thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 6 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+
it's b i have three months on any apparent that every market that incidentally watson in the white house transcript of the implication of that is that there was this action on the part of the white house and leaving that statement out during the interim of the recess i had checked to see what mr joe walsh these transcripts a special warning the prosecutor hat and for the state and there they have in audible three months which is not what we haven't ours the next sentence we have how do you all and not amnesty jaworski transcripts says how did this all end all of these are not consequential but we give the implication of the white house without any substantiated proof has tried to fabricate the transcripts when we ourselves have transcripts there are not the same as mr jaworski for the white house
i think we're just just confusing issue for ourselves and the american people i hope that we'll return tomorrow we will all try to rebuild support ourselves and focus in on the articles themselves which are under debate and not try to propagandize this because i think by doing so we're doing a disservice to these proceedings now you don't win massachusetts in early august nineteen seventy two the president himself asked mr erlichman to arrange them is this than not be compelled to go before the grand jury what the ice evidence to stan's is only relevant to this inquiry because it was the president of the united states and south who asked that this discount be given this unusual situation where you're back to the point that i'm trying to make an hour again reminded over massachusetts but there is nothing unique or unusual about that is totally proper for
amanda mr stanzas of prominence in the position he played at that time to testify under oath as he did before the offices of the department of justice he was put under oath and there is not anything more on proper about that and there was for exactly the same procedure that was done for former speaker mentor of a gentleman today and it out of a jar of mississippi since we are going to talk about the fact that like this one point before going further i think the flowers brought that has been passed over all of the bins of speaking to this press conference of the twenty second thought about the president's public statement there wiggins oh goodness it's our bank i think the important point is that this first section says making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states of being at the door said that this particular debate and think that would not be applicable to that second attack revived so what is the
very first apartment made in support of the second in fact has not happened gentlemen from california we then re arguing evidence in fact all day any evidence of vote on wednesday of last week i forget that we get back in the pleading number two i wish to make it clear in a record that i do not confer with the opinion of my colleague from california mr wiggins on constitutional law as applied for impeachment proceedings i yield to my colleague from california mr edward take long this is a very simple section one making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the
united states the gentleman from illinois <unk> that cause tetanus provided us gathered information time chapter and verse and in that some very definite testimony about where the president made a false statements to a lawfully authorized investigative officer the head of the criminal division of the department of justice mr henry enerson and in addition to that false that it was made by the president to attorney general findings and says this doesn't how because judges so maybe some sort of a rule in the other day in a criminal proceeding i'm sure mr wiggins it really didn't mean that to apply to this case we're starting not believe in a criminal proceeding i'd i don't know what more chairman of course post believe this modest section that seems to me that we have provide the information the evidence to comply with that
and i think we'll move along which is cut out for food the article of impeachment i think that we should put setting up straw men of knocking him down and are you back to the chair of the balance of my time felt like that i was allowed to follow up on a point in california mr edwards in terms of what the duty of the president united states is what the nature of these proceedings because before this time after time all day long placed in the category of democracy seems to me last evening we talked many hours very eloquently and very eloquently about the sacred obligation of our positions a sacred trust each and it was cold and second
trust the president will talk about that position of trust i'm always reminded about the magnificent words of justice cardoza we talked about the duty of a trustee duties of vibe is yours being something higher than the morals of the marketplace portfolio of anon of the most sensitive and that is the standard we should be looking at nearby pantaleo a nominal sense of it seems to me rather incredulous nine years some of my colleagues suggests that only if the president raises its hand and swears on a bottle for court should they be held was tanner misleading investigators or the american public only then after he has won on a bible under oath before a formal proceeding i think we demand much much more than that when you write about the gentleman
virginia mr butler zhao has time on his own with a little chemical when you have that question out of seeking to protect my right to speak and so i wrote and critics of for that would you do i did see camp i didn't think the other thing to ask one question my colleague and seek made here in reference to the conversation that we were having as regards the president's requested mr eckman to see industry spends was not interviewed before the grand jury but was interviewed outside and that and they change the colloquy that he had that the gentleman from massachusetts well it is true that that mr peterson testify before this committee
that it is not unusual and not ordinarily improper to make such a request for a so called the very important first in this case after mr dayan mr erlichman had contacted mr peterson and mr peterson had refused to make that exception for mr stands erlichman college called mr klein jeans in their mind that all this is done and the direct construction of the president of sterling ehrlichman and paul richard kleindienst the attorney general and according to mr kleindienst he told me that he must erlichman was very lucky that peterson had not made an obstruction of justice compliance and so in this circumstance you have a situation where we should have the president's instruction have the attorney general saying to mr erlichman that he had been something improper obviously i've come very close to being charged with obstruction of justice comply as having something strange happened after that the details which are not in evidence before the committee
because ultimately in fact mr stearns was interviewed outside the grand jury that i think lends some weight to the charts of the perhaps pursuant to the president's direct instructions there was improper activity on the part of this earth to chief lieutenants acting in this airy mr ike minister again at least according to the administration's own attorney general and there's that i was a rebuttal ad and accountability has expired you're the gentleman from the artist or an idea once just to complete this thought great i think it should be noted that this debate is an insult speech this way and i quote from the hearings of his conversation through this committee it is fair to say that the first concession was made concerning assistance and that the decision was made
