Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. SEIBERLING......action on this question may be premature in that there is still incompleteness to the investigation of this whole matter. And I would like to ask the Chair if it isn't correct that the resolution House Resolution 803 under which we are operating. will authorize the staff to continue to keep the investigation open. on this particular point even after we have voted on this matter this evening. Is that correct? The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 803 under which this committee has been conducting its inquiry, the vitality of the investigation will continue and the investigation therefore Into this area will continue. Mr. SEIBERLING. I thank the Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman now has 11 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield 11 of those to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. 'Mr. Chairman, I want to explain a little further the detail as to how the---- The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman defer? Does the gentleman, who controls the time, and who has the right to assert his arguments last, does he intend to use all of the time now? Mr. MEZVINSKY. I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman has 11 minutes. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, to clarify the fact that the President does take a very personal interest in his activities, in our conversations before this committee and in testimony, Mr. Butterfield testified that Mr. Haldeman never did anything without the knowledge of the President. I want to quote from that testimony of Mr. Butterfield. [quoting] Mr. JENNER. Was there any occasion during all of the. time that you were at the White House that there came to your attention that Haldeman ever did anything without the knowledge of the President? Mr. BUTTERFIELD. No, never. Mr. JENNER. Dealing with White House affairs? Mr. BUTTERFIELD. No, never, Nothing unilateral at all. He was essentially, I may have said this, but an implementer. Mr. Haldeman implemented the decisions of the President, as did Mr. Ehrlichman, but perhaps to a lesser extent. But Haldeman especially was an implementer because the President ran his own personal affairs. He was not a decisionmaker. Mr. JENNER. Mr. Butterfield, would you repeat that for me? I didn't hear it. Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I said I did not know Mr. Haldeman to be a decisionmaker. He was entirely in my view an implementer I can hardly recall the decisions, any decisions that he made, unless that it was that the White House staff mess personnel would wear jackets or something along that line. He implemented the President's decisions. The President was the decisionmaker. The President was 100 percent in charge. [end quoted section] I want to point out that the last witness before this committee, Mr. Herb Kalmbach, the President's personal attorney who served as the President's personal representative at San Clemente, and during his appearance the following discussion took place between Mr. Kalmbach and our friend Mr. Jenner. [quoting] Mr. JENNER. A. previous witness has testified, as a matter of fact, Alexander Butterfield, that the President was "very interested" in the grounds at Key Biscayne, Camp David, San Clemente, the house, the cottage and the grounds. From your experience in serving in the capacity you indicated, is that a fair characterization? Mr. KALMBACH. It is. Mr. JENNER. And that arises from your personal knowledge and experience in dealing with this matter? Mr. KALMBACH. Yes. [end quoted section] Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman--would the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. I would rather complete this. Mr. RAILSBACK. Go ahead. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Kalmbach, in reply to another question- [quoting (Kalmbach)] Mr. Jenner, I recall walking with the President and Mrs. Nixon around the grounds subsequent to the time that they had moved into their property and, of course, were in San Clemente. They pointed out to me, the President pointed out to me and also Mrs. Nixon, certain rosebushes that should be pulled up and changed and moved around. There was a great interest in the grounds, a great interest in all things relative to that property. Mr. JENNER. And did the President go into some detail as to specific items? Mr. KALMBACH. Yes, sir, of course. I recall his attention to detail involved in the building of the swimming pool at the San Clemente property. [end quoted section] Mr. BROOKS. Down a couple of questions [quoting] Mr. JENNER. Well was that in 1969? Mr. KALMBACH. I don't recall when the pool-we had a meeting I recall in one of the gazebos with the President, Mr. Rebozo, Mr. Ehrlichman, myself, Harold Lynch and I think Frank DeMarco were there, and the President went over the schematics and the layout with great attention and I cannot pinpoint the date. My logs would show that, I believe. [end quoted section] [00.07.26]
