Advanced Search
Lebanon - Muslim funeral
Lebanon - farming
Lebanon - farming
Highway & tunnel under const.
Protest: Congo Mob Sacks Belgium Embassy
Protest: Congo Mob Sacks Belgium Embassy Kinshasa, Congo (Zaire, Democratic Republic of Congo) "The Belgian Embassy is sacked by an angry Congolese mob. It's a reprisal for the earlier capture of a Congo town by white mercenaries, led by a Belgian Colonel. A strong protest note and a Cabinet meeting further weaken Belgian-Congo relations." WS large crowd of Congolese demonstrating outside the Belgian Embassy in Kinshasa. MS mob overturning car. MS Men on second floor balconcy of the embassy. They smash windows and throw furniture and files into the street. MS car on fire. LS rioters. MS President Joseph Mobutu (Mobutu Sese Seko) speaking with demonstrators. WS demonstrators. LS sacked Belgian Embassy building. MS Congolese soldiers walking through aftermath of riot damage. MS burnt out, destroyed car.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.50] [Jim LEHRER in studio, seated at desk with large headshot of NIXON shown on screen behind him] LEHRER introduces the videotaped broadcast of the daytime session by summarizing the charges ultimately approved and rejected by the JUDICIARY COMMITEE against President NIXON. Paul DUKE summarizes the first hour's debate, in which Rep. McCLORY proposes the ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT charging NIXON with illegally refusing to honor the Committee's SUBPOENAS, "STONEWALLING" the investigation, and Rep. FROEHLICH says that the committee should have asked the Supreme Court to intervene rather than raising an ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT over the subpoenas. LEHRER summarizes the second hour of debate, in which Rep. EDWARDS says that the power of the CONGRESS to issue SUBPOENAS is an essential part of the IMPEACHMENT POWER, and cannot be defied by a President, and Rep. RAILSBACK calls the ARTICLE "POLITICAL OVERKILL". DUKE summarizes the third hour of debate, on the subject of the BOMBING OF CAMBODIA, in which Rep. LATTA argues that NIXON cannot be impeached for an action taken to save American lives, and Rep. COHEN charges that the abuse of War Powers by recent Presidents is in great part the result of the "sloth and default of Congress". LEHRER summarizes the fourth hour of debate on the CAMBODIA BOMBING in which Rep. WALDIE says NIXON should be impeached for abusing the War Power that belongs rightly to Congress, and Rep. FLOWERS calls the fourth ARTICLE of IMPEACHMENT a "bad rap" for NIXON. [01.05.58--Chairman RODINO gavels the meeting to order] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come. to order. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McClory. Mr. McCLORY, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the form of article III at, the, clerk's desk. CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the article. CLERK. [reading]: Immediately after article II, add the following additional article. Article III. In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability,. to Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June, 24, 1974, and -willfully disobeyed such subpenas. The subpenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the committee to its inquiry, authorized and directed by resolution of the House of Representatives to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, In refusing to provide these papers and things, he has acted in derogation of the power of Impeachment vested solely in the House of Representatives by the Constitution of the United States. In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional Government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, preliminary to presenting a discussion in support of my-of the proposed article III, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on article III, including the consideration of any amendments thereto, be limited to a period not to exceed 3 hours Debate on. any amendment shall not exceed 30 minutes, divided equally between the proponents and opponents of the amendment, The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. LATTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Reserving the right to object--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, I think every member on this committee is fully familiar with this article of impeachment and made up his mind and I think 3 hours* debate time is much too long. I would hope that the gentleman would consider this and reduce that amount of time. The, CHAIRMAN. All right, I advise the gentleman from Ohio that the unanimous consent request is to the effect that debate not exceed 3 hours. It is not necessary that we consume 3 hours. Mr. LATTA. By the same token, Mr. Chairman, I could consume 3 hours. The CHAIRMAN. But any member of the committee may move the question after consideration of any amendments and that period could come prior to the 3-hour limitation. At any time prior to that at, The gentleman from Illinois. If there is no objection [01.10.08]
Cabins for worker
Tractor- on tunnel
Construction (not homes)
Surveyor
Thick-billed Murre and Chick
Master 2110, Tape 1 CU Thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia) perched on rock ledge. 1 murre in the center shelters a chick underneath it.
Ext. roofing store
Surveying - construction
C.U. crane
Carpentering
Parakeet Auklets
Master 2110, Tape 1 CU 2 Parakeet auklets (Aethia psittacula) perched on cliff. The birds look around.
