Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
ohyes apiecebutton orareyousunniand
you know the gavel coverage of the house judiciary committeeimpeachment to date july twenty six nineteen seventy fouryears and black correspondent jim lehrer reading for all dueto myself by the time this evening as out an article of impeachment maybeadopted by the house judiciary committee which charges the president of the united states withobstruction of justice in the watergate cover up that has the clear prospect of wastebut that path for a final vote is still struggle potential snags and roadblocksbefore adjourning for dinner ninety minutes ago however the debate was almost completeon the article which was introduced by democrat paul sarbanes of mouth based on thegive and take with in the committee it appears to have the support of the majority of the committee asmany as twenty five or twenty six of the thirty members much of the committee'stime today was taken up by a debate over whether or not the sarbanes article the specificenough and the lines of combat were clean and easily recognizable
and the debate today joe miles a different kind of debate from theopening round that we've had the past two days in that we have the congressman speakingeloquently about their concerns and their convictions about watergate and all of thevarious allegations involving the president that they use for the most part with aformal prepared addresses today they got down to the tough job ofactually drafting articles of impeachment and so all of the passions and partisanship whichhave built up low these many months began to come out in a very natural waythere were sharp exchanges and along with that a good bit of verbal punchingwhat became clear i think were two things that presidents defenderswill fight every inch of the way in every way to slow down and be ready allthe impeachment trial and second it may be more difficult than for ascene like wait for the supporters of impeachment to agree on the language of impeachmentin any event we may be in for a long evening before it finally becomes
clear just how the first article the article which embraces the chargesunder obstruction of justice against the president before that article iseventually voted on and perhaps finally approved the maneuvering still was goingon at the capitol and as you can see our reporter couple of illinois isstanding by her lawyers are vigilant and carolyn can you tell us what's been happeningthere is an effort right now behind again those same closed doors to tryto save some of the route ruffled feathers that we've seen in operation of the afternoonand then enable the iron out some of the small differences i think there's been a lot of posturing in theearlier assertions today a lot of effort to a grandstand to reach the general publicthat now at about seven o'clock singing remember some of the members decided thatwould get together behind closed doors to see if they can iron out these difficulties to shake up somethinglike an article of impeachment that can get general consensus in general agreementwhat specter's leaving maybe rather surprising if they can settle this behind closed
doors when they find very quickly that they got to get to the article itself and vote on the amendmentsas i understand it the amendments or changes in the amendments have not been veryserious and they may have been generally agreed to in the background so we might besurprised by this committee that seems to be just lumbering along or creeping along theyeventually get to a vote this evening and they get to it quite quickly now that they've gotten rid of alltheir their furs and bothered that we've had in the past jill carrollarnold let me ask you one more question because you have you recovered the capital for along time and you obviously know that congressional committees can getbogged down on the most inane details of time reducing fairlyoptimistic we may indeed have the vote tonighti talked with the leader again as chief a francis o'brien just after the sessionended and he seemed i think that there could be a vote tonight the way he laid out the scenario he saidthey expect that death charles wiggins will make a motion to strike very early in the evening that is just to
get rid of the entire article and i'll be a voter table that are laid aside and that willsucceed and then they'll be open to amendments and he said that they really haven't ironed out behind the scenesdetails on the amendment so we can only go by the expertsread you know say there's been pretty are pretty ride on just about all the information has given usand done if he's right that means we might have a very dramatic vote tonight on the firstarticle once again about warn you that when you're dealing with a congressional committee there's always theunexpected thing that can happen between now and what we're predicting thank youcarolyn and will be coming back to you were to find out what the latest information may be fromtime to time there is one thing a certainty that we can set itnamely that there are now clearly enough votes to approve aresolution of impeachment probably by a margin of more than two to onethere has been a good bit of jockeying but during the past few days we haveseen how certain votes have shifted from the undecided or the uncommitted column
into the committed column or at least into the column word becomes fairly clearwhat it is likely the members will do we have a tote board which manynew undoubtedly have seen before and have been following and our officialcounter juno is standing up the board now and jim what is your latestcalculations well i think first of all paul rather than the deal that general area ofimpeachment generally on this one article it now spending and that they will debate furthertonight and finally possibly probably vote on tonight thisis where i haven't raced at this point first of all the raw numbersthose that are now kinetic to vote out of a commitment eithercoming in their prior statements were coming out and what they said during the give andtake they're in the day today yet twenty three and the icon and let'srun through them quickly kastenmeier of wisconsin edwards of california the
chairman peter rodino of mass of the new jersey anderson of californiarangel of new york books of texas i knew of massachusetts i really novelwhile jordan attacked says altman of new york that's penske allowowners of utah well sarbanes the sponsor of the substitute uparticle it is now the subject of the debate and eventually of the voteis of maryland is from maryland of course john conyers of michigan fan ofmassachusetts and it was larry wallie of california ahlberg a pennsylvaniabutler virginia republican foreign workers all open arepublican of maryland man of south carolina democrat williamcohen a republican from nine the two additions that two additionstoday the televisions today where man of south carolina veryclearly said today that he would support this article the sarbanes substituteyour article and cullen of maine republican who also said the science
away a twenty three sure about now on the names of those who havesaid they are definitely not support impeachment generally or thespecific article of proposed by sarbanes hutchinson the ranking minority leaderof michigan and charles williams of california seminal new jerseymorehead of california lot of mississippi myers at of newjersey lot of ohio and reese smith of new yorkwiley name apollo editiontoday is as robert mclaury of illinois that i'm a coreyas you as you probably know heard has said he would support articles ofimpeachment possibly contempt of congress possibly it and abuse of power but hesaid he said before he made it very clear today that he did not believe a president was guilty ofobstruction of justice and he would never support this particular article are probably any otherarticle in charge him with obstruction of justice so we have is eleven for
boats all republicans why over here by himself isa health threat like a wisconsin he is also a republican but thefrantic as you recall said in the general debate that he could support articles ofimpeachment if they were properly drawn were drawn in a way that he could accept them what he said clearlythat anger in the debate was it that that he couldn't support in thewording we can support the rottenness above the sarbanes amendment that couldbe that sarbanes substitute the article that could be a grind down orwording might be worked out in such a way that will eventually support this particular article butwe lead him over by himself a definite maybe eyes and the threerather crucial people at this particular stage of the game for a cable that thatmost of the most of the leaders of the pro impeachment group would concede theymust have an order to make this particular articlesinging when it goes to the house floor would be held in fish a republican from new york