My Man Godfrey
DO NOT SELL. ON THREE REELS, LABELED A, B AND C. REELS A AND B COMPOSE THE FILM WHILE REEL C IS LISTED AS CLIPS FROM THE MOVIE.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.12.52] Mr. HUNGATE. Will THE gentleman from Texas yield? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 3 minutes remaining. Mr. BROOKS. I yield 2 and a half minutes. I would yield--- Mr. HUNGATE I thank the gentleman and I would just say that I think the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky, and the gentleman from Texas and others have done a valuable public service and continue to do so. I would urge them to consider the possible withdrawal of this article. I think there is a case here but in my judgment I am having trouble deciding if it has as yet been made. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend for his comments, And I would say the. people who believe in everybody paying their taxes ought to vote for it. I think that most of the people in my district pay theirs I think we have to answer that question ourselves if we think that, It ought to be done in that fashion. Now, during the early weeks of this investigation we spent a lot of hours discussing what constitutes an impeachable offense under the Constitution. The prevailing view and one to which I subscribe is that misconduct in office, or misuse of the power of the Presidency constitutes ,in impeachable offense. There, are those, however, who have a much more restrictive interpretation of the impeachment clause and require proof to the commission of a criminal act. I Submit that this article charging violation of the emoluments Clause of the Constitution in violation of the tax law fits foursquare with even the most restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an Impeachable offense. We have evidence of criminal violations of one of the most basic laws of the land, the, Internal Revenue Code, a law Which gives every American an opportunity to pay their taxes and With which every American is very familiar. Every taxpayer agonizes over the honesty and accuracy of his returns. Very few are willing to risk the threat of heavy fines or imprisonment. Millions of Americans will view this evidence as a so-called smoking gun. We have put before the Americans proof of the specific violation of our criminal statutes by the President. The question of his accountability is now, up to us, to this Congress. Those who bargained so long and so hard during these proceedings for proof, for specifics, for citations of criminal violations now have before them precisely what they have been asking for, the Specific proof of the execution of fraudulent deeds, the filing of false returns the failure to report income, the enrichment of one's personal estate at public expense, and these must be viewed as proof of impeachable offenses. NO President is exempt under our U.S. Constitution and the laws of the United States from accountability for personal misdeeds any more than he is for official misdeeds. And I think that -we On this committee in our effort to fairly evaluate the President's activities must show the, American people that all men are treated equally under the law. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.The gentleman from Michigan has 10 minutes remaining. Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. DRINAN. Would you yield I minute to me in opposition ? Mr. HUTCHINSON. I'm sorry, Mr. Drinan, I don't have. any time to yield. It is all committed. If you call get the gentlemen whom I have committed myself to recognize to yield to you Of course you can. Mr. Chairman, I Yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One happy thought always arises when you get down to the junior member of this committee and that is the debate is about to end. Let me say this has been a good debate. We have gone into the matter of taxes. We have gone into the matter of Security for the President of the, United States. Both of these subjects could command hours of discussion time and I have 2 minutes for each. At the outset let me, address myself to the question of taxes. I couldn't agree more with the, gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. that every American, including the President of the United States, Members of Congress, and others, should pay every single nickel or even down to the penny of taxes that, they owe. And I might say as Members of Congress know that our good friend Pat Jennings, the Clerk of the House sees to it that we pay ours every month. He takes a very sizable chunk out of my salary. In fact. I am pleased to admit that, he takes $1,000 a month out Of my salary at the end of the, month. So we pay our taxes and I think the, President of the United States should pay his taxes likewise. And I find him guilty tonight of bad judgment and gross negligence in -following the advice of Lyndon Baines Johnson to ever take a deduction for the Vice Presidential, Presidential papers.
