thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 4 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 after some delays it planned for the government was initially interpret the constitution and the interpretation of its followers why andy brack is though is back from the other it follows david that in the last analysis it is a radically the province and duty of the judicial reforms they want the law that's the court said unless 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 unless the mouth then at all that although the courts will for the utmost of firms for the presidential
need for confidentiality when the clamor provinces based merely i'm john was interested the assertion of problems with the deal to demonstrate a specific need for evidence the pending criminal trial that is the tapes must be given to the best record for encounter inspection the decision of the supreme court did not say that executive privilege was not a viable dr on the clock on for that sad that certain powers and privileges full of the nature of enumerated powers protection of confidentiality of presidential communications are similar constitutional underpinning it also said the privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers and the constitution thus the supreme court is that 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 while how shall have the sole power of impeachment of that was says nothing about the president being powerless to assert what he understands the bee is constitutional responsibility to protect his office therefore at best 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 lawyer so of the members of this committee believe their possession they should've gone to court and asked the court to say what the lawyer the committee has a right to assert its understanding of the constitution when it is not the final arbiter it is not the judge ginger our constitution gives the court's responsibility to interpret the law i would remind the committee but the president has responded to every judicial subpoena served upon him and has recently stated he intends to fully comply with supreme court ruling so there is already available to just these theories
of constitutional authority to get information that is to use the car not to attempt to impeach a president for defending what he believes to be under the constitution i couldn't recognize any gentlemen site thanking the chairman ike i support the youth are substitutes original article so i think this offers an improvement and the reason it's an improvement of because it makes it even more clear that we're not dating a broad power to obtain presidential documents in any type of congressional proceedings but we're limiting it to an impeachment proceeding which is what we have before us not seemed to me that there are no one can this event without rebar to investigate the impeachment are the meaning 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 sir and privileges founded in our concepts of due process i believe are applicable even an impeachment 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 purposefully be hard to discover and remove those civil officers who've committed certain serious offenses against the state stalling 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 but here in the first instance at least a committee is the jerk acting for the fall and the house thereafter and if the house votes articles of impeachment than the senate is the ultimate court of appeal in this
matter and it is the senate that can decide what the issues of law in fact job i just like to point out that every time this has come up in the past presidents starting with george washington and going through the franklin roosevelt as i can see that that in an impeachment inquiry the hull and obtain whatever information the executive branch was that i just like to read you what a house committee sat back and eighteen forty three when president tyler actor initially objecting finally turned over to the committee's the material that though they had requested he said if the house with us as the party of peach it must likewise possessed of all the incidence of that power the power to compel the tenets of all witnesses and the production was such papers as maybe considered necessary to prove the charges on which nba teams found if they did not that are impeachment conferred upon by the constitution would be no guitar and
it could not exercise it with that uncool three years later president paul made this state it may be forty maybe alleges that that are impeachment was in the house of representatives and whether that with a view the exercise of those are the right to investigate the government this is cheerfully admit it and subject as the safety of the republic would be the supreme law and apartment house in the pursuit of this object would penetrate into the most sacred recesses of the executive department it could command the attendance of any and every agent of government and compel them to produce all papered public or private official or unofficial and to testify on all through all fact within their knowledge if the house of representatives that the grand inquest of the nation should anytime have reasonably that there's been our station in office it improper use
our application of the public money by a public officer and should think proper to institute an inquiry into the matter all the archives and papers of the executive department public a private would be subject to inspection and control committee of their body and every facility in the power of the executive to be afforded to enable them to prosecute investigation now the supreme court last week out that in a criminal case the president's partner with all documents that are executive privilege must yield to the legitimate requirement to prove in a court case if that is in a criminal case involving third parties how much more so is it true an impeachment investigations investigating the very conduct of the president himself or cook have said no man should be the judge in his own caucus and you have a president and with all the key evidence from a committee investigating his conduct of his office
