Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.48.11] [Jim LEHRER and Paul DUKE in studio] LEHRER introduces Caroline LEWIS's interview of Rep. Jack BROOKS, D-TX [cut to LEWIS with BROOKS] LEWIS asks BROOKS whether the pro-impeachment side gained today. BROOKS says that many have come to beleive that NIXON's activities were "not in the public interest". praises both DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS for their conduct and eloquence LEWIS asks about the pro-impeachment speeches of REPUBLICAN members, whether this will help in the HOUSE floor vote. BROOKS says that the participation of the REPUBLICANS in the impeachment drive will give it legitimacy and not make it seem like a purely partisan affair. Says that he sympathizes with the REPUBLICAN members in their tough decision to cross party lines, that the whole process is "not fun". LEWIS asks if the timing of the President's economic speech is intentionally timed to distract from the hearings. BROOKS calls it "one of those strange coincidences", LEWIS mentions charges that impeachment would damage the office of the Presidency permanently] BROOKS replies that the impeachment would save the Presidency from degradation, and that the system would be stronger afterward. [return to DUKE and LEHRER.] LEHRER takes the chance to defend his TEXAS roots by mentioning that Rep. BROOKS, expected to be the most long-winded speaker, in fact used the least time in speaking of any member. DUKE informs that there are 8 remaining members to speak, hopefully they will be finished tonight. [00.51.28] [cut to shot of committee bench, few members seated, photographers busy] LEHRER describes as key moments in the day the speeches of REPUBLICANS who sided for impeachment, noting that the general debate is closed to finished, which will mean a move to the "nitty gritty" of finalizing the writing of the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. [00.53.42--pullback from committee room shot to LEHRER in studio, committee room action projected on screen over LEHRER'S shoulder] LEHRER says that the task now is to draw up articles that satisfy the largest number of Representatives, to get maximum REPUBLICAN support for legitimacy in the full HOUSE vote. Introduces two guest commentators, [cut to guests seated] William VAN ALSTYNE and Jack KRAMER, both law professors. LEHRER asks whether the wording of the articles will in fact be crucial to the effort, and whether getting 38 lawyers to agree to anything will take long. VAN ALSTYNE says it may not take long, it appears that the two articles motioned by Rep. DONOHUE at the outset will likely be the core of the final articles, although there will be nitpicking about language, etc. DUKE asks whether, then, the final articles will be broad ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. VAN ALSTYNE says yes, but that within the broad articles there will be specific, narrow counts of each offense. LEHRER asks whether specificity is necessary KRAMER replies that the specificity gives the ARTICLES legitimacy, for example the specific component of ABUSE OF POWER related to the President's violation of his OATH OF OFFICE, raised by Republican members in debate. DUKE inquires about the importance of outspoken REPUBLICANS condemning the President's actions and at least hinting toward advocating impeachment, that there are as many as 5 and possibly 7 pro-impeachment REPUBLICANS on the committee. KRAMER says that it could be significant if those members act as "floor managers" in the full House debate, they could influence many REPUBLICANS to vote against NIXON. Notes that this is 40% of the committee, and that committee REPUBLICANS are generally more conservative than House REPUBLICANS at large. LEHRER says it's also significant that two Southern DEMOCRATS indicated strong leanings toward impeachment. [00.57.38.--cut to shot of Chairman RODINO, preparing to open meeting] LEHRER, v.o., notes that the committee has not been terribly punctual at these hearings. DUKE interrupts to send viewers to LEWIS, with a late-breaking development [cut LEWIS with Rep. Delbert LATTA, R-Ohio] LEWIS asks what LATTA, as a NIXON supporter, has in mind to try to prevent impeachment. LATTA begs to clarify, saying he supports NIXON's policies but that he does not support any wrongdoing. Continues that there has been no evidence presented to definitely link NIXON to any of the subordinates' wrongdoing. That the "American People" will not support removing the President for other people's wrongdoing. Says that he has introduced a CENSURE resolution on the grounds that while NIXON was not aware of the wrongdoing by his associates, he was at fault for not knowing. LEWIS asks whether a mere CENSURE resolution will fly after all of the allegations raised. LATTA says that impeachment won't fly unless the allegations can be proven, asserts that proof is not forthcoming. LEWIS asks how much support he has for the CENSURE resolution. LATTA says it hasn't been discussed much, but that most members against impeachment will probably support it. LEWIS asks if there aren't already enough votes to put the ARTICLES OF IMPEACHEMENT through to the House floor? LATTA says that there is no doubt about that, but a CENSURE resolution could have an effect on the floor vote. [00.59.57] [cut to Chairman RODINO] DUKE (v.o.) comments on LATTA'S idea for CENSURE, hazarding the guess that it might be a "fallback" position for conservative REPUBLICANS, in order to offer a milder alternative to impeachment, a recognition that they can't win in the committee, that it is a sign of the tide turning against the President. Notes that there have been rumors about censure resolutions, which are unprecedented for a President. [01.01.06--shot of large group of photographers, lenses pointed toward TV camera] LEHRER notes Rep. LATTA'S openness about the fact that the CENSURE resolution would be aimed at influencing the full House Floor vote. [01.01.14--pullback into studio, LEHRER seated, committee room action projection on monitor] LEHRER states his gratefulness to have two legal authorities in the studio to comment on the developments Asks what the legal precedent is for a censure motion against the President. VAN ALSTYNE says there is frankly very little precedent. Says a good academic might try to assess whether Congress can strike a medium ground of reproof, but that his opinion is that it ought not. Says that in one previous case, probably that of Andrew Jackson.... [01.01.47--cut to Chairman RODINO, gaveling] LEHRER, v.o., cuts off VAN ALSTYNE. Chair recognizes Rep. Charles RANGEL, D-NY Rep. RANGEL begins by thanking the Chair for including less senior members fully in the debate. [01.03.59--TAPE OUT] )