thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 3 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 so the big question may be that the action on this question may be premature and that there is still some incompleteness of the investigation of this whole matter and i would like to ask the chair if that is incorrect that are the resolution of resolution at all three of which were operating authorize the staff to continue to he played earlier investigation or one on this particular point
and even after we avoided on this matter the state is that correct or so until a solution a cheerio three in which this committee has been conducting its inquiry the vitality of the investigation will continue the investigation that were in this hour jonah now has eleven minutes remained down my food texas was no one to explain a little whether the detail about how the phrase one minute and joan different does the gentleman from iowa who controls the time to rise the right to surveys are human classed as he intended use all the time that i worry about summertime from texas
gentleman has eleven million you can find to make more clear that the president does make the road first though everything is activities in our conversation here before this committee and testimony mr butterfield testified and said that mr waldman never did anything without the knowledge of the president our pokemon testimony of mr button for you within ghana was a plane and all the panic you at the white house that became your attention than all one ever did anything without the knowledge of the prize mr butterfield no no that again a meeting with white house where just about a feel no never nothing in ladder at all you've essentially an amphibious but an improvement stalin implemented the decision that the president did meet early perhaps for lesser extent of all especially wasn't
implemented because of president ran his own personal fires he was not a decision maker mr jennings but if you would you repeat that for me i didn't hear about it through i said i did not know mr holland to be a decision maker he was entirely in my view and implemented and i recall the decision is a decision that he made unless that it was at the white house they had mass personnel would wear jackets or something along that line he implemented the president's decisions the president was the decision maker the president would one hundred percent in charge now on a point out and but the last week has reporters committee mr combat the president's personal attorney who served as the president first a representative of san clemente and during his appearance following discussions took place when that's gone by our friend mr jack
jennings a previous witnesses has testified as a matter of fact i live and what appealed to president nixon with quote a very good thing in the ground that he became camp david and for many the house got it in the ground inserting and as you've indicated is that at their captors a nickel mike williams and o'reilly from your personal knowledge and experience in dealing with this matter mystical my guest list again and finally how about a complete this left combat the final question that again i recall walking with the president and mrs nixon around the grounds of the debate and they'll move into that property and of course we're in san clemente they pointed out to me the president pointed out the novel mrs nixon certain road was eager to be pulled out and change and move around there was a great interest in the ground the ratings are small relative to property and the depression that
generated by the goings on detail as to specific items used to combat yes a record for a college a tank into the detail involving the building others were many probably down a couple questions so that in nineteen sixty nine that took all night i don't recall when the pool we're meeting are gone one of the disabled with the president with a revolt so mr erlichman myself howling can i think frankly marco were there and the president will look schematics and the layout with great attention and i can't pinpoint the day my laundry show that i believe the gentleman i would at this point you know my friend <unk> back are i think the general feeling or ru ru ru establishing hurt were trying to establish i referenced in particular with the president melissa you trying to save the other was annoying
conversion by reasonable what holden newer and you're just trying to establish that very clearly these assistants and close associates an executive order president did what he wanted them to do and they're called when testified in butterfield testify that he the president made the decisions and that they implemented just that simple it was not something that they want they do they bought up and did the poor implementation of the president added the pope is on between you know my act include would you just you know what i thought they'd erlichman was the primary purpose of anime a sample money a manhole also what of articles something the president didn't wanna law mother was elected to subordinate i'm just quoting mr haldeman and mr butterfield sat outside that door all of those years and i reserve my clothing famine and you reserve that's it
i give you gentlemen six minutes remaining and unless the gentleman from michigan was grossly in the gentleman is now to consumers jerry idea demand danger in new york and we have a a real problem here as it relates to the president's involvement the president signed that tax form we all sign a tax form and we say that to the best of our knowledge the facts and not all are true unique thing about this case is that when the internal revenue did finally
revealed the president's tax forms it's sad because it was president united states that they didn't feel like they should approach the president it appears now that when the president so that huge i know we're all of his books and records for the joint committee the committee did what the internal revenue service did not do and that its kind that the taxpayer we know that as basic regardless of what office we haul when they are questions in connection with a tax for the very least that should be done as you contact the taxpayer and adam explain away the discrepancies in this particular case we find the president's man that is these tax experts not cooperating with the internal revenue we find the president not cooperating and answering the questions
of the joint committee and if these things were to be held in advance it would mean that any president is not subject to promote indictment would never have his conduct as relates to payment or nonpayment of income taxes review now a lot of talk as been said that because the b word fortunately was accepted as a lot of this article that we have the responsibility to approve the presidents guilt beyond a reasonable doubt that this was so i would not be able to vote for the article presidents guilt beyond a reasonable doubt involved criminal liability which at this time the president is has immunity for it seems to me that the buck has to stop somewhere the irs will not ask the taxpayer the joint committee said that it would not
going to criminal liability because that was a question for this committee and we our mailing recommending to the house and her resolution which allows for continued investigation that the president be made to end so we're not paying the taxes when it is clearly should have paid it seems to me at the president again will have an opportunity to have more information presented to members of the house representatives says it has not been presented to the congress or the irs and then the president who will have the opportunity to come forward at long live in the senate of the united states and if in fact he is not guilty he will have the opportunity to present the facts i thank the gentleman for you and filming an ideal that do i need to have you i
