Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Holtzman. Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A question has been raised tonight, what are the rights of the President? And I think we have to confront what his duties are. And he takes an oath, a solemn oath, to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States to the best of his ability. The Preamble of this Constitution says, "We, the people of the United States... to secure the blessings of liberty," and that is our precious heritage. And what has this President done as this committee has examined? We have seen the President has engaged in a course of conduct in which the ends justify the means. And in which the "blessings of liberty" have been trampled to our disgrace.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). Let us look first at this Huston plan which the President, our President, your President and my President, approved. This Huston plan which I read in anger twice or three times says that dissent is tantamount to treason. And because it is tantamount to treason, the President has the right to bring to bear against any dissenter the force of the CIA, the force of the FBI, illegally. That a person is subject to having his mail opened or his house broken into or his phone tapped because he dissents. And it s not at all clear from the evidence before this committee that the Huston plan was not carried out. And let us look at the leaks that everybody has talked about. Did they justify the ends we have seen? Does anybody argue that the wiretap of Joseph Kraft by a private operative on behalf of the White House is Constitutional or legal. And that the President can put his imprimatur on that? Does anybody argue that that is within the bounds of the Constitution? I can't believe it.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). And what about the Ellsberg case? Perhaps the President didn't authorize the burglary in the first place but according to Ehrlichman he ratified it afterwards. And if it were such a horrendous crime in the President's eyes, then why didn't he expose the people who were responsible to the criminal authorities? No, he covered it up. And he said that Ehrlichman, who has since been convicted for that break in, or being involved in that, was one of the two finest public servants he had ever known.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). And what about the Internal Revenue Service? The 575 names of political opponents of this administration turned over? The President clearly approved that in a conversation of September 15th, and we have his words. He didn't expose these people. He didn't throw Haldeman out of his office. He didn't throw Dean out of his office. At a later date he said, "Do you need any more help with IRS?" And Mr. Thrower the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, submitted an affidavit to this committee in which he said it was a White House intention to try to create a personal police force out of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms part of the Internal Revenue Service.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Elizabeth Holtzman (D - New York).
Elizabeth Holtzman (D New York). What we have seen here is an attempt by administration with the imprimatur of this President to bring retribution against those who seek to oppose the administration. And how many of have not quarreled with Presidents in the past, Democrats or Republicans, over agricultural policy or environmental policy or foreign policy or whatever. Does that give any President the license to burglarize our home, to wiretap our phones, to open our mail? I submit that if it does, we have gone down the long road to tyranny and that the blessings of liberty that we formed this Constitution 200 years ago to preserve will vanish very quickly. And I would like to remind my colleagues that under the Constitution of the United States we in the House of Representatives through the power of impeachment have been given the duty to preserve this Constitution and to preserve the blessings of liberty. And for that reason I feel that we are compelled to approve this article of impeachment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentlelady of New York has expired.