tom railsback republican from illinois andwalter flowers a democrat an alabama these three gentlemen havenot declared themselves on this particular article five so to repeat veryquickly that the measure votes twenty three i's a leavening isone now maybe their way and three maybe he'sleaning towards pro impeachment article number one arelaws about how that would do you would you agree with my job on thewhole i would say jim i just have a few questions about mr butler i think also raise somequestions this afternoon about the articles of impeachment without some specificlines drawn underneath and i just wonder whether he spends persuaded that that he can goahead with it without more specificity which was a word we've been hearing so much i also feelin my bones and i can't get anything more than that victim <unk> flowers will not in a crunch make an
issue of this because they feel so strongly about it morality and the white housebut i don't think he would be in the undecided column if it has to go along with eightyan article of impeachment without specific charges underneath i think he would vote for thatarticle of impeachment and butler i don't know he's a stickler for protocol and that hemay decide he might pass that one inmate he's in the wrong calling itthat's just just judging by what he said later settled cowan and allit's like steak at the next step down here with your things that we were due to takeyour prospect of all of the flowers and move them over herepossibly move onto a slide with breakup there were really been talking about isa point twenty three to twenty threewe were about forty five to thirteen alsoi think a point that we shouldn't conclude from this is that
regardless of the combination regardless of the members who may be voting onthis article at their sat there will be a majority orno matter how many republicans are how many southerners there's one other interestingthing which i think you point out gm here and that is that there are seven southernerson the judiciary committee and all but one all but won nowindicate they are ready to vote for some form of an impeachment resolution andthat the one exception course is trent lott of mississippi republican i think thatthey are james mann decision today that will votefor impeachment man from south carolina will have its effectand educators say the only two remaining babies then if we putflowers over here a possible probable and moving out of fish and the organ rolled backof illinois and additionally when we first started out our own our first night asi recall i think we had about twelve members who were in the undecided or
uncommitted column and now almost all of those almost all of thosehave fallen into the column for impeachment or at least indicatedthat the idea that they can vote for one or more articles of impeachment one thingmore why we're here at this board i think it's of note we should note that in terms of the vote but interms of the debate that we heard today and we're likely to hear more of the seine there's thebizarre the gentleman who are leading the fight too make thearticles more specific in other words the republicans who are already committedagainst impeachment and coarse and et cetera who have indicated that their wooden boather article no matter what it says and that they're the gentleman were asking the questions andmore who were kind of all for the president particularly charles williamsof california salmon new jersey and latin a loti look like a jumper that that very fine rundown
what all others does indicate of course is that eitherdie is cast inside the judiciary committee it is certain that some form ofresolution will be sent to the house floor just when the committee will wind up itsworkforce is not certain that could come tomorrow or if the committee cannotcomplete its deliberations and it's floating by then of course it could go on into asunday session chairman latino is indicative that possibility or it couldor postpone its final action until next week after that we expect theimpeachment resolution in whatever form it may finally emerged from thecommittee we expect that resolution to go to the house floor approximatelyon the house floor there could be a debate that would go on fora week or for possibly two weeksi believe carol and noses carolyn rose is standing by
at the hill the lineup told that it is mskriz brawner has been action today at the federal court as afollow up to the supreme court decision or directing the president to turn over a sixtyfour tapes to the watergate prosecutor leon jaworski white house of coursehas said that it will comply with that order but there has been a dispute aboutwhen it would comply our white house man chris paul has some details onthat course ms poehler yeah and the white house has agreed to turn over some ofthe subpoenaed takes on tuesday and his insurer district court judge johnsonrecord of the last of the tanks will be processed as speedily as possiblein action plan today after hearing in charge some records court a hearingrequested by watergate special prosecutor leon jaworski and an attempt to provoke acourt ruling on the time table for surrendering sixty four tapes and relatedmaterial was subpoenaed for the watergate cover up trial which is scheduled to begin in
september my rather than issue or rolling them charts a record shows thewalkout jaworski and presidential council james st clair and his jury willsee if they couldn't reach an agreement and they get an hour and a half later stclair will make twenty tapes available to the court by next tuesday and his promise toreport to judge the river by next friday on the status of the remaining forty fourtapes if those tapes and not to be readily available soon after fridaythen judge the river will impose a specific time schedulekris was there any mention at all in the hearing this morningabout the possibility of these tapes eventually ending up in the hands of absoluteyour committee the house of representatives the united states senate the impeachment process nothere was there was no discussion about an open hearing now one percent behindclosed doors of the jury room for something else and i don't know theonly reference to the invasion why from josh ritter
wanted to know how mr sinclair could conduct an adequate defenseof the lessons in many of the plays that issue andnow the there was a statement from dura worn at the dailybriefing and sample money in which he said the president had no intentions of turning the stageover that after this year a committee and said that that he felt that the committee shouldcontinue its work this of course is important that but in terms of reference to the committeebecause this was a subject of a long debate and eventually evolve just wanting not wear well robertflorida republican of the eleanor suggested attended a leg if they could getassurances from the president by noon tomorrow that he wouldn't factor into the tape silveri guess there's a matter now that has gone by that boards and there's no indication of thatjust doesn't make any sense at all of the talk about turning toobserve the judiciary committee one hand sinclair is telling the court is going totake some time to segregated states in the degrees to get the court and how
can they possibly done on the judiciary committee in a short period of time orstates many of which presumably the president has a good instinctemphasize president must listen for those tapes before the transit apart fromthat crusade during a guarantee that today's debatesour members made a point of saying that they felt the time was past when thepresident should be given any more time to turn over these these tapes that of course wasthat it was the subject of the amendment that was offered today togive the president another ten days if he would in an indication that he would provide the tapesfor the general feeling in the committee was no wewe subpoenaed material from the white house and the president has made it absolutely clear that heis not going to provide us with any additional material so why should wewait upon the president now to see whether he would give us any more maturity or
was it sinclair himself brought up in his recent press conference incalifornia and that was the implication that some of the conversations thatyou quote one that might not be the casemay have just run out of alabama opens mechanical problems and i have afeeling that we are you may run into that kind of cordon and run into that sort ofproblem and not getting everything tools that thinks it's kind of that i think also weshould note has to there were talking about take stage for the committee take before thecancer rate i think we need to point out that the sixty four tapes that were subpoenaedby george keyworth for years trial the watergate cover up of the watergatecover up trial which is slated to begin september the night now sixtythree though sixty four tapes are also under subpoena by the house judiciarycommittee however when you point out that after this was pointed out in the debate this morning without avisionary committee has subpoenaed another seventy some place they
