Advanced Search
Sports: Wightman Cup
Sports: Wightman Cup Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America. "The United States tops Britain, six-one, for the seventh consecutive victory in the Wightman Cup series. Nancy Richey defeats Virginia Wade in the deciding match." WS spectators taking their seats in the grandstands. LS Nancy Richey playing Virginia Wade. WS fans applauding. TLS Nancy Richey returning serves. LS of the match. Nancy Richey wins; the women shake hands across the net. TLS Hazel Wightman (the donor of the Wightman trophy) presents the trophy to Nancy Richey. MS Hazel Wightman posing with the winning American team.
Sports: European Water Skiing Championships
Sports: European Water Skiing Championships Holland, the Netherlands "The annual European Water Skiing Championships brings out the best in this spectacular sport. Jeanette Stewart-Wood of England wins in the Women's Division with a triple-tie, France, Italy and Switzerland....among the men." LS woman water skiing. LS woman goes over jump; she falls into the water. LS Sylvie Morelle of France competing in the slalom racing event - she wipes out near the end. LS women's slalom winner Jeanette Stewart-Wood of Great Britain competing. CU Jeanette Stewart-Wood. LS man competing in the water ski jumping event. MS spectators. TLS man competing in the slalom racing event. TLS/MS of another man water skiing - he falls off his skies and into the water after a near flawless performance.
"Rough Night in Jericho" Has Premiere
"Rough Night in Jericho" Has Premiere Fort Worth and Dallas, Texas, United States of America "Universal's technicolor western, "Rough Night In Jericho", has a twin world premiere in Fort Worth and Dallas. Star George Peppard, a beauty contest, stagecoach race, and mock holdup all add to the glamour and excitment of the opening." CU beauty contestants parading before judges. CU female judges. CUs Beauty Pageant Contestants. CU Male Judge. MS Movie Star George Peppard posing with contestant. MS contestants clapping. CU George Peppard signing autographs. MS stagecoach race. MS beauty contestants riding on top of stagecoach. MS mock hold up by men dressed as cowboys. MS women handing over canisters of film to the "cowboys" who hold it for ransom. MS marquee of movie theater announcing the World Premiere of "Rough Night in Jericho." VS people lining up to buy tickets for the movie.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. BROOKS......one-half million dollars. It has been documented that President Nixon took unlawful deductions from his income during the years 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972. These include a fraudulent gift of his Vice Presidential papers, his daughter's honeymoon at Camp David, and the upkeep and maintenance of his private homes at Key Biscayne and San Clemente. In addition to reducing his taxes by these fraudulent dedications, Mr. Nixon failed to report certain from the sale of property in California, in New York, and in Florida and from the conversion Of campaign contributions to his own personal use. We are not discussing a person unfamiliar with the laws involved. This is a lawyer who knows the, requirements for a gift. This is a man who signed the tax provision in question into law a few months earlier. This is the man who unabashedly attempted to use the IRS to attack his political enemies. Now, with regard to emoluments I want to direct your attention to article II, section I of the Constitution which states, and has stated, since about 1789, that: The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive any other emolument from the United States or any of them. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, stated its purpose as follows: Neither the union nor any of its members will be at liberty to give, nor will he be at liberty to receive any other emolument than that which may have been determined by the first act. Now, you are familiar with the expenditures of Federal funds on President Nixon vacation retreats in San Clemente, Calif. and Key Biscayne, Fla. This issue has been the subject of several extensive investigations by congressional committees and executive agencies. The Internal Revenue Service did, an audit Of President Nixon's tax returns and they determined that he received $94,679.61 in unreported income as a result of Government expenditures on his California and Florida homes and travel for unauthorized purchases. The breakdown -was about $67,000 on those homes, about $27,000 on unauthorized travel. which was unreported income to him. The Internal Revenue Service declared, and I quote, and this is not Democrats, this is not, Republicans, this is the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, they said: In view of the taxpayer's relationship to the U.S. Government as its Chief executive officer, the above items constitute additional compensation to him for the performance of his services for the Government. Now, these expenditures were not the result of overzealousness on the part of fawning bureaucrats, but were ordered by his personal agents, his Personal lawyer, his personal architect, his personal decisions his closest Personal friend. In my judgment, the, President should be, impeached by the House of Representative.