thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 1 of 6
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
the pope does it work i wonder if i understood the gentleman correctly and that i understood him to say that if we specified these acts in our accusatory pleading the evidence to be a deal with that the trial is restricted of those items is your man and it's not there and just because you're a congressional committee you can't just blow away you sneaky you videotaped gavel coverage of the house judiciary
committee twenty six nineteen seventy four euros correspondent jim lehrer saving for it all due to myself the house judiciary committee spent for daylight hours leading up to its first test vote tonight on articles of impeachment and in the beginning this morning and began arguing over and then voting down a motion to delay the proceedings upending the result is based on the results of the us supreme court decision on the watergate tapes this was voted down and then the committee turned to its major business article was a proposed charge of obstruction of justice against president nixon and it became clear is the committee began its debate today at the republican defenders of the president would fight every half inch of the way employing a variety of parliamentary and evading devices in an attempt to delay the impeachment process in effect to try to hold
off an impeachment resolution from reaching the house floor but it became equally clear that those supporting impeachment and welded a strong majority and could continue to hold that majority despite the republican objective objections that were boys from time to time about the language employed in the first article of impeachment the article the charges the president with an obstruction of justice i think was interesting today gm that for the first time we saw the committee inaction as a congressional committee can really be an acrimonious or members the basic issue john innes they like the day that the day live session which was the republican position was that the wording of the articles of impeachment as proposed by paul sarbanes and supported by a majority of the committee were not specific enough and that was countered of course by
that the republican charge and that was countered by the basic majority rejoinder which was that and in the article of impeachment should be general and then there would be other things attached to you summarized everything but that basic bargain follows throughout the day and throughout the night and you will see the beginnings of a third and go right on through to the very bright now our colleague carolyn those who has been the pharmacy and reporter for the deliberations are standing by carolyn i would sum up this day is an introduction for the general public an introduction to the niceties and the mysteries of congressional procedure he was a chance to look at the way that the gentleman talk to each other saying the distinguished gentleman will really will yield really give me time an introduction to the way a chairman keeps control over his committee and has no control peter rodino wanting very much to get to a vote the final vote on the article of impeachment
tonight but not being willing to change the rules are to bend the rules allowing each member to have his five minutes i think this is a day that really as far as the general public there's concern the viewing public was concerned offered a glimpse into the way congress works and away thirty eight members very individualistic worked to bring themselves some sort of boat they didn't get to vote tonight as you both said and it was not a major vote it could be considered a test vote but that the day proceeded in a very interesting way and certainly was revealing of the process that goes on in a congressional committee thank you carolyn and now let's go to our videotape reply all the day's events the committees that its day debating two separate issues that was able to complete action only on the first ottoman i was a motion to delay any committee action until it has made an effort to get the case that the supreme court ordered the white house to promote a special prosecutor leon jaworski and the first hour congressman dennis earth passage of the bill a major john and his colleagues get all the evidence
you can democrat john simon this a great sign such a move would only give the president an opportunity to the way in hour two the debate changes to the watergate republican joseph amar as the new set of offenses were committed what were they when and wherever they appear paul sarbanes countered by saying the offense was continuing policy members may reach varying conclusions about when it was begun and the third there were more questions about how specific the charges should be george danielson said the president had a wealth of information to use in his defense charles williams contends the charges have to be specific because much of the committee's raw material is ambiguous and confused and in the fourth r republican charles lamb and rendered the draft impeachment article a miscarriage of justice because it was so vague president would not know what he was being accused of also in this our democrat jerome all the attempts to detail some
specifics and concludes the president lied to the american people and statements made after the watergate break here and now let's go to the hearings themselves as chairman peter rodino virtue sort of the rule both articles they can spin the car i know i have a motion a bay part that you know if the clerk will read the most and twelve eastern daylight time on saturday june twenty seven nineteen seventy four the
president fails to give his unequivocal assurance who produce all taped conversation with the advisory committee will be made available to the district court pursuant to court order us versus mitch on fire the conclusion of our proceedings ortega and they swing at providing that we get assurance from the president by tomorrow know that only sixty forty eight or sixty three of the sixty four page which the president has ordered to arrest the supreme court in order to be made available to the best record this record are also made available to this committee reason i mention sixty three is at sixty three of the sixty four tapes which were involved in that supreme court proceeding we're also requested by us we subpoenaed thoughts and though the president has failed to make them
available to lots of my understanding that these second thing it relevant materials information with them decision without having to make there's this additional information would not be consistent with our important role here i might say mr chairman that i would press more vigorously for this if i had some assurance that the only notice that these tapes would be made available i might say that wednesday following the supreme court's decision i communicated directly and personally with mr mccain knows the associate attorney with mr st clair and urged him to make this the material available to us and there are
