Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
and whoatein but most to call for the president'simpeachment simply on grounds of policy disagreement or something approaching thateither approach in my judgment would destroy thepropriety of the impeachment proceedings something in the middle of a meeting betweenthese two is required and that is a political judgment butwonder when the policy but that the fundamental character of the constitutioni believe that's the essential thing to look for during these procedure willrankings and i think what the view and they conclude is that this committee hascautiously and so brutally unfair come somewhere clubssomewhere close to that metal that judgment will be made in a fundamentally
political in a narrow legal sense but it will deal with a graveconstitutional question rather than simply a dislike of the president or a disagreementon policy grounds they have to vet one short additional questionright to i'm awed by the end it is his daughter in the way professor vernonalston has described what i would hold back against using the word greatgrave refers to succeed and grave refers tomortality and fight the impeachment cause wouldn't be in the constitution if it weregreat it is someone perhaps boston but it was put in theconstitution to be used when the necessity might arrive without speaking to what thecongress ought to do i want to emphasize this strongly as i can if it isben farren if that is done or if it has done sothis political system is so strong that will be done far short of that
probably in gravity but simply solemnly and said don't let me ask you aquestion how would you now assess president nixon's chances on the houseor very poorthrough charactersmaybe slightly throughthree david and now that they're going for likefourteen power of others who are temperature did not seem to calmpredisposed to see and anguish authentically and not just posture and then as they were pressed bysalman and others on the other side to review the evidence point by point it's simplyvery implausible really rhythmic age can shape the other way adequately on fornow could i think this resolution of impeachment forecast the militarygentlemen thank you very much for that further ado let's go now to our videotape replay of thosefour hours that led to that crucial vote tonight's debate covers just over four hours and
deals entirely with attempts to modify the language charting the president's involvement inthe cover up of the watergate break in in the four star charleston andurges that attends to further reduce the charges we drop you said simply let's geton with it also in this hour tom railsback successfully argues thepresident being accused of taking part not an apollo say to obstruct theinvestigation but rather that it was a plan second hour william cohenoutlines the times that he says the president had information but that information was notpassed on to the investigators' republican charles wiggins maintains that one reasonhe could not pass on information was that he was not informed you said that on septemberfifteenth john dean was up to his elbows in getting money for watergate defendants but he never mentionedthat to the president in our three caldwell butler cited passages from thepresidential transcripts which he claims shows the president approved of
gordon strands perjury also in this hour trent lott maintains there isno hard evidence the president never interfered with the fbi anhour for wayne owens says it has the presidential traits that made it real hard case againstmr nixon also not our jerome all the charges that it was the president's publicstatements that say none of the cover up together until after the election following thosearguments the committee pulled its members on the first article of impeachment now let's putthings up from the beginning as congressman peter rodino gobbles the committee into sessionyou know and thereare challenges to announce that are still under thepolicy adopted when we consider the rule a procedurefor this debate thatcontemplating that they're the general debate rick perry about to exceed ten hours
and that it was understood as agreed policy but thebalance of the time or the consideration ofamendments and the articleswould not consume more than twenty hours chairwishes to point out thathaving commenced with the consideration ofthe articles yesterday for purposes of amendmenttwelve hours of already been consumed that that's not a leveras the committee certainly understands that thecommittee can expand time forconsideration of the water goes for purposes of amendment until weresolve the entire question which i would like
to stay there a lot of some ofthe emotions they strike which are presently before they carechairman intends to recognizeafter a motion to strike has been proper there's an amendmentto article one and in each paragraphthereafter that after on our platethose expire this year is going to have to pay theymotion moving question the questionwill then be in orderi would not wantthere to be any misunderstanding about the timelimited or debate my recollection is mrchairman that in an earlier version of the rule which was about that
there was a twenty hour of imitationorthat in the final version the wording of work aroundthe concept of the five minute rule and theprovision does not limit they call it art and thatwhile i there was a real expression ofall that they could be accomplished in that length of time still atlarge have already been consumed and we haven't yet dispose ofarticle wanted become very obvious mr chairman that that it willbe really necessary to consume more than twenty hours tohandle all these articles and that and then in order toexpand beyond twenty hours mr chairman i i do not think it would take anyformal action committee to expand the time for debate be on the twenty hour