have subpoenaed is ending and their refusal to receive backfour hundred and forty seven or so were fake so on the committee keep in mind that therethat the committee obviously an impeachment proceeding is investigating things other thanwatergate so that's the reason for the discrepancy a solo business gets veryvery wrong this might be a propitious time to bringout the revelation that still another tape has come out todaydisclosing that the president had threatened to fire george shultz as treasury secretaryif he tried to prevent the internal revenueservice from looking into the activities of some of his political enemiesand according to this story the president is quoted as saying that after theelection certain uncooperative officials would be led out of the administration inhistory goes on to say oh goddamn bunch go out and if heshows doesn't do it he is out as secretary of the treasury is the
way it's going to be or do there was a fascinating thing about that that story ofcourse comes from the cops a newspaper chain no i'm the washington bureauand investment anybody been able to determine the day that particular portion of that tape is notyet fallen into the hands of the house judiciary committee in fact this morning a congressmanrails back of the eleanor i mentioned very early the world's latest morningwhen i started literally in the debate that he mentioned that september fifteenth update andsaid you know he as the question almost won him we got to get the ones there'sone particular this one particular segment now but keepthe ninth grade and things are very complicated and this whole matter the issue of theirs and the alleged one of the proposed articles of impeachmentand legend of the presidents abused power byexerting power of the irs are attempting to subvert at the workings of the
irs is not involved in article one which is going to be the subject ofdebate when we take up the hefty ally for seeing here in a fewmoments there's this article one is restricted only to the obstruction ofjustice count which involve watergate and watergate along the articlenumber two is the one that alleges abuse of power and the irs matterkeep going straightjim let's move on now to our distinguished resident expertstonight william battles done constitutional lawyer andteacher at duke university and martin diamond political scienceprofessor from northern illinois university they've been sitting in with us todayand helping us draw conclusions and witness the proceedings of thejudiciary committee and the problem is there was whatconclusions did you have about this morning's session
well us of the ways that that's why we're so hesitant but has the speculation think this isone of the other of us might've been more forthcoming ball in terms of what we're going to say what wemay be seeing tonight while there is always a tendencyin looking at congress to be annoyed at itsapparent backing and filling hesitations extols of delaysit's very likely that once again they'll be later not actually start at eight o'clock but we'vealready made the point during the day that that's when they're working that's when they're doing they're going towork well the crucial work going on all day today is to move from anew record they're mature quite convinced proponents ofengagement to a broader majority and the only kind of majoritythat can possibly win in the house and in the senate and in the minds and hearts of the americanpeople and that's not just a question of bickering wheeling and dealing
a compromising in any low bargaining stance that's a question of ameeting of the minds of a gradual accommodation of legitimate concernand i went with considerable excitement because it's a terribly excitingprocess of considerable excitement to see if it's only some superficialchanges that have taken place during the dinner hour or whether some very substantial developments thathave occurred in politics the unexpected must be anticipatedi was not like when i think that i think that thecoalition will hold together and the majority has led from strength that is put forward in itsthat article which on the strength of the debate we're going to do in the last two days seemto share the broadest support instruction of justice count is anarticle maurer richard terrify the white house with my kids at mclean's american civil libertiesunion because it seems on its face to meet most of the record that
there had asked for of all kinds and down chilevideo debatable technicality of the character of the grave offense shouldn't lose closelyresemble would not be identical with a prosthetic or a crime i most struckby a similarity of language that the growth in paris for the obstructing andimpeded the administration of justice in certain fan thereafter that her respectsa nearly identical language employed by the criminal code of the united states on thesame couch and it is terrifying i think not for dramatic effect and somewhatadvisable in in memory of the fact we're in lake and one of them the first ladyremove about this process and then does become infected supposed to the ordinary criminalprocess or maybe even invited on roughly identical language when you speak of theus pacific detail which maybe in the article would like a lot more closely atthat and so does the opinions of you to join because thisobviously is the major agenda item now before they committed as a three
page document that covers the charge is going out of the generalcharge of obstruction of justice as has been indicated it wasretracted and that compromise that is being managed the democratic side bycongressman paul sarbanes of maryland this article charges thepresident following the watergate break in native as policy to quotedelay and pleaded and obstruct the investigation of the break indrab then sites non lawyers nine ways the presidentallegedly implemented that policy let me take off some of these and we'll have amore specific discussion first by making false and misleading statements toinvestigative officers second by withholding relevant evidence andthird by counseling witnesses to give false or misleadingstatements and let me just ask you gentleman some questions about these first rate do you
have any any general or specific conclusion well i think thereport their consequence of the division of the committee earlier therepublicans more specifically called illustrationsalthough there's a live the president made false misleading statements that there'snot been going to say about the statements were the who they were allegedly made are indeed the specificoccasions when this episode as kurt was theirpoint is that this article maybe two in the past muster in an ordinary courtwhen there's an indictment or it's a rump agreement in some kind of civil proceeding butat that point where the difference of less efficient as long we've invitedthe house voted in the democrats make or it could beeffective they have thirty eight volumes of evidence wouldsupport all the charges as detailed in the article itself and these of course areavailable to every house member who will be voting on impeachment well i think that's a wig responses that
occur to understanding what they've done because it does not adequately or noticethe senator voted with the pentagon's by referring to thirty eightvolumes of material was then recently come through them they're so like what it is theprosecution they rely upon which event which occasions and so i think this is a false issuewhen they are given us the sarbanes was that the impeachment articles so ron theaudience at that specific beyond that theysaid that what they would do a i mean when they propose the articles of impeachment when i go to the housefloor and will be accompanied by the report of the committee which will not be the thirtiethvolumes actually the detail the kind of detail information thatsupports the heart of that accord that sarbanes that was sarbanes answer that was also peter rodino of thatrecord there were several other members you're talking about the thirty eight by a sponsor and the chairmenwere saying there will be a written report is that as is required why the
house committee was about thedifficulty of the lead lines in the nature of the accusations against the presidentthat you remark by representative hoping that there's amosaic and many times you can put into the chargethat there's a mosaic this pile and that pile and that pile siri itemthe problem is if we acknowledge our eyes this proceeding to lawthan those who want to restrict unspecified the charges were lucky ifwe make it to a broad that it will be too vague and too loose and perhaps insufficientlyjust to the accused in this case the president and the difficulty that the committee is wrestling withis how to stay sufficiently flexible insane and say a prudentplan would conclude that there was an obstruction of justice when you take thewhole pattern of events and yet like that specific enough to have not only the appearancebut the substance of equity and i haven't the faintest idea how they'll solve that problem i leave