some immediate response also i watch tv a press conference and this is st clair and waited anxiously for mr sigler to make some offer to make the materials available to our committee which the president is now compelled by the supreme court ordered to make available for this record i didn't guarantee secure a commitment on his part and i i have a strong feeling that there is no intention to provide the material for this committee i think nevertheless the less motions sure they made this opportunity should be offered because later i had and i expect to offer an article which would i suggest that the president should be impeached on the basis of this content that accounts and failing to respond to the subpoenas that there were directed to him for a problem than as a necessary materials which we require for a complete conclusion of our employer and therefore mr chairman i move that
adaption of the they just don't know mr hinton would point out that this sort of by the court is over and now author which is restricted to a criminal prosecution you provide nonlethal encounter inspection by the judge there is nothing in this decision that given any assurance whatsoever that this committee would have a receipt any of these takes this committee have written to the president and written again has subpoenaed the president has subpoenaed him again he has refused to send us this and other material we stand ready to receive any of these tapes all material now and have been ready for some weeks i want to say that we have been elected president in this regard
this water is not getting insurance on the bbc any additional information i don't think that the bubble would appreciate the delay on this important proceeding i would be opposed to that would as the members vote against this motion or delay whether the monument the delighted you know a lot of it with a woman that though there is nothing implicit in the court order which would indicate any obligation on the part of africa to provide us with the materials that an unexpected player the supreme court indicated that they should be used for the sole purpose of getting the benefit of the defendants in the watergate cover up i would also indicate that we can provide the same kind of in camera mechanism for our counsel with the cooperation of mr sinclair lewis's no national security information is that was but we only would be interested in a relevant materials regarding the subject of art and where are you
mr chairman i have questions about like to work tomorrow join my colleague from illinois what what i wonder about yourself is that not a fact that the supreme court order the jumps or echo will be required to end camera screen all of the sixty three sixty four conversations to determine if there are sensitive or non relevant or other our privilege matters and i'm just wondering how much time does the white house have the candidates over first of all to judge the wreck and i'm wondering i can't help but wonder how long is a gonna take him from a physical standpoint and to listen to the tapes to screen them and camera to determine the week roll on into the town and that's why as i understand it that just repetitive order the material is delivered to him within ten days and i would say though is that if the information contained in the
states and i understand out there it would seem to me that there were you know we're doing a disservice by not getting this material if it is available now the reason just ulcers directed directly to the president and not directly and i just say to my friend that sell we're after all of these deliberations and with the problems that i think are our very apparent i would be inclined to agree with you and as a matter of fact i think perhaps if we can ascertain that the house itself after we knew would have a reasonable opportunity for a reasonable possibility that we could get a hold of those materials perhaps the house should actually to say one other thing there is another tape a september fifteenth update my understanding now and somehow change according to a newspaper sources i will
not discuss what the allegations are the reports that have been made about thirty but it is more apparent than ever to me that if that newspaper account is accurate it is just absolutely essential and relevant than either the house or the senate military because it's so these are very very serious allegations that can be made about that to recognize that gentleman dr smith mr chairman i speak in support of the motion of the two i was wondering of all the issue of soviet power of something is for president of that through the port and the will of the committee was otherwise we would not going to court and as the court
reporters i have always thought that we should have done that in the recent supreme court decision in the god of the special prosecutor's motion reinforces that opinion in my mind i think that in the state of the evidence that we have had presented of this committee that we should make every effort to secure these tapes if we can and it seems to me that the motion by the gentleman from illinois has at least in that direction and i support please his beak recognize the gentleman from california and then it's their worldly not for the route the audience mr chairman i oppose
the molten off from illinois supreme court ruling properly did not make any reference to these impeachment proceedings as it should not have since it is and on the face of our constitution the supreme court has no jurisdiction whatever to inject itself into these proceedings allen reports opinion the decision was absolutely proper and in keeping with his constitutional protections than they do now it's benny as bell the chairman continuing getting
them from california bank in the future and i'd also like to point out that at that my colleagues pointed out we have subpoenaed these tapes these conversations long weeks ago and it's been within the part of president produce them if it chose to do so ah we are ready willing and on for every voter receiving end any information with which has been present about the original which was your grocery other than the one with the constitution places on us this this committee this house of representatives have builders fiction laughter i like to point out at the government's motion is a truncated motion the last six words are the last line and a last line itself would limit this leak case which the court ordered to be available to the report persona the supreme court order it's my understanding that the case which we haven't for subpoenaed in which we deemed to be relevant are far
larger in a number of a cover a greater period of time and a lot of which are included within the government's motion i therefore merge yes i feel the music in a nine hundred and forty seven sonos would only cover sixty three of those but yes they were i thank the gentleman if we're going to have some compliance and cooperation from the white house i submit that we should have full compliance and full cooperation this is only half a lot and were in the situation room before i therefore my colleagues to defeat this morgue recognize the gentleman from new jersey and chairman nine it holds a resolution of my friend from illinois and i can hardly see how we can delay this proceeding to receive some tapes one is ray same committee have voted