think their moment i would have to say that i think i will be and i don't know i'm a public service i'm going to do so i would urge them to consider the head of withdrawal of this article i think there's a case here but in my judgment and trouble having trouble deciding if it hasn't yet been made one red brief comments and i would say that people that believe in every by panic taxes on of all what i think that most people in my district they then i think we have to answer that question ourselves if we think that it ought to be done in a bank and generally wake of this investigation a lot of our discussion and what constitutes an impeachable offense under the constitution the prevailing view and one which accepts private misconduct in all things on issues of the power of the presidency constitutes an impeachable offense they're both valid you have a much more restrictive interpretation of the impeachment
called and require group of the commission of the family it meant that this article driving violation of the a monument lot of the constitution and violation of the tax laws that's four square with even the most restrictive interpretation of what constitutes an impeachable offense we have evidence of criminal violations of one of the most basic laws of the land the internal revenue go along with hiv every american an opportunity to pay their taxes and with that every american is very committed every taxpayer agonize usually honesty and accuracy of his returns but a few are willing to risk the threat of heavy fines or imprisoned millions of americans will do this evidence as a so called smoking gun we have put before the americans who have a specific about writing about their most accurate by the president the question is accountability is now up to us to this country those of us who body so long and so hard then
these proceedings are approved for specifics or citation to criminal violations now have before them precisely what they've been asking for the specific group of the execution of fraudulent gains the filing of bach returns the failure to report income enrichment of one first real estate at public expense these must be viewed as proof of impeachable offenses know president is exam i'm very united states constitution and a lot of the united states from accountability for personal lives be a more that is for official mystery and i think that we own this poem at an average the fairly evaluate the president's activities ma show the american people that all men i've treated equally under the law videos
you need to be in a position i am sorry mr drennan i don't have any time you all committed that you can get rid of my mind you know and ideal german i you or minutes the jungle mama's lap and you know why haven't always a rising the get down the junior member of this committee debated about to end they say these have a good debate we have on the matter of taxes we have gotten to the matter of security for the president's facts over these subsidies could command hours of discussion time i have two minutes reach the outset let me address myself to the question of taxes
i couldn't agree more with the gentleman from texas mr brooks and every american including the president united states members of congress and others that every single nickel or even down to the penny taxes that they owe i might say of members of congress know that our good friend ken jennings appeared in a house sees to it that we play are every month the river a sizeable chunk out of my sorry that i'm pleased to admit the thick thousand dollars and one of my salary the end of the month really pay our taxes i think the president and stage of various factors likewise i find him guilty tonight of bad judgment and gross negligence bad judgment and following the advice of lyndon baines johnson they ever take a deduction or the president your vice presidential papers inside the congress united states is to
be commended for repealing that legislation which permitted those type of actions and secondly i find him guilty of gross negligence for not taking more time in going over his tax returns at the time he signed them all through this investigation i found a president of the united states too busy to take care of the little detail that we've talked about here tonight and i don't consider the matter of taxes a little detail i have a former elite transcript we have news to combat the president's personal attorney testify before this committee about him going in for the ceremonial signing because he and only seen the president's aides got this is personal attorney five or six time in about five years away well on the witness the ceremonial sarah deciding of his tax returns and what did he say under questioning by mr st
clair how long were you in the president's presidents present approximately forty about thirty five to forty men are on ice at you know that it takes me ten times that long ago or one page of my very simple tax return the united states goes over a very complicated tax return and they're only and he has offers thirty five or forty minutes i say that's gross negligence you should've taken no longer locked and owning time they talk about other things we heard testimony air tonight that would lead you to believe that you are page by page line by line and the evidence is not support that statement that the president hasn't been alluded to read and it has paid those tax an exception of nineteen sixty nine he didn't have to pay what he's promised to pay nineteen sixty nine
we could go under that the great detail and i'm certain that the president will pay nineteen sixty nine even though is not required in seoul a scuffle on to what mr brooks has talked about security precaution that the presidential mansions are armed robbery prefers to follow a mr brooks isn't a very unique situation he was chairman of the subcommittee or whenever these matters but likewise there was another subcommittee of this congress that went into and also and i am serious subcommittee appropriations committee that paid the girls a lot of the finding of the subcommittee didn't find anything rose lee roth ever been alluded to hear my mr brooks absolutely not and we had a press conference held by the gentleman real oklahoma who happens to chair that subcommittee already stated in so many words that that was true i might say that i talked to the gentleman this afternoon on the florida house and east of that opinion magazine limits on the part of the gsa in putting in
the security precautions and i heard him say this afternoon residents alive and a young woman in new york and they were in effect the german very much for healing from a severe waterwork associate myself instead of the situation being a bad scene nevertheless there is not to be found before us evidence that the president acted willfully to have paid his taxes and i think that can be said on the basis of all the careful work of our staff was put before us we do know that the irs investigation has been cursory they know more than us have had under oath the key witnesses in this matter we also know that they have referred the matter to the special prosecutor and i believe that is where the matter should
rest as far as we are concerned if in the course of the special prosecutor's investigation new information comes to light we have a reserve power to amend articles at any time in the future value of the jungle i think thank the gentleman i think it's only fair a point out the what's been referred to the special prosecutor is that speech if they play the president but the people who read prepared their returns under a separate section which applies only to the man who prepares to return such as a kid or the accountant or the lawyer does not come under the section where the next year and sell withdraw from new york to london chairman it owed the balance of my time five minutes of the gentleman from california mr morris thank you with the chairman
there's no question though what one of the most inflammatory subjects to the american people as taxation they're always align and whenever they feel public servant or someone who has a lot of money is not paying is just shared the path so that is one reason i'm sure that this thicker matter have been brought before this committee same time and looking over the fact this case it is clear that our problems are caused by two particular way to a particular laws we had a bad law that allowed public officials to take the bathrooms of their public statements we have another law that was passed after the death of sen kennedy and a number of other public officials which encouraged extra security for our top public officials so that they live through their terms in office and not die in office through