that to the rest of you know wait for the event that let'smove on now to your other charges which are mentioned in thein the article as drafted and is offered by democraticcongressman sarbanes forth the president is charged with interfering or endeavoringto interfere with investigations by the justice department the fbi and thespecial watergate prosecutor fifth approving and condoningthe surreptitious payment of money for obtaining silence or influencingwitnesses you have any opinions about these two charges as mentionedin the article that we make one suggestion in the genital book of the law andthat is condoning and acquiescent do not have a time and a placeand that's part of the difficulty isthat the president condoned the use james madison's language neglected tosuperintendent conduct of his subordinates were permitted them to perpetrate with
impunity when you commit and when you fail to superintendent you arecondoning or acquiescing and there is at the moment in which the condemnationwe're on or about july third nineteen seventy two hedid come down a certain irony that failed toosuperintendent read a lot of other what happens is you say well that might've been an oversightand in june he could've you preps neglected and by early july well he might haveforgotten but as the time goes by it's a pattern of acquiescence at thepattern of sustained permissiveness and that's what we democrats someof the republican accuses us setting and it's difficult for them to meet thepast the legal specificity and the proceedings are fumbling and fumbling with hislegitimate difficulty i think martin for beingwith us they're as the majority of the committee
were attempted literally true attempt to leave the island readingfrom a replacementrefs such a super abundance of materialone of a virtually confused by fewer welders but there are other problemswith each member of the committee at least must be certain to his own conscience that hehas a lot at least the general specifics that support these articles onespeaks of interfering or endeavor and at a fear or conduct investigations and it is a fairquestion for its first test himself well how did it feel where inthat way with home or if not maybe the different fragments of eventsare differential attractiveness to different members of the committee and we do get into a certainlogic to impress here and if you get a majority voting for the proposition though no majorityagrees on how you translate any particular set of events lie and say they didn't tomove that one step further use a specific example let's say that that that number four
said that the president interfered with the investigation of the department of justiceon june twenty nineteen seventy two by tellingwhy there might be say only one third of the committeewho feel that that particular that constituted interfering with thedepartment of justice however there might be another third who felt that the conversation on junetwenty thirteen the train will be up and boom there some of those are not sothat's the reason for the democratic side or the pro impeachment side that they want to keepthis ron rather broad language and while on the republican side the antiimpeachment side they want those specific because i think if that's specifictime place and i think they made a stand a chance at least of that is in themajority but there's no question that the proposal that we the strategy very well buti think for the reassurance of those who want to integrate it is largely political
differences is really not a legal difference for employment historythe house when if it wishes simply impeach the president with no specific rounds at all and onlythereafter nine percent of the man of the house managers are greater particulars nation so thatwhat everyone's feeling about the propriety of a precedent for proceeding on for ageneral terms of the last out paul before you go on to thenext the articles of the next the specifications and that within the articles let me pointout to out to the viewers that the house judiciarycommittee live debate this evening wisconsin that began at thirty pm easterntime we are waiting that that conclusionand that opening hour we've now been informed that it may be athirty as you can see for yourself the committee room as virtually they can do isthey can i remember so as soon aswe get closer to use as a memory short line in a forceful comeback of the hearing back
to back to the last fall i think you're optimisticwe've had the last three three days but that's that's to move onor what we're doing or going down those specific allegations that arecontained in a compromised article charging the president with obstruction of justiceand we reviewed five of the specific allegations and nowwe're at six this charge is the president with endeavor and damage to the centralintelligence agency number seven that information wasdisseminated from officers at the justice department to aid subjects who were beinginvestigated for criminal liability well here wego back to one of the old old issues i think and that is was thepresident was the president responsible for some of the actions of his aides and did hetried to protect his aides and in so doing does this constitutean impeachable offense though well this festival are professional but again i think that in this
article majority even relatively circumspect and concerned there's nothing like that in thearticle aren't the signs for the theory of strict liability there is thisit thank youno matter what the lack of personal forme that no matter what you did not know and that he should not have known and indeed as soon ashe found out he took immediate reports there's no suggestions for liability herethe outside i think the preventive aren't quite right thisapplies one version of applause best for preventive medicine where thepresident can dial learns something and should affirmatively thenhave taken some action to set it right at the investigation so far theemployee and fails to do so therefore can build in that sensethen he does at that point our lady's booty faithfully execute the law and hemay be accountable exactly on the fear that is not a very radical theory of the
scope of impeachment well that's right no good discussion of theinternet in that particular case well whether it whether it whether it would laugh over to a violationof the specific curriculum section fifteen or three of the obstruction of justicemichael incidentally do so but that wouldthat would require a more rigorous standard of proof before a federal jury couldsatisfy certain technical criminal elements it is not my view that they can win evenhimself gone by the action and whether or not congress have proven in abig event a simple terms again a private citizenuganda premises of your predecessors in uganda made you say theyour friends really bubbly aaron's an issue of committedperjury ri and it'll pick up the falland call somebody in turn those two guys that you've committed an act of obstruction of justicewill not argue not in the investigation is simply not volunteered
but by not been anything i don't know if there's an affirmative duty honor to comeforward with their is not an oath of west point residents cases you'resaying in the president's critics he has a hundred years old that was theresponsibility for upholding laws that limit put it in plain language rather than pick the present that's whywe didn't have a president and the senate of the only as goodas us we had a heck of a foreign government of them and we chose we're only as goodas that uses an obligation lead on the elected officebuilding beyond that not only in terms of the quality of the manly presents the same would betrue for a police officer would not destiny take an oath of office to do certain things yes ithink that a lot of the comparison really have to do the official one aspectsoon vote to bring to the attentionlovers in fort collins probable crime would be and they're likely to do any of the minimumcould be fired individualize agreement will recall that the maximum outcome
of an impeachment proceeding is literally the fire the president have not verifiedbut to get down to specifics there are two specific issues involved herewant is the president receiving grand jury information from henry peterson of the justice departmentand then submitting that information to some of his closest aides andthe other issue of course involves the howard hunt hush money episodenow it is in dispute is whether the president or yet a lot of thepayment of hush money there than this audio content is about the basicissue of the basic issue is that the president well along that he had knowledge of theworld may be a bit of age russian sayit then there's the questionof compassionbut however one
even assuming it was invite not as a criminal and purposeor not in order to protect himself in compassion for someone who however outrageouslybehave himself that tried to serve the president increased they'llhave an affirmative dutytheir view of the futureas na move on to the final twoitems in the article of impeachment number eight that the president madefalse or misleading public statements that were designed to deceive theamerican people into believing that federal investigations have been conductedinto charges of misconduct at the white house by the white house and alsoat the president's re election campaign committee and number ninethat dirty endeavor because defendants in those convicted to extract favored treatmentin return for their silence for four therefore for a false