with regards to limiting they've begun amore from the strike the one arm of the german i would indicate that i certainly with interpolis no objection to that was in a right or gagi would like to say andi hope that others will remove the position i did yesterdayand the va the argument was exhausted as far as i'm concernedyesterday on the articles of impeachment along the line that isuggested a vote as a vote has been taken arethere are amendments on the best that have my name on themand i'd like to withdraw those because they see it are aimed atthe same point a law that we discuss the great length yesterdayit is my hope and mr chairman that will be able to
proceed without a cool one i with a degree of discipline thatexisted yesterday and last night no doubt continuing todayand there is no way that the outcome of the vote is going to be changed by debate and itherefore hope that we can with this batch there are really assarbanes substitute and there will be no objectionsfrom a law amendments from a mr willoughby in emotions a strikeright mr allen oh if i might be recognizedfor a short moment all knowing of my friend from new jersey'sconservative bent which i share how i would ask if they would goyou got itabout law purposes the samemotion to strike that city have proper two subsection onei would oh really
well updike it is importance importantly toknow here in these debates that we're having all this weekthis committee only allegations that contain an article on and ifany of our codes than the specifics of the case of the chart i think it'simportant to develop wisconsin i think agrees with me on this we discussed ithere on the committee last evening and i with all the numbers so all i hadto follow that you're not like them at all that it would be my apartment i'llgive you all for a motion to strike the paragraph was take out theinformation that would support a paragraph fromyeahyou'reright
and ithink that the first recognize thoseare affecting already indicatedthatthe gentleman and i would like the suspect thatthat fifty accountant from alabama was asking that hisname be substituted for that a mysterious sandman which appearson the motions to strike that on the court that there isno objection so that the gentlemen will havethat the promotion of political expense the challengesof the timelisten when i want to speak and i want to
congratulate my friend from new jersey forare or what i thought he says it's about timefor doing something that i think is very wisebeen very prudent and very thoughtful on his part and also the best interests ofthis committee and i will once again i think that ithink he has shown his good sense as far as lester by the finest herflowers i hope that if he doesn't move the strike every single numberi don't know we maybe can expedite the debate on each otherbecause frankly i think a lot of us thought that there was a great deal of a petition lastnight i go i think about the only be able to either prevent the casefor or against in a little bit more it's expeditious manneri want to join in a very
distinguished gentleman from new jersey for withdrawinghis emotions to strike in the interests of saving time andthen ask the distinguished gentleman from alabama that if indeed it ishis purpose to rank facts before this committeeas it relates to specifics of presidential wrongdoingand certainly not to strike it but to serve as aneducational function and recognizing that emotion to strike my servicethat column every vehicle i was wondering whether distinguished gentleman fromalabama with its that you know is that our membersreciting specific dates at times that's thepoint that particular article i think the question really isonce you take the general public then perhaps we could recyclethat information but secondly whether any of the members of this committee
agree on his standard of evidence that we will be usingthere is no question that that we do know what evidence we using at this time we madethis different on the quality and quantity that we think is necessary tosupport an article of impeachment of it as the distinguished gentleman from alabamathat if indeed he wants to educate the general public andhave specifics would not he can sense of those specifics being givena device that all members to support the article so that we can moveon and finally get an opportunity to vote on this historic questionthis three minute it on ionly only way in which we can elicit this of my shoes through thisvehicle as it pertains to aparagraph which tend to go back for support the general statement thatreptilian and that that my purpose is to elicit
information and to find out what evidence that is and now i would hope that thestaff and members of the committee won't be able to respondnot play a great amount of time but notgoing through which has sacrificed their midst of ford expeditionif we were to read too andif in fact staff or a member of this committee would give you information and specifics asto what the president did or did not do to support that paragraph would you acceptthat and be prepared to allow the committee to vote as to whether or not this is sufficientevidence to support that i was in new york at theonly american gain the floor is to offer an amendment at thispoint and there is no other parliamentary device from and again the four havingalready used up to five minutes which were allocated and joe debate on this articleand out of that park was audible say that farmer situation would allow that