Misc. constr. with jungle b.g.
Dam construction
Thick-billed Murre against lichens
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS Thick-billed murre (Uria lomvia) standing on rock covered with lichens. The murre looks around.
Dam - highway under construction
Misc. construction dams/bridges
Dam construction
Misc. dam construction
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.38] MR. McCLORY. I recall. when the President came before the joint session Of the Congress in January he said words to the effect that he wanted to provide full cooperation with the Judiciary Committee consistent only -with the operation of his office. Now, I suppose that qualification was more significant than it seemed to be at that time because the words that came across to us were full cooperation with the House Judiciary Committee. Now, -where is that full cooperation with the House Judiciary Committee? Well, -we have had some tapes and we have had some transcripts, The transcripts we got, of course, were transcripts that were issued to the public, not issued in response to this committee, but publicized, the edited transcripts as they are called, or the White House transcripts. And the tapes, -where did they come from? Well, they did not come from the White House, they came from the grand jury and they came from the Special Prosecutor's office. As a matter of fact, of the 147 tapes that we requested, we did not receive a single one from the White House. Now, if you ever saw an example of stonewalling, the prime example of stonewalling is right there, and now that is an expression that comes out of the White House, but where is the stonewalling occurring? It is occurring with regard to the Congress of the United States and with regard to this committee. Now if we do have the sole power of impeachment, and if we do have the authority to investigate, then it is important of course, that we do receive the kind of cooperation that I thought would be forthcoming. I have done everything I could to try to impress upon the White House the importance of this cooperation. Now) the President has raised the question of confidentiality of the taped material, and so we suggested that this material would be received not only under our rules of strict confidentiality, but that the President himself, or the President's counsel could participate with our counsel in screening out national security information. But, the President's position has been that he should be the sole arbiter of what he should turn over, and what he should not turn over. Well, if he is the sole arbiter, then how in the world could we conduct a thorough and a complete and fair investigation? Well, we just could not, Now, since we began this inquiry, of course, the President has been involved in litigation, and the case went to the Supreme Court. And, he made the same kind of a plea to the district court that he has made to us, that he should have the sole right, that there was an absolute executive privilege -which prevailed, and that he had the absolute right to determine what he would turn over and what he would not, turn over. Now, that doctrine was knocked down. That was knocked down effectively insofar as the court was concerned. Now, it is true that -were not involved in that proceeding. Some people thought we should have been, and perhaps we should have been. But, anyway, the doctrine was knocked down and the doctrine of absolute executive privilege has fallen. As a matter of fact, I have felt, and a number of my colleagues here on the committee have felt that the, doctrine of executive has no application whatsoever in an impeachment inquiry, because it would be impossible for the President or any other person being investigated to have the right and privilege to determine what was to be submitted in the course of the investigation and what was not to be submitted. In other words, we would be falling foul of the maxim enunciated by Lord Coke that person cannot be the judge of his own cause, and consequently, that doctrine cannot possibly prevail. Otherwise our authority would be frustrated completely. Now, I say this is fundamental and basic to our inquiry and I mean precisely that. I mean that if we are going to set a standard and a guide for future Congresses, for future impeachment inquiries, there is no more, important standard and guide than the one that we will determine with respect to article III, because if -we refuse to recommend impeachment of the President on the basis of this article TIT, if we refuse to recommend that the President should be impeached because of his defiance of the Congress with respect to the subpenas that we have issued, the future respondents will be in the position where they can determine themselves what they are going to provide in an impeachment inquiry and what they are not going to provide, and this would be particularly so in the case of an inquiry directed toward the President of the United States. So, it not only affects this President but future Presidents. And it might be that a Republican Congress would be investigating in an impeachment inquiry a Democratic President in a future instance. I hope we do not have any more impeachments, but in the case we did, the precedent that we might establish here would be, effective then. So, it seems to me that there is no greater responsibility which befalls us at this time than that to determine this question of the President's responsibility with respect to our subpenas. Now, earlier I had the thought and I set it forth publicly that I felt that when the President did not respond to our subpenas that we should take action to hold the President in contempt, or that we should censure the President, or we should have a resolution of inquiry, to get some action on the part of the House. I was discouraged in that respect. I was discouraged from leaders on both sides of the aisle, I might say, and I emphasized at that time that while I was withholding the action that I intended to take then, that I would face, a very serious dilemma at this stage, and so while we did not take action under the, contempt authority that we had, which in a Sense is quite difficult to enforce and to apply. [01.22.09]