by mr klein days after a call to me from this development which got rather heated it appealed for mr chairman it's pretty clear to me that the us the sandman has pretty much made up his mind as relates to articles of impeachment but i do they make a little unfair to use a parliamentary procedure is when in fact his motion to strike deals with each and every article it is outlined in an article on the nautical theme it seems to me that he had made an admission to this committee that he was moaning to strike one of the sarbanes substitute not because he did not believe that the president had made a false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers but because it was his personal belief that this type of information should be
included in the articles of impeachment well if mr sandman is going to take this route because of his first the belief as to how the article should be drowned he has that that's nine amendments if that year continues to be as generous in his rulings to get five minutes to each member to discuss these blankets motions to strike as suggested by mr sandman than it would have been so twenty seven hours of this committee's time to deal merely witnessed the sand man's parliamentary questions they are more than enough people ready to deal with some of the problems we have with the president it's difficult to think an olive a promoter and suggested by mr dennis because the savannas we wouldn't forget the fact that the president is an unindicted co conspirator if you want to deal with that from the law there's plenty of opportunity to deal with that unfortunately
in our constitution the burden falls on us because the president can be indicted if indeed the writers of the constitution what they used a crime a law that would've not have given the president that protection as to not be indicted as all surprising level where the president says that that would be a grand jury has all of the information and sent it guilty and exonerate the innocent and then when he comes close to it was distinctly a city that not enough evidence nonetheless if you really want a deal with the fourth and misleading statements then i asked my colleague from maryland why don't you walk with me through the president's status walk with me using his language as he went to bed said the night of march twenty thirty seven and talk to himself on a dictaphone and this was much money for his nineteen seventy three you don't have to pick the things that ran and they were all over and then on march twenty seven the worries that he says to walk ehrlichman
as to what to tell the attorney general it is for misleading an expletive deleted now what the president's i don't solve the president dictated his recollections of that day he said mcgruder will bring all the men down this is the language it varied from being a party was afraid he would say things to be very detrimental for goldson an eloquent that mitchell had been president when lady offered his political intelligence but also that colson with pomp and many was in his office that he had called up a grotesque that paulson had pushed a law that alec then sent harkness grew out to check into albert's psychiatric problem for wasn't a straight position of perjury this is not what he's saying is true this is what he's saying that dean dolan and strong had been operating just follow through all of this mistrust certainly have knowledge of the information of the matter
and that it was clinical mitchell mary calls mitchell of course sesame talk about stonewall and i just want to say that with all of this information with dean talking about the cancer and no one takes issue with the fact that the president's talk and we heard that conversation and i will find what bothers me is march twenty seven where the president is talk in the midst of all the man and he wants to get all the information it can from the grand jury and a thousand jon alterman as lyme disease and put it on the basis that as john mitchell at once the information from the grand jury and so everyone can say is the white house raised though about it because we're not raising hell just thousand phone videos of the magi as the last automobile he says i think you've got the talent looked at has declined because let me tell you a dean was not involved when the president said on march money for instance
so that the vatican yeoman you know presidents that and has the residents worry that being felt he was criminally liable for its action and take an give defendants march twenty four ewes nixon talk with the nets and what twenty seven men dean was not involved now this is not think anything of the contacts them and then the president goes on to say that they'll find is that nobody in the white house and thought and fema gentleman has expired and the gentleman be given three seconds are you jackie i disagree with them i'd be
happy or hand by hand with him through the evidence and what about the things that are germane to our articles of impeachment but i think we should reject those that are not that was the only one i was trying to make but he's not concerned with the fact that you and i agree the american people i will let the gentleman from new jersey speaker and sell it for the strong is like a mandatory things about strawn in fact i was responsible putting into the sarbanes substitute the language about rewarding those who have committed perjury giving of thirty six thousand dollars job to retire after he was known to have committed perjury is even more damaging i want all those things to be brought out an unspecified but i also think we should reject the things that are not your main time as it's the year gentlemen that this debate i thank the
chairman for healing and i want to thank you mark also for his patience tonight and to assure the chairman that i'm not trying to delay these proceedings but to ask this time because i i am very genuinely concerned whether the person charged here with very serious offenses who happens to be the president united states is a really given adequate and fair notice the nature of this charge of which as has been stated a number of times in this particular some paragraph is that either personally or through subordinates and agents i made false or misleading statements to authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states thomas through railsback my good friends from illinois has rattled off faith a great
many instances which he believes would come within a certain category and then the gentleman from new york mets durango has said that such instances are all over the place yeah well it seems to me that there is a very fine president and his attorneys should not have them up all over the place in preparing their defense i cannot see how it can be of any possible prejudice to the house of representatives in an impeachment proceeding to set out fairly and specifically pass a plan these instances occurred are gentlemen from illinois correct it is a recital and i believe mr doerr indicated that he thought it was it would seem to
me that no time could possibly be done by the setting was out there are after all many many authorized investigative officers i think that the fbi agents and i believe mr doerr mentioned that there were some fbi agents are two statements are alleged to have been made certainly it will be you know asked for overtime yeah for the staff in preparing these are a close to set out the names most of those agents so the defense won't have to sift through every single interview with every year agent that took place and the point is already been made that there are even more employees of the united states than there are authorized investigative
officers above the president happens to have a number of occasions and subordinates many statements that have been made which has some of my colleagues here tonight feel were false or misleading but if only particular statements are those in which rely i fail to see how it would not be a proper why would not be required by fair play and due process too these matters american people as well as the president and his attorneys alone won't just what it is that they're up against and i'd like to ask them arrested or if i may in the future ma'am what harm would come from setting out