testimony the legitimacy of our action item number eight wasthe only one in isolation the kidney problems of making false andmisleading public statements for the purpose of receiving the people of the united states and that's abig line is not a crime by itself but in the book howthey'll all the rest of it is if it's the intention of the majority of his show that thisis simply a piece of that mosaic say the saving the public was part of a largerconcept of frustrating the processes of justice so that misleading the public and to serveyour purpose it would appropriately fit the general feari had the same difficulty if youget into the business of evaluating for some misleading statements statementsby politicians let alone ourselves we're really in very difficultwaters and politicians and sometimes under obligation to speakif not with your tongue then cautiously and with some this direction and
to do so for the general welfare so there was something very troubling aboutmaking an ad political crime on the part of the president does chargethousands leading figures but it is true taken in context with the otherspecifics lions collared lions wait for the others and thus may beconsidered a legitimate your eyes yes i was struck by the fact thatthe fat on the fact the second amendment in the debate congressman wallyalleging worry over action that was taken of buying a stakepresident made in response to a question of press conferences that kind of savoringfunding it's an unusual kind a charge ofpress conferences with his opinion of the alleged was alsono i will think about this again here again what that is to be made is thatthere's obviously like a false statement that happened to the grand jury or aninvestigative officer he didn't consider building across well yes i got
a black and a recent population veryconsiderable extent it is applied with something which may bring to it thatcriminality and converted into an impeachable offense specifically in thisinstance if the committee has persuaded that the reason the public was like you do agreewith the reason was to make more effective the troubling to prosecute justiceand they've demonstrated that formal criminal purpose of wrongful purpose of a very differentparts of the president lied about their troops are located in wartime even though the public may be thesenate's only the end of it they prepare for their mission in terms of progressreally is a kind of inescapable item of important in the overall tournament that matterprofessor brownstein use the word criminality and we've all used the word crime orcriminality during the day it's perfectly correct if it is understood to bepolitical criminality political crisis the impeachment clause was dropby the founding fathers with great care to exclude criminal prosecution
and criminal punishment in england and it's this isonly one of many examples of the way in which our practice different radically from the englishpress events and one was never in four brimming with precedents what the americanintention is in england think the impeachment could be followed with losing yourhead with criminal prosecution of a criminal prosecution in criminalpunishment carefully segregated from that and therefore it isaddressed to political crimes unquote alexander hamilton crimes committedagainst the society as a whole so if we use the word crime we mustshare offer omar thinking all that goes with ordinary criminal law and that ofcourse is the reason that in this article out the word policy issues rather than theword conspiracy in other words the elected president is alleged to have about the odd thingfor the allstate of a coverup obstruction of justice and then he committed these actsof a policy rather than a conspiracy which is considered a year criminal law on illegal care
what's going on with hermr wally on what on earth is goingon here and going to the prospects for getting through to a vote tonight alone and that's of theformer not sure that's sort of a ladder for the prospects of gettingthrough well i had hoped when we began thismorning that we would be ready to vote on at least the first article is that we'reso embroiled now and lawyer business rather than the people's businessthat it's unlikely we'll get to the substance of the purpose for which we've convened todaywhich is to argue the facts and the evidence there has been very little of thathas been an awful lot of lawyer argument about procedures very little argumentabout what can the president do and one of the dillon and until we get thatare not likely to vote i understand that congress when wiggins is one of thepresident's stronger supporters is going to introduce nine motions to strike would you
explain to the general public what exactly that means what's been receiving willlose too remove from consideration nineallegations of presidential misconduct and emotionstrike is the same as a motion to defeat that particular allegation ofmisconduct or a procedure that means he gets five minutes for every motion sothose fall thirty seven others get five minutes argue against thatit's a time consuming device and it certainly isfor the purpose i think that's part of the strategy that isutilized when they know they're going to be defeated eventuallyi think with the name you know so maybethey can provoke members of the committee to actsof intolerance acts irritation
that will reflect upon the case that will ultimately be voted by thejudiciary committee and the time you can cast an inspiration in the bodythe decision you can makethe judiciary committee in those people they will makeits product that the whole idea ofthese people who had these republicans have been arguing that you are denying to the president is dueprocess that you're not going to give him the full evidence to support your case you're actually goingto trial how do you count a dozen shows offenders bestway to counter president does have his attorney present here and all the evidence thatwe have considered for the last eight weeks the bomb which is generalallegations are predicated when we finally do file a reportwill be based upon the allegations of impeachment articles of impeachment
it will go to the house of representatives and two the president accompanied by a thirdsustaining that generalizations be specificfar more specific and they are alleging in the articles lack in terms oftheir present description so that certainly is an argument thatis not honestly they stand for i think a lot of people are wonderingwhy the chairman of the committee is allowing this kind of delay and we'regoing to go on and could you explain what you know was really doingwas an enormously for individual and the routine andstarted this proceeding with an absolute conviction that he would never permit to besaid if you can call it that the presidents might have been jeopardizedand the easiest way to sort of determination that is what's been jeopardizes to beheavy handedso as a result it was able to use
and i findthis reviewthe lengthy delay that you don't really get to the floor of the house sothat the leadership has a clause but the other alternative would be to besubject of charges that he did not give the president's men on the committee ampletime to make the president's casethe case and so we believe all the timeand then youknow you give me your moneywhy they called them to come out is most of the disputes andlegislative balls come out a reasonable manner have their moments andreason irrationality
we're waiting we are conveying of the next session of the hostages yourcommittee i must confess at this point as you can say they're just heard behind me here you can see thatjust a few members therei must confess though one finding you all love fest to theaudience before going on the air tonight is you know as i opened the assignment on this evening was outan article of impeachment maybe adopted by the house judiciary committee andi really had the word will be nice at least that was the prospect of all thatsort of thing and although prevailed upon me to change the word well mayand on surviving the fall because now because it lookslike we just heard from congressman walberg
background he's been an advocate of impeachment for many many months of practice is the oneremembers that first job the proposal for impeachment overthe fine of archibald cox special ordered prosecutors center and that he saysis going to have this vote the rabblerousing my question is readers of experiencefrom being a reporter at the capitol i rememberone bill that was a major bill on it tooka committee three months to mark up a bill that is to drop the language toput it in there and the precise detail that was needed to get itbefore so i don't think it's going to take that long to get theresolution but i don't think that we should do to deceive ourselves or thepublic into believing that necessarily this fight inside the