down may the requirement to have the most important witness of them all come before the committee and testify lot if we didn't have one day to listen to howard hunt the subject matter of the entire transaction of cover up that we have no business trying to put this thing off the listeners more takes now iaea do not subscribe to the thought that the president did not our subpoenas and i've said so great beginning i think that he should have for whatever reason he uses whether he's right or wrong we didn't get those facts whether we receive truckloads of tape for or against is not going to change the outcome of the vote here and everybody knows it so let's get a new revolution i recognize the gentleman from indiana mr
chairman this appears to me to be an exceedingly moderate resolution which really ought to draw the support of everyone here are let's say is it is that if the president gives us assurances by tomorrow that he is going to produce forty where a matter which has to be given to the special prosecutor and then we'll get in a short period of ten days in which to do so now at a very moderate proposition it seems to me an axiomatic that in the conducting an investigation you ought to get all the evidence you can get and certainly in america as important you ought to do it indicated my position on the basis of the evidence as it now stands in my remarks yesterday
but my view could be changed if there's something on these tapes that ought to change and they're maybe on the other hand i would all of those were now ready to impeach hear that and their views modified if there were something on the states which was indeed exculpatory we owe it to ourselves and we owe it to the country to get this evidence if we can do it without any a moderate delay and i might point out in reference to what my friend mr brooks from texas says that this is addressed to the president of united states if he gives us this is your and he can deliver these days the ones that he's not bound by the order and the way this special prosecutor is an i suggest there may be half a dozen really think that most of which are really important and the prayers united states know which ones they
are and he knows what's on and we know which ones they are really don't know which ones what's all that it goes by morning he's gone again when i know that saddam we certainly are they'll wait a few days in order to get that and it is going to look very good for those many if there's something really important there or for the individual members of this committee and we cast a vote one way or the other which we later find and these are going to come out with in the relatively near future and how we change our situation russia waited six weeks or something i realize we've got the ordinary with that we cant do but this is a very short delay predicated upon a promise for me and the producer and i just suggest to my friends and colleagues that we really ought to take advantage of that for our own stakes if
nothing else is the obviously correct thing to do so i support the government's motion and i we'll go to the big ten days begins in a more narrow to begin that i thought was really very very very disappointment and i also think but what if they do provide more information which would have to change our minds and provide for the president to be exonerated and one the more that judges would seem to me that would be extremely embarrassing an awkward for us to have made a decision without the benefit of all the evidence and i don't value your privacy gentlemen from alliances that the chairman i remember
some years ago on monday our legal trial being argued before judge has learned men and attorneys kept wanting to file motions and re arguments and so forth and finally but then that the court would accept no further motions or papers in the case and the lawyers protested and as that element some concession has been made of the sharpness of human life actually our first requests for updates february twenty fifth as the virus to take a direct hit almost exactly six months ago the tapes are an assault possession of president nixon at any time he can walk in or send messages a clarion through this committee and deliver all of the play is not just that once covered by the supreme
court is in complete control of that is america's only the arguments that were advanced than this committee is that access to the evidence considered by this committee annie hall what would be exculpatory and which would tend to disprove that evidence that he has further material that would tend to disprove and i submit to the dome and ladies of this committee that there is absolutely no reason why any point in our deliberations or liberation of the house of representatives which is certainly going to take more than ten days there is no reason why the president cannot walk in and delivered to us every piece of evidence that we have subpoenaed and we know full well that when that happens and if it happens we will stop our proceedings and consider the evidence but until that happens i do not see why we shouldn't fool around with getting further opportunity to delay to a president who has shown that he will take
every possible means to delay and drag out of obfuscate the proceeding and i think this committee would look foolish in the eyes of the congress in the world if we allow ourselves at this stage in the game to be sucked into that kind of effect and i thank you mr chairman i emphatically oppose this motion for an additional ten day delay as you know i have consistently eric that these proceedings be expedited i was quite critical perhaps unfairly saw that the committee did not an organized under way more promptly after we were given this mandate in october and i have repeatedly urged that the proceedings be extradited since then it seems to me that the
american people are it's very justifiably impatient that they matter not drag on further i can see no justification that has been made for another delay and i therefore birds that we proceed way and that there's a motion for delay the defeated and i'm happy to you know the gentleman from new york with german saw here was a question of fairness the president i wouldn't hesitate to support the motion but i don't think this is the case is i think very straightforwardly took every opportunity including the opportunity to come and that the tapes today or tomorrow without recognize me gentlemen from maryland's quarter obviously europe physically and
mentally emotionally drained from the ordeal we've been enduring another romp on the threshold of facing this historic responsibility understandably we want to get over with as quickly as possible without resolving and i share that feeling and the day before yesterday if this motion to come before the committee i will close knit but in the interim as you know a unanimous supreme court decision came down indicating that the president's claim of executive privilege with respect to the prosecution on us district court as no validity our fact wine for executive privilege as an overwhelming and certainly is going to executive privilege in response to the subpoenas from this committee which has an overriding constitutional right to challenge that we have a much stronger case then there's ginger were ski hat jets or it indicates that he's going to insist the president