in us a paragraph well one i believe it is at least the one that is the subject matter of this religion what harm would it to impeachment case for you to set out the names of the agents and subordinates of the president's specific occasions and would you allege that he made these misleading statements and at the moment he made and why should there be a mystery about it or why should there be speculation or gas were why would these prejudices house of representatives it does seem to me that it's very definitely will prejudice to the president that he shouldn't just after a lion scion all think like i apologize or do not wish to stay off and
statement by the gentleman from a lot of the post it was obviously carefully prepared to give an unnecessary very very manner it isn't this a matter of a nothing important so that you should prepare at this specific way and in a manner that the defense and the american people can fully understand but i think in order to answer that you have to admit that you have to balance on the one hand you have to give the president for notes on the other hand you have the little avoid dilatory tactics and it seems to me that experience has shown throughout the last two hundred years of our country that the way to a fairly present these matters is to present in the pleadings short concise as concise simple statement of the all the facts that you base your your articles on and then get to that the only person charged
full opportunity in the pretrial discovery stage to learn all the facts about the case that if you get to arguing about the reading the paper experience has shown that you run into a considerable amount of delay in dilatory arguments that are really experience has shown no judicial processes aren't necessarily so it you can't i really do think those two congressmen that to set this all over the queen in an article where the costs are not two not in a sense of depriving the president of knowing every single thing that he's entitled to know the nature of the charges but rather it will just build and build and the faster and more and more of a way of ultimately getting this case finally decided one way or the other gentleman i share the
concern about the delay but i'm afraid we're inviting and causing delay by the filing will go a particular as if this statement is not something that has inspired the gentleman from wisconsin has done i think that what we're going through here today as i recall a statement we want impeachment is what this committee says that it was his house says that almighty upon disputed that way some members of this committee we started out in this process as was pointed out we could not as a committee and the conclusion is what was unthinkable why definition when other side a vitamin water
level approve the political issue before us but it should be for advancing as a minister agreed to work for the beyond a reasonable doubt was only in that or we never settle and so now we're here before we finally got the article or the article before and why have we spent this whole they argue over the articles because they were not specific because none of the individuals on this committee it noted not know what the authors of this article with you to back it up and so we've argued for full rate not have the committees that which i understand is is physically and emotionally drained and the staff have the time to properly sit down and prepare the details they could have backed up with a statement for each one of these
we could've made a decision as a committee whether they should have been looted or not included say we're here with an article resent it when the debate started on wednesday night and we've been going for the television cameras morning afternoon evening every sense is that it will then going the committee has been drawn there has not been time for detail the specifics of these chargers in their in the chargers or supplementary mcferrin and we can't stop that we told the american people the awesomeness of his mouth and now we're under the gunn we can stop and take time to write the specifics that everyone's satisfaction but never once gray seems to me that we needed to take time but with the cervix in the tale behind each one of these articles to
at least the satisfaction of the staff and the people opposing the articles so then we could say based upon this information yes i will vote for it or in what war but you're asking the committee members really by a preventable then there was a time the police warn about it will be going and we think that means and emotion from the gentleman from new jersey if not don't worry it's not made to delay its main to explain to the american people the specifics behind each one of these sober and gotten a jump from alabama he said we need to have the mirrors and i think we need it and the american people need a best way to get it it's not to spend another day fighting over the next eight articles or asking staff to explain the next day articles or trying to explain i'm sure in florida would have to take the time and one
day or two days after that seems to me we need to take time to give this that the opportunity to work with the authors the detail specific items behind the track and then we can sit down and say yes or no every year in portland we mostly didn't say a monitor lizard the specific facts to go with that specific charges and off i think through this is juan process of doing it all know has struck a specific code section of it all and then discuss in detail and although it might be personally don't worry it's also where slavery couple with the charges
mr john moore and most important for members of this committee letter cast lorelei visible privilege and we're driving through twelve hours a day more than that yesterday marsalis and face and kind of thing i think that's a mistake the gentleman from ohio i think the down with customers to make a suggestion if i understand correctly as i understand it you're not demanding that the articles necessarily have to spell out all the specific details what we have before us and considering the merits of paragraphs the evidence or your facts outlined in some
way so that we can see what the state thinks the things that at least some of the things that make you support it i'm correct yep yes very excellent suggestion i would like just comment on one another matter i think today's eleven our followers i've not been wasting i think if we can arrive at some consensus is that obviously along the lines like this we're not they're wasting our time i do feel the time is very pressing the country has great problems which are being impeded family which are being impeded by the uncertainty on via the impeachment situation and we must we ought to the country to move ahead i'd also like a fake one other prominent animal usually don't mature and that is that we want that we could've spent days and day
wrangling over the specifics of a very detail article of impeachment hear much more than we have been in discussing the principle of what should be the article a and i think that really the right way remarks from maine and who is an experienced trial attorney i wouldn't live and therefore not facing the problem of where we have a pleading drawn that somebody with it today and that says free is hard and then you file a motion to make it more definite certain the man comes and says well we've got the group included music theory that and then he'd tell you so much that you don't know anymore when you get done than you did when you
started i'm sure that i've had that sort of experience in practice and that is not what we're going try and despite some some money and little ground on this gentleman if anyone beyond a lifetime this bill he thinks that this proceeding is lying in a very refined way and i think that now with guns in his home well in my experience mr nocera well you know that we would at least the state the name of the aid and the nature a
statement not in an accident eight so it's this is not right in a case involving misstatements or fraud or anything involving thank you thank you mr freeman we're going to be prepared to present a bill of particulars to be to the other body for the life of me i wonder why we can have our own political careers to play we call it we call it well as long