it may be guilt of the personal property of all early in nineteen sixty nine march twenty seven a lot taking away the right to make that gap and getting a tax deduction was not signed in the law until late december of that same year nine months later the law went past dating back to july it did not get back to market anyone was that anything to do with the gift of personal property know that when the property has been the liver and can fall an ownership of the property given up in that manner there is a valid yet yesterday as the term and that there was a body of that property and there is no way that the
president can get it back regardless of what happened later that property was given as of that time bitter internal revenue service and many instances like to get some kind of a paper to prove intent of the giver that the reason the paper was prepared in april of nineteen sixty nine i don't know what happened to that law that was it we have duplicate that was prepared not consign not by president nixon but by someone that were in office laurentiis that there is no showing that mr nixon had any knowledge whatsoever of additional paperwork was signed i would submit that president nixon was very badly sir it is personal accounts and in this particular instance by his attorney who supervise but there's no showing that president nixon and anyway engaged in any fraud and taking the deduction that was allowed
by law and respect him a gift she made nine months before that changed a lot of places and some are four or five months before the date that period in which the law became infected in connection with the property in san clemente we heard a bigoted around seventeen million dollars i visited that property a number of years ago with a number of public officials in california you can spend seventeen billion dollars fund that he's the property if you wanted to the figure we heard later sixty seven thousand dollars for security improvements and probably much more active it's true there is other property that owned by the president which is being used for governmental offices that's not too far away but that certainly isn't an improvement for the president's property any way shape or form the president because of the difficulties here i'm sure of the routes for other reasons has
agreed to give the property it's a comedy back to the people of this country there is no way the state would be but improve on anything that was done to that property there is no shortage whatsoever that he will be increasing is that well mr nixon took office as president of the united states he was worth more money actually really is at the present time is not a man that has become rich in public office actually with the pain of the factors that he's been a threat he will undoubtedly be poor that he was i don't see how you can get the kind of issues of internal revenue that testify to hear today and i certainly think there's no evidence whatsoever of support and the gentleman has expired all time on both sides has expired and the question now appears on the adoption of the article as amanda all those in favor please signify by saying and i
quote the quality of no's appear that those eminent i'm on the a's and aces then didn't follow his daughter was in the article as amanda please signify by saying i suppose no article <unk> mr brooks mr kastenmeier mr adler mr n gate well mr connor mr oliver mr wooley mr ferraro mr
lando business are no business i really i used to venice why mr ryan no mr rhyne i missed your results below mr mcfarlane no this just a minute bill mr santa doll
mystery of no ms jillian bell mr dennis no one missed efficient know ms germain well mr rowden well mr butler oh this to go mr lat no ms baptiste mr morris no it's been and so the house judiciary committee rejects an article charging the president would willfully trying to evade income tax payments
illegally using federal funds for personal gain mr chairman well members of all is it twenty six members voted no the article is not agreed to that says that has been closed the work of the committee on a procedural resolution which was adopted last week and according to the terms of the resolution and as a result of our action the donald resolution together with those articles that had been agreed to be reported to the alps additionally under the rules of alice each member will be entitled to free calendar days in which to file a supplemental additional or a minority
views of the report of the committee which will go to the pullout the chair in this case however allow until the close of business on tuesday nights on his sixth remembers who has to file sex abuse be available to the members who next tuesday it that report referred by the committees that the committee staff will be for a horrible an idea on tuesday night and if the numbers are interested in acquiring early committee staff as the word the committee staff were at the airport on this generation has visited with it witnesses the members with respect to a separate division on the martin vaughan a review of the we could have available primarily a draft report of the committees that and then we can determine what extent we want
to file individual or support for a minority what our view with john was the chairman not i'm also interested in the lists are so called i think it's called a bulk of the killers or memorandum of the fact is that kennedy circulated so that we can have an importer see what effects are going to be used in reference to supporting the individual some guidance of articles one and into the air we are now the committee report usability various members admit while either the visual minority or supplemental views those bills in particular that had been a party and of course the consideration of this resolution
those particular areas will become part of the report and the manner in which they have been already agreed to us there oh yeah i know that the document that we prepared we send will be one which will have a permanent increase in value and in my own case in so far is it additionally is that i'm i prefer i was sufficient time to be certain that they are consistent with the president's in an accurate way protect my individual viewers and that's why wouldn't they would help me and i'm sure what other members took off from a week that have buy this buy this weekend they had a draft report from the committee staff so that we learned after a parody version of the of the remains want to know well advised that i think at this time what the chair is advised with regard to the
matter that we have just considered i think will conclude this committee's meeting at this time we will take up such other matters that a proper committee meeting where such business will undertaken however i might say that the staff is always available to the members they in order that they be assisted in the filing of whatever it is that makes a while you're going to have a committee meeting time for a final report on the committee stands adjourned until further and thus the first up the impeachment process against president richard nixon renewed a winding up its
deliberations today isn't and in three articles of the peace process approve a third article for inclusion in its impeachment resolution but turned down two additional articles this evening rejecting an article charging the president with willfully trying to evade income tax payments unlawfully using federal funds for personal purposes and there you say the final session of the committee committee members leaving their seats are now beginning to fall out just heard german latino say a moment ago the next step is that the committee report maybe it
will be taken and the state judiciary committee rings down the legislative curtain on one of the most historical debates to take place this century i would remind you again that this is the first time since a team sixty eight that any president has been cited has been cited in articles of impeachment of president of course was andrew johnson he was impeached by the house but he was not convicted by the senate now impeachment has become of course the nightmarish or deal for richard nixon impeachment resolution as i said a moment ago on the pursuit to the house floor and if it is approved there this would pave the way for the trial of mr nixon in the senate john this committee of thirty eight lawyers has been inquiring into each month for nine months it began its final phase just six days ago taking up the watergate charge first after four days of argument the
