Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.04.08] Mr. EILBERG.....This has become an article of faith that in Russia Big Brother has arrived, that the secret police are always listening. Now we learn that in the late 1960's and early 1970's and possibly right up to this date, the secret police have been listening in on Americans, only now they have special equipment to eliminate the noise of the running water or the loud radio. In Washington it has become a sardonic joke to say that the phone is tapped whenever there is a strong noise on the line. We have become a suspicions people afraid to talk freely . not because what we say might prove we have committed a crime or endangered the national security but because our political enemies might use this information against us. Mr. Chairman, the Nixon White House made the secret police a reality in the United States. The President and his men knew that what they -were doing was so morally repugnant that they could not even trust the FBI to keep records of their activities. Finally, they could not even trust their own subordinates, so the files were taken to the Oval Office of the White House and then locked in the safe of the second most trusted advisor. Mr. Chairman, in addition to everything else, it seems to me that various crimes have been committed, and that what we are discussing now, it seems to me, is not one of the least important but one of the Most important of the impeachable offenses. And when it comes time for debate on paragraph 2, I intend to point out some of the criminal violations that are involved. and I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes. The gentleman from California Mr. WIGGINS. I yield 1 minute only to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. MARAZITI. I thank you for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. MARAZITI. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the records of the FBI show that the information that was obtained by these wiretaps -was Put to good use to prevent further leaks. And certainly I concur with what has been said here today, that the President committed no illegal act in instituting these wiretaps. And indeed, he -would have failed in his constitutional responsibility if he did not attempt to prevent further disclosure of national security information. And I for one, Mr. Chairman, would say that the fact that the President did not, in fact, try to stop these leaks in the interest of national security, I would vote to impeach him for his failure to do so. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 3 minutes. Ms. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there is no question about the right of the President to institute warrantless wiretaps, even in the interests of national security. We do not quarrel about that. Date back to 1940, President Roosevelt in a memo to his Attorney General, Attorney General Jackson stating that it is in the interest of national security to prevent subversive activities, to instigate these warrantless wiretaps, but that is not what we are concerned about. We concede the right to issue, instigate, authorize wiretaps in the interest of national security. The question is whether President Nixon -used his authority in conformity -with and comporting with what the law is and what the law -was at the time those, wiretaps -were instituted? The fact was uncontroverted that Mr. Nixon authorized the -wiretaps. The threshold question is whether or not the law and the Constitution were complied with. We have the, 1967 Katz decision which said that wiretaps do come under the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and Seizures. We have a 1969 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Now, what I want to hear the opposition address themselves to is whether the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act, which was signed Into law in 1968 was in fact the law, even in the absence of clarifying regulations or a clarifying decision issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no such thing as a law awaiting some clarification by the court. The 1968 decision was law, and the President did not abide by the law -which was in effect at the time I time these wiretaps in 1969 to 1971 were instituted. I want to hear the opposition address themselves not simply to those wiretaps which relate to perhaps National Security Council employees, what about, those which relate to the newsmen who certainly know a lot, but, know nothing about. state secrets. What, about those instances where wiretaps were instigated on the employees who had left the Government and long since had nothing to do with national security matters? We read the summaries of those, wiretaps and you have heard Us state that there was gossip and personal matters involved in some of the information educed. I want the opposition to address themselves to all of the, taps, not just those, which may under some stretch of the imagination have had something to do with national security. A climate of leaks do not necessarily justify, and in my judgment do not in this instance justify a violation of fourth amendment freedoms. [01.09.40]