as the candidate because new evidence may well be discovered before the one around it could be counted i recognize it from california the chairman the struggle against freedom and reality and thought while making the charges the senate there's something that i can understand explanations that have been given because if it is possible to make up a bill of particulars that will delay the proceeding i can understand how it would delay the proceeding within the breeding one thing that i think that has most important that is that the members of the committee when they vote on each one of the charges being able to see the thing that backs up that particular charge made against president and from that
evidence of the vote particulars the reason with themselves as to whether they want to make that a charge for removing the president of the united states from his office and i think that we have to consider that each one of these things that comes up i'm sure that would be bait taken place here tonight between the two gentlemen from california mr wally with the way it must be apparent that the facts are confusing but if you want to take a particular point of view of the other you could prove almost anything especially if you're willing to take here say evidence in some of that are irrelevant evidently has been offered here before this committee it's important that the evidence that is to back up any charge must be strong and persuasive out of the kind that is admissible in court and we as a member of the members of this committee have a right to seek to a specific for the bailout was sufficient to support
any charge them at one thing that come up in january and i think i have a comment on it and that is concerning mr deans position as having been ordered are not ordered by the president making the investigation there is no question that what in the white house mr dean was the person that all remember the white house to look to for information and get their information through concerning anything connected with water agree with the calls and testify that and testifying before the committee here a few days ago can't be a surprise either the members of this committee i know that the president felt that mr dean had a mission of going up to camp david preparing a report because in the tape that we heard was presented by the committee and the president may not in order dean
to make a report mini camp david they suggested to him that if he went to david it might be a good opportunity for him to think about a report that he might make that the president riding with them and i really try to make that a major issue in this impeachment hearings one last comment that i like to make in it is in connection with all of the evidence we've had the things that we have heard a few good rifle shots at a good solid partner would be a lot more effective in a shotgun blast that we're hearing argument over a video perhaps to my friend from california one of the reasons they're such a non willingness to us the specifics maybe that some of the us pacific says
that they would rely on if they plateau my guest wooden pan out if true mr wiggins is already mentioned but one of the points that dave has been suggested here is that on the twenty seven the marsh the president instructed ehrlichman detail for a general kleindienst the dean was not involvement of that fall ayers what he said he said look if it passes what he's saying correctly what we should say the findings let me tell you been was not involved had no prior night and they're cutting about prior now you're gay break here and then there is no hard evidence that the had prior knowledge of the watergate break in they're not talking about the cover up and that is brewed when you go over a further and read what current one actually did jail time being he said the president said for me to say this to you but the best information he had an
end is that neither green nor i nor anybody in white as any prior knowledge of his burglary all are talking about at the very very thin suggestion that there's anything for sin that but the gentleman you know it in full of mine with the genteel from california has expired gentlemen very easy i think to have the challenge for recognizing may end that for your patience for the proceedings tonight i support them both until friday affection we've heard there the statement made there's big day we don't want to strangle the relief with the facts and i certainly agree with that statement i
think the famine that we ordered this time to make a very technical distinction that we as lawyers understand between the evidence and facts through an allegation on the other hand we're not talking here about through evidence that we're talking about allegations now what if an allegation is simply a precise statement of the shot the evidence that constitute the pro know we're not acting for the inclusion the evidence that it all was that in upgrading but you want the allegations are essentially hasn't been stated here by many members find a place in that particular instance and then the statements that
were likely to have been made that very simple what statement were life of america and two alone and where now the recitation here in this hearing tonight in this room tonight is not the answer that recitation of facts for an alleged facts and i must say in many instances opinion by the gentleman from california with the war today at which a recitation is replete with composer them alone it certainly not the answer the allegations should be included in the articles of impeachment would i think be an explanation of the allegations or when they must be in the articles of impeachment with few reasons though that we know what were what voting on and so that the
respondent knows what the month and for now some reference had been made to the committee report they're simply referred to by the famine of on the floor of the committee report the reported to be written it not be of the report could not be part of the articles of impeachment well if at the door is going to get the allegations and the facts than other matters that you want to put in a report that's fine but let's have the allegations now with the gentleman from wisconsin has suggested let's have them when they're ready or whatever time it takes we can play and certainly it's only a matter of a day or two and then we can go on the article with the allegations and with the door and that's that members and we're gonna put in the report whatever it to be political
rather than a woman from a texas that in regard to work and an analysis of due process a set of due process has been given the president the proceedings that we've had here as yuri no i have a month from lotus to this allegation but nevertheless at its own that that was the case but i we find if not awake life without due process at this point the most crucial point where we are tracking the voting on the articles of another page mr chairman i submit to you have to process at this point of our perceiving requires that it our government to contain the specific allegations therefore i think you know
that in the absence of these specific allegations i have an intersection that we're dealing with i have no alternative but to vote in support of the vote for the gentleman of the duration of the famine i recognize thee gentleman from mississippi a lot like i'm the chairman of our late now the pre i would like associate myself with mr mayne and also speak briefly in support of dry land i think that he probably did not internet search or promotions strikes on each amendment but i think it's been clearly demonstrated here but what has been said that we do have a need to see what the specifics are so that we can debate and agree if possible or what specifics will be included in the articles there were already pointed out earlier that there was a mistake on the first allegation in support of this section and i have another one i could speak to with regard to the president giving false