-, for his gross and willful violation of article 11, section I of the U.S. Constitution, the highest law in this land. And I would reserve the balance of my time for a future period. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot-- Mr. BROOKS. Pardon me, if that is not proper, 'what time, have I consumed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes and 45 seconds Remaining. Mr. HUNGATE. Would you yield to me? Mr. BROOKS. I will be delighted to just, point out that there has been some question about, what, the Government has done about, this, about whether it is fraud or whether, it is a problem or not. And I will point: out that Donald Alexander, the current. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, and I do not even know him, referred to the question of possible--I hope I don't meet him--referred to the question of possible violations of section 7206 of the Internal Revenue Code rising- out of the preparation of that, 1969 income tax. He sent a letter to Mr. Leon Jaworski asking that, they look into this and this is -what, he said in that, letter. he did not send it a long time ago. He sent it on April 2, 1974 not last year, just a month or so ago. And he said: 'We have been unable to complete processing of this matter in view of lack of cooperation of some of the witnesses and because of the many inconsistencies in the testimony of individuals presented to the Service. The use of grand jury process should aid in determining all of the facts in this matter. it is our opinion that a grand jury investigation will involve Presidential appointees. We believe it would be appropriate for it to be carried forth by your office. Now, since that time I understand that the grand jury has called Mr. Blech, his accountant on two occasions, once On June 26 or 27, and again on July 25, and that is this year, and that he has been discussing with them the details of these tax preparations. In addition to that, I understand that they probably have or very shortly will have issued subpenas for some of the financial records so that we call got at the bottom of this. Now, there are additional income figures, of unreported income that I hope. Ms. Holtzman will discuss. She very familiar with them, and I would at this point, if I have time, yield to my distinguished friend, Mr. Hungate. [00.08.50]
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,.
Five Alarm Blaze: Toledo Fire Guts Paint Company
A spectacular five-alarm blaze races through a downtown Toledo paint company building, doing an estimated $50,000 damage. The blaze started from a midnight explosion, heard by a passing patrol car. A three hour, pre-dawn battle by firefighters prevented a major disaster, since a four story paint storage building is adjacent. MS Nighttime of streams of water from fire hoses are shot high into the black sky of rising flames. The silhouettes of firemen and fire-trucks with their headlights on. Smoke and fire billowing into the dark skies. MS - Buildings totally engulfed by flames, flames shooting as high as 100 feet into the sky. Silhouettes of Firmen dragging water hoses past burning buildings.
Newport To Bermuda Yacht Race Classic
A record breaking flotilla of 167 ships from nine countries sets sail from Newport under ideal conditions headed for Bermuda in the American Yachting Classic. Eight foreign countries are represented. Light breezes, the second day out, will prevent record, however. High Angle Shot looking down at all the yacht's dock at their berths. Crew members walking on to one of the yachts they'll be manning. A crewman makes sure a rope is secure. Yachts in the water with their sails up and some members of the crew standing on deck. There are twenty-four yachts flying foreign flags. Among them are Argentina, Australia, Demark, Bermuda France, Germany, Canada and Great Britain. A yacht in full sail and her deck is filled with people working. LS - All the yachts in full sail.
Canadian Parachuting Champions
Skydivers compete at Winnipeg in the Canadian parachuting championships. Canada is picking its team for the World Championships in Leipzig, East Germany, in August. Men and women compete, jumping from 6,600 feet up, doing maneuvers, and hitting a target only 35 feet across! Pan across skydivers receiving last minute instructions from the pilot of the plane. MS of one of the jumpers suiting up. LS of a jumper that just landed getting his chute rolled up as a plane takes off in the background. MS of air socks blowing in the wind. CU of a little girl pointing up to the sky standing next to her mother and possibly grandmother. Air to Air shots of a skydiver jumping from a plane and the opening of his parachute. Sky diver landing on target. CU of a couple looking up at the skydivers with binoculars. Various shots of skydivers jumping from a plane, free falling and landing on or near the target as crowds including children watch.