if you stick to that word very is no question that we haveto deal with emotion just write when i'm certain that that gm would allow lossas mr sarbanes go to get thatspecific information which we have used to support it and then if thatwas done there would be no need for thirty eight members to debate it could be a question asto whether we agreed with itdivision or anarticle to a proposed article to an ad for the article three and i just wantto be sure that i understand what our procedure will be for today understandthat you entertain perfecting amendments which will be discussed and thatthat you propose that with regret with respect to motions to strike articlesfor purposes of bacon forgetting additional information such a gentleman from alabama suggested you will entertain a
motion to close debate and a motion in the previous question at the end ofone hour of time when we get to eat one of the paragraphs that correct orprehistoric art but not to exceed one hour ofdiscussion with regard to information with respectto the proposed center the chairmanof a secondterm that mr salmons a statement we are certainly notbowing downnow anger vowing to be obviously obvious that we don'twe're not visiting our position we think of theopposition and yesterday those who believed deeply aswe did that were not resorting to deliver effective that tactic has been reported
in some places but we definitely thought thatpresident arab states should be able to answer thecharges that were being made against lieberman were not specific there's still general that'sthe way they're going to be here they're going to remain i would liketo at this juncture was a german point out that there have been somemisinformation got across the country that headley then asuccessful made these articles specific that they couldnot have been amended on for the house i know that your nose andi remember this committee knows that we're not going to grant on the game and therules committee a close rule on this matter and open rule andso the two men on the floor so if there are any additionalcharges that was to be your time to places under the articles that
an invention here that was to be included could've been included my amendment on thefloor of the house i just like to make the record straight years one member and i'm surethat there are the fourteen other members of the rules committee on this matter and there are going to be voting for a newrule like to point out thatwhile those yet been established since that will be a matter before the rules committee thechair certainly is going to recommend that there be full and free debate thatthis matter which is of such moments they considered theirsit should be considered that are deliberately and full of it allowstherefore i think that the numbers that recitationof what could be expected in the nordic and i won't recognizefor parliament including those things and the chairman at the appropriate time i willwage to offer of perfecting amendments to paragraph or article one iwish to reserve the right to offer that amendment any i do in choir as do when would be the
appropriate time reflecting the amendments are in order it it kind of girlis now being read there by way of the vehicle of these sites to voteand there is a man about whether any state should it should be a man and beoffered at the time we pick up some paragraph or for consideration nowthe amendment there may be offered at any time if it's not i am glad i'mout for the purposes of recognizingmr alden who has already oppose perfectingamendments and their skinapart however as common as announcer thank you again andi have to imagine city desk mr chairman i would ask unanimous consentthat it permitted to dress myself to vote for them at the same timewe vote on them all at the same time
and then invite mr hoving one page oneof article one on the second paragraph and onpage two paragraph i strike illegal entry whereit occurs in a certain mood thereof unlawful entrythenadminister only on page one paragraph three quoting someparagraph one after the word making insert the followingnew language or causing to be madewe should be aware ofmr recognizes the nice to say
only chairmanreturned last night my wife who had been watching thedeliberations on television reminded me that many of the fireimpeachments were not handled by the judiciary committee and she wondered if the deliberations wouldtake as long if speaker albert ientertained they're sending it to a select committee made up of nonlawyers if it would take us as long to complete she also then saidthat she understands for well why lawyers are barred from serving on grand juriesand having said that i'm going to havebefore the committee to what i guess could fairly becharacterized as little a stick up amendments however i do think they're importantaddressing myself to the first one listed chairman where we use the word illegal entryrather an unlawful i know that in the dc code section
twenty five final twenty two section one in a onearmed burglary is entering within an houraway and while a gay pride parade isvery frequently referred to as a burglary it is not strictly speaking or into thedc co worker it's a breaking and entering for what my amendment doesit tries to track the language of the statute and titled twentytwo section three one or two are relating to unlawful entry onproperty yet also i understand tracked the language in some of theindictments on not conspiracy i do think that awhile it may have seemed to be a minuscule change i think it strengthensour situation by adding more accurate the second one mrchairman would in paragraph one after the war makingin our include work hard thing to be mary