and misleading statement the peterson on march twenty one but other government said about this i think now that one's been made very clearly by the last two speakers on both sides now that we do need to find some way to come up with the particulars are is the community going to get all witnessed a vote on the motion strike and make some determination as to what we can do is some way that we can find to be more particular so that we can debate the real issues the real facts that we've been asking for an opportunity to discuss it with him and i recognize the line and the reward for your patients are some i think michael finance i think this time after couple questions must endure if we do not strike the asylum is your intention then to leave it in the general terms and to go to the statements of information for the details
if you're intentionally of the article obama's plan is it your intention then to go to leave statements of information or the details they'll have to be spelled out specifically charges no intention or reject the information you if you have the statement in the report along with you or if you think the discovery of information what would you have you have a sort that was maybe fifteen twenty pages long to summarize
all the fact that we see someone further information to the summary of information in those about one hundred and fifty pages long and have been talking to the state information where you can see the documentary evidence and testimony if you need a seat or the president have to go to find out the charts of the present with the article or articles which would be general present a report from the committee president would have the summary of information in the president's statements of information you have it all so it isn't a question reading them all that with all the heat so that you could get from one they're usually not that
difficult or you have a proper and that what you're saying they're going to have a report in addition to the statement of information you would be a committee report you wouldn't be incorporating all thirty eight or thirty nine states of information in that report but the president's statement of information we get the details and the sec charges that the specifics of the specifics of the more specifics of the report using the moore's more specific view of the summary of information we on that question as well
we laugh because they're making an employee of the united states outline how we don't know what those charges are and the report doesn't go to the report the end of the recording the name of a summary of information that documented one no one will look at the state information go to that and look at the actual testimony for example where the statement that particular person at the press release or whatever else was going on that subject and that is their ideas not a new unit with respect to modern civil war criminal practice
my art they make just like the american people know what we're talking about the gentle at the night lights of the opposition to the motion to strike iran absolutely overwhelmed by the evidence with
respect to this i think it has to be seen in context and i spoke earlier i said that the john being to confess to the president on march twenty first that all kinds of people in his administration had been guilty of criminal acts and i did the president's eighteen your involvement in this pure obstruction of justice that was the right plan but the president didn't pick up the phone call the attorney general klein jeans or call fbi director gray it saves set in criminal things are going on in my administration i want an end to it in copper mining when he first he caught my news on the twenty second and he said yes you better call baker senator baker at the senate watergate committee and baby sit with him in like ten minutes and then on the twenty seventh of march you know the president is burdened with this overwhelming information this cancer is growing in he tells about when he says to hand the
following at a session with him it findings about how much you want to tell him about everything i think you've got to say look let me tell you dean was not involvement no prior knowledge or the many had no prior knowledge ehrlichman and nine calls and nine or what was the president told by dean he was telling her that halderman had been told about the first to really buying plants that is that halderman met lauren lady to move the capability from us peter mcgovern headquarters before the break and the president was told the straw no and the president was told that paulson called magruder known to get going on the hunt many play and the president is telling ehrlichman not detailed findings about all this information in the
criminal liability but he's telling ehrlichman to tell kleindienst nobody is involved and nobody has prior knowledge is this the kind of time that we expect from our president is this the kind of concern that has to be in for some of the laws in his conversation with pierson in april you send an april twenty seventh he's describing his march twenty first conversation you said but that the blackmail payment he said that peterson and believe me nothing was a pro i mean as far as i'm concerned i turned it off totally we recall the language that the president used on march twenty first at the end of this conversation is very own words he said didn't think that's why your immediate thing you've got no choice with time but
the hundred or twenty or whatever it is right well for christ sakes get it in a way that many outside and he said two years and places when i was talking to dean that this than blackmail money or this million dollars i think dean you can put it through a human committee could you well the president never said that the dean he never said anything like that when in fact he's said that mean and they got an alibi and the cuban money the president's own words well as far as what happened up to this time and that's referring to all the hush money payments our cover there is just gonna be the cuban committee did this for them up for the election dean that isn't of course quite the way it happens president i know but it's the way it's going to happen now where we see the
president of the united states in his conversations you witnessed declining so mr peterson making any attempt the deal with the criminal liability of the people around and then get rid of the cancer not only in his white house but in our country and that you were talking about him as the chairman and i heard that this motion to strike the defeated general is if private gentleman five minutes through the chairman i rise in opposition to the motion to strike at like to refer back to the statements earlier of the gentleman from california mr wiggins who in debating the same motion which is to strike subsection one of this article or to the effect that the president has made false and misleading statements to investigative officers and others mr wiggins again spoke of the celebrated
june twenty second statement by the president at his press conference to the effect that there was no white house and no committee for the reactor reelection of the president involvement in the burglary which had been richard taken place five days earlier and he said that there is no clear and convincing evidence as to when the policy this policy of obstruction of the investigation which is at the heart of the sarbanes substitute that there is no clear and convincing evidence as to when the policy came into it but i like the state and then take you through several items of evidence which all members are well but that policy could really came into effect sometime between the seventeenth of june and this statement by the president on the twenty second of june i think the strongest case to be made for men's inferences and from a reasonable application now you know is the procedure in all of our offices the have all the president's