committee approved an impeachment oracle charging president nixon with obstructing justice by taking part in the watergate cover up the boat was twenty seven to eleven yesterday the committee recommended the president be impeached for tampering with the irs director electronic surveillance and misusing executive agencies ubs of our article carried by the widest margin twenty eight to ten the third article jars the president and largely refusing to honor the judiciary committee's subpoenas requesting tapes and documents the article carried on a twenty one dissenting vote earlier this evening the committee rejected an article dealing with the president's foreign policy an attempt to cite the president for the secret bombing of cambodia the articles sponsored by john conyers of michigan kept worldwide votes for a second i thought it was the subject of the president's tax returns that you just saw also undoubtedly mastering also only twelve votes for
twenty six against some other committee has officially recommended the house of representatives three articles of impeachment against the present age of those articles concludes by saying wherefore richard m nixon by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office will we make it i think our reporter carolyn rose is now standing by at the capital carolyn has been covering these proceedings as they began last wednesday night and those should be with us momentarily jumbo i think as we watched the these final moments sudden i you know i i certainly i certainly had the feeling that these proceedings have been perhaps more significant than we first anticipated when they began i think one of the things that occurred to me as i jotted down i thought today was a congress that really face up to its responsibilities there's been a lot of talk recently about the
erosion of congressional party which are flowing down pennsylvania avenue it seems to me that the that that what did occur proves that the impeachment process is indeed applicable to today's age where we can talk some more about was the moment that apartment carolyn rose is ready outside the judiciary committee i brought out from the committee room mr wiggins and is to all the they are a republican and a democrat to gentleman who had been on opposite sides of the fence in this first let me ask you mr wiggins it's six days later more than thirty five hours what do you hear from your point of view well it's clear what her that she's the president the chance every article that's been achieved i don't personally repugnant but she personally believe that religion was unwarranted i certainly respect of the opinions of my friend and colleague eventually to the contrary and we will have an opportunity to they did
further carry on the house floor that the purpose of our immediate liberation was to make recommendations to the house and we have well i think there've been a number of things are achieved or accomplished i think perhaps the most important thing is the education that the country might have obtained from the six days of debate obviously i think the committee has performed in a manner which i personally would've desire to do so we will now carry on this debate in the house of representatives and hopefully i love about the babe will remain as high as in the house it has been committed and in that regard mr stallworth defense and has a very weak case let me ask you both know you thought that this nominating at this and really
as politicians or as members of the committee that mr williams how do you think you're going to go down in history as your performance the six very rapidly it actually i don't think i have yep i'm going to go down this is a fleeting moment of history and it is an important moment and i suppose the navy to me alone to have dissipated in it but i don't know even one moment expected obviously more than a footnote in some research on what it might look a bit more tidy i think all of us so if we go down at all in history is any mention of this proceeding that will be mentioned as having attempted to be fair and have been acted out of conscience and having acted responsibly well people might differ with the result that we really felt that they would conclude that there were men and women of good conscience attempting to come to conclusions on her interpretations of mr reagan's do you think that these
proceedings will have restored people's faith in our system and to making the decision to congress in the eyes of the public view that way i think that the this is working the fact is that the liberation of the main consideration given to the government consideration i would agree with richardson says i think the peoples' representatives but i do think we are not paid to what many committees very briefly what's the first thing you can add you know your
bag and start repairing tomorrow or a parent to my violin to start tonight gentlemen thank you well i do think in its own way but that interview underlines a rather remarkable unity which has existed on this committee seem to me that both of these gentlemen that were as they were on opposite sides of the fence on the last day the display of goodwill toward one another despite all the white house talk about lynching law and a kangaroo court which runs in his description of the committee it seemed to me that we really did didn't show democracy inaction is an ancient cliche here in the best form because ultimately when the decision was made to impeach the president we have more than democrats joining southern democrats and we've heard that we have conservative and moderate republicans joined in
and it seemed to me representative in remarkable a political question and also tell to i don't know whether jack how jack murphy will feel about this comment that is the classic case of lawyers to there you had charles wiggins and jerome all to man the biggest advocates on the extremes of the issue neither one of these men were swine goats are or that you know the voice of moderation and you use the word in terms of the vote for against impeachment and they're talking very amiably afterwards a very understandable thing and yet a lot of people don't understand that i'm sure that in terms of lawyers particularly get up and argue in a very rapid rate in something as crucial as this one man very very strongly that a president of the united states should be impeached and removed from office another man feeling very strongly that that they're that president should not be impeached generation of the removal from
office in every way there's another factor too it seems to me that for the most part we didn't have it a debate of exceptionally high caliber that that occurred there were some low moments of course but by and large it was a debate of substantial pair of garlic the thing that really struck me i suppose with a mini movie moments that we have some of the speeches that people want or like paul sarbanes order flowers the one that really to me i think the artist has won by james mann of south carolina who said and i jotted it down i just want to quote what he said i'm fully aware that many americans believe the president is being attacked and abuse by sinister forces by the left wing press or the democrats it matters not to meet his party or his position you're subject to the rule of more injustice and under my oath he will get it maybe the president or beat the pauper that it seemed to me really represented the essence of democracy well you mentioned that jack murphy we
also have george will with us and i'd like to ask both of you just count damaging to fuel these proceedings go to the pros well i obviously very damaging for the first time ever a hundred years you have a important committee of the house coming out resoundingly on bipartisan basis against the president recommending his impeachment and i'm sure whatever the legal ramifications about the political ramifications or even worse i'll leave that come into mr will i would like to encourage your sense that this has been an exercise amounting to a celebration of civilized dialogue on intelligence division relations committee commit enjoyment mistaken and allowing these last two articles to be debated so extensively because they they can't be susceptible to charge of we use for more political purposes less majestic
