Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.48.42] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Holtzman, for general debate only and for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH HOLTZMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 16TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK MS. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join w/ the other members of this committee in thanking you for conducting these proceedings w/ dignity & fairness consonant w/ the solemnity of the occasion. Mr. Chairman, as we sit here to measure President Nixon's conduct against the standard set in the Constitution of the US each one of us has questioned what the Constitution means & what our oath of office imposes on us & each member on this committee is publicly groping, for the right thing to do. I am overwhelmed by the stark contrast this presents to the President's words & actions. Nowhere in the thousands of pages of evidence presented to this committee does the President ask what does the Constitution say? What are the, limits of my power? What does my oath of office require of me? What is the right thing to do? In fact those thousands of pages bring To light things that I never even dreamed of when this proceeding began. Wherever we looked in this inquiry we found Presidential conduct was sorry & disgraceful Mr. Nixon allowed the people's tax money to be used for the enrichment of his personal properties. Hiding behind the enormous respect for his high office, he failed to report income and claimed tax deductions totaling almost $1 million. He appointed & kept in office as Cabinet members and close advisers persons whom he knew to be seriously unfit. He repeatedly and knowingly deceived the American people who trusted him and wanted to trust him. He surrounded the highest office in this land with scandal and dishonor. The thousands of pages before this committee are witness, in my opinion, to a systematic arrogation of power, to a thoroughgoing abuse of the President's oath of office, to a pervasive violation of the rule of law. What we have seen is a seamless web of misconduct so serious that it leaves me shaken. And what affects me most deeply is the evidence that Richard Nixon sought to subvert the two essential principles that have shaped an and preserved our 198-year history as a free people. He has obstructed, impeded, & corrupted the workings of our system of justice & he systematically used the awesome power of his office to invade the constitutional rights of the people. Some have said there is no direct evidence. It is for this reason that I want to show, using examples from Watergate, that it is principally, out of the President's own mouth and through his own words that we find the strongest evidence of the high crimes & misdemeanors he has committed. Watergate, June 17, 1972--five men working on behalf of the President were arrested for breaking into & bugging the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in Washington. Nowhere in the thousands of pages of evidence do we find any suggestion that President Nixon tried to bring all the facts he knew to 1 light or to bring to justice those responsible for this act. Instead, the evidence suggests that he consistently tried to prevent the truth from coming out. 6 days after the break-in, Mr. Nixon ordered the CIA to limit the FBI's investigation. The CIA was told that it was the President wish that the investigation stop w/ the five suspects that had been arrested & in fact the FBI investigation was impeded & contained. In the fall of 1972 President Nixon specifically ordered that the Banking & Currency Committee investigation into Watergate be stopped. In his own words, Nixon told his men to screw this thing up & in fact the House Banking & Currency Committee investigation was stopped before, it even started. By Mar 1973, we find the President plotting to thwart fact finding by the Ervin committee in the Senate or pages bringing per 122 On Mar 22 the President contemplated a number of courses of action. The first was in his words, "I want you all to stonewall it. Let them plead the fifth amendment, cover up or anything else, if it save it, save the plan." And in fact two of Mr. Nixon's closest aides were indicted for perjury before the Senate subcommittee. A 2nd scheme was to avoid the Senate select committee by going to the grand jury and these are the directions the President gave to aides for or testifying before the grand jury and I quote: "Just be damn sure you say don't remember," 'I can't recall, I can't give any honest, an answer to that that I can recall, is it."