men in essence are aware from evidence that is that the members are aware of were aware of prior to june twenty second and several days prior as a matter of fact mr hunt then technically on the rolls at the white house had been involved in the burglary and most truly then and who is continuing to serve as chief counsel to the committee for the real reelection the president everyone know that those two men have been involved in the burglary prior to this time and that we know in our offices the i'd say the members of the committee that we follow those things and it isn't it is impossible to believe that the president should have been aware of the burglary which we know he was and have been aware that a kind of involve people in his that in his campaign committee or the white house and not to address questions but this butt out of the president's own words we know and
that that by june twenty second he was aware of instruments industry's involvement mr carson's testimony this committee clearly indicated that on the nineteenth two days after the burglary he had a conversation with the president presents response was to throw as important mr golson that was different from an ashtray across the room and this guy's we learned that the committee for the reelection of the president was involved in the burglary and we have the president's own memo to himself has been called earlier on the night of june twentieth when he indicated in a conversation with mr mitchell mr mitchell had informed him the personnel from the committee had been involved in the burglary and we know from history from the president's statement of may twenty second nineteen seventy three and reference back to the days immediately following the watergate burglary when he says within a few days the neighbor mr had surfaced in connection with the investigation and use that in reference to the time that he knew that the cia involvement became known to him which clearly
indicates and it's tied in prior to june twenty second so clearly president has indicated any evidence available to this that that this committee and it's got to be clear and convincing of that he did know the mistreatment had been involved ben technically on the role to the white house and that was truly still a chief counsel to the committee for the reelection of the president and involve both members had been involved in yet without background and about in his conscious with that in his mind the president then went before the american public the night of june twenty second and said in response to a question mr ziegler and also mr mitchell speaking for the campaign committee have responded to questions on this watergate burglary in great detail and stated my position and have also stated the fact accurately this kind of activity as mr ziegler has indicated has no place whatever in our electoral process
or in our governmental process and as mr ziegler state of the white house has had no involvement whatever in this particular incident mr yu back chairman texans brooks who's the previous question and the question is on the motion to strike one the sarbanes of the sarbanes a sense that all those in favor of the motion to strike please say aye all those opposed low notes new jersey mr brooks
yeah a hundred years ago mr robert it's business time as joy no just a minute mr sandman there's a realistic goal
is to wake mr dennis hart is to know is germane mr lowe was to do was to go on is to live mr morrison i was temerity to love them was you know so i became chairman levin members of voter
id id twenty seven voted no and there you have the first crucial test of the articles of impeachment by a vote of twenty seven to eleven the coalition majority democrats and some republicans who favor an impeachment rather an impeachment resolution coalition has stuck together to beat back an attempt by a republican win it it has a structure concerned an attempt by them than it is to strike the first basic allegation against president made
false misleading statements toward late authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states this would indicate on the basis of this book this would indicate that this article ultimately will be approved by the committee and from there that the committee will go on to approve a resolution of impeachment that may well include not just one article but two or more significant on this vote listen to that six republicans six republicans broke ranks to join and twenty one democrats to provide a better than two to one margin to ensure the defeat the republican motion well john it's been a long day for the committee they began this morning
an hour later at noon a lunch break they went very late in the afternoon a quick dinner they came back and it had a long evening now as chairman latino announced just a moment ago they will meet again tomorrow it seems obvious that we're going to be and for more test votes tomorrow i think it became clear today that the republicans who are defending the president are going to use as many maneuvers as many emotions as they possibly can to delay the proceedings to try to hold off the resolution of impeachment and prevented from going to the floor by that we would have to conclude on the basis of what has happened tonight that they're fighting a losing battle and of course the key question will probably be resolved overnight before they reconvene in the mothball is whether or not the republicans will stick with the strategy and go one a motion to strike on each one of the other eight charges under the overall article of impeachment article one which charges that the
president committed acts of obstruction of justice in watergate cover up oh there've been indications from mr sandman that he might do that there are indications the wig and that he might do that now the question now is whether as a result of his twenty seven eleven vote will pursue that i'm not though whether they'll feel that they have made their point yeah with their point being what we need need to restate their point being that the articles of impeachment drawn in a substitute which is what with his thinning now proposed by paul sarbanes democrat of maryland whether or not the chair of the articles themselves are specific and now and as we've just seen the twenty seven members of the committee decided yes they were the answer we'll see what happens tomorrow they're on those who has been on the scene at the judiciary committee is standing by outside the committee room what you're seeing here i think during the day paul and shame is really a demonstration of congressional niceties industries and procedure chairman latino is absolutely determined not only to be fair but to appear to be
fair and that's why he is not cracking down on the republicans and tried to cut off all of this long dialogue that we had inside the committee ordering these long hours is determined to go by the rules and the rules say that there could be five minutes for each member for each man and this was to wrangle pointed out that means it could be a total of twenty seven hours of debate and the striking motions all ending probably with the same kind of vote that we had tonight twenty seven to eleven so it is as you said up to the republicans to decide whether or not they're going to see i think the real danger here is that you may strip away some of the support and the final amendment in the final vote but it seems that that basically they were holding fast except for mr frey like a fuse if you look at the final vote some of the people who were are raising some questions about the issue on and actually decided that they would vote not just right so it looks like they're holding fast in spite of that debate i think the republicans may
weaken i think they may get tired you know is really counting on that i don't know when he's going to decide to move in and cut off debate but the way it looks right now it's that something like a few points and counterpoint republicans get a point the year the democrats had appointed and so what we have is really what we have right now the standup that you do would you agree that what we have now the delicate balance somewhere along the way the republicans will have to make a decision as to when they have made their plight and the thing may backfire on them yours is such an inroad they know having to make the decision as to when he has given him their fair shake and it could get away say with cutting them off and a delicate balances that have to be resolved tomorrow for tomorrow wants to get started again they mate caucus in the morning i get it you have to pin your faith in the old compromise prisoner in congress and they may decide to caucus in the morning before noon and come back a fresh and so they're facing the facts