CBS: Catch the Brightest Stars, Fall Preview 1976
DO NOT SELL. CBS previews the Fall programming line-up for Fall 1976, a time loaded with CBS hits and soon-to-be classics. Covers returning and new programs.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.22.44] Mr. DENNIS. I thank the gentleman and I think it only fair, to point out that what has been referred to the. Special Prosecutor is not specifically the President 'but the people who prepared the returns under a separate section which applies only to the man who prepares the return such as the agents or the accountants or the lawyer and does not come under the section where the taxpayer himself is involved. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the, gentleman from New York, the 1 minute, has expired. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 5 minutes, to the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, The CHAIRMAN. 'Mr. Moorhead is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is no question but, what one, of the, most inflammatory subjects to the American people is taxation. They are always alarmed whenever they feel a public servant or someone who has a lot of money is not paying his just share of the taxes. So that is one reason I am sure that this particular matter has been brought before this committee. At the same time, in looking over the facts of this case, it is clear that our problems are caused by two particular things, two particular laws. We had a bad law that allowed public officials to take deductions on the gift of their public papers. We had another law that was passed after the death of Senator Kennedy and a number of other public officials which encouraged extra security for our top public officials, so that they would live through their terms in office and not die in office through tragic events of that time. Mr. Nixon made the gift of the personal property involved early in 1969, March 27, The, law taking away the right to make that gift and getting a tax deduction was not signed into law until late December of that same year, 9 months later. The law, when passed, dated back to July, It did not date back to March. Anyone who has had anything to do with the (rift of personal property knows that when the property has been delivered and, control and ownership of the property given up in that manner, there is a valid gift. GSA has determined that there was a. valid gift of that property and there is no way that the President can get it back regardless of what happened later. That property was given as of that time. The Internal Revenue Service in many instances liked to get, some kind of a paper to prove, the intent of the giver. and that is -the reason the paper was prepared in April of 1969. I don't know what, happened to that, particular paper, whether it was lost or what bid, there was obviously a duplicate that was prepared and signed not by President Nixon but by someone that worked in the office lower on his staff. There is no showing that Mr. Nixon had any knowledge of the additional paper that was found. I would submit that President, -Nixon was very badly served by his personal accountants and In this particular instance by his attorney who supervised, but. there is no showing that -Nixon in any way engaged in any fraud in taking the deduction that was allowed by law in respect to a gift, which he made 9 months before the change of the law took place and some 4 or .5 months before the dateback in which the law became effective. In connection with the other property in San Clemente, We heard a figure kicked around of $17 million. I visited that property a number of years ago with a number of public officials in California. You couldn't spend $17 million on that piece of property if you wanted to. The figure we heard later of $67,000 as far as security improvements is probably much more accurate. It is true that there is other property not owned by the President which is being used for governmental offices that is not too far away but that certainly isn't an improvement for the President's property in any way, shape, or form. The President, because of the difficulties here, I am sure, but perhaps for other reasons has agreed to give that property at San Clemente back to the people of this country. There, is no way his estate will be improved by anything that was done to that property. There is no showing whatsoever that he will be increased in his net wealth, When Mr. Nixon took office as President of the United States, he was worth more money actually than he is at the present time. He is not a man that has become rich in public office. Actually, with the payment of the taxes that, he has been assessed, he will undoubtedly be poorer than he was. I don't see how you could get the kind of misuse of internal revenue that has been testified to here today, and I certainly think there is no evidence whatsoever to support it. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time on both sides has expired. And the question now occurs on the adoption of the. article as amended All those In favor I please signify by saying aye. [Chorus of 'ayes.] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed. [Chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it. The noes have, it. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I demand call of the yeas and nays. The CHAIRMAN. Call of the yeas and nays is demanded and the call of the roll is ordered. All those in favor of the article as amended please signify by saying aye. All those opposed no.