in effect has become the judge in his own cause we do not need to submit this report we have the power as acknowledged by residents in the path and we should exercise that are on the only effective way we can exercise the president refuses to respond is to include that as one of the reach of all offenses and you the senate as the carnival lamont resort the right to pass on that town has consumed by one we make her appealing chairman i rise in opposition to the amendment the maker of the main motion that you've seen as himself a whole and the purpose of the amendment is to help extricate himself from that a logical position the situation is this this committee on on yesterday in the day before you the evidence and found that i'm told overwhelming levi council
calling the surfeit of evidence i think that to be a good bit of the door and voted to impeach every movie the president based there are bound to be clear and convincing now we seek to impeach him because he didn't give us enough evidence to do the job i would think that you have an option here you wish you can rightly acknowledged the inadequacy of the evidence to impeach the president and perhaps impeach him for failing to provide that or on the other hand you can pull that the evidence is sufficient to impeach the president you have done and to recognize that the matter's subpoenaed were not in fact necessary the proper conduct of this committee's inquiry that were necessary is important to understand because that word is found in the authorizing resolution which gives us the power to issue subpoenas at all
we made a tentative judgment at a disaster that we authorized the subpoenas by your vote yesterday and the day before you conclusively demonstrated that it was not necessary i will in a moment but not until entergy so now look at the farm amendment in terms of what it does to florida man reported amendment says matters were necessary be necessary to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach richard nixon while manifestly that it's not so are your votes were improper recognizing that i suspect my friend from arkansas has proposed a perfecting amendments in which he says there were conflicts in the evidence and the subpoenaed material was desirable perhaps not necessary but desirable to resolve the conflict what may be solvent to understand your vote yesterday and the day before indicated that positive resolution
of those conflicts they no longer are under law now if logic and common sense still has any place to play in the proceedings i would think that we had an election we elected to impeach on the basis of the evidence before us or we elect to impeach him for failing to provide that evidence that those who voted for the first two articles cannot have their cake and he didn't do and maintain logical consistency by voting for the fire in my opinion in my opinion this article is inconsistent with that hired to lobby of view california i vote against article on which would involve criminal charges conspiracy charge obstruction of justice and the president because of the fact that there was insufficient evidence and the amendment which has not provided from arkansas which i have proposed to fix that would make reference to the effects of direct evidence which is they said because of the evidence the kind of evidence was
lacking perspective first article i did not say that there was sufficient evidence to impeach the president said there was insufficient in our time but unless my memory fails soundbite of clear and convincing evidence just yesterday russian president to be impeached removed law on reshaping gentlemen and i think what we're doing in this article as in every article of impeachment is attempting to be fine but the legislative process by the impeachment process if you will the extent of colors that we will permit presidents to exercise in the future it says if you will accept it a constitutional redefinition of those parts and i think what the author of the resolution and after the men say and in this instance they're subjected to an impeachment inquiry
will not be permitted to make the determination that this president has sought to make that he will determine what is relevant to that inquiry the way to do it by legislation thank you mr chairman i support the article awful by john mcmillan i mr mccoy and also the amendment offered by the government from arkansas mr thornton i feel mr chairman that it is essential that we resolve this issue these subpoenas because you have been drawing this committee has issued a number of subpoenas but rather than have directly stated that he refuses to obey them and reserve the right to be tried or what evidence will be presented the report from his office
the question we have here is very delicate and very finely drawn but it is critical to the separation and allocation of power under the constitution lee thornton a man month brings into this article it quite a responsible restraint that we need it limits the impact of this article slowly to the function of the congress under the impeachment trials are full power to impeach this is a basic issue of constitutional separation and allocation of our eyes that meant that in resolving this question this committee and the congress must remember that we have no more right a review of a jurisdiction which is ours than we have to a solar jurisdiction which is not hours north of the judicial department nor does the executive the power
it is for us to make a judgment here and on or about as to whether we are going to exercise our responsibility and our jurisdiction under the sole power of impeachment finally drawing and apart an amendment to the majority of the revolution i think that that we will have met that issue and i heard that while the amendment and eight article be about i would usually from new york and gentlemen feeling i'd just like to add a few points with very eloquent statement there's been some talk that the value of the president to comply with subpoenas right now arm i would just like to point to the area of the no inquiry in which we stayed seated number subpoenas and which the canadian general has come to the conclusion that the evidence is not sufficient even though there'd been any number of indictments handed down and some of the conversations that we subpoenaed had to do with lee's invited person's