i think the record's substantially supports the editionof this language while the president personallyhad been in fact made false and misleading statements he also abusedothers to make false misleading statements so i would iurge that both of these amendments which i consider perfecting amendmentson the about it or whether i yield to the gentleman from ourlaw mr chairman i i wouldlike to say that i think as my colleague from allen has stated that these arehealthful invaluable perfecting amendments iappreciate the legal scholarship really that has gone into theseamendments i think they are they do help to improve theproposition that is before us and i would hope that the numbers allmembers of the committee would recognize that in and accept and except these amendments to the
substituteas chairman of the previous cart isthe question is on the amendment offered by the gentlemanfrom maryland and i understand you've been offered him backall those in favor of the amendment please say aye aye those opposedand i was a gentlemanfrom california has today is to paymr chairman i have an amendment to the bestof them into a big one offered by mrdanielson on payson two subsectionfor strike the word and in mind threeand strike a semi colon after the words special prosecution
force in line for and at the end of the line for thefollowing and congressional committeesfor as is apparentrelates to the interference by the president or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct ofinvestigation by the department of justice the fbithe office of the watergate special prosecution force i should like toadd to those agencies congressional committeei have in mind specifically the house committee on banking and currency under thechairmanship of the honorable right happen and you will recall thata couple of days ago during early stages of argue page i ordered itsonline from the september fifteen nineteen seventy twoa transcript of that conversation and the president's oval office
in which it was apparent that the president is the case that mr haldemanand mr dean were planningon how they could possibly prevent the house committee on banking andcurrency from conducting investigations into the whereabouts the source thetransmission of certain funds that were found in the possession of the peoplearrested in the watergate on june seventeenth the plan was ratherelaborate the president first offered to do soand self in any suggested that that era like manure from it or some other person contact himunless the aig gerald ford that i'm of the minorityfloor leader of various other members of the house of representatives toprevail upon mr badman to not totally sets from conducting itsinvestigation in all fairness i want to point out thatmr dean's testimony later was that the members of the house
who were being prevailed upon too infirm prevail upon after batman we'renot aware of the fact that they were being used for this purpose the guy'sof the argument was that what with the trial forthcoming ofthe workers say any unlawful entriesthat a congressional hearing into their activitiesmight prejudice or cases might interfere with their civil rights this with thesupport of some nine the law which to reiterate here because you all have heardit in addition they have a plan whereby they were compact mr robertbly who was the attorney for four five other defendants and this trip thatmiller the attorney for mr khan and have them in turn called on this trip batonand virtually not conduct the investigation because it might interfere with their clients civilrights other testimony before this committee is that mr benjamin acknowledgesthat he was so complex and was requested to
get in touch with mr patton but that he declined to do so the records of the housecommittee on banking and currency reflect that there was a letter from the rock rap rock quietare making the same argument are carrying on i have also a minusb senate select committee on campaign practices i might addgoing back at the banking and currency committee was not able to do theseefforts to muster enough votes to pass a resolution to conduct an investigationand the investigation was possible the fear in the minds of thepresident mr haldeman and mr dean well i talked to y'all a lot what ifright back and was able to issue subpoenas in collin the witnesses you might uncover almostanything it was a can of worms and it didn't know what might happen if thatwere given a chance to conduct an investigation he wanted their fear was thedisclosure of the fact that the thirty two hundred dollars in new consecutively number bills fromthe watergate the impact on through a florida bank account could be traced back to
him minnesota bill maher to be laundered in some kind of an operation on mexico for afitting on the senate select committee we do have testimony from some of the tapesprove to have by the white house and at various times in the precedingcouncil has changed two if they did appear tostonewall and to say nothing to say they could not recallthe memo to do anything but not let the plant about besides that mittis a specific example of an effort to obstruct and interfere with the lawful function ofthat committee and thirdly i refer your own committee the house committee on the traditionin connection with the cover a plan which i submit is still going on thepresident has openly a notoriously unknowingly persisted in thefighting this committee and its lawful subpoenas in its failed and refused to turn over thedocuments we requested respectfully submit that we should include