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.45] [shot of committee bench, members standing to leave, conferring. v.o. Paul DUKE] DUKE states the committee has wound up its formal debate, bringing this stage of the NIXON impeachment process to an end, with five days and parts of six nights of debate resulting in the approval of three articles of Impeachment. The committee will then have to compile a formal report for the HOUSE. [00.38.13--cut DUKE in studio] DUKE continues to sum up the results of the proceedings, calling them "historic", the first time since 1868 that a President has been cited in ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.. States that Impeachment is now "a nightmarish ordeal" for President NIXON, with the next step a HOUSE VOTE to pave the way for a possible SENATE TRIAL. [cut LEHRER seated in front of screen showing photo of JUDICIARY COMMITTEE at bench.] LEHRER says the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE had been conducting its inquiry over nine months. It began with the debate over Articles only six days ago, needing four days to approve the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE article by 27-11 vote, one more day for the ABUSE OF POWER article by vote of 28-10, and the final day seeing the approval of the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS article by 21-17 vote and the denial of the BOMBING CAMBODIA and TAX FRAUD articles by votes of 12-26 against each article. Notes that the closing sentence of each ARTICLE states that the charges are such that NIXON warrants impeachment, trial, and removal from office. DUKE asks if LEHRER shares his opinion that the hearings took on much greater significance through the course of the debates and votes than they appeared to have at first. Says that CONGRESS took a very firm stand to protect its powers. DUKE introduces reporter Carolyn LEWIS at the Rayburn Building,[ LEWIS shown on screen behind LEHRER, standing with Reps. WALDIE and WIGGINS.] LEWIS introduces the two congressmen as those who have been "on opposite sides of the fence". Asks WIGGINS what he feels has been achieved in the six days of debate. WIGGINS says that the President has been impached on three articles, although he personally doesn't regard that as much of an achievement. Says the conclusion was unwarranted, respects the opinion of WALDIE to the contrary, says there will be further opportunity to debate on the HOUSE FLOOR VOTE. States that the committee has fulfilled its duty to make recommendations to the HOUSE FLOOR. LEWIS poses question to Rep. WALDIE. WALDIE states that the Constitutional education that has been provided to potentially a great part of the country has been a worthwhile accomplishment. States his hope that the debate on the HOUSE FLOOR will remain of such a high caliber as the Committee's debate. Commends Rep. WIGGINS on his eloquent and stalwart defense of the President, although "he has a very weak case" [draws laughter from WIGGINS]. LEWIS asks WIGGINS how he feels he will go down in history after his performance in the debates. WIGGINS replies in jest "very rapidly, I suppose". Adds that this was a fleeting moment of history, he feels its significant to have participated, but he doesn't feel as though he will be more than a footnote to the record. WALDIE says that in his book, WIGGINS will be more than a mere footnote. Says that if the committee goes down in history, it should be for acting fairly, responsibly, and conscientiously, whether or not people agree with the vote, they should be remembered as men and women of good conscience. LEWIS asks WIGGINS if the proceedings will help restore faith in the system of government or possibly raise the status of Congress in the Public eye. WIGGINS states that this is the first time most people have had the chance to see the committee work, and in fact deliberations like this go on all the time, with committees giving similarly well-considered and vigorous debate to all types of governmental matters. WALDIE agrees, says that the HOUSE may well have been elevated, although the Judiciary Committee is not atypical of the Congress as a whole. LEWIS asks WIGGINS what he will do when he goes home. WIGGINS replies he will go to bed, perhaps shower first, and get up in the morning to prepare for the FLOOR VOTE. WALDIE says he is going to start preparing for the FLOOR VOTE that night, because he will need to get the edge on WIGGINS. WIGGINS says that WALDIE has more work to do, both men laugh. [DUKE/LEHRER in studio] DUKE states that that interview underlined a remarkable BIPARTISAN unity among the whole committee, although the men were opponents, they displayed tremendous good will, in spite of the White House Press staff's charges of "lynch mob" and "Kangaroo Court". Says that, to use a cliche, it was an example of Democracy in Action. The decision was made across partisan, sectional, and political lines. LEHRER states also that it was a "classic case of lawyers", that WALDIE and WIGGINS, at the two poles of opinion on impeachment, could retain tremendous goodwill afterward, that the heated debate is part of the profession of lawyering, and not a personal grudge. [00.47.26]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.47.26] [LEHRER/DUKE in studio] DUKE comments that to him, it seems that the debate was of exceptional caliber, with only a few scattered low moments. He was struck by speeches on many occasions, but he was perhaps hardest hit by Rep. MANN's speech that the rule of law and justice must apply to the President regardless of party, and that MANN will deliver justice fairly according to his own Oath of Office. Introduces guest analysts Jack MURPHY (Georgetown Law School) and George WILL (Columnist). Asks how damaging to NIXON the hearings have been, and what lies