secondly the argument is the same as was raised yesterday with respect an irs at me at an illegal act which has not succeeded somehow less illegal that reminds me of the fact of attempted murder we allow somebody to go free because the victims survivors that's really had not been i think that we can't know like and one other point and that has to do with seeking the rule that the courts another founding fathers place the impeachment power solely in the hands of the congress and explicitly rejected having the supreme court sick as the trial and a conviction and if we were to allow the supreme court to decide on the relevance of the evidence to an impeachment inquiry and if we were to allow the supreme court to decide basically what an impeachment inquiry would have i feel we would be violating the decision of the founding
fathers the plays the right to inquire for the purposes of impeachment selling in the hands of the congress and i very strongly support this the lady from new york and i point out that since the issue have been joined in its before us we must not retreat from our responsibility for this action will establish a precedent which could bind the congress on this very delicate white for centuries to come i'm a little bit surprised the california mr reagan mr wiggins is a very variable lawyer and he knows that in a court trial you have are entitled the parties are entitled to all the relevant i'm not in i'm not for its of various efficiency too so for a particular point of view what all the evidence because the more evidence you can get stronger
year cases is and the better chance you have a prevailing that's the one argument which i think is so easily dispose of by any any lawyer practicing in the courts that i'm surprised that he would even make you an inspiring lot that has expired in support of the human five minutes remaining and opposition has been five minutes remaining in opposition as you know
but i suppose i feel stronger about this particular article in i believe in about the other two that we pass i would vote to impeach on this basis and this article even if there were no other evidence i think that through it all the power and the process of impeachment must come through unfettered i think that the ultimate weapon against presidential candidate which is the power of impeachment should be as clearly prince bottomed upon principle as it can be and i think that the wording of the mccarthy mclaury amendment is even better than that of the tournament the committee it would say to the president for future presidents that impeachment will be automatic if the president asserts his unique power to stonewall congress in a legitimate impeachment inquiry in the
future the president is the only individual in this country who refused to honor a subpoena and that is quite simply because he is the commander in chief of the armed forces and the head of the executive branch and we had the physical ability to overcome his resistance to a congressional subpoena i think apart to compel evidence in the impeachment inquiry must be considered absolute we do not need to decide this morning the fifth amendment questions here because the president has not asserted the fifth amendment the fifth amendment privilege ari said in his opening remarks he hopes we don't have any more proceedings i'm sure we all join him in that and i think we may not get out of all this we sat down to basic principles one we set
clear standards for impeachment based on fairness and understandable standards which we are willing to apply four presidents and we savored impeachment power is absolute and his bottom up on the power to compel documents and and evidence and we do this by saying but a presidential stonewall against a committee in an impeachment proceeding will be bring automatic impeachment even if no other evidence is that there is a real valentino i think rap only on our clothes it was good it was in the legal and constitutional language and the media on the other hand i don't want no applause
and once that argument well support the amendment of the gentlemen from illinois as a man about a gentleman gentlemen from arkansas but it seemed like to me that the principle is more absolute unclear i sat down in the original amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia all about like i'm a wreck a question mark of people who you know what i'm concerned about villanova resignation but the full article on concern about this language in your amendment which says that the and authors all by direct evidence fundamental questions relating to presidential direction are for approval of action is align with that i wonder about demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the president does that mean that they don't we have a
preliminary finding of a substantial ground for impeachment of the president in all of the four we have a subpoena and all the various all that let's take the various different exchanges german reveal it seems to me that the requirement is the threshold level of evidence a substantial offenses which might rise to the level of impeachable offenses must be demonstrated before an impeachment couldn't pucker up on and if you talk to obey a subpoena and that's the fault that i tried to express and further the new threat here that we have in fact made that preliminary determination of these other matters into their ear is that there is a body of evidence substantial amount to raise a serious question with regard to male and the others as to whether subpoenas of other avid this is necessary
and and farther to tie it to be kind of evidence which does appear for example an article long time in our prayers foreign all those in favor of the amendment was in favor of the amendment monday please signify by saying aye will color all listed on the list of roadside mr kastenmeier mr edward ii mr connors well ms julie crosby
disneyland mr grine in life because the rhine ms jordan mr thornton ms holton there's joan <unk> mezvinsky mr hutchinson mr mclaurin mr smit well mr stanton well mr railsback mall has to wait until
mr dennis kneale mr fisher oh ms germain know mr hogan well mr butler i mr cohen well mr lyle i was afraid of all mr moreno listeners at no news no mr rodino it the polls by