comply within ten days and mr st clair indicated the president wants him time to listen to the tapes i don't really see any reason for the president to listen to the tapes i it's more important that the prosecution and we have access so that we can listen to those tapes are some of my colleagues have said here today that they see no reason for weight i see a very important reason for worry if the tapes are given to us and i do think that we should send another letter reminding the president of the supreme court's decision so that we're on record and if that material does in fact come to us and i'll admit that i'm not overly optimistic perhaps it will be more damaging to the president's case in which eventuality we made bowed out a resolution from this committee well vote of thirty eight to nothing i think that strengthens the case in the house and in the nation
if on the other hand if the material material is exculpatory perhaps no impeachment resolution would be voted out at all and we and the house and the country would be spared the ordeal of this impeachment so i think it's reasonable for us to delay for a ten day period and so that we can at least give the president the opportunity to do what most of us honestly thought that he should have done all along and that is to respond to our subpoenas because there can be no doubt in his mind or anyone else's more and his claim of executive privilege for refusing to comply no longer has any legal support where to where recognizably gentleman from your previous question
for the prime minister it was the chairman i would like to speak in opposition to the motion i think in view of the supreme court decision and the ruling will be no hesitancy on the part of the president to turn over this information to the community because mr hogan he's just so eloquently stated that the supreme court has cut away any possible basis for the withholding that information i like the rest of my colleagues would like to have that information we waited since their word for it but it seems to me is a time for the liberation time for debate and also time for decisions that as that there we stand ready we
are continuing investigative body we stand ready to receive and to screen all this information and to report it to the house of representatives exonerating information as well as incriminating i suspect that the house if it's in doubt after the evidence had been presented to it you can always defer the matter back refers back to this body for further investigation and for further recommendations in the meantime i think we all of the american people to all the calls for expeditious resolution of this matter go forth and therefore the urge my colleagues to reject the motion for what purpose is johannes eisele economist german gentleman is like chairman that i'm opposed to the notion of like had a question or problem that has not been discussed and that is my concern i'm sure the concern of many others that every day is important time concern about po the problems that might
arise in the event that the house hunters wouldn't teach that the trial will be held and go over beyond election and possibly into next year we run into all sorts of problems if the drought goes beyond election of this year and possibly the next year and i think we should give the senate the maximum opportunity to dispose of the night before the election is the telephone wires taking recognition at npr we're withholding motion i might say that i don't have to know at this point what's in those tapes like to listen to recover might have some bearing on my ultimate decision as marilyn i take this time that's the gentleman from illinois specifically what he is laughter in this motion you like to have an additional days for the president to fire i think that i think that it would
be a mistake if the information could be made available that we would not receive it and not consider so i would think would be important for us to have the senegalese get this opportunity for the president to provide us with the additional information i might say that there have not been up is present that any indication that president with the information available to us and that's why this for him to make a commitment i think some of it is for college attention before we vote in the wording of the motion you know the post on for ten days unless the president fail they're going to take so if he fails them while we get them they go if he complies we do that we have a draft so i would suggest
you're correct your emotions plaza is unequivocal assurance i think the emotion is just everything why are you are you i would just like to point out that is set the record straight the gentlemen from illinois walid says we've had no indication that the president would comply we've had every indication and i just in the case but a clear demonstration and they will reply any response from the president that this committee by letter of may twenty second that he would apply to supply this committee with any material that we had the complete story of watergate that he would respectfully decline any farther subpoenas that this committee would
so there is no question whatsoever in the minor questions that the president has no intention whatsoever of complying it has been a period of time since letter after letter was sent to the president we have been family have been we have sought not only two letter word through various requests and i think it would be an ideal few gestures arise to delay this matter of moment that there's a time when we have before us at an issue to this i know we thought well we have the president's full response which is unequivocal oracle and as decisively as anyone would want it to be so i would urge that this motion be defeated then the gentleman from you my time
are you mr garcia my new york with nobody and it briefly say with them and that i support support this motion at know it's important that we include the proceedings at the earliest possible time but i think it's also important that we get all the possible information we can and i think that without withholding perhaps several weeks ago would have been a different story but now we have a decision the united states supreme court as a very clearly add that we produce ten that if it's possible i may have possibility that we will have these days i think we should make your time the coachella from your question is on the body of the man
dr quinones was passed with and i think it's important that we the committee vote on a resolution the couple expresses infants i'm from illinois and it will examine his motion you find that the words rails to made of a strike as you write or a woman for ten days the president fails the market so that there is not working and then as if the president on this one day i think it's directly that that i have that i've had adapted by counsel and i was misled the job and i think it's directly and they oppose a woman unless the president
i don't really the main showroom in yemen a bizarre angle hit me i know you didn't realize that we even i realize that what mr mann says and what mr latimer says it's true in my opinion it would be much better directed if you said pro by that or unless he does not or something but i think nevertheless the gentleman from illinois correct that although this is over a backhanded way of stating it it does in fact because it says he gets ten days unless he fails to give insurance which is a backhanded way to say he gets ten days if he doesn't get the itchy candid way of stating what the dumbest frank
