Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.14.56] [Capitol Dome graphic with title "IMPEACHMENT DEBATE JULY 29, 1974"] [Jim LEHRER in studio] introduces the airing of videotaped coverage of the morning session of the committee by summarizing the conclusion of the evening session, and the vote to adopt the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, dealing with ABUSE OF POWER by NIXON. vote was 28-10, all 21 DEMOCRATS and 7 of 17 REPUBLICANS. Of REPUBLICANS who voted against the first article, Rep. McCLORY (R-IL) was the only one to change sides on ARTICLE II. LEHRER summarizes the charges of ARTICLE II. Paul DUKE gives summary of the PARLIAMENTARY developments of the day. First, Rep. HUNGATE (D-MO) offered a substitute ARTICLE to the one previously offered by Rep. DONOHUE (D-MA). The PRO-IMPEACHMENT majority defeated attempts to strike out two of the charges dealing with the IRS, the PLUMBERS, and WIRETAPS. DUKE says that Rep. WIGGINS (R-CA) was responsible for two of the motions to strike, with the third being raised by PRO-IMPEACHMENT Rep. BROOKS (D-TX) as a PARLIAMENTARY MANEUVER to give the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side a forum to air their evidence that NIXON abused the IRS. DUKE says that all votes on the ARTICLE passed in favor of the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side by better than 2-1. LEHRER calls on reporter Caroline LEWIS on CAPITOL HILL [LEWIS shown on screen behind LEHRER] LEWIS describes the day as one of exhaustion, the debate not as vigorous or angry, but more willingness to compromise and go along with the results. Did not take as long to reach a vote as with ARTICLE I. Not the agonizing ordeal of ARTICLE I. DUKE introduces guest commentators Jack MURPHY (law professor, Georgetown University) and Steven HESS (political scientist, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, and former NIXON staff member) to talk about the videotaped debate from the morning session. MURPHY points to the early exchange between DANIELSON and WIGGINS as to whether an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE is actually charged in the ARTICLE, persistent efforts by the PRO-NIXON side to force the wording of the ARTICLE so that IMPEACHMENT sponsors in the Senate would be bound to prove direct involvement by NIXON in his subordinates' wrongful actions, and the continuing debate on specificity. Says there will be some good "lawyering" seen in this part of the debate. Finally, points to the debate on WIRETAPPING as of interest to all Americans. Says that the ambiguities of the law are resolved more in favor of the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side. DUKE asks HESS if it's any longer possible that the REPUBLICANS could regroup around NIXON and save the Presidency. HESS says it's unlikely. Given the way 1/3 of the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS supported IMPEACHMENT, and the fact that REPUBLICANS have only 187 out of 435 votes in the HOUSE at large, it's not good for NIXON. LEHRER thanks the guests. Introduces the videotape coverage. Says there are very serious underlying arguments to limit the scope of the charges, but which have little success [01.22.51--cut committee bench, v.o. continues] LEHRER describes the WIGGINS/DANIELSON debate over whether the ARTICLE alleges any offense that can be considered to constitute HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS, thereby being an IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE. DUKE describes the objections by Rep. SANDMAN (R-NJ) to the charges of IRS ABUSE--SANDMAN argues that no audit was resolved unfavorably to anyone on the ENEMIES LIST given to the IRS by JOHN DEAN-- and Rep. HOGAN (R-MD) arguing that the WHITE HOUSE actions with regard to wiretaps impeded the operation of justice in the ELLSBERG AFFAIR, as the White HOuse sought to conceal its illegal wiretapping. LEHRER says that the third hour is marked by Rep. MOORHEAD'S (R-CA) argument that wiretaps were a vital NATIONAL SECURITY measure, Rep. EILBERG (D-PA) argument that the "BIG BROTHER" tactics of POLICE STATES like the Soviet Union have arrived in the USA, DUKE continues to summarize the final hour, in which Rep. FISH (R-NY) argued that the PLUMBERS unit was prompted by the PRESIDENT'S embarrassment and anger at the publication of the PENTAGON PAPERS, not by NATIONAL SECURITY concerns. [01.24.05--Chairman RODINO brings committee to order]