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
And in fact Ehrlichman and Mitchell were indicted for committing perjury before the Watergate Grand Jury on the grounds they could not remember. It is clear to me that the President was approving or at least in hush money payments amount of over $400,000 to buy silence of Watergate burglars, The President discussed the matter paying Hunt 10 separate times in a conversation on March 21 and Haldeman and the last time the President discussed it he said and I quote:"That's why for your immediate thing you have got no choice with Hunt but the 120, or whatever it is. Right? Would you agree that's a buy time thing? You better damn well get that done but fast. Well, for Christ's sake. get it." perhaps some people find ambiguities in that conversation. I don't. on the subject of executive clemency, the, record is clear and convincing. For example, in April of 1973 the President was afraid that Magruder would reveal Haldeman's role in the Watergate break-in to the Special Prosecutor. President Nixon told his aide to soften Magruder's testimony by showing the President's personal concern for Magruder and thus suggesting executive clemency. These are the President's words: "I would say, 'Jeb, let me just start here by telling you the, President holds great affection for you and for your family-" Also, I would put that in so that he knows I have personal affection. That is how the so-called clemency has got to be handled." And Ehrlichman reported back to the President that. the clemency message was transmitted to Magruder. In lateMarch and April 1973, the President tried to obstruct the investigation by the Watergate Grand Jury and the Department of Justice. After John Dean had confessed to the President His own pre-break-in involvement and that of Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Colson, the President on March 27 instructed John Ehrlichman to tell the Attorney General of the United States, Richard Kleindienst, an untruth. These were the, Presidents directions to Ehrlichman : "I think you have got to say Dean was not involved had no prior knowledge Haldeman had no 'Prior knowledge. Ehrlichman had none. And Colson had none." And Ehrlichman transmitted the message. During the period from April 15, 1973,' to April 30 1973 the President personally spoke 27 times with the Acting Attorney General, Henry Petersen, who was in charge of the Watergate investigation. President lied to Petersen. The President obtained confidential information from Mr. Petersen which he then used to coach witnesses, despite all of the information President Nixon had about his aides' Involvement in Watergate he held back what he knew and told Petersen nothing.To this day, President Nixon has never told all he knows about Watergate to any investigating body. And to this day, President Nixon continues to impede an investigation, this time our committee's inquiry. He has given us partial documents representing them to be complete. He has given us tape recordings containing unexplained silences, and he has refused used to comply with our lawful subpenas for tape recordings and documents. This on top of the fact that he permitted a critical tape held in his sole possession to be erased--after a subpena for it was issued by the Special Prosecutor. In sum, since almost June 17, 1972, Mr. Nixon has tried to hide incriminating evidence about his involvement and that of his aides in the Watergate coverup. First, by attempting to prevent investigations taking place. And when he could not prevent such investigations from taking place, by encouraging witnesses to lie about the incriminating evidence. And when he could not get witnesses to lie about incriminating evidence, by withholding that, incriminating evidence. And when he could not -with hold that incriminating evidence, by allowing that evidence to be destroyed. And what is even more disturbing to me is that the illegal burglary and wiretapping, the obstruction of justice that is so painfully clear in the Watergate matter, was not an isolated instance of wrongdoing. have seen that the President authorized a series of illegal Wiretaps, for his own political advantage, and not only did he thereby violate the fundamental constitutional rights of the people of this country, but he tried to cover up those illegal acts in the very same way that he, tried to cover up the. Watergate. He lied to the prosecutors. He tried to stop investigations. he tried to buy silence, and he failed to report criminal conduct. And if this weren't enough, the President misused the CIA and the FBI by trying to get them to execute the plans for the illegal surveillance and burglary, and to carry out the coverup of these acts. Mr. Chairman, I feel very deeply that the President's impeachment & removal from office is the, only remedy for the acts we have seen. First because the Presidential coverup is continuing even through today.There is no way it can be ended short of the President's removal. And second, because the violation of the people's constitutional rights has been so systematic and so persistent, I must conclude that it is only through the President's removal from office, that we can guarantee to the American people that they will remain secure in the liberties granted to them under the Constitution. I yield back the balance of my time.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[01.01.28] The, CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Utah, Mr. 0wens for the purpose of general debate, for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Owens. STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE OWENS, A REPRESENTATIVE CONGRESS FROM THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF UTAH Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Preparation for this inevitable time of judgment has been an exhausting experience for all of us on the committee--physically, mentally, and emotionally. I, for one, have tried very hard, and I suspect unsuccessfully, to find the right words to convey my feelings and concern that we reach the right answers in this proceeding. Mr. Chairman, the problem of being 37th in seniority on a committee of 38 members is that one sees his points fall one by one. I desire at the outset to state my complete confidence in the durability of constitutional separation of powers and our great institutions Of government the Congress, the, Judiciary, and the Presidency, which permit the people to unite and move together to solve their problems. To me and to the people of Utah the Constitution is a special document. Though I faced this onerous task with great reluctance it has been an honor to serve as a member of this distinguished body of men And women during this historic inquiry. These statements have been extremely impressive to me, and I am proud, I must say, of my colleagues. I can't commend too highly our distinguished chairman who throughout these long, difficult months has as continually maintained nonpartisan and judicial fairness who has given wise direction to the course of this inquiry and for whom I have the, greatest respect and admiration. And John Doar, this good man of balance and sensitivity and strength, and Bert Jenner and Sam Garrison-to each of them and to the entire staff I think that the committee owes a very deep debt of gratitude for their scholarship and complete dedication. Mr. Chairman, I did not bring the training and the experience of a seasoned trial lawyer to this responsibility. My background is that which the authors of the Constitution foresaw for those who would be asked to judge Presidents. I am a politician. And I would be much less-----