President's Cup Regatta
A triple fatality, the worst in speedboat racing's history, marks the President's Cup Regatta on the Potomac River in Washington. "Miss Bardahl", driven by national champ Ron Musson explodes, and, later drivers Rex Manchester and Don Wilson are killed when their boats explode. It's the blackest day in the history of Hydroplane racing. Various shots of speed boats whizzing by leaving behind them large rooster tails. The boats are a blur at high speeds. LS - Miss Bardahl coming around the bend hitting speeds of 70 MPH. As Miss Bardahl speeds by the camera something goes wrong and she explodes into little pieces. The driver, Ron Musson, is killed instantly. The race continues and the boats whiz by past the sinking wreck. MCU of No #7 Notre Dame driven by Rex Manchester moves into the lead in the final heap. LS - Notre Dame and Miss Budweiser driven be Don Wilson collide. The two boats disintegrate and both drivers are killed. MS of people in the crowd watching the race in shock. LS of a small speedboat racing out to try and rescue the drivers.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.23.16] Mr. HUTCHINSON. How much time has the gentleman consumed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 40 seconds remaining out of the, 4 minutes which were yielded. The gentleman -an from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I just can't imagine what else some of these people here want to do to Richard Nixon. They want to throw him out of office for some of the most vague circumstances anybody ever heard of. You heard differences of notice, of fifth amendment, due process, modern times as Richard Nixon--maybe he doesn't have the same rights as 220 million other Americans. And then they adopted article. III. That impeaches him because he won't confess. They had no evidence and if you don't give me the evidence. then we are going to impeach YOU. That is a new one. And then, of course, the insult of them all, of article IV. They are going to throw him out because he, ended the war by bombing Cambodia. Anybody else would get a prize but this man was going to get impeached because he ended war that the two predecessors couldn't And now that is not good enough. They want to strip him of every asset that, he has got left, possibly make him go to jail for the rest of his life. Boy, is a generous crowd I just can't imagine why we can dream up all of these things. The extra emoluments. Do you know that one of those extra, emoluments or trips that Mrs. Nixon took on Air Force One? Did anybody ever question Jackie Kennedy eniiedY or- Lady Bird or anybody else'? But any least little thing that Richard does is a crime. Let me read the one thing that apparently has been tucked under the rug. The evidence that we get is always sketchy. It is never right to the point. And, of course,, he talked about an Internal Revenue agent talking about what happens in hypothetical cases. But look what Mr. Brown, chief intelligence man from the Baltimore office, March 22, 1974. That is pretty recent. He says, and quite honestly he said this because there were three people who had not been interviewed yet, and he said that if they were given immunity in this memo, possibly, they could shed some light that would connect Nixon into Some kind of fraud. But he did say this- He said, "To date, our investigation has revealed that for the following reasons we feel that -we could not"--emphasize not"- "sustain a 50 percent fraud penalty." That is from the, IRS. That is not speculation. That is -what they said about this awful guilty individual. I think this is awful important. Now, there are many other things that -we can say, but the law is clear. The law is clear, that to be guilty of fraud it must be done intentionally. It must be done willfully. And it must be done to defraud, to do something the law doesn't allow you to do. The law, is clear. it says you cannot be held for fraud if it result of a mistake. You cannot be held for fraud if you -rely upon the advice of an attorney. And this is -what Richard Nixon did, and everybody knows it. A fraud penalty cannot be sustained whenever the taxpayer relies upon the advice of his attorney, provided he gives his attorney all of the facts. Now, one outstanding point. Hubert Humphrey did exactly the same thing and nobody ever said a -word about Hubert taking a couple of hundred thousand dollars in a deduction. And so have some other people. There is no question that the papers were delivered to the Archives On time, There is no question about that. In the, interim' something else happened. This fraudulent taxpayer himself signed into law a law which changed the tax law. Now if be was going to be so interested in himself wouldn't he have made some, kind of a change in that? Of course be, would. Or he wouldn't have signed it if he was that kind of a person. But he -wasn't. He signed it into law. There was absolutely no intent to defraud here. Now, let me tell you one other thing which I think is awfully important, and 1 want to see these people who are, moving this resolution deny what I am. about to say. This bunch of baloney was supposed to be taken up this afternoon and not tonight, but there is a bigger audience on TV tonight than there was this afternoon. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [00.28.49]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.33.33] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maraziti is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to compliment at this time the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky. He has done what some of the proponents of articles of impeachment have not done. He has inserted specific allegations. I do not agree with his position. but I do agree that the article is precisely and properly drawn. I address myself to paragraph 2. I know that paragraph 2 is an emotional issue and it has more strength on the side of popular interest, but it Is really weak as a ground for impeachment. Let us now analyze this particular I article. On July 25, 1969, that date constitutes the last date when a gift of Presidential papers could be made. March 27, 1969, as has been stated, is the date when the Presidential papers were delivered to the, 'National Archives. This is about 4 months before the cutoff date. There are a number of questions involved here. First, how is title to personal property passed ? There are two methods of transfer. One is by a deed of transfer -and another legal method is by actual delivery of the personal property. "Now. the second' question is, Was title transferred on March 27, 1969? Well, the papers were delivered to the National Archives and in my opinion title was transferred on that date. Now, after that date the President was not able, to repossess his papers. He lost possession. He lost control, And he lost title. A very interesting thing, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee a Government agency has actually ruled to that effect. And I refer to a letter put in evidence dated June 4 1974, from the Archivist and here is; what he says in part, "Long before the onset of the tax controversy"--long before--"It was the position of the General Services Administration, which itself has absolutely no involvement in Federal tax matters, and here is the important part--"that there had been a valid gift of the subject papers to the United States." That is a ruling of an agency of the Government of the United States. Now, if title passed. it is obvious there Is no fraud. But I submit to you that even if there Is. a dispute as to whether title passed, -when the President divested himself of possession of his Presidential papers, in a voluntary way. certainly that is enough to negate fraud. Now, what did the IRS do in this particular situation? I What action did they take? Section 6653 of the Internal Revenue Code is relevant. Well, they checked the return and they found that a tax was due. And they assessed a tax. There are two sections to 6653, section (a) and section (b), Section (a) provides for the assessment of a negligence penalty which was done in this particular case,5 percent. Mr. Sandman indicated section (b) provides for a fraud penalty which the IRS has the, right to assess: 50 percent. Now, here we have the most thorough and complete audit in the history of the IRS, the audit performed on the return of Mr. Nixon, and the IRS, with its thorough investigation, notwithstanding what has been said here and argued, did not assess the fraud penalty. Mr. Chairman I cannot see how this matter can be a ground of impeachment under the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks you said, and I concurred, We Must be fair to every man. I have tried to be fair to Mr. Nixon and I have tried to persuade the members of this committee to vote against Impeachment, It is apparent that we have not succeeded in this respect. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. MARAZITI. May I have one-half a minute to finish my sentence, please? Mr. HUTCHINSOn I'm sorry, I cannot yield to the gentleman any More time. I have not got a speck of time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson, has consumed 29 minutes and 20 seconds and has 30 minutes and 40 seconds, and the gentleman from Iowa has Consumed 26 minutes and has 34 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. MEZVINSKY. Yes. Mr. Chairman. I now yield to Ms. Holtzman from New York, 5 minutes. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady is recognized. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a grave concern about the tax matter that we have seen before this committee, and I would like to clear up the record on one point. There has been a lot of talk that the IRS cleared the President on tax fraud. In fact. the IRS did nothing of the kind. The IRS said that the reason they. could not find tax fraud was because they did not have the testimony under oath of Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Morgan, and Mr. Ralph Newman, and that without that testimony under oath. they were not able to make a decision one way or the other. But, they did not preclude the possibility that in the future, if these persons did testify under- oath. they could connect the taxpayer with fraud in this instance. So, I do not think that it is fair on the record to say that IRS exonerated the President of tax fraud. They found that because persons close to the President and the members of the President's staff would not testify under oath they were unable to reach a conclusive decision. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the lady answer a question ? [00.40.40]