judiciary committee over how draft articles of them articles of impeachment is going tobe resolved that easily and i think what has happened today maybemaybe to pop i want to ask our two guests who've beensitting here so patiently lo these many hours during today in andbuild adelstein was here yesterday of course the question i liketo put to you is as we watch the judiciary committee inaction do you feel thatthat committee has not made basically good job in its approach to the impeachmentinvestigations and the way it has gone about its business and i ask this inthe light of an ally that history because this committee has not considered uncleanresolutions since nineteen thirty six years not a single member on the committeewho was on the committee the last time an impeachment issue was considered thefall out of dollars more comfortable and critical congress
simply same economically more intriguing but the fact is thati think the committee has been virtually exemplary the amount of time they've been devoted to itand i do agree with congressman wally really know the determinationdoctors offer the required thirty thatall of an opportunity to arrive every possible pointit may very well be interlocking experience with her as an inducement ofcaution i think also the character councilman everything that workedto have been reflected very well in the league the product is likely to show thatordinarily are i do not i have a very hard thing to congress amended i think it is the lastpart of the president not so much for constitutional reasons that's partly because ofits own weather didn't happen to attend this occasion raised i think the committee is that thatcourt and let me ask youthey have the disease
and half agree and have disagree with professor journalist and i've been a longtime admirer ofcongress and i found that my happy duty within the academy toschool to all my colleagues who constantly see congress perishing on the vine and remind them of thisresidual strength and this one observation on this side most of the time thepeople say congress is flat not to his business is because congress isdoing its business energetically but contrary to the wishes of the people in congress is flaton its back that if they think it's an ideological difference frequently rather than an object ofjudgment of congress's ability and i've been delighted but the qualityof this committee at the manifest serious thanliberation of it says reallyfine bout of good solid partisanship good solid constituencyconcern and a real grassroots rising up the gravity of theissues not an easy a theological elevation of the furnace
painful movement up from constituents and wheeling and dealing whichmeans that their results may be solved and not really gratifying tothose who have won her another setback let me ask you thisquestion because we have heard this argument many times about congress losing part of thepresidency until battles that i just expressed in a certain sensebut it certainly was true was it not that in the nineteenth centurycongress inserted itself much more forcefully than it has lately andcongress did not wait upon the president for example to make hisrecommendations for legislation isn't it true that that the much of thepioneer legislation some of the great laws of thiscountry really originated more with congress then but the white housenow one has the impression that members of congress waiting
for the president to make his recommendations before they act ibelieve there has been a slight relativethe great problem is that there's been an infinite increase in the quality of governmentgenerally local state and national and with that increase avast amount does come out of the administrative agencies but when it comes from theadministration it's like coming from the president that's coming from congress and presidentmeeting but the administrative agencies congress has an inputinto the executive proposals and executive proposals or leave other things that can getmore over the nineteenth century was by no means a period of presidential passthe congressional supremacy late nineteenth century look something like that but notlike i'm not king andrew jackson one of the great issues in the middle of the century ofher seventh century was booming complaint that a kind of monarchy government wasfrequently afflicted so the historical perspective makes our present moment
last election that we print ourselves and me well a more validargument may be advanced by those who contend that congress is not really come into the twentiethcentury in the way that it should and that that is not always prepared to cope and dealwith the issues that the defense budget for example i don't want to move too farbecause we are waiting nowfor the judiciary committee to me and to begin its night session but it doesappear that we sure have perhaps a long wait there you see the committee wrong to see afew members who have come in and taken their seats on a large only afew and chairman peter rodino as for we go thedefense budget let me ask you gentleman what effect you thinktelevision is having on this house judiciary committee are seen up to thispoint the baton different or not a lot of it
there'sno question that some of the debate is david an authentic extent thatit's more rhetorical are reemerging points that some declare themselves impatient with you'veheard many times the whole idea of going to achieve credibility you agree with the viewing audiencethat there's a certain irony that feedback it's important and so on balance ithink not histrionic and i think it not in proper that there'd be a certain thinking of the wholedebate once again goes precisely to the extent that the point of view of being communicatedis effective with those who watch and they in turn at least demonstrate that they aremade the leader of one way or the other that seems to me a very lucid way in which we process allin to taliban operatives quite proper report on balance i think that freefounder of expectation some that this would make it doesn't like melodrama orwith another elevating experience the camera person and suddenly we were told today that thepresident is not watching the impeachment proceedings came up at his news
conference and a reporter asked one of the press aides atthe white house why isn't the president watching the televisionproceedings and thirty eight responded is just his habit not tomr nixon apparently just does not watch televisiontalk about you know i think it's a very mixed bag andwhat is interesting is the concrete proof was disappointed thatduring the course of the day that the televising does affect thebehavior and the path you remember when the question came up it was so why the lightswon't bother them the cameras will bother them and really the public deserve to hear and it won't haveany effect it does have a significant effect on whether that effect is goodi really am not sure of what makes me think it's a good effect is myown delight in being provided to the proceeding it in madison
enjoyed the opportunity to follow it and watch it we need you to give and take on proceduralissues especially the give and take of procedural issues because that's when you have to figureout from the surface down to the root of what's going on that's when the political game isso fascinating but what is its effect on the public is theirrole in the end of the row present tense function of himselfso private serious when deciding what'sbest for the country does it happen that doesn't want to or isit does he played at the gallery hopefully or is it the beginning of a process ofpublic education or was it a process of public safetywho doggone much and at some stage in the process ofrepresentative democracy the average person who's got other fish to fry on the living to make andkids to raise some stage in the process the public sayswe want to see what our representatives thing we want them to formulate the issue
to firm up the decision and bringing it to us and we'll decidesomehow yay or nay on the basis of what they do that'shappening now i'm just not sure what the television joe buddenmuch do you both labor televising the proceedings on the house and senate floorassuming that we didn't get that far yes i worked there for thirty one forevery level of the year with another of sufficient importance and i think it's avariety of more million views rather than their posturing and current athoughtful us too much is at stake here and i think if there is another effectof movie to go about it all to one side of the room to talk aboutmarty have that i have no doubt that in terms of the public's interest and what we're learningfrom fascination of this given to an incompetent have lived in the house and the senate toits another that you think it hasn't you think as an effect