that in some paragraph for congressional committeesmr litan not opposed to most of thecalifornia to the underlying problem of theprosecutors in this case letme review my recollection of yes with respect to whether the president interferedwith a congressional committee first in the context of a pattern hereis very right ladies and gentleman happened herewhat we have is an intention on the part of the chairman is to writethat when to do something which he announced publicly but themembers of this committee including six democrats would not go along with it he wasordered by the members of congress and the media and thatnever got off the ground
i'm i'm not going to a tribute to the twenty members who voted against the chairman ofthe committee at any or upload even though regard them as co conspirators in thiscase building next to the senate select committeethe only interference of the president with the combat of the senate selectcommittee was for a period of time a consideration of the invocation ofexecutive privilege with respect to his aides testifying before the committeewe all know shortly thereafter that policy which was characterizedas a lawyer that is the implication of executive privilegethat policy was abandoned by the president and the policy director was thatall of his aides would go before the senate select committee and testify freely withoutclaiming the privilege of course we know that he is in fact what arethe legal question the legal question on the basis of those factors whether ornot we are going to punish the president in the context of impeachment
for considering the invocation of executive privilege it'sall future presidents are in jeopardy because in both of the executiveprivilege concept is still alive and well in american jurisprudencefinally i mean with respect to interference with this committeei think probably we will debate that more extensively in the context of aseparate article and so i will not address myself to that now but in essence i say tomy friend we are still talking about punishing reclaimit right and with all the evidenceby reason of his assertion either executive privilege or aclaim about relevancy i don't understand that our system of government thatprohibits the punishment the records of a claim on a narrow and ratherconfused and legal issues and so i say to my friend the only remember thatall i just simply indicates the facts are nuts or
even if it is ithink when i i i don't disagreewith my colleague argument i want to make an eminentlyclear i thought it had that the thought of the members not the whole week committeemeeting was certainly not corrupt they were having the background towhich i alluded was not brought to their attention and i make no assertion that noimplication third and corrupt voting on the other portion i agreewhether or not this article in the fruit as a mater prove thatwould have to be resolved in court the proper time trial in the senate ahbut we're bringing here under impeachment all we're doing is bringing an accusation i think there issufficient evidence to warrant that that matter be tried and therefore i heard theadoption white mennovelists
perfecting this the article we should include the words andcongressional committees this is suggested by the gentleman from california mrdanielson but because it's in my opinion onlythe defiance of this committee and by the presidentand refusing to provide information for this committee isa serious situation and one which in my opinionas a guest valid grounds for an article of impeachment ipropose a later time to offer a separateand i like to call attention to the fact that following the president's refusal torespond favorably to our subpoenas we notified the president on maythirtieth that this would be regarded as an impeachable offense if he did notcomply with us now i don't agree withthe interpretation of executive privilege as suggested by the gentleman from california
mr williams i think that the doctrine of executive privilege must yieldwhen the office of the president as being investigated otherwise the president is in theposition where he can't dictate what he wants toand what he does not want them anyway it seems to me that in order for us tocarry out about them full and fair investigation we need all the information which we haverequired which we deem necessary and the opposition has beendefinitely strengthened by the recent opinion of the supreme court which has notfound this is a doctrine of so called doctrine of absolute executive privilegeand in our ocean yesterday or the week beforeour of our proceedings for the purpose of giving the president an opportunity toprovide the additional tapes that we requested it seemed to me that anopportunity again was offered for him to provide the kind of cooperation which it seems to me he should've beenproviding throughout this city and so i think it is probably valid forth to put in this article
the inclusion of awards a congressional committee because in additionto its interference in the misuse perhaps of other agencies of government as defiance ofthis committee that is in my opinion a more serious matter and thatis entirely to be presented to the house of representatives andtogether with this proposed article as well as a leader article which i proposed to fightintruders might recognizechairman i am opposed to the article by the gentlemanfrom california anybody that time hadany knowledge i believe of the possiblemotivations at that particular time of the patent committeei think that would have been who was on the receiving endof a possible investigation to be conducted by right