duty of the house to look into impeachment and therefore i think the debate surrounding invoked a little more acrimony than was desirable more argument inconsistent with the the previous levels achieve by statements of some other people you mentioned but on balance finally i think that the interview we just saw the world and to women's lives at a wonderful summary of the intelligence basic amicably with which intelligent than the concern then women could go about what has to be a very agonizing process of producing sensible results and a find again for congress as a whole some confidence on the part of american people george is a group of the other's legally it's just another step in an actual process and a necessary step but not past the hour politically there are a number of the facts first of all as you stressed
call that this is the case for the dog that didn't bark the thing that didn't happen significant matters but the debate rose to the level of the great issues and as the issues got more trivial like the debate got more trivial but basically they will be remembered as rather serious because the issues are serious are i think the american people probably watched a lot of us think of a civics lesson and the m and the minds of the voters but basically what this means is that the bottom line is that a broad bipartisan majority voted to powerful those articles of impeachment and now four hundred and thirty five or so house members must go on and vote and those who would vote against the impeachment of the president must take the position in the face of this broad bipartisan support of two articles of impeachment supported by thirty eight volumes of evidence
to vote against impeachment them of say there's not sufficient evidence to justify a trial in the senate and i think the core by the day that's going to be very difficult is the fact that there is a debate to come about to come in the house and then the trial possibly the senate is charles lincoln's writings is gonna be what we've just seen these last six days a fleeting moment in history george tenet have to send of fleet anywhere but the caramel said that there were thirty five hours of debate in this i should think there could be no less than eighty hours televised debate in the house five hundred and fifteen hours of debate right there i'm not sure the american people and their lives and spend all this time george thank you very much thank you to jack and speaking of carla so let's go to her coach at her reflection well i guess at the end it really ended with a whimper instead of a bang because as our guests have pointed out that the debate wasn't particularly enlightening or politically productive
but i think that the total impact is that it's given the public some insight into our system in our constitutional system in the way congress works and as far as regardless of the results on the floor of the house i think that's going to be a plus both for the television business and for the general public that it's going to give insights into how the system works with all its flaws and all its lessons that you can i know that the dyes been cast by the committee we can give you an idea what the impeachment timetable does look like the house judiciary committee did begin as were the first week in november of last year workers all now but complete the articles then go to the house rules committee first probably august third with members will work out the procedures for the debate on the floor of the house it will decide whether to allow amendments from the floor whether to allow broadcast coverage and how long the debate will last it should be done with that by august the night as leaders had been planning on august twelfth of the first day of debate with the late in the day in the judiciary committee may push that back a final vote was
scheduled for aug twenty third of that deadline to starting to slip after the president has had a chance to reply to a possible house version of the impeachment articles the senate would begin its trial no firm date i've been set but it is expected to take on for six weeks and maybe started by the week of september sixteenth majority leader mike mansfield not saying such a troubled be completed before the election that is said i want it done this year and now we'd remind you to stay tuned to for videotape replay of the highlights of today's session may be seeing coming up immediately on most of these public broadcasting stations now unfolding saying good night for myself and jim mr brooks mr kastenmeier mr edward i was trying at all under
mr oliver mr wooley <unk> mr lando business are no business i really it is today why that's true during the night visitors mr hunt
mr navarro visits the old mazes and then now from washington you have been watching live gavel the gavel coverage of the house judiciary committee proceedings production funding provided by public television stations the ford foundation and the corporation for public broadcasting this has been a production of the division of gw eta so moon new book at a sound familiar
he came down the buying raul malo raise it to the great american remake he appealed to the way that i mean the ice cream it's both fb it's been the
peak to pass but it's but eight washington nationals student film festival as judged by nicholas ray and stan vanderbeek it's been thank you
the pain fb it is at eleven ten tonight eastern time the
house judiciary committee began its fifth and final vote on articles recommending impeachment of the president of the united states mr brooks right mr kastenmeier mr edward mr han gave no mistake on iran this trial where are just evolving mr florio mr lando business are no business i really i visited main reason why mr ryan no
i miss your results below mr mcfarlane no this just a minute bill mr sennott no mystery of the mill ms jillian cole mr dennis no i visited fish know ms germain all mr hoving well this is about her no
this to go on though mr lat no it's because every week ms keller as he was doing it leading leading with a hanger tm nineteen eighty three tonight impeachment debate july thirtieth nineteen seventy four years and by correspondent jean we're good at or
so to believing the second time the judiciary committee in the house of representatives and i completed its final vote on its inquiry to determine whether or not richard m nixon should be impeached after nine months of work at a cost of more than a million dollars to the committee of lawyers recommended that the boss sent three articles of impeachment into the united states on the committee recommended the president be tried on three major jerk is first that he took part in an obstruction of justice in the cover up of watergate the watergate break in second thing is to use is powered by improper interference with the internal revenue service the fbi the cia and the department of justice and third that he violated the constitution by refusing to honor the committee's subpoenas for white house tapes and documents earlier in the day and evening the committee rejected attempts to have more articles to the committee's list one of those would have cited mr nixon for the secret bombing of cambodia the other would have
charged him with filing fraudulent tax returns all measures were defeated soundly as a handful of democrats joined republicans in voting no as the judiciary committee began this morning they got a glance of the end of the tunnel and started picking up some speed in his deliberations congressman debated and disposed of two articles to date twice the number of a panel yesterday and the first that scares people in the four star the subject is the president's refusal to answer the committee's subpoenas for tapes and documents credit card charges the president with stonewalling congress but republican carl frantic says the validity of subpoenas should be decided by the courts until and until then there is no impeachable offense and on average a democrat john edwards says the subpoena power is essential congressional debates before and the committee can't destroy the safety valve in our system but republican tom railsback says this third article amounts to political overkill in the third hour this subject is this secret bombing
