sea. MS sea plow being lowered into ocean. MS underwater shot of sea plow on the ocean floor, divers check its position. MS control room of ship on surface. CU Television monitors displaying the underwater activities of sea plow. MS Cable onboard ship. Sea plow digging trench. MS Graphic map of the Western Hemisphere showing the path of the undersea telephone cables.
Ascot Opening Day
Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, the Queen Mother, and guests Prince and Princess Rainier, are all on hand for the opening day of Ascot's four-day meet, the most famous in the world. "Tubalcain" noses out "Shira" in a thriller. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip taking a ride in a coach on the race track. Prince Rainier and Princess Grace are their guests. Queen Mother, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip walking along. High Angle Shot of the stands and seating in Ascot Heath Racetrack. Twenty four thoroughbreds on the race track. MCUS - A man looking through binoculars as another man beside him puts a cigarette in his mouth. Various shots of the race. CUS - Profile of a man wearing a top hat, looking through binoculars. High Angle Shot - The horse Tubalcain is on the rail and he pulls out to the front. He wins by a nose. High Angle Shot - In the winner's circle the jockey gets off the horse and the owner or trainer of the horse is petting him. MS of Tubalcain being petted in front of a first place sign. He shakes his head as they take off his bridle.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.33] The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that we, are all fired, and I know that all of us -who have wrestled - with the votes we have cast are awaiting the relief which is promised -when you, Mr. Chairman, bring down the gavel to end this unwelcome task. But. I believe that the kind of conscientiousness which so thoroughly marked our deliberations would be jeopardized if we failed to give serious consideration to the President's failure to pay his proper income taxes and his misuse of tax dollars. Now. I respect my colleagues reasons for not including, this in the other articles. But, I feel so strongly on this issue that I must introduce this article so that full consideration can be given to the overwhelming evidence on the matter of the Presidential wrongdoing. -Now, my special concern will be the area of the taxes which I believe constitutes criminal wrongdoing and an abuse of power. And the other part of that article is equally -important, and the evidence, that the President violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution which is equally distressing. As we proceed with the debate I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks, who will thoroughly discuss this issue. He can give the kind of lucid view that is so very vital because he is chairman of the Government Operations Activities Subcommittee that handled the matter of the Presidential east and west coast estates, both San Clemente and Key Biscayne. Now, really what I want to discuss is the question of whether or not Richard Nixon -willfully evaded the portions Of his Federal income tax In the years 1969 through 1972. In addition to the work that has been done by the committee, I have talked with the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation which reviewed the President's taxes and I am thoroughly convinced that the evidence justifies, indeed it really demands, an article of impeachment calling the President into 'account for his actions on the matter of his taxes. Now, if yon remember in my opening remarks last Thursday night I went down the litany of President Nixon's taxes citing the, great discrepancies between what he owed and how much he paid. We remember 1970 when he had an income of about $350,000. He only paid $793 of the more than $90.000 that -was owed. You recall that in' his first 4 years as President he underpaid Federal income taxes by nearly $420,000. This was because he claimed over $565,000 in improper deductions and he failed to report over $230,000 in taxable income. So what do we see? We see a total error on his tax returns in excess of three three-quarters of a million dollars. That is right. Three-quarters of a million dollars. 'Now, some might possibly argue and say that this was an honest mistake but unfortunately the facts really don't support that conclusion Instead, they point toward the President's deliberate failure to pay his proper tax. And really what is the central element of Mr. Nixon' assault on our tax laws? It is that unlawful deduction taken or ft gift of his personal papers. As I said last Thursday night, the reason that that one-half million dollar deduction was improper was that the loophole that he tried to use, that allowed such deduction was closed July 25, 1969. Now the President claimed on his tax returns that, actually the gift was made prior to that time. But what do we find? We' find that in the spring of 1969 the papers which actually made up that gift hadn't yet even been selected and appraised and the man who supposedly selected them and appraised them didn't even view them until months after the cutoff date of July 25, 1969. And in the spring of 1969, the recipient of the gift, the National Archives, had no idea that the gift had even been made. Now, don't you think you would know about it immediately if somebody gave you something worth $500,000? 1 submit that you would. [01.20.56]
Good misc. construction
Construction house
Plant lumber, construction
Construction man working
Home building
Erecting dome shaped building
Unknown