also going back two point one million interview with iranthat the therapy that this proceeding must emergeas a fair proceeding if there isn't if and if it is infact that to be accepted regardless of opinions although i think that is going to be accepted by the americanpeople and that the procedural fines that that what he wastalking about and that we're seeing today the american public is not that aware of those images and thenan understandably so that the perception of fairness or the appearanceof this is extremely important and balance i think thatwill help avert that will be a good effect i think the people who do watch it only audiencewill dwindle of the people who do watch it will say that honorable menare slowly apparently coming to the conclusion that the impeachmentprocess must go forward and that we'll have a powerful moral authority in the publicall you want stereo the house passed committees in the house are generally
functioned over television lights were not on the many many many many occasions how would youjudge the effect of it well i i really don'tknow what the effect will be a gentleman to be honest about it but the househas always been fearful of television the two bodies are quite different in their approach totelevisions senators had television or is permitted cameras into its committeeproceedings for twenty years the house goes for maybethree years the leadership on the house sidehas been much more skeptical about employing television as you know that has thesenate leadership mike mansfield for example is has already made itquite clear that he favors televising a senate trial showed thehouse to impeach the president on the house side speaker carlalbert has been much more bearish been much more reluctant todo that i think the theory i think the fear is that you would have some numbers
on the floor who would engage inand speech making for political purposes and so forth so we really don't knowprecisely what the effect will be an owl and top with carlos is standingby with congressman charles whitman is doing sowhat exactly you'rewelcome at the appropriate time toseek recognition of revulsion to strike first subdivisionsarbanes of mypurpose is seeking that it is merely to ask mr sarbanes he's the authorof the sensitive to save live where when and in what wasthe facts support the general allegations mr reagansurely after all these weeks and we haven't you know what the facts are to support these charges andisn't this really just an average delay and obstruct
but i feel likethere are really quite serious legal questions involved us go back to that firstdiscussion has taken the better part of the evening what was the nature of this policythat's a very important factor for it as you understandall of the alleged misdeeds of mr wally is pointing to the president orsomeone else and before any of those mysteries can be attributed to the president and beconsidered as evidence in this case we have to establish a policy which is another way ithink that saying the conspiratorial a plant the kind of that plan comesinto existence is very important in deciding the relevancy of the variousacts of others leaving the allegation elsewhere withintel president and after what was three hours of a job that you can't tell mewhen i don't know certainly the evidence is not clear and convincing as to when this plot
was hatched don't you think that all of the evidence that's comeout in the report which will be attached to the articles of impeachment so it really just justquibbling over of phrase that you want you want it in the articles instead of attention nowwe have to vote tonight or tomorrow nighton facts don't believe by the us we don't vote oncontraception and delegates that we believe all the facts of the members are infact tonight or tomorrow to vote for his business of delegating theresponsibility speakingof our functions you don't really have along historyithink if nothing else it will cause some of the democrats who feel compelled to
impeach almost without reference to what the evidence has to reflect on whatthat evidence is and that's what we get and the next subdivision andour trust with you and your listeners will be objective and measure the kind ofcomeback that they are having to justify their sweepingallegation that he has withheld evidence so we'll see where thatmusic i think iran that wascongressman wiggins of california the president's primary defenderon the committee i think the issue involved and that's the subject of the debate and thevote at the cars a lot of them are almost the sickest specific charges civic articlealleging obstruction of justice was introduced by paulsarbanes of maryland was a substitute for the original democratic proposal that wasintroduced by donoghue of massachusetts now in the course of the day to daysarbanes was the man who had answered all the questions are most of the questions about the
contents of his substitute we want to go back and take a look at one ofmany say i wanna make three things very clear first the president's councilhas been here throughout the proceedings all of the factual material that the committee has consideredall of the statements of information all of the summaries are provided to him on a dailybasis just as they were provided to us so the contours in thedetails and the pattern in the inner relationship over factual matters has been spelled outfully to the president's counsel nothing has been concealed from him second thiscommittee wants it makes its decision will have to make a recommendation tothe floor of the house of representatives in at that point well what we bring forth will besupported by report which will have to detail the underpinning for the action that we'vetaken so the material again be spelled out there for the benefit of ourcolleagues in the house before they make your decision at this point or in a house thatneither of those instances is a president yet on trial his only on trial in the
matter reaches the senate and finally won america's reach the senate the president'scounsel in a position to say further specifications if he deems necessary althoughit's my conviction that his participation here and thefurther report will have to be prepared for the members of the house of representatives will fullyprovide him with all the material necessary to prepare a defense for the trialwhich will take place in the other body that was paul sarbanes ofmaryland make in response to this charge that the fed his article of impeachmentwas not was too broad was not specific enough that was filled with the hairon the session earlier today why we are awaiting thethe opening of the night session was to be candidate is nowretired and is now almost forty five minutes latethere you see now turn has entered the room that he's now
taken his chair as forty five minutes turns forty five minutesall it's safe to say we cannot agree that they would caucus in and talking inprivateand unusualpunishment the presidentwith an obstruction of justice is also likely thatafter completing this is that an additional articleor perhaps even to articles will be approved sowhen the impeachment resolutionserves in or like where two or more
artright rightthe first humanmonicacaliforniai don't think this is
surprisingand i think what today's debate really showedis that various members theyagreed on the necessity of impeachment resolutioneach seasonwhat the impeachment resolutionshould include and so the problem is how do you geta majority of the thirty eight members to agree on thespecific language and that's why this could become a time consumingprocessthat was their ways at least a chancethat the committee might well who won article this
article relating constructionparticularly with justthe rest of the soviet era which is that he plans tointroduce a series of motions to strike strikingthe time whenthe nba legend the president implemented a policy of justice and under thenine meetings that the president allegedly used to have tostrike the main thingthat is interesting about the
scene heis responsiblethepopegot it gentle lady
from practice ms jordanforeign language german janand this committee spent two daysreceiving i'm listening to very eloquent argumentwe have talked about the constitution and wetalked about the serious nature of the impeachment process and a lawwhich was set there we were telling drove believed what we're talkingabout now was jealous committee has called uponon the consideration of articles ofimpeachment and apparently it is very difficultto translate its viewsof the constitution and to the realities of theimpeachment provision it's understandable that this committee would
have procedural difficulty is because this is an unfamiliarand strange procedure but some of the arguments which was offeredearlier today by sutherland the lives of thiscommittee in my judgment of argument thatunless argument due process we have wehave not afforded the president united states due processas we have received word this impeachment inquiry then there is no dueprocess to be found anywhere what we dois re committing under all obvioussparkle president available does not have toallow harmful to the president who participate in its proceedingsbut this committee because of its rays because they