now and probably would have had good reason to tryto avoid what they believe very easily could have been a political fishingexpedition and i think it is very significant that themembers of his own committee decided not to go along with the chairman andconducting that have an investigation which i think many of them believe was going to be apolitical fishing expedition and respect to executive privilege i agreewith the comments made by the gentleman from california mr wiggins and as foreignersrefusing to comply with our subpoenas it's my own beliefthat that failure should not constitute anindependent or separate either article or item in an article ofimpeachment i think the president probably had a right to assert executiveprivilege even though i'm convinced that if it had been taken to court the court would haveruled against the president i think you know i think mr chairman what we're
doing here is we're adding something that cannot be proven that would certainly week wiegandme an article on thesite will affect the general feeling i just like toassociate myself with with his remarks i think that india now considering alanguage in an article impeachment was always bear in mind that it must rise tothe gravity a penny a crime against the constitutionalsystem and i grew to that this proposed division languagesimply doesn't need that first date question ison the amendment offered by the gentleman from californiaall those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye aye ayoh the chariotthe
iraqi parties that it will cause atan idleon this didn't you knowmr brooks i'm used to customeri mr edwards well as germangay mr connor iwas joe oliver mr wooleyoh yeslifebusinessms jordan
msjones i was goingto play mrmclaurin i was just metmr salmonwas to rails knowmr wiggins mr dennisour division thoughis the main goalwas to main goal wastrue mr butler wellmr cohen no
mr lat well mr fredmillar was the morewestern eyes atleast eleven <unk>you areiknow iwas a german oil twenty four members of votedaye fourteen have voted no
recognize thefact that mr chairman i have to passan amendment at the desk which are like are really madmen includes drills onpage one beginning of nine eleven after the wordintelligence strike all that follows through i'm seventeenand uncertain the law thereof followingsubsequent they're too rigid and newsusing the powers of his high office engagepersonally and through his subordinates and agents in acourse of conduct or plan designed to delayand he announced fraud investigation oh
such unlawful entry to cover up and ceoand protect those responsible and to concealthe existence and scope of other unlawful covertactivitiesthis land which replaces the followingrich subsequent there to richard m nixon nixon using thepowers of his high office made it his policy andin furtherance of such policy do that correctly and personallyand through his clothes subordinates and agents to delay impede and obstruct the investigationof such illegal entry to cover up conceal and protect thoseresponsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covertmr chairman members of the committee i have a great deal of
difficulty believe that richard mnixon at eight particular pointcontrived any kind of a policy or atleast any kind of a policy that so i wouldcontinue to follow through and i think the word policy gives theimpression of an end of an affirmative orchestrated declarativedecision that occurred at a given point in time i thought that some of mrreagan's objections yesterday were very well may i think whatthe record reflex however is a course ofconduct or in the alternative a plan of actionover many months which was responsive to anddevelop as a consequence of a bounce that occurred andthat's the reason for my amendment it seems to me that we're going to be
asked to prove the charge is that we make and it seems to me that we would have a greatdeal of difficulty proving that the president and any kind of apolicy that we could pinpoint as of june twenty third arefor july sixth august twenty nine but rather that many of the things that he didwere in response to certain events that occur that's a reason for me i'm onthe radiohe'll bealigned with yours aligned with which we'vehad before from anagenda thati think that the basicallybetter reflects the attitude of this committee at doing a reasonablejob of drilling this language it's not a pleasant joy to impeach a
president certainly won't do it in the most legal and reasonablemanner i think that this language is a perfectly adequate to explain thefactual a situation of that and i think that it eliminatessome of the bodies in the mind of some republicans about policyi think that porter and a plant is quite adequate indicatethat situation i would commend with the family boarded agenius individually working on those some of this language and mrrailsback the end implementing it putting it together and i would open to weakenadopted without a tremendous deal a deal to myfriends demand is appealingexpressing frustration with the world bydeveloping this more definitive linewe although we want to get as much specificity as possible for the