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 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.58.40] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the. gentleman has expired The gentleman from Michigan has 26 minutes remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Mr. HOGAN. I thank the gentleman for the time. I think it is unfortunate that these deliberations, which to date have been handled in a very high manner, have, deteriorated into partisan wrangling tonight. And I think not only are these deliberations tonight unfair , but the entire handling of Mr. Nixon's tax returns are unfair. Someone has already alluded to the fact that the IRS decided that Mr. Nixon had to pay income on the honeymoon which his daughter spent at Camp David. Now, I ask the ladies and gentlemen of the committee whether or not this is fair? They also decided that he had to pay $27,291, or he had an additional income of $27,291.08 for the travel of his relatives and friends. Now, what that means is that if Air Force. One were flying to San Clemente, and Julie or Tricia and their husbands were going along, the President has been required to pay the fair market value of the travel Computed on the basis of the cost of traveling first class on commercial airlines to the various destinations reported in the flight logs. This is income to him as declared by IRS. Now, I ask the ladies and gentlemen of this committee if that is fair? And I address a question to their consciences. Let us take a hypothetical case. Suppose the, members of this committee went overseas on a study mission and their wives accompanied them. Now, if that happened, as it has, I wonder if the members would and have reported the first-class air fare on their own income tax as income to them? I think the answer is obviously they did not. One of the other things that troubles me very much about this is the not only -unfairness but this in no way rises to the level of an impeachable offense. The, staff report on grounds for Presidential impeachment makes clear, and I am quoting: As a technical term, high crime signified a crime against the system of government not merely a serious crime. This element of injury to the commonwealth, that is, to the state itself and to the Constitution, was historically the criteria for distinguishing a high crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one. Now, obviously in the drafting of this, the words previous previously were included against the United State's after high crimes and misdemeanors so that it is clear that that is what, the Founding Fathers intended. The. CHAIRMAN. The, time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. The gentleman from Iowa has 24 minutes remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield 5 minutes to Mr. Seiberling. the CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mention has been made that President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Humphrey have also mad gifts of their papers and taken deductions But I think It also ought to be. mentioned that there has been at no time any suggestion that there was any backdating of deeds or other fraudulent acts in connection with that gift. their gifts. Now. I must say that the facts In this situation have given me a great deal of trouble. because the facts are largely undisputed, what is in dispute are the conclusions we ought to draw from them. The evidence is largely circumstantial. but I remember the Writer Thoreau once said that, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." Now, what have we found In this case ? We have found a fraudulent deed and I do not think there is any doubt of it at least I do not have any doubt about that in my mind. And that deed -was used to secure an enormous tax deduction. Now, the question is whether the President was involved in that fraud. The Internal Revenue Service has already determined that, he was involved in negligence and they assessed negligence penalties against him which be has paid. Now, the question is how do we decide whether there is sufficient, cause, to send it to the Senate for a trial? And my feeling, after considering all........
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.02.54] Mr. SEIBERLING....... what is in dispute are the conclusions we ought to draw from them. The evidence is largely circumstantial. but I remember the Writer Thoreau once said that, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk." Now, what have we found In this case ? We have found a fraudulent deed and I do not think there is any doubt of it at least I do not have any doubt about that in my mind. And that deed -was used to secure an enormous tax deduction. Now, the question is whether the President was involved in that fraud. The Internal Revenue Service has already determined that, he was involved in negligence and they assessed negligence penalties against him which be has paid. Now, the question is how do we decide whether there is sufficient, cause, to send it to the Senate for a trial? And my feeling, after considering all of the principal factors, is that we should do so and I would just, like to outline very quickly these because they have been thrown out in detail here. First is that the President signed income tax and by so doing verified that all of the facts therein were true to the best of his knowledge and that he personally read the return, Second we also have evidence that before he signed it he went over it, page by page with his lawyer. Third, we find that he failed to answer questions addressed to him by the Internal Revenue Service regarding certain key facts and he refused to answer them. The fourth point is that be has shown a habit of great attention to detail regarding his personal finances. Fifth of all, -We have the great size of this deduction, $576,000, a huge sum of money. And finally we have the testimony that if the ease had involved anyone other than the President itself it would have been referred to a grand jury for prosecution. Now, it seems, to me that we cannot have one standard for the President and another standard for all of the other taxpayers. Either we are going to have to hold him to the same standard and submit him to the same process, or we are going to have to lower those standards and make things easier on other taxpayers. Now, I maybe as a taxpayer and as taxpayers we would prefer to have it that way but I think that if we are going to protect the integrity of the system we are going to have to subject him to the