in cambodia delbert lad argues against the article saying it was done to save american lives william cohen took a different angle suggesting the cambodian bombing was the result of a usurpation of power due in part to the slaughter and the fall colors and the fourth hour democrat jerome while he argues that this article was needed because the president's war powers have been a good lawyer flowers signals the democrats' defection on this charge that he says bluntly this is a bad rap now let's go back to the start of the sixth and final version of the committee infusion of the various german reveal calls the members to order our committee will come to order recognize the gentleman from eleanor i am mr mccartt <unk> an amendment in the form of
article three people forbes article three of the parks that part immediately after a radical to actually following additional article article three and his conduct of the office of president of the united states budget and that's contrary to his own faithfully execute the office of president of the united states and to the best of his abilities preserve and defend the constitution of the united states in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the last and faithfully executed has failed without wall cause or excuse produced papers and things as directed by julie authorize subpoenas issued by the committee on the judiciary the house of representatives on april eleven nineteen seventy four may fifteen nineteen seventy four may thirty nineteen seventy four and
june twenty four nineteen seventy four i will fully dissipates such subpoenas the us appeared papers and things were deemed necessary by the committee to its inquiry authorize and directed by resolution of the house of representatives to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach pitcher the next president of the united states and refusing to reduce these papers and things and indication of the power of the state's only in the house of representatives by the constitution of the united states in all of this richard m nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his first as president and subversive of constitutional government a prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the united states well four richard m nixon by such warrants in
treatment and trial and removed from office mr chairman for lemonade to presenting get into discussion and support of my oars article three i ask unanimous consent that all the bait an article three including the consideration of any amendments there to be limited to a period not to exceed three hour the bait on any amendment shall not exceed thirty and that's divided equally between the proponents and on and opponents of the amount of their objections that gentleman was joe i think i remember others committee of fully familiar with them this cycle impeachment and made up in mine and i think three hours with a time of much too long i would hope that in certain reduced that advice and counsel while that
the unanimous consent requests in fact the debate about it three hours is not necessarily that we consume video by the same token mr chairman he could consume three hours we had a member of the committee and they move the questionnaire consideration any amendments that period prior to eight re our liberty or you know the law if there is no object i agree with what john this on this particular issue has been debated in a way i think of nearly three hours has to wonder if we can't cut it thank you
i'm not interested in the long debate on this that we don't know about this unanimous consent or a proposal that of course we would be operating in a five minute rule as i understand which would evolve thirty eight members five minutes to the article i don't like to eliminate risk a respected person the opportunity to speak on the us it is more acceptable i went to revise them and to suggest that consent requests who lament the time not to exceed to iraq for gen debate jared reis are a writer a second i shall not object
to a lawyer for reducing the time i think of the line that connection solid chairman rsa world they again that perfecting amendments will they recognize a regular listener of those non fiction i might be unanimous consent of the two fourth and two hours i think ten minutes for the author two minutes and without jack has a lot of the tone is recognized the unmanned item of german and preventing this article article three it seems to me we're getting at something very basic and very fundamental and
supplies aren't that impeachment proceeding an inquiry is concerned i think well first recall that the constitution vests in the house of representatives and as the house judiciary committee which has been designated by the house of representatives to conduct this inquiry with this all power of impeachment no implicit in that soul power of impeachment is the authority to make this inquiry to investigate the office which is under investigation in this case it happens to be the president of the united states there have been a total i believe of thirteen impeachment inquiry into impeachment in the house of representatives and a total of sixty nine cases which of them with garden where there's been some action taken a one kind or another with regard to the subject of impeachment no implicit in this authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry is the authority to investigate the actions that
take place in that office if we were not work if we are without that authority or have to respond and has the right to determine for himself or herself to what extent the investigations show be carried on of course we don't have that so far of authority someone else's impinging upon hour or so it it seems to make implicit in this authority that we have a broad authority to conduct an investigative inquiry this has been recognized in a proceeding as a matter fact in that the house of representatives delegated to us the authority to issue subpoenas robinson necessary to our inquiry and a result of that we have foreign minister the president requesting information now prior to the time that we issued the subpoenas we direct the letters to the president requesting information and these letters requesting
information were sent by the chairman after consultation with me ranking minority member in other words we have the joint authority here and the joint expression of republicans and democrats with respect to the information that we requested and the president of course did not respond to the requests that we've directed to him in the course of our letter and so what we did we exercise the authority which was granted to us by the house resolution to issue subpoenas now with respect to three of the subpoenas the vote was thirty seven to three i believe that thirty seven to one no vote was thirty three to three and one thirty seven to one and joe and thirty four to four on the fourth in other words the action of the committee with bipartisan and was overwhelming that we wanted this material that we wanted this response to the request for information which we felt were necessary and relevant to our employer i recall when the president came before the joint session of the congress in january he said words to the effect that he wanted to
provide for cooperation with the judiciary committee consistent only with the operation of his aunt a lifeboat that qualification was a more significant than it seemed to be at that time because the words that came across the less work for cooperation with the house judiciary committee a war is that full cooperation without injury committee all events and tapes and we read some transcripts a transcript that we got a pork were transferred to were issued to the public not issued in response to this committee and to the committee but publicize the edited transcripts is there a goal of the white house transcript and the tapes where do they come from living come from the white house they came from the grand jury and they came from the special prosecutor's office as a matter of fact of the hundred and forty seven page that we requested we didn't receive a single one from the white house are you ever sorry that your restaurant example is declining sample of stonewalling is right there no that's an expression that comes out of the white house what were the stonewall inn a car and it's