general allegations of this article i think this contributes tothat and it removes a fuzzy area the callousness and difficulty of theentire operationlast evening arguing that thepresident had and i reallybelieve the evidence sustains it but i will support the amendment because i believe it willmake the proof in the senate much easier and that much or ananchorman two gentlemen from illinois that will likely beneededmr chairman and a lawyer with the saltwater recognize them in animprovement when it comes along i know the concern the mr railsback is head of thislanguage and i know how you work on this problem i think that
the language that is proposed here this afternoon is avery constructive suggestion i commend him for that for the scale of theshowman and the language i would hope that the community wouldpropose in myname i wanted a quite quickly that i appreciate isover lavish praise for its a very small foreign languageand i think that it is due to the thrills but forfinalizing the us and i just wanna say that anytime we can makingimprovement language to focus on substance rather than automatic i think it's a realstep in the right direction the family gentleman hasexpired but the gemini likeaddress a question to the author gentlemen is likelyto my distinguished colleague from illinois what
is your view of the difference betweenplanning you propose and policy is contained in the farmlands of thevalue let mesay that i have some difficulty that myself with the wordplan and at one time it was suggested that the languagerecourse of conduct and planting and nowi'm not sure that i can answer that there is that much differencebetween the word plan and policy except there seems to be afeeling on the part of the counselor dealt with and wrapping that policies seems togive an impression of an impression of a of anaffirmative orchestrated and declarative decisionotto you're the reason why i took out the word n is because i personallyfavored the word course of conduct which i think more aptly that's the situation
field further as the gentlemanthink that his change yet says furtheraway from the conspiracy theory or nurture well i'm not gonnai really would prefer not to express my legal opinion onthen i think the job i'd be really interested in your legal opinion onwell i'll say to the gentlemen are what the amendment does expressmy belief that there were certain eventswhich occurred which for one reason oranother the president had not seen that either see fit torespond to or in some advance responded to in what i believe to bean improper way i don't think that they were necessarily orchestrated ifthere ever was a time well now if there ever was a time
when the president perhaps came close to a policy it would havebeen that time in my opinion after march twenty first gentleman one morethat i thank you for your answer isuggest you in august that mr sarbanes yesterday and honor his version you haveit first established the us say before you could use against thepresident the actions of subordinates you think that that would beequally true or not under your average won't let me make myself veryclear on that i don't buy him feuding criminal responsibility to thepresident for acts of his subordinates know when i make it very clear idon't believe in inferring anything either i think that's why some ofus on this i believe very strongly that there should be a bill ofparticulars are mr flowers know that you aretaking by your amendment you are taking out the possibility of
attributing to the president reacted third persons with mr sarbanes wasdefinitely under is there attempting to do well my my recollection of mrsarbanes response when i inquired yesterday of him was that he does not believe in themedicine very early on you know east or wasattempting to date it has very of the passe now are you saying we'retaking it out altogether oregon and you know what i like to say what notrely on my runs i guess is get awayfrom the language of policy and i think i answered your question asfar as my own beliefs about including from a responsible adult i can answer many more clearly idon't worry and if you're any kind of amputation of criminal responsibility i thinkthat the president should be charged with acts or knowledge i think there has to besome kind of presidential knowledge or involvement i think there
is i think the gentleman for his answers and thereserved for me a gentleman from themnative recognize perhaps i can add two thousand real factsresponse seven discuss this not with this online i believe the wordplan was used in his substitute because this is theexact language that the president used referring to the transcripts of march twentysecond nineteen seventy three when i was especially mr mitchell and the presidentrecall words that up to now our planet than one of containmentand then there was additional reference to the fact that we're putting a new plan now and thatnew plan was going on to the use and implementation of executive privilege to be asurrogate for some of the occasional before the senate select committee nowthat the reason i think that you incorporate work are youdoing
thank you mr chairmani have several questions without the directing tomy colleagues drove back about his amendmenti have before me and it seems to say the only thing theparent medical expressions richard nixonengaging personalities became a portaldesign curricula in connection withan obstruction of justice trial i want tounderstand is the word designi mean that reallymean that the president intentionally and corruptreally acted for the purpose of delaying impeding and so forth isaccurate then