ahead. MURPHY says from a legal perspective, it's very damaging, that a bipartisan majority voted heavily in favor of two articles of impeachment, and perhaps from a political perspective, it's even worse, deferring to WILL'S analysis. Adds that the hearings have been a celebration of high-minded and principled debate, with very few exceptions to civility. Says that it was a mistake for the majority to allow debate on the TAX FRAUD and CAMBODIA articles to last so long because those articles are susceptible to the interpretation of being vehicles for political grandstanding. The debate around those was more acrimonious. States that as a general rule, though, the interview just seen with Reps WIGGINS and WALDIE shows the high level of the debate and the classiness of the proceedings, that can't help but bolster the confidence of the public in the Congress. WILL says that legally, this is just another step on the road, but concurs with MURPHY that what DIDN'T happen was significant--on the more serious issues, the debate was serious, and, while the debate did fall to triviality on the more trivial articles, it will be remembered as a lofty debate of serious mattes. Says it was a good civics lesson for the TV audience. What the results mean is that "a broad, bipartisan majority voted two powerful articles of impeachment", and Pro-NIXON members in the full HOUSE VOTE will have a very difficult time claiming that the recommendations of the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE were PARTISAN or based on inadequate evidence. LEHRER asks if, given the impending HOUSE VOTE and possible SENATE TRIAL, the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE will just be a fleeting moment in history or if it wil be remembered more strongly. WILL quips that "fleet" is not a very appropriate word for the way the proceedings went, but notes that if there were 35 hours of debate for the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, there will probably be more than 100 for the HOUSE VOTE, and if it's televised, he doesn't know if the AMERICAN PEOPLE can stand it. LEHRER calls on LEWIS for further comment. [LEWIS in Rayburn Building hallway] LEWIS says the debate ended with a whimper, as the last hours of debate were neither enlightening nor productive, but the total impact is to give an insight to the public into the workings of the Constitutional system and the Congress. this will be a positive for the public. [LEHRER/DUKE in studio] LEHRER says that now it is possible to project a timetable for the rest of the Impeachment Process, noting the nine months of the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE's work, speculating that the HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE will require a week to set the rules of debate, including AMENDMENT protocol, television coverage, and limits on debate. Notes August 12, 1974 as the ideal start for the HOUSE FLOOR debate, although this may not be met due to delays with the earlier committees. Likewise for the projected deadline of August 23, 1974 for the final vote on the HOUSE FLOOR. Speculates that should a SENATE TRIAL be reached, it would start in mid-September and last approximately six weeks. LEHRER states that Majority leader SENATOR MANSFIELD has not committed to getting the trial done before the ELECTIONS, but is on the record with his desire to finish the trial before the end of the year. DUKE wishes viewers good night, introduces the beginning of videotaped coverage from the daytime session. [the rollcall of the committee on the TAX FRAUD vote is heard as the credits roll over a shot of the studio correspondents] [NPACT ID--PBS Network ID--promos for PBS programming] [00.59.45-- end of live coverage]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.59.45-- NPACT logo, start of videotaped coverage of July 30--daytime session] [split screen--photo of JUDICIARY COMMITTEE at bench and very ugly photo of NIXON looking dour] [LEHRER v.o.] LEHRER states that the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE began its final vote on ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT just after 10 o'clock that night. [cut committee room, pan to each member in turn as the roll is called] [title sequence with 3-D rotating Capitol Dome image--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER introduces the videotaped replay of the early session of the committee, states that the committee has reached its final recommendation that three ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT be sent to the HOUSE FLOOR for a vote on IMPEACHMENT. [screen behind LEHRER shows the same photo of NIXON as before] LEHRER summarizes the thrust of the charges against NIXON--OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ABUSE OF POWER, and CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS by dishonoring subpoenas. [01.04.02--TAPE OUT]
Lebanon - Baalbek ruins
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 214449 Lebanon - Baalbek?? ruins
festival - dancing
Preview Cassette 221047 Lebanon - Baalbek?? festival - dancing
Misc. Lebanon
Baalbek?? festival - night
Baalbek ruins
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 214449 Baalbek ruins
Misc. Lebanon
Jean Bartell in Lebanon
Belly dancer in night club with and without audience
Lebanon - swimming pool at resort
Lebanon - int. of restaurant
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE # 98964 Lebanon - scenic
Lebanon - Beirut - airport
Lebanon - aerial of Beirut, buildings
dancing college students
Preview Cassette 221047 Lebanon - dancing college students. playing backgammon in the park, smoking a hookah.
Lady picking cherries
Lebanon - sheep and goats