estate it could be improved or what he's doing is nevertheless there the gemini of us are provided sufficient to lie and i removed the previous question and the question is on the motion of the gentlemen from illinois all those in favor of adopting the motion please signify by saying aye on all or the no's appear to have a call me i made a call for the yeas and daisies demanded and the clerical we see it all those opposed no article that now we know that they know that the nba and all as a flower
mr mann my business are they call his disciples all listed then we'll send all of this to try and and now this durango now ms jordan well mr thorp well ms holtan mr owens mr mezvinsky low mr hutchinson mr mclaurin i was just met with a senator paul was derailed her goal was to wait until just a dentist mr fick no mr mayne <unk> mr butler mr cohen so this july know mr ferrell it was due more pie mr myers at least a lot
of these drones you know eleven members of the nineteen twenty seven members of a latino is that creepy there's sort of a resolution because breweries are but richard m nixon president of the united states or europe will agree
merkle place as a result the richard m nixon president of the united states is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment exhibit a to the senate articles of impeachment by the house of representatives of the united states of america in the name of itself and a lot of the people of the united states of america against richard the next president of the united states of america and maintenance and support of his impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors article one
one of them the crew i'm wondering whether in order and why not it
is the report shows that in normal course wouldn't that be necessary to either to reveal reginald not a new resolution you forced to do or offer us to a unanimous consent or won't that he considered his rant and then all you know the fact that we will provide that we deal with each article that it is in order at this time unless
unless there is a lot of the shots that no the clerk reading this every week these
wednesday night to see what we don't want to open our procedure wednesday night we've been so on the basis of the general debate regarding articles that were distributed it will involve the actual reading out a proposed articles about time farmers those that are paying in and looking and then there are those of us on the committee it would be appropriate to now have a proposal or code red and open forum and one of them a point of let's turn down and get more appropriately awkward to substitute the article one i would think that would be the more orderly procedure mr chairman paul article while there
was a gentleman suggest would in effect have a essentially reading of all what is quote understanding on the article one i've proposed and that we would then we would written understand you're a sense of the infamous conservative and not objecting to be offering i just think that we should have the benefit of the original article before we consider that mr chairman as beakman it's been look i
would have said that the original article be considered as having been read and weaken and proceed with the reading of a substitute and the only reason i reserve the right is that it seems to me important for the members and others to realize what they've proposed article is that we're considering before we go into the question of a sense a friend of the week that formal my reservation without formally replied my best friend and say that we have these big ford for forty eight hours now i think that it would be thank you no no i'm not going to withdraw my my reservation and going to large the gentleman actually enter
into it as far as unanimous consent because i think that we should have it read aloud i don't think that you know i'm well maybe the particles and that any time a gentleman from maryland and at bedtime after bedtime for unanimous consent and move the adoption of this article as a substantive political will or bill is that the reading it you see in order will gentleman essentially correct and this is what has attempted to be done at this time so this is our brains and mad men is in order at this
time in the nature of the subject of the only the only deficiency is that the clergy did not begin to read one word of the opposed it goes into the work we do so that we can proceed investors are things can offer his amendment that time the nature of his substantive article one it is high no i move that the arctic will be considered as read i have an amendment in the nature of the substitutes article one of the proposed resolution that works best the gentleman is recognized it is kind of the office of president of the united states violation of his constitutional
faithfully execute the office of president of the united states and to the best of his ability preserve protect and defend the constitution of the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed has prevented obstructed an even the administration of justice in that on june seventeen nineteen seventy two and agents of the committee for the reelection of the president or the law also read that this is true oh yeah article
you will be right the almanac with me and then they get any more open for amendment that i formed after the rating of empower and to cherish ruling that is the character clarke continued illegal entry of the headquarters of the democratic national committee in washington this tic of columbia were the purpose of securing political intelligence subsequent they're too rigid and medicine using the powers of his high
office made it his policy and further evidence of such a policy the attack directly and personally and through his clothes the ordinance and agents delay in the investigation to cover up and ceo and protect those responsible and to conceal existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities the means used to implement this policy have included one or more of the following one making false or misleading statements from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states too withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and
employees of united states three approving in the running i possessed again and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving a false misleading statements to law all price investigative officer and voice of the united states and falls harmlessly testimony really instituted judicial and congressional proceedings interfering or uncovering to interfere with the context of investigations by the department of justice of the united states the federal bureau of investigation and the office of watergate special prosecution forest fire probing and owning an activist union the surreptitious payment a substantial sums of money for the purpose of attaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses potential witnesses