that they really are simply wasting time with this procedure but a lot depends on whether the republicans are making points political points when they're talking to the public whether they're making political points when they're talking to the house members are going to have to vote on impeachment after all this gives them a platform to say the president is not getting a fair shake the president is not getting to the process and that appears to be working they may continue to to hold up the procedures they may decide that they're going to continue with this killing process because they're getting their message across her lawn no one abuse of the vote so the republicans did join the democrats on the specific mission would sound he makes it clear now that at least six and we'll be ready i think that's too all i think this is probably well it's the first vote and it probably isn't just about an impeachment and i think the votes but in the final analysis on the articles of impeachment will be something like
this one twenty seven to eleven maybe ever take one or two on either side but that that's a pretty solid vote in favor of impeachment i thank you carol and let's go now to our two guests up for the day and evening they'll bounce nine a professor of law duke university and martin died faster political science at northern illinois university john allen i ask you a question that was raised by one of the members themselves a gem of a control room is advising me on my dear that cullen has now gotten hold congressman sam man who of course figured very prominently in today's debate as one of their staunch defenders of the president obama mr sandman are you gonna keep up this technique are you going to take that twenty seven hours that when you look at it right now at this late hour well i don't intend to continue this on each nine points in the first article
all honesty must tell you i'm sure that other will at yale point that i'm a strict interpretation of the laws and i'm not going to you know rulings that had been made at the night and i just can't imagine why they've honestly really strange directives that making the charges i don't know why anybody else forty books have no weapons of an extremely soft face and the idea here is that and they would lose financially once again in this episode it's very general statements mr salmon that you obviously don't have
the votes to carry on any of these nine points why press on when you know you already lost a lot of the argument that i was the first and has been present there i present a minute when i get on the house floor when i read this objection chairman will not be able to say that congressman why did you raise this objection very very can't say that if you raise that was why we consider raising more time i've said to you i do not intend to raise that point again i do not intend that made motions strike i saw said that i said in all honesty we all of us are going to dispute horrible humiliation of facts as they tried to do it a completely out of a double meaning and one of those two golden we cannot let those stories go by
unchallenged and for this reason it appears to me that you're headed for twenty seven more hours of the payday stop tonight three hours twenty two and as a consumer as a time stamp so you don't think we can have a final vote on the outcome of our night vision of which are colleagues of mine now i as i see it now include this tomorrow at any time are we went straight through a twenty four hour sessions to let go as grace kelly's people are willing to do anything this week our purposes thank you very much this is an uncertain as answer our question at least at this point at this point on tuesday a phrase from a prior art visual appearance before the senate watergate committee and a half
whoever saves the answer the question yes indeed this point at least there is an intention to go through the other eight specifications under article one was like they did this was not about that to my question about about ask her to guess of bilbao's five visitors to mark donovan illinois university the question was raised by users as those eleven hours today been wasted or no i think not a matter of fact i have the seminoles hope that republicans will be about but i do not know of any new objection that can be raised with regard to this article in fact i would probably be in this vote that's exactly the signal vote on the totality of the article and i would be surprised moreover even if the numbers were changed because of the sentiment of eleven hours have been enormously useful in putting up all plausible objection of a highly lethal and even for the legal character where's yer reiteration i have some public the fact the kind of chinese water drop torture theory of public education
i can't imagine that any party could be raised with regard to the next day some parts that was not explored here have been effectively resolved however the committee now behavior watches saying the louisville is that there is a coalition now in the committee which is formed and it now appears that that coalition can stand firm that can be back the attempts by the presidents defenders to inform this article of impeachment oh yes i think so yes but that still doesn't close the issue it's clear it seems to me from the vote that there are twenty six twenty seven or perhaps even know who wants some kind of article and what they didn't know was just like the turning back of the motion to strike which would've been the victory of the anthem egypt was definitely but what will be the final shape of this article is in my judgment as yet about congressman flowers is not yet satisfied about the question of specificity
congressman ralph that is not yet satisfied during the course of that discussion there was a movement in response to a demand for further specifications but i think we should as usual and wrote that voted with the pro impeachment force without question they voted not to abandon the article but that doesn't mean they will not tomorrow turn off the inundations of the article or additions to what reading in a report reading in the summer in reading and an index of this or that to what i believe that further conciliatory efforts partially in the direction of further specifications falls for satisfy their opponents possibly winning one or two of the republican votes and for a public competition for sentiment on the issue will resume tomorrow in fact actually very surprised that for the coalition does it certainly can't hurt of the professional advice the receiving from john doerr and embarrassment he regards it would cause for the prosecution in the course
of the house and senate considerations thinking about it decided that essentially is that to their satisfaction there is clear and convincing evidence which would convince reasonable person and in this respect the president did in fact make false and misleading statements to law lawfully authorized investigative officers now that's not very specific because of the kicker conversations that particular officers are not here set for that to be done more to satisfy them to do process will be served when he is willing subsequently in the report and then cross indirect references make that specification each of the others it's intimate lives in exactly the same framework of understand that to be sure the members of the coalition have avoided their mutual embarrassment because not all agreeing on any particular set of conversations that problem will replicate itself in its subsequent states us they've held together exactly and take stands and i cannot imagine that they would have arisen out of the way and suddenly to particular i've more than they agreed to do in the city