twenty four members of an entire fourteen members voted no william on that taken care of the committee will move on to the third article and pacs videotape coverage of the house judiciary committee impeachment debate will continue shortly groceries pbs public broadcasting service and often the agent that you haven't told biggins political have gotten us that's pretty damn cool actress wine well having to walk again joe to my sister and i just was caught kevin cathcart has been found shocked at what law the police suspect so we're going to play devil's been preliminary results
became i mean bbc these are tennis tour will attract world famous players competing for top prize money stands on the lid on rod laver in the onboard are just a few of the political scene for maybe enough view of professional championship from boston all right out on the stage and also it
no need nice nice nice nice this boy
fb and blacks coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate continues and hours we return to the debate at the capitol the subject is the president's refusal to honor the judiciary committee's subpoenas for information well there's the chair wishes to announce that is one hour and twenty minutes remaining gao report says the debate on the article itself and share like an expression of those who wish to speak on the articles of that the time may be evenly divided between the opponents and proponents of the arctic
what those who was to speak in favor of the article lays worries and fears and the current of fish does the man jordan gas and fire red glows with speed and opposition has been calling the butler for like a lot but for like does not seek without consent sandman
rails but the dallas based marinade and americium thirty minutes of debate only member in which everybody get five minutes in me like the article and more important and now why would one of the restricted to know what one of the candidates gets a point i wish to raise that one of wicked reorder these parties move into more unanimous consent that that plan for the play of the article be extended one hour is one hour and twenty minutes remaining photo to write a unanimous consent that we spend the plan to go to our one hour piece that one of our jails that was a resignation
but for consideration that unanimous consent request to leave seattle getting along i have a feeling that as is the custom in the house of a great deal of yearly members do developer arguments more fully but if at the end of an hour it's clearly a parrot that we have not had a very big parcels the time and on the basis of the facts time limitation at this time members will not have sufficient time to make that a bit china would like to announce that they're at twenty three veterans' recognition and members of an opposition members in support and they'd probably get a unanimous consent request is
in order and it will be in five minutes here we are well i think once again the gentleman from alabama sean is good sense what we just there by the time equally carry do it we're going to abandon a unanimous consent requests posen cut down its infinite we should revert to the rule which we had not only
began as a veteran i'll provide the men with an opportunity who can i have a unanimous consent request that each side didn't win that character and i think that the warrior they wondered china would like to state that presently however is that without objection and present that position and his one hour and twenty minutes remaining that one aren't going to be divided as the rules made it
using are withdrawn by unanimous consent requests and reserving the right to object to my friend from illinois unanimous consent requests an hour and forty minutes amounts to eighty minutes would that not be for two minutes or so i will call a gentleman you know this is the judiciary committee and we don't deal in the numbers very often million barrel i think i decided to withdraw my china seventy two individual on your work as hamlet and seventies in the visual and you're a lesbian form of the funnier i think that the giant object
let's get back to an hour and twenty minutes cello recognize the gentleman in support of the caribbean's most recognized now for our longest german mr zhao i think this is perhaps the most important thing that we've been debating since these are current deliberations began what's at issue here is executive privilege we know that throughout the constitution there is the running theme of separation of powers and checks and balances there are three areas where the president has challenge to executive privilege one is against congress where there is a legislative
purpose and clearly he has a valid claim to executive privilege in an instance he claimed that in the instance of the criminal prosecutions and the supreme court has by a unanimous eight another decision rejected his claim if the supreme court rejected it in that instance certainly the supreme court would reject his claim these of the impeachment inquiry by this committee i would not have supported this article prior to the supreme court's decision but now that we have that there is no valid claim on the part of the president to ignore our cities now heretofore i've had many discussions with my colleagues mr conyers of michigan and notably involves a very strongly about this and at that time the question of executive privilege was a debatable on it no longer is the historical trust that we're setting here is so great because in every future impeachment of a president it is inconceivable that the
evidence relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands of the executive branch which is under his skin trolls so i agree with the telephone wire with the spiraling if we do not pass this article today the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless now my friend from wisconsin mr fralin says that we should have gone to court to enforce our subpoenas perhaps he is correct perhaps we should have been in our system of justice the individual who is a mandated by the subpoena has the right and the opportunity and the obligation of the challenges that subpoena to move to quash the subpoena the president did not do that the nearly ignored it and having ignored it become portion of our lawfully offered something is still lies and he is ignoring that i would have hoped that when the supreme court decision was handed down a few days ago you would've immediately delivered that material to the house judiciary committee he urged my colleagues support this guy mr mccorry because if