wanted to be there because of his interest in due processif you will come on the presidentthis at nbc is they use every day hewas president was he gained was the silentknow because of its judiciary committee passed arule which allow the presidents council thisweek now one might say was fairly that is minimal dueprocess all i'm saying is that the committee was under no compulsion to do that would be todo it so the president's counsel was here and received everyitem of information that's been interesting the presidents councilsuggested witnesses he wanted called unheard by this committee they were alltold they were all heard the president's council wasappointed the right to cross examine witnesses and i know that there
are rules been asked of the words was examined and that questionwhat those of you know of the capacities and abilities of his designplan would certainly say that he cross examined witnesses toappear before this committee what else did you douse an activist annie repliedin addition to making an oral argument inresponse to all of the material with this committee had received now we've heard a lottoday about specificity about our case being zonedgeneral that no one would be able to answer it that the president would not beadvised of his rights and the battle would not be able to answer our preparefor his defense one was that the sign black belt that the case presented before thiscommittee was presented enough for him to file a reply reefand to engage in oral arguments before this committee the
subpoenas we were very reluctant to issue asubpoena to the president united states but aspresident asked us for additional time to respond drsubpoena and we said we want you as president tohave due process so why does your time is yours andwe gave him the due process dueprocess the vote due process quadruple we did thatthe president knows the case which has been heard before this committeethe president's counsel of those cases we've been heard before thiscommittee it is a useless argumentto say that what we would do is to throw thirty eight orthirty nine books at the house and say you
find the offices with which the president has charged and say the same thing to thepresident we talk about a report we say that the record will evolvealong with a bill of impeachment resolution of impeachment that report will befiled detail specify what did youarrive information so that no one can question whetherthe president has been advised of the allegations against him injournalism or writerecognize the gentleman from alabama missed a flowerin it i'lltake the point where all i'm nosymptoms aren't the chairman that there mightbe a false impression being communicated year that this there'stwo general and that we might be
engaging too much in iona lawyerly financesand now we might convince the people in thisaudience and in the faraway audience that fell thirty eight lawyers on one for many yearswith too many lawyers and our i would necessarily disagree with lespaul i think one of the unwritten rules of this house in thiscommittee is that you actively or a lawyer they own on the committee andperhaps just that that might one of dollars on a law licenseso that we get a little bit about who the committee but finding that and i don'tintend to do do that at this for myself although someof my need to rely on that enter in the future more than we do noweyewitness later on one of dramas league at least at this time forthe non lawyers in the in an audience andi'm not as much as i am in a fact right now is a flat
circle around right with you mr doerr oil and they give theforce at the appropriate time and i want a woman ashe preferred to live because i'm interested in and i think the american people areinterested in that we have before us onearticle of impeachment that the operative paragraph actorsossie is that he is the second paragraph that begins on june seventeenthnineteen seventy two n go down through on all for covert activitiesabout some twelve months later that's what the real chargesthere against the president but then we have the law robsomething the convent over hitting the means used to implement that policyand specific find rather specific although they donot really that makes plans in places that are specific charges oryou agree with mr will now
or you are with the militaryyou itemize specifically the chargesthat would come under those narrow specific votes ofparagraphs of article one of the proposed oracles of the weeklastyear ohlordthe policy and that was mydiscussion about what is what we need more than anything else is thediscussion of the fights here as they relate to charges under this article
long and the chairman and so airtran and i hope that it willwork on them we'll talk to others on this now that we will be able todiscuss whit stuffy here with the various members of the committee thespecific provable factual items of evidence thatcome under each one of the sub paragraph all are longand determine for ourselves here all as like we mustall in an obvious un orchestrated manner of avon has beenwatching are misleading hear exactly when the fact that the chargesand and that's the whole issue paul and i find that asthe the more important thing in discussing whether or not thelanguage girl that something was and often served with paul i think that'ssufficient thirty million liters a fourth know one of the facts the factsthere's a chart here at war the impeachment of the president announced
they are you know if icould just like this question to the door with a general and go back in thewater just a moment levy the huge element which only to whether ornot a specific allegation or charges made by reading article one ofthe starving thought that too if it were just an activity you knowwords and to conceal the existence of the scope of other local covert activityother words is simply reduce the charge to on june seventeenagents of the committee to reelect and that in the illegal entry what happened subsequentlyto the president using his powers his office to act directly and personally tohis subordinates and agents delay him he struck an investigationin your opinion would that not be sufficient to face the president on notice that thespecific charge against them and whether or not the other items listed on two pages arereally edition please don't have to be live up with that for the benefit of me and
placing the president on one of his mindand thepatients congressman cole is my opinion the secondparagraph of sarbanes substitute is the operative paragraph it puts the presidentnotice the low e the committeecharges he's been as president of the united states youmade a decision that policy that there will be a plan tocover a lot of music that in furtherance of thatpolicy actually personally individually and also throws fourassociates and subordinates and it takes certain stepsto further those files and thatallegation it's sufficient in my judgment put the president united stateson notice as to what this committee is considering
what this article chargesthe patientsit's my understanding thatyou would be punished the house a complete and fullreport outlining detail the specifics which is jordan recentlyalluded to and also whether or not your opinion just think where would beentitled to file a bill particularly at which time un of them at the houseof a furnished the specific to say on that requestwell i don't have with respect to the first thatquestion i have no doubt that our report would do exactlythat precisely that specifically with respect to the second
what the house might doconsidermeas prisons herecommitteea central issue in this case is to bethe evidence last week the evidence the strength of the evidencei hope that in just a couple of questions to test ms jenna that we can we can move on from thisissue this agenda in your opinion does this bill there's
an article on the sobbing substitute violated due process notice requirementfirststate and that'ssufficient specificity all due process forcormorants of voters on that satisfies the constitutionand for you that article onedoes put the president on the alert as to specific chargesagainst her car crashthrough whatever the number iscam at this school for two hours noticeso that he may be more fully place to handle this and his
This record is featured in ““Gavel-to-Gavel”: The Watergate Scandal and Public Television.”
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Reel 4 of 6
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-b853f4mf5c).
Videotaped coverage of the debate of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Peter Rodino, Jr., on the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Includes approval of the first article of impeachment charging obstruction of justice. This is day 5 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: 2403151-1-1 (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; 1974-07-26; Reel 4 of 6,” 1974-07-26, 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; 1974-07-26; Reel 4 of 6.” 1974-07-26. 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; 1974-07-26; Reel 4 of 6. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from