occurring with regard to the congress of the united states and with regard to this committee you know if we do have the soul part of impeachment and if we do have the authority to investigate them it is important of course that way do receive the kind of cooperation that i thought would be forthcoming i've done everything i could to try to impress upon the white house the importance of this whole operation now the president does raise the question of confidentiality of the i think materials and so what we suggested was that this new material would be received not only and there are rules of the confidentiality but that the and the president himself the president's counsel could participate with our cultural and swinging out any sensitive or national security information but the president's position has been that he should be the sole arbiter of what is
one he should turn over money should not turn out well if he's to be the sole arbiters then on the world but we conducted a thorough and complete and fair investigation what would this cut now since we began this inquiry of course the president has been involved in litigation and the case went to the supreme court and he made the same kind of leap to the special prosecutor and that this report that he's made was that he should have this all right that there was an absolute executive privilege which prevailed and he had the absolute right to determine what he would turn over and what he would not to know no that not that dugan was not now that was knocked down effectively and so far the court was concerned what's true we were involved in that proceeding some people thought we should have been perhaps we should've it but anyway the doctor and was knocked out and the doctrine of executive privilege
or episode executive privilege as long as a matter fact i have failed and a number of my colleagues here on the committee have felt that the doctrine of executive privilege has no application whatsoever in an impeachment inquiry because if it would be impossible for it the president or any other person being investigated to have the right and privilege to determine what was to be submitted in the course of the investigation and what was not the bees and other words we would be falling foul of the maxim enunciated by or call that a person cannot be the judge of his own car and consequently that that cannot possibly prevail otherwise art from our art our case would be our our authority would be frustrated completely now i say this is fundamental and basic to our inquiry and i mean precisely that i mean that if we are going to set
a standard and the guy for future congresses for future impeachment inquiry is there is no more important standard and guide than the one that we will determine with respect to this article three because if we reveal co recommend impeachment of the president on the basis of this article three if we refuse to recommend that the president should be impeached because of his defiance of the count with respect to the subpoenas that we have issues than future congresses the future respondents will be in the position where they can determine themselves what they're going to provide an impeachment inquiry is what they're not going to provide and the that would be particularly so in the case of an inquiry directed the president of the united states or not only affect this president future presidents and it might be that a republican congress would be investigating in an impeachment inquiry a democratic president and a future instance we don't have any more impeachment but in the case we don't want the year the president that we might
establish here would be would be affective so it seems to me that there is no greater responsibility which is the falls as of this time a man that to determine this is question of the president's responsibility with respect to our subpoenas know earlier i had the i thought of the idea i had said it for publicly that i felt that when the president did not respond to our subpoenas that we should take action through all the president and in content that we should should censure the president or we should have a resolution of inquiry is the top again but some action on the part of the route i was discouraged in that respect i was discouraged her from the leaders on both sides of the aisle i might say and i am i emphasize that that while i was withholding the action and i intend to take them that i would face a very serious dilemma at this that and so why would we
did not take action under the intent of forty that we had which in a sense is this is it quite difficult to have to enforce and to apply but nevertheless we are now faced with this this asian bizarre a decision that at this artist with determining whether or not the president is or is not a contemptuous our ap has not in he has not defied the congress to the extent that that we should recommend his impeachment i think that this is a and most important article it is a case where the congress itself is pitted against the executive we have this we have this a challenge on the part of the executive that with respect to iraq war and if we think the whole process of impeachment let us recognize that this is a car which is pre eminent which makes the congress of the united states with respect to the three separate and political
branches of government the separation of art and yet is the state and repose is as in awe as the responsibility to fulfill this mission and the only way we can do it is through acting they really honorable gentleman has expired i recognize the gentleman from arkansas and i have a perfect medium rare moment but mr thorn the first paragraph strikeout material commencing with the subpoena and the constitution of the united states and insert the following the subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental factual questions relating to presidential direction now it's full of actions devastated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the president in refusing to reduce these papers and
things richard m nixon substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the end in opposing powers of the presidency against lawful subpoenas or the house representative they're by listening to and still function necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment bested by the constitution in the house representatives i can chop members of the committee illinois deserve very serious reflection and thought i previously expressed my own views that the failure to comply with subpoenas does constitute a grave our parents and i also expressed in my view that
offense should have been included within one of the substantive articles which has been previously presented an adopted by this committee i think it could have been considered as an abusive power or even more logically as an obstruction of justice and interfering with his committee's exercise of its constitutional duty or that did not occur during the course of the adoption of the articles which had been presented and i don't see mr doerr at the table but i would like to direct attention of us degenerate i'm a jew the article from california to include within that article i mean a failure to produce materials required out by congressional committees are you familiar
with that article of them and it was born in your view would that article were met the introduction of evidence out with respect to the subpoenas by this committee i think that provision of article one would not prevent the introduction of evidence and the area with the prisoners one of his socialist that specific and they charge insane the federalist well based on that answer then i think that we are very real issue of giving a proper consideration president to comply with it