now swallow my prediction i see them every day well they're they're also running through toward the end there was an indication that a presence on our railsback oh yes let's have a bill particulars now but then they remember that was followed by the interplay between latin and your whichever public and now a lot of the thunder the president asking john doerr how the president would find out exactly what the charges are against a man nor explain this procedure and then the question i guess so well we could recite on the vote at least on that takeover of suspicion of the article of that a parent would be or not we shall say i would like to give back to my original question which was what about this pull eleven our first full day in terms of a process of impeachment and improvement in terms of watching a process unfold in that sort of i'm armed and when iraq in all such proceedings it
takes time for the lines to be drawn into the issues to sort themselves out and what fascinated me was the way a procedure will actually became the focus or the crucible for the substantive action and always always some question of whom a promotion or what the language will be some procedure of matter becomes the crunch the place where the substantive issue comes to a head and what happened during the day today it seems to me was the following those most firmly committed to impeach him we were quite convinced that has been pretty consistent believe that nixon isn't qualified me guilty on all counts alleged in the thirty eight volumes that they've got cumulative they numbered sings something like eleven o'clock and it must be remembered that these are quite liberal democrats and there is an unusually high proportion of them on this committee and there are eight or nine apparently hard line opponents of impeachment and
their strategy is to disbelieve every allegation denied that there is any guilt on the part of the president but really acknowledging it on the part of his subordinates and their strategy is to assimilate everything from criminal proceeding and us something amusing and try to get all the niceties of criminal law in defense of the president but in legal office leaking members of the committee both liberals and conservatives producing in the middle leaning strongly to impeachment but looking for some way to reach the political judgment of impeachment that will have every characteristic of fairness that will be capable of persuading the american people that their representatives are right and removing the president thank you both for being with us tonight will of palestine and martin diamond for over major announcement was them now but there are almost a couple well we're here and it's at the witching hour and we will be back
tomorrow it is their reading of this is that reagan starting in at noon we can expect more has been more of the same war efforts to strike more procedural debates but maybe we're very very lucky someone movement on one side or the other we might possibly just possibly late in the day to get to a final vote on the first article of impeachment well one of the factors that has only been improved by today's debate as we said just a moment ago is that they are now is fairly a coalition for impeachment and that has been shown by the voting jim is now our tote board to give us some more detail yeah i would just think if we need to make any changes so all from what we had when we began know this board as you recall is arranged according to the probable vote on the article on article one which charges the president alleges the president committed obstruction of justice the watergate cover up based on our art figures and when we had these are definite votes
were up twenty twenty three that underlies eleven definite knows mr franek of wisconsin republican and decided in his own category and two two maybe is leaning toward their impeachment are leaning toward their the obstruction of justice count that we can now we want to extrapolate the vote we just had another twenty seven eleven vote i would think that it would be very proper to move tom railsback republican illinois and to the s i category health and fish republican from new york state into the eye category mr froelich appear that everything is it and right into the year we take to maybe eyes away and now the border has made it and that's probably about all it is at this late hour or well i could just add one thing their agenda which is certain that is a congressman for like the republican has indicated that he may be ready to vote for one article of impeachment and of course we could get an additional article that will be
to your satisfaction well that's that's true tv ma we aren't you at least give him an inch on either way before we put in an ever placed on the specific pope is is there alright that wraps it up for tonight there was a critical vote in which the pro impeachment forces one can attest that prevented any kind of striking of language in the first article on impeachment this concludes our live coverage we'll be back on some of these stations or tomorrow morning and again tomorrow night if there's live coverage would like for a minute now to stay tuned for our videotape replay on hold to free jim lehrer about race years pbs service thank you
just like the on the city as opposed to congratulate you on the ingenuity and coming at all costs even if they sometimes show up we professionals robert susan orlean's native justice and that's what i think what that uniformity possibly use of the watts area x big at the summer tennis tour will attract world famous players competing for top prize money stands on the lid on rod laver and bjorn
borg will be enough us professional championship from boston all right out on the stage and also it nice nice nice nice any he's been the
power is by are you i wonder if i understood the gentleman
correctly and that i understood him to say that if we specified these acts are accusatory pleading that evidence to be a deal with that the trial is restricted the law of items that we are financial markets and why you know why is yemen obviously no it means and then bring in anything you know and it's not and has not yet because you're a congressional committee you can't get further away you sneeze and videotaped gavel coverage of the house judiciary committee the impeachment of a july twenty six nineteen seventy four years and by correspondent schumer saving for paul deacon
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 i began by arguing over and then voting down a motion to delay the proceedings upending the result is based on the result 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 the majority despite the republican objective objections that were voiced 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 that is weasel riding english or acrimony use our members i would say the basic issue john boehner say they like the debate that the daylight 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 basically a majority a rejoinder which was that that in an iv article of impeachment should be general then there would be other things attached to you
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 6 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-z02z31pk8r
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-z02z31pk8r).
Description
Videotaped coverage of the debate of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Peter Rodino, Jr., on the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Includes approval of the first article of impeachment charging obstruction of justice. This is day 5 the Nixon impeachment 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: 2403151-1-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 6 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 24, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-z02z31pk8r.
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 6 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 24, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-z02z31pk8r>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 6 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-z02z31pk8r