or individuals who participated in such a little country and other illegal activities said this and then going to misuse the central intelligence agency and agency in the united states seven seven any information received from officers or the department of justice of the united states whose subjects have investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees in the united states are participating in a system such subjects in their attempts avoid criminal liability at making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of this even the people of the united states into believing that if they're incomplete investigations have been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct and our personnel the executive
branch of the united states and personnel of the committee for the reelection of the president that there was no involvement no such personal such misconduct or not endeavoring to cause prospect of events an individual to be tried and convicted village that favored treatment and consideration return to silence a false testimony or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony in on this richard m nixon has acted in a manner contrary cruz stressed as president and subversive of constitutional government and a great prejudice because of law and justice and to the manifest injury and the people of the united states where four richard m nixon by such warrants and he's been on trial and removed from office
what happened was democratic congressman sarbanes of maryland author the compromise article of impeachment the first article being considered charging a president with obstruction of justice and a moment congressman sarbanes will take the microphone to defend his compromise anthrax videotape coverage of the house judiciary committee impeachment that they will now continue shortly <unk> pbs republic broadcasting service washington week in review analyzes the presidency you know i think he doesn't think that living in a world of self delusion but i think anyone from washington week in review reports on the congress it's becoming increasingly doubtful whether the senate will have time this year to try the impeachment trial washington week in review discusses foreign affairs
isn't there goes up and optimism as such as a deal with moderator paula do washington week in review lots of the major national and international events of the week from washington and washington week in review raw the proposal as bleak as big nico
week and coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate
continues as we go back to the judiciary committee's proceedings democrat paul sarbanes of maryland is explaining his substitute motion of the first article of impeachment charge in the president with obstruction of justice fifty four sets out of fargo won a substitute florida one of libertarians of a resolution of impeachment i think perhaps the thing that i could do that might be most helpful to the members of the committee is trying to review very quickly the changes in campus than a substitute as compared with political one as it was introduced on on wednesday evening because i appreciate the fact that the members of the committee have reviewed article one introduced on wednesday evening carefully and in fact this august the truth is in response
to that careful examination of article one which has i think employers and is an effort to clarify language the concept a place this matter in a position where the debate can go a whole fleet of the substance and west of the form of the article as it is before the committee if the members have a previous resolution or they can follow well there's very little change in paragraph one other than to clarify the language the president of the united states' aircraft to we're using carefully committee for the reelection of the president which is of course the proper name and those changes are made throughout with respect to the department of justice or the committee already official reference
there is for a gun the phrase have made it is continuing policy and instead of race made it his policy richard m nixon using a part of this high office needed his policy and further ends of sludge policy get act directly and personally and threw explosive ordinance there is added the language or near the bottom of the paragraph too the next to the last line to cover up and ceo and protests and protect those responsible and they're stricken in paragraph three the language or others which previously follow the word following the means that are set out early last year of a policy that is contained in paragraph two which is basically a grab women of this article and it was felt that the use of that language was
unnecessary and really support for us the first item listed follows essentially the previous language although in the midst of that investigative officers and employees of the united states' paragraph true of a substitute was paragraph set of the original article that has been placed here in africa group together all means which seemed to be related to one another and it seemed appropriate that it should be here with one two and three rather than further down on the list this is an effort obviously amongst other things but they introduce some additional logic into the structure of this article paragraph three is essentially the
same as the paragraph two of the original proposal article paragraph or includes interfering and the addition of the language we're endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the department of justice of the united states the federal bureau of investigation and the office of watergate special prosecution force to change is clarifying the official titles of these agencies and the additional language or endeavor in for your body strikes a language and concealing and instead inserted condoning acquiescing and the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money and then this means that previously when on for the purpose of a painting the silence
of participants and really going through protests of benson the illegal entry languages been stricken and in places in port or influencing the testimony of witnesses potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such illegal entry and other words the price of that action encompasses not only individuals who participated in the entry but influencing the testimony of witnesses are potential witnesses paragraph six of a substitute is identical with paragraph five of the original article with the addition of an agency of the united states at the end of that sentence paragraphs seven of the substitutes make some
changes in what was formerly paragraph eight of the original article and i think it probably would be best to fight simply read that includes disseminating information received from officers of the department of justice of the united states subjects of investigation and then this is a new language conducted by mark foley are only given to the gentleman is recognized to additional minutes if there's no object of gentleman is recognized to additional money the language conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states is a new language meant to clarify the thrust of point number seven for the purpose of aiding and assisting and instead of the language of