i think it's important that an approaching this we should be aware that here we're dealing very directly on intimate way with a matter which can have a bearing upon the constitutional balance of power between the three departments of government and it won't we make do with regard to the adoption of this article is going to be in one way or another possibly affect the future if we do nothing we may indeed limit the authority of the legislative branch to make a proper inquiry as to the misconduct under the impeachment provision are individuals than either the executive or judicial branches of government if on the other hand we've got to rally our power and authority we might distort the balance of power to get the legislative branch under its impeachment
pause if it to continually investigate and the common the actions of members of the executive or judicial writers of bell for this reason it seems to me that if this article is to be given consideration it must be sharply limited and define every night other evidence which might rise to the level of impeachable offenses and that is the purpose and effect of the perfect an amendment which i've adopted which i have offered excuse me in which i ask members to adopt because it seems to me that we are confronted with a very serious problem and presidential noncompliance with
our subpoenas but that we must draw carefully limiting language to prevent a distortion of the balance of power between the executive and legislative branch are you back about my time of the gentleman has expired and a gentleman in wisconsin chairman members of economic know martinsville no matter how sharply limited in the wind you try to draw this article this is clearly a case of alleged the absolute for the president versus the alleged absolute power that can be a classic case of separation all the president planned constitutional honest our tradition of executive privilege and the congressman's executive exclusive power in the region what reasonable man would not properly place this impasse before the third branch courts of our tradition and decision
and both in the interest of obtaining information or substantiate in the president's compliance in noncompliance under the constitution finally the president has asserted his constitutional responsibility the civilian article to protect the office of the presidency against the infringement of other branches this argument was also advanced by the president responding to subpoenas sought by the special prosecutor in fact the president use the courts all the way up to and including the supreme court to advance his position what the what the supreme court said in united states versus nixon response to the president's argument it's vitally important for this committee to understand that in the performance of assignment of a sign foster stability is it branson the government was initially interpret the constitution and the interpretation of its followers why any branch is due respect from the other father's day that that that in the last analysis it is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department is a lot a lot thus the court said in essence that the president was absolutely correct in defending his interpretation of the constitution but that's remained court's decision with respect to claim of executive privilege was this positive and let them know that although the courts will for the utmost difference for the presidential need for confidentiality when the plan republican's based merely on generalize interest in confidentiality the assertion of broadway's most fields and demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial that is the tapes must be given to the best record for encana inspection the decision of the supreme court did not say that executive privilege was not a viable dr on the clock on for it's sad that certain powers and privileges for from the nature of enumerated powers the protection of confidentiality of presidential communications as some are constitutional underpinning but also said the privilege is fundamental
to the operation of government and wrote it in the separation of powers and the constitution thus the supreme court is that an emphatically that executive privilege is a constitutional privilege available to the president now we have a situation where members of this committee like mr juras are asserting the right to have certain information because under article one the whole show have whistleblower of impeachment of that was says nothing about the president being powerless to assert what he understands to be as constitutional responsibility to protect his office therefore at that we have two great branches of government involved in a stalemate or arguing the constitution as the supreme court said it is emphatically the province and duty of the supreme court to say what the law is some of the members of this committee believe their position that should have gone to court and ask a court to say what the law here the committee has ever right to assert its understanding of the constitution when it is not the final arbiter it is not a judge and you're our constitution gives the
court's responsibility to interpret the law i would remind the committee but the president has responded to leverage additional subpoenas served upon him and has recently stated he intends to fully comply with supreme court ruling so there is already available to test these theories of constitutional party to get information that is to use the car not to attempt to impeach a president for defending what he believes the bee is doing under the constitution it was joe i recognize the gentleman from ohio thank you with chairman ike i support the youth are no substitute original article well i think the south is an improvement and the reason it's an improvement because it makes it even more clear that we're not dating a broad power to obtain presidential documents and any type of congressional proceedings but we're limiting it to an impeachment
proceeding which is what we have before us but i think to me that the impeachment are no one can dispute that without our investigate the impeachment are the meanings it's inconceivable that the founding fathers believed that a subject of an impeachment inquiry should be able to withhold relevant evidence from an impeachment proceeding certain privileges found in our concepts of due process i believe are applicable human engagement pretty absurd made so called executive privilege is not one of the impeachment as the express exception in the constitution the so called separation of powers doctrine very purpose of the big powers and discover and remove those civil officers who've committed certain serious offenses against the state stonewalling tactics have no legitimate voice and procedures which are designed to find the truth as rapidly as completely as possible
no guesswork court case the question of privilege would be one for the judge of the court to decide and here in the first instance of police the committee is the judge is acting for the full hearts and the house thereafter and if the house votes articles of impeachment than the senate is the ultimate court of appeal on this matter and it is the senate that can decide what the issues of law in fact are i just like to point out that every time this has come up in the air the payments be fb
This record is featured in ““Gavel-to-Gavel”: The Watergate Scandal and Public Television.”
Series
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Episode
1974-07-30
Segment
Reel 3 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-v69862cb7b
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-v69862cb7b).
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. Also shows President Nixon in Los Angeles giving economic address to the nation, sponsored by California business groups. This is day 3 of the Nixon impeachment hearings. (Segment 1 of 7 is missing)
Broadcast
1974-07-30
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: 2403261-1-5 (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; 1974-07-30; Reel 3 of 6,” 1974-07-30, 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-v69862cb7b.
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 3 of 6.” 1974-07-30. 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-v69862cb7b>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 3 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-v69862cb7b