U.S. Representative Tom Railsback (R-IL) speaking at House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings against U.S. President Richard Nixon, says many Republicans on the House floor have been impressed by the obstruction of justice and abuse of power charge against President Nixon. Railsback discusses the job of the Committee to impeach the President for refusing to comply with subpoenas when he has produced substantial quantities of evidence. Railsback discusses how Committee’s counsel has argued that first if Nixon should refuse to reply, stopping to say he does not like being stonewalled by Nixon, continues saying the Committee’s Counsel has said not to try to cite Nixon for contempt. Railsback says the Committee has been asked to make negative inferences based on Nixon’s failure to produce evidence, that the Committee has been asked to go one step further and impeach Nixon based upon his failure to comply. Railsback argues the impeachment hearings should be carried out differently. Railsback says the witness (Nixon) should be given the opportunity to appear before the full House or Senate and give reasons why he should not be held in contemp, adding that the Supreme Court has held that this kind of notice is required under the 5th and 14th amendments. Railsback says we are bypassing Constitutional procedure because we do not think we have time to follow it and refuse to go to court when there are many of us who think a President has the right to assert executive privilege. Railsback says there are two separate coequal branches, adds that it should be natural to ask the third branch (Judicial Branch), the traditional arbitrator, to arbitrate this dispute and determine whether the President’s assertion of executive privilege would fail. Railsback says he has no doubt the Court would have ruled in the Committee’s favor, that it probably would have been the only way we could have obtained the evidence to determine truth or falsity of the allegations against Nixon. Railsback discusses what the Committee will be examining under the articles of impeachment, mentions Cambodia, calls the proceedings “political overkill.”
U.S. Representative Robert McClory (R-IL) asks Representative Tom Railsback (R-IL) to yield his argument at House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings against U.S. President Richard Nixon; Rep. Railsback yields. Rep McClory argues that President Nixon has had the right all along to quash subpoenas if he wanted to, adding the Committee has decided they are not subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Railsback mentions Constitutional expert Alexander Bickel, who said the Committee should have gone to court with Nixon over the subpoenas in question. Railsback argues the Committee is now trying to impeach Nixon because of a mistake the Committee made. U.S. Representative John Seiberling (D-OH) cites argument by Nixon legal counsel James D. St. Clair in United States v. Nixon in which the Court should not rule on behalf of the special prosecutor (Congress) because doing so would inject the Supreme Court into the impeachment process; Railsback interjects, argues that Congress is not a special prosecutor. Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Representative Peter Rodino (D-NJ) tells Railsback his time has expired.
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee U.S. Representative Peter Rodino (D-NJ) recognizes Representative John Conyers (D-MI) at House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings against U.S. President Richard Nixon. Rep. Conyers discusses his support of Rep. Robert McClorry’s (R-IL) article of impeachment, citing the historical significance of the President Nixon's refusal to comply with investigations. Conyers presses the importance of the Judiciary Committee not forgetting its role in the Impeachment process, pointing out it is the job of the Committee to draft the Articles of Impeachment against President Nixon.