their avoidance all insert a language such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability paragraph eight of the substitute has parallels paragraph nine of the original article and the changes aren't follow making false or misleading public statements strike the language in his capacity as president ford's making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of this evening the people of the united states believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct the earlier language so that the white
house in this language has been changed to say on the part of personality executive branch of the united states which i think is a more accurate description of the individuals that would be discussed under this means a lot paragraph nine of the substitutes is former paragraphs of one of the original article endeavoring to cost perspective defendants and individually tried and convicted you expect favored treatment any consideration his new language in return for their silence or false testimony and then the balance or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony is a new language and finally mister chairman
including paragraphs are reworking i think essentially of the language the place that any better form so that the final paragraph would read and all of this richard m nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government of the great predators of the cause of one justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the united states i recognize the gentleman from michigan in german i want to express opposition to the substitute has offered i will not take my ball five minutes on your mind very critical of a substitute rapping in that it does not so forth where these spaces were live specific detail the exact incidents
upon which an anti kremlin vitamin with live without really it seems to me of all i'm writing an article of impeachment in this general language that you leave at this defendant or the respondent or whatever it is recalling grasping around trying to find out specifically what it is that he's tried to live audience to answer to a lot of generalities i'm steve inskeep and i think thats never having his fiddle and i asked all raise just by way of illustration in iraq another point how will go through all that
your first few paragraphs here a paragraph numbered one through you say making false misleading statements or is the united states retained the mayors are you are the legs that have over my dilemma and the quiet of an investigation that they're made and i'm not status or something that if you're listening to me and in that respect the final rabbit effective role as mr chairman i certainly do not believe that there's something that represents the caliber of the legal mr richard going through a drawing an article of impeachment and for the chairman like to address the question mr
sarbanes they're starving i think like a lot of people it doesn't work for all our mr sarbanes i'm wondering if an adventure and interacting with article to try to limit the allegations to matters including the president himself either and respect and knowledge that he had or participation that he entered into well jewel anyway try to help you criminal responsibility to him for acts of misconduct on the part of his subordinates that he had no knowledge in other words are we talking are these various allegations meant to apply
throughout the president himself for me the knowledge that he had or involvement or the involvement that he had in these very effective job in america if the acts of his subordinates were in furtherance of his policy once the language so forth and paragraph two of the article the most nights to be shown under the heading to provide it for me those nights would have been carried out by those subordinates and agents in further ends of such callous policy of course is the one line in the paragraph two of the proposed article it would have to be a policy that a policy that were to be a specific policy of his based not on in principle based on some facts or information well
the president could establish a policy with respect to this cover up which his agents were subsequently implement the nation of the implementation of the policy by the agents could be brought forth in support of the allegations of this article that it would have to be a specific policy and nothing that we're inferring were from our other actions that have taken place in my heart whoa there would have to be have a policy of the president is where you could have a policy that he had established richie which have implemented you could have that policy subsequently implemented by explosive ordnance or his agent let me out let me perhaps express to my concerns i think the concerns of others some of us don't believe in the so called madison concept by rich you hold responsible any superior for acts of misconduct by a
subordinate this year but you know if you get as i understand the wording of this language it would not reach to the limits of the madison superintendents in your article is that theory would reach out to the point of and i think at least the likes of subordinates and not only that the president did not have any knowledge of that there were not an implementation of a policy of the president my question let me on the aftermath would you have any objection or do you think it would be desirable in the life of mr hutchinson's come and say my eye frankly to a certain extent sure has expressed concerns you think it might not be desirable to have in the report that we prepare certain backup information relating specifically to each of the
year are numbered paragraphs in your article that i think that's a very constructive suggestion and i would anticipate that the report would do that but i would be appalled those who owe an effort to include that sort of actual material in the article i do not think it's appropriate and to me that it would be but it would be a very good idea and it would be more fair to the president and more fair to mr st clair if he could refer to a report that would in some detail going to be supporting evidence that supports each of the individual number are you that the rift that the report would provide information of that sort rather big in exactly roof that form i would think would be locked up on but i would anticipate that the report would provide information about sort of the quote
right here thank you chairman leading many other leading in a criminal case and its function is to give fair notice the person charged so that he may have an opportunity to get better it was not only be legally sufficient but in the context of a panel such as this we must be satisfied that the evidence justifies an otherwise bleak situation article of impeachment with that in mind that i'm going after the author of the vote articles a series of questions and i should use of force for the purpose of your answer the thrust of article wanted to charge the president with an obstruction of justice is if your intent by your article in charge the president with the sub prime of her
death the subject of a crime of obstruction of justice in the criminal sense i met no it would not be the intention that this article would be specifically that the contours of the sartre would be specifically define in criminal court in terms of a criminal offense and in terms of love would be required accordingly in a criminal trial proceeding i do not an impeachable offense i do not believe is a coal in savannah with a criminal offense and i think that generally accepted by members of this committee and this article was drawn on that promise that being the premise i think the answer to the next question is no and if you just answered no rather than explain that would preserve my time is that your intent by this article to charge the president without the crime of conspiracy to obstruct justice if you're using that term many criminals