same kind of scrutiny that any other taxpayer would be subject to, And that means, in my opinion a trial so that all of the facts can be brought out and that trial of course has to be in the Senate as far as this body is concerned. NOW, we have, not discussed with respect to San Clemente and Key Biscayne the benefits and emoluments and the fact that there is also an abuse of power aspect to this matter. The President clearly has used his power through his aides and personally over the General Services Administration and over the Secret Service to obtain which he would not otherwise have obtained. And this has been a source Of embarrassment to the GSA and the Secret, Service. And as I recall when the questions first were submitted to them by the clerk as to whether expenditures had been made for the President's personal benefit at, San Clemente, the GSA refused to answer on the grounds that the facts, were classified because of national security. NOW, the. Secret Service the next week released some of the facts so that they could not have been national security. But, this is an example of the spuriousness of the concept of national security to cover up embarrassing things such as we have seen in earlier discussions before this committee. And if I have any time left, I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. if he could give us the chronology of how the figures were gradually brought out as to the expenditure. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I will give him another minute, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you. I Would yield to the gentleman from Texas. [01.07.29]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.13.43] Mr. MEZVINSKY. -Mr. Speaker, I know it is a sensitive issue and I don't -,want to have acrimony. I just want to make one point before I yield time to the gentleman from Texas. Let me say that I respect this Congress. I also respect the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation. I believe that they made, a conscientious effort, to look at the matter of the President's taxes. It, is serious. At a critical time they sent questions to the President, specifically regarding his personal knowledge about matters which had a bearing on the question of fraud. Mr. Nixon did not answer those questions. The Joint Committee did not rule on fraud instead referring that question to this committee. The IRS did say earlier this year, and this was cited by Mr. Sandman, that at that time, there was not enough evidence to resolve the, question of fraud one way or the other. But 7 days later what did they do? They sent a, letter to Mr. Jaworski saying let's pursue the case for possible, prosecution by the grand jury. But I want to bring out Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MEZVINSKY. I will be glad to take into account the gentleman's remarks in a few minutes. In the midpart of July I asked Mr. St. Clair, we sent a letter, too, but I asked Mr. St. Clair as the President's counsel, Mr. St. Clair, would you tell the President that we are concerned about his taxes and ask him whether he would respond to the questions that were submitted to him on the tax matter? I also asked whether or not the President would give an accounting of a special White, House fund that amounted to $1 1/2 million. I also asked if he would supply information as to his Now York State income taxes. I am sorry to report to this committee that the answer was negative to all these requests. He not only didn't respond to the Joint Committee but he didn't Care, to respond to questions directed by members of this committee. And I would Say that that kind of attitude can not be tolerated by this committee nor can the President's disregard for our revenue laws be tolerated by our tax system that is sacred to this country. I now yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield for a-- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 16 1/2 minutes remaining. His time--no. The gentleman has 15 1/2 minutes remaining. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, would Mr. Brooks yield for 1 minute for a question? Mr. BROOKS. I would be delighted to if I have the floor now. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Brooks would you explain a little bit more please about the word "emoluments" and I read from the Constitution, This point bothers me, that what precisely does it mean, that the President shall not receive within the period of his Presidency any other emoluments from the United States and that is a word -we don't use very often and I have found no law on, particularly no law in relationship to impeachment. Now, do I understand correctly the exact sum that you are suggesting is the other emolument that -he has received? Is that at the $94,000? Mr. BROOKS. That is absolutely correct. Mr. DRINAN. Could you tell us more about any history of emoluments? Has the U.S. Government ever sought to get back any emoluments from a President? Has any President ever been challenged as to this particular section of the Constitution before? Mr. BROOKS. Not that I know of. but it has been on the books since 1789. And emolument in my judgment and I didn't even look it up, means do you get something that is good--money. My judgment is that anybody in this country, if you ask them what is an emolument of the office that you are not supposed to get any more of, it, means you are not supposed to get any more money. And I think that he did in that he received $94,000 worth of value which is the tangible value that -was assigned to the values of the improvements On his houses and for travel--not assigned by me, but assigned by the IRS. And they determined that he owed taxes on the $94,000. They said that $67,388 of that money--was for improvements to those properties and that, $27,291 was for travel expenditures. And then they Said very concisely that in view of the taxpayer's relation to the U.S. Government's Chief Executive Officer the above items constitute an additional Compensation to him for the performance of his services for the Government. And I thought that that met on all fours this provision in the Constitution that he shall not receive any additional money, any additional emolument. [01.19.11]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.23.35] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak against this article. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has I minute and 15 seconds. Mr. WALDIE. I speak against this article because of my theory that the impeachment process is a process designed to redefine Presidential powers in cases where there has been enormous abuse of those powers and then. to limit the powers as a concluding result of the impeachment process. And though I find the conduct of the President in these, instances to have been shabby, to have been unacceptable, and to have been disgraceful even, I do not find a Presidential power that has been so grossly abused that it deserves redefinition and limiting. if there has been any abuse of a Presidential power it has been that the President may have utilized his office to -cower the Internal Revenue Service from conducting a complete and thorough investigation. That has not been alleged. If that had been the case, that should have been included within article II of yesterday's action on this committee, when we were dealing -with the failure of the. President to faithfully execute the law. I do find then, that, this is not an abuse of power sufficient to warrant impeachment and thereby a redefinition and a limitation of that power, and I hope the article will be rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from Michigan has 15 minutes remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. How much. time has the gentleman from--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 11 minutes remaining. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, 1 yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia , Mr. Butler. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Butler is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I believe Mr. Nixon did knowingly underpay his taxes in the 4 years in question by taking unauthorized deductions, and that he knowingly ordered or caused to be ordered improvements on his properties in Florida and California at Government expense. These are offenses against the people and I think the Government should pursue its remedies. But you don't impeach for every offense, nor, on the other hand, do you excuse any offense by saying others did it. But whether to impeach or not is a question of judgment permitted to each of the members. Is it sufficient? Is it that serious? And on the evidence available, these offenses do not rise, in my opinion, to the level of impeachability. It is not, sufficient to the standards I set. I promised the people in Utah when I sat down to impeachment, that I 'would impeach only if there were hard evidence and which was sufficient to support conviction in the Senate, and I found it in four instances and I do not find it in this sixth, to -which I feel I must apply the same remedy. At least twice in the past, once at the first presentation of evidence and once as recently as 2 weeks ago, I asked the staff to obtain the sworn testimony of the President's attorneys and the appraiser and others, They were unable to got it, as I understand, because of the expressed wishes of the Special Prosecutor, Mr. Jaworski and so we are here having to decide this issue without any hard evidence which will sustain tying the President to the fraudulent deed or which will support, in my opinion, the inference and close the inferential gap that has to be closed in order to charge the President. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 2 minutes. Mr. OWENS. [continuing]. With an impeachment impeachable offense and based on that evidence, I urge my colleagues to--based on that lack of evidence, I urge my colleagues to reject this article. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas. Mr. THORNTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think it is apparent that in this area there has been a breach of faith with the American people with regard to incorrect income tax returns and the improper expenditure of public funds, But it is my view that these charges may be reached in due course. in. the regular process of law. This committee is not, a tax court nor criminal court nor should it endeavor to become one. Our charge is serious and full enough, In determining whether- high crimes and misdemeanors affecting the security of our system of Government must be brought to the attention of the full House, debated there, and if found to exist, presented to the Senate. And to my view. by so doing and by bringing those serious charges to the, attention of the House which we have already brought we are doing our part to ensure that this system of justice--which Will enable all men to receive equal treatment before the law--will continue and can be applied in these instances which have been described to us tonight. [01.28.57]
The Royal Southern Dismounted Police
DO NOT SELL Another Deputy Dawg cartoon. The Commissioner and the Sheriff decide to start a send-up of the Canadian Mounties so they name Dawg as the first officer of the title's namesake but instead of a horse he gets an ornery, stubborn jack-ass. The usual ha-ha's ensue.
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]