we do not we will be for all time and weakening the house of representatives power of impeachment i you like about them gentleman has to consume three minutes into the picture like steak fillets mathematics was and what that gentleman and pedaled beach to green minutes and thirty five seconds each you're my thirty five seconds to the next speaker in support of the art world recognize them recognize the gentleman from where you are just fish
thank you to figure out like the outset to say that i as one who had not made up his mind had no option when the question was put her from speaking again in favor of the war against this article and have me come to a conclusion i like to ask a couple questions first form of council and that is if it's if there were no article three what would be the effect in a trial in the senate of a sensibility to obtain the material that we had heretofore subpoenaed and fires libya blows up on an article on watergate cover up as part of the issue will continue to cover a lawyer says
it does not afford an affirmative charged with respect to say that they favored respond to subpoenas as an impeachable offense and my judgment of the alumni would have meant that article duplicitous so the faa committee has to recommend to the house and impeachment there's the president's refusal to respond isn't as necessary activities the library's it your view that if in the course of a trauma center the present or before that the president should voluntarily come forward with the material that we have heretofore subpoenaed that it would be possible for the manager isn't about the house to drop this article
emphatically yes that the president has been given all kinds of opportunities to come forward and we've been lucky and this is a forty five of us a question you went in your amendment to the ark off obama's before you use language that you discussed with a bottler devastated by other evidence to be substantial ground you're referring there to the obvious substantiation for the city of materials that we received in each instance when the subpoenas before thereby council showing the vp direct me in the necessity for other subpoenaed that europe honestly because of inquiry don't reveal i'm referring to the evident are in material which have been collected and presented to us i and support artists he knows which were damaged and finally with a tremendous an observation and it back to
challenge my buddy about this matter of going to the courts for a determination between the executive and the legislative branch that it seems to me that the decision was made by the president himself that it was not equally iraq that ought to limit whether to go to the court are porch of the congress but rather he made the determinations himself as to what was relevant and necessary gentlemen it is consumed and reenactments i recognize the junk from the artist is meant for three minutes was chairman of those committees submitted tapes and other records of the pros i voted to issue most of those who were present as first saw the material and as for his transcripts of many voters and you have to climb
different is about asserting his constitutional right of executive privilege and the constitutional doctrine of this operation of dollars among the three political branches of the us government as reasons for his declaration before the company asserts its constitutional right to region have those other venturing maternal under this all part of the house to impeach saucers of the announced that and as was brought here we have a constitutional confrontation between two political branches of our government already said congress is pitted against the exact it seems only natural robert i'm at the third political branch of our government ought to really on par or arbiter of those confrontational point as crucial rights and duties particularly when that branch happens to be the one whose normal function of is that before the meaning and effect of the constitution that's odd as that i am one of the six
members of this committee who monitors about the enforcement of our subpoenas to the court's position for which there is impressive support from constitutional scholars such as professor alexander battle of yale the majority of our committee volunteer i think this was a mistake richard curran below the recent supreme court decision which up all those of you know some of the same material from the president by the special prosecutor most of the senate committee fill in our cases even stronger than that of a future was when i think it still applies and i'm surprise that thirty eight lawyers will vote not to submit their case to court it wouldn't play our congressman and asserting the pollen disappearance supreme court part of the point i still think we should have gone to court to enforce our city it might have been probably would
probably would not have taken some additional time however human soul and a matter as important as the impeachment of the president we should have made this effort to attend the tapes and the other materials through that sort of way every save them we may have achieved some clear and convincing proof to connect the president personally and directly with the things which have weakened on that one out in the committee to reelect president and the white house in my judgment we don't have that evidence today or the president refused to obey an order the supreme court to deliver the materials are clearly and my judgment this would be impeached will turn one other aspect support enforcement was really taught me mention we have a long tradition in this country but the accuser an agreement ok shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself
on that this is what a month five of the constitution says as part of a bold right allen and gentleman from three minutes in is a form of a second chance i help him take that out of my time but it will be said that this impeachment proceeding is not a criminal case in the corps it's not but we must admit it isn't the major was so portrayal as sensitive of treason bribery and the punishment and conviction records remote from office in this qualification all enjoy an office of our trust for profit under the united states' truly staggering punishable differences it's all in the background of any court action