i think the top thatdesign can relate to either the course of conduct or theword plan and i think that it clearly means that the action that hetook he took knowing way and to carryon and knowing the purpose of that is to obstructdelay entered in the middle of the day if you answeredyes then that evidence which maybe beforewhich does not suggest that the motivating purpose of presidential actions was toobstruct delay and guarantee so forth would not be covered by thelanguage of years well let me makemyself clear on that if you are if you're suggestingthat the litany or the recycle of events that was made by mr walleyi yesterday which referred to many ex about which we have no knowledge of
direct presidential direction or involvement the answer again is yes idon't know i don't think there is a frankly a properplace to be considering things other than relate to the president we're talking about theimpeachment of the president united states we're not talking about their criminal indictmentsreturn unless they happen to relate to his knowledge or his directinvolvement i think it'll be a decision by herdirector to correctly that you and then by this language to put two managersin the senate the burden of proving the president recentlyacted to corrupt the new administration of justice iintensely engaging in a plan or design of a course of conduct or aplan which was intentionally designed to obstruct justiceis that a fair statement what i am can buy the amendmentis to suggest that richard m nixon if they can be shown in the summer
and now if he can be held account in the senate that term he used hispowers of high office engage personally and through his subordinates and agents in acourse of conduct a plan designed to delay impede an instructorobstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry to cover up conceal and protect thoseresponsible and to conceal existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities otherwords the words speak for themselveswell i'm running out of time i want to hear a question howeverof the comeback of evasion in order to have this to be thepresident that you would require i am sure that it least to have knowledge of theactivity or that he instructed them with the requisiteintent to obstruct justice when theyanswer i would answer the gentleman by saying it's thelanguage still speaks for itself but it is a lively that to
hold richard nixon to account and to remove him from office it mustbe proven that he has committed a serious offense seriousenough for which he should be removed from office our po directedsomething or three participated in something or if he was involved in something that wasclearly elicit if people sleep misled the american peoplepretty obstructed justice or impeded justice or interfered with the new administrationof justice or if he abused the power of such of the sensitive agencies is theirs will that i think he meant i think that's what i'm going to be held to account forit and us a little timelive in pursuit of thepolicies that no member could preserve any time of the gentleman is taking moretime again request unanimous consent it has already beenrecognized while i am and i appreciate the chair if i could have it i would like
this the jerome kern mr sarbanes a question withoutobjection the play german like there's a gentlemanlet's do you subscribe to mr railsback saysexplanation of the meaning of his amendment as doresponsibility the president for a third person's actions or do you stillfeel that is the man that will support your own theory on that subject isannounced value yesterday well as i understood the last response which thegentleman from illinois mr railsback gave i thought that was a ata proper operation of his amendment as i understand alot of what we've been discussing is this whole concept of that of themadison superintendents the theory and i think this is very clear with respect for theopposition and the opposition is not contained in this article was that
potential promise i understand your answer then you feel that mrrailsback is virgin com works very well if you're on its advancebefore the event was it like i must confess to the gentleman fromindiana that i did not pay very closeattention to the fall colloquy between mr railsback mr wiggins that ishould have in order to respond definitively that the question that is justso many and i apologize for that but i it is my impression of thelast response with driver mr railsback heroall seen them at hp threeoperationif you are together withparties together with you why a sense i
This record is featured in ““Gavel-to-Gavel”: The Watergate Scandal and Public Television.”
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Reel 1 of 4
Producing Organization
National Public Affairs Center for Television
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/512-9882j68x5w).
Live and videotaped debate of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Peter Rodino, Jr., on the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. This is day 4 of the Nixon impeachment hearings.
Asset type
Event Coverage
Politics and Government
Nixon, Richard M.; Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: National Public Affairs Center for Television
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
Reporter: Lehrer, James
Reporter: Duke, Paul
Speaker: Rodino, Peter W.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2403168-1-6 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-27; Reel 1 of 4,” 1974-07-27, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed May 19, 2019,
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-27; Reel 1 of 4.” 1974-07-27. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. May 19, 2019. <>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-27; Reel 1 of 4. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from