we know is that your intent but that does not mean that concepts pertaining to conspiracies would not be working on in the application of this article is that your intention by this article to charge the president with substantive the fence in the house the section fifteen family the interference with properly investigated eighth like i get in each instance when the government and mr chairman i asked that the unanimous consent that the german be given an additional minute i find it difficult to answer the questions when the gentleman uses the phrase substantive offense of course impeachable offenses are substantive life that phrases meant again as i said earlier to be coincidence with a criminal offense is defined in the criminal code well then this is not going to be a criminal offense
that may pertain in that area but also retain here i understand him finally i gather that your answer would be the same with respect to the subject of crime coronation of perjury and sixteen twenty one if those letters can be shown in the criminal sense of them their apartment to proceeding under this article but the article is not restricted slowly to those matters in other words i think eventually answered it rarely are trying to develop a theory of the article and it appears to be your answer that the article is not promised necessarily upon a violation of the law does not agree to such violations but it is not honest and not limited to them i understand you know the heart of this matter is that the
president made it at all things blue investigations by would you please explain to this member of the committee and to the other members when and in what respect and how did the president declared that fall and i wish the government would be rather specific target a reality or course but the means by which this policy of the nonaligned voters that out in the second paragraph of the word and one himself with the question of where un for non when was the policy to play will policy relates back on june seventeenth nineteen seventy two and prior they are two agents of the committee committed illegal entry and then goes on and says subsequent there too richard m nixon using the powers of this high office made its policy
further ends of such a policy i can read the article but i think it's rather important to all of us that we know from you as the author of that article exactly when this policy was declared invalid well i think they're very factual matters that a member can draw conclusions as to when that policy was established and there are different stages in the us in this matter oliver is evidenced with respect to the policy having been established immediately after the break in are virtually immediately after the break in others other evidence that pertains more specifically to the period of march and april of nineteen hundred and seventy three the wording of this article in compost that full time period fall languages carry with it like you're going
to be specific you are talking about a policy of the president united states which is the heart of morality and the answer should not be confused about the specific when was the policy where if i get an answer to that i'd like to know in what manner it was the clarinet as well i want a distinguished want to be is what we are fighting encompass is the entire period of for any part of it that policy was established at any point through that period i think it's a strong argument ms bee make
more any kind of article of impeachment which huge investment that would be in order to make such emotion at this particular time many all in and i can do then is to object against the object of a substitute of on the hurdle right it's been great as chairman and i have both leased out the original article for the same reasons that we're in it ranking member and also the gentlemen from california and it is unfortunately we haven't been able to have a ruling on this particular objections privately today because if we did i think we could say a lot of time
and then i would like to direct a couple of questions to the gentleman from alan of like an avid attention place is it your understanding of the law that the articles of impeachment must be specific in order to meet the due process clause of the constitution i believe it this article that presented to you me just for the impeachment of respect i didn't ask that i asked you understand the law to say that an article of impeachment was the specific not in the same sense that a criminal indictment must be specific and i do not believe that the standards which govern the specificity of a criminal indictment are applicable to an article of impeachment of that is the thrust of the germans question how much you believe that under the
due process clause of the constitution that every individual including the president is entitled a blue norther so what he's charged for i think this article as i see that you have about twenty govern track all in one piece of paper and i want out of the surface as a gentleman from california has asked for a date for example on charred want to locate you say that he withheld relevant with their weight and how as an internal know that out of the answers such a charm this is not to notice due process i would point out that the gentleman from new jersey that the president's counsel and this committee room at the very moment at the very moment that the members of this committee entered the room and began to receive the present patient of information and it was at in this royal meal
This record is featured in ““Gavel-to-Gavel”: The Watergate Scandal and Public Television.”
Series
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Episode
1974-07-26
Segment
Reel 1 of 6
Producing Organization
National Public Affairs Center for Television
WETA-TV
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/512-mp4vh5db32
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-mp4vh5db32).
Description
Live and 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 second article charging abuse of power. This is day 6 of the Nixon ipeachment hearings.
Broadcast
1974-07-26
Asset type
Segment
Genres
Event Coverage
Topics
Politics and Government
Subjects
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.
Credits
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: 2402944-1-1 (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.
Citations
Chicago: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 1 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 26, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-mp4vh5db32.
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 1 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 26, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-mp4vh5db32>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 1 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 http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-mp4vh5db32