to enforce our committee's abuse amended in the background of any proposed article impeachment based on the presence of partial failure to our surprise there are at least the implications of the government which you shall not be compelled to be a witness against him i recognize the gentleman from wisconsin thank you i support his article of impeachment part of impeachment which the framers place in the constitution without apart a subpoena papers materials things necessary to its investigation but congress cannot meet its constitutional responsibilities i submit that fire chief magistrate to prevent the congress from meeting its count the congressionally its constitutional duty is no different than when the president himself
while it's the constitution the offenses just as great it is a high crime in the classic sense which the framers intended when they use that phrase in the constitution as a german before it was indicated that the gentleman from illinois and four imprisoning this article might've been inconsistent in the sense that whether or not he now feels or anyone feels that we need the material of the question about his committee and at the same time would would find from italy in fact on articles of impeachment claiming that the president had not given of material which we know would by implication say is a necessary response to that i would say that this committee made a determination at the time we've all heard of the subpoenas we thought of the thing is
made in april five volts thirty seven a long twenty nine nineteen thirty four before this committee said at that time we needed of this material the president at that time said he would refuse to turn the material over to its so we measure this particular article in the time in which it's seen not in terms of whether subsequent to that fact we have or have not acquired sufficient evidence to make the determinations was not a candidate for the morning it has been suggested that in many areas we may not have sufficient evidence even to this day articles of impeachment which could live in areas such as it and tiberi and other areas may not well be enforced by this committee for the reason in fact that we do not have the materials
which we found necessary for inquiry which the president has rejected this article is the only answer this committee can get i do about the balance of my time a gentleman from california for three minutes i suppose that many times during the past few weeks all thirty eight others said look with envy upon parliamentarians our sister countries are but majority vote for members of parliament can just call a new election and indeed we are right now there are several of these propositions to amend the constitution before after obviously will not receive attention as you know but in an election where a president gets into trouble is not provided in the constitution are founders talk about it
but they reject it for the stability that you've inherited a four year term and they rejected for the power that the four year term gives to a president this four year term that can only be interrupted by catherine keener so that's part of the trip that we have an article two section for all we have to protect the country from a president who greatly abuses his office's me we can have a knife can be an election down the road by majority vote of congress we can't like our country and to the north can either and whether most european countries col election couple of months we get engagement we do have of course the power of the purse but there is limited we do have to enact appropriation bills and the president have the right to spend the money so i suggest that we would be irresponsible if we don't enact this title
to that if we don't we will boost many are distraught eyewitnesses only safety valve in our constitution and for this power of impeached to operate a seventy milani vitality at all we simply must be able to get the evidence that seems very clear in korea must be complete if it's going to be fair and we can't be fair and complete without the facts our subpoenas all were carefully drawn narrowly drawn we were seeking information about national defense or any state secrets or personal information so i'm voting for this very important article three but i suggest that we can destroy the only say that we have to protect ourselves from a president who misbehaves so badly that he becomes a straight attracted the country and should be room of either now or in the future
the gentleman from new jersey mr sandman is recognition for an eye like a heel thirty seconds of my time was to finish a stage i think that when we're talking about whether in the background or were implications of the global moment the manipulation of the record of the religious items outright that the question what should be asked here is whether it is fair and according to our traditions so the president of life refusal what we hope will be your confession interview donna wright and over the materials which we hope will be a conversion we shop around for olympic fuel for failure to turn them over and the owner of the facts it when all the supreme court might have thought that you have good constitutional reasons for not having a job i think going here my life miserable
and what you hearing using about a year which i think is softly appropriate is that there's really a covert killers were finally talk about well that's about as a man still alive among over kill as a novelty of it as an event and you know and i know that when you reflect on the correction that the fourth amendment tries to make it a rapidly brings back those two wings of men's and then it also is rapidly raise your mind to a word a certain been brushed under the counter here for so long and were direct direct evidence so they're that these papers were needed to produce direct evidence this is what we'd been complaining about there is not direct evidence written any reports the weight and the miners
are correct in that though because he said it will provide the necessary factual questions relating to presidential direction remember that the weight of the moment these are the same people who voted against awakened them and the other thing in a way the man that would provide the knowledge on the part of the president those were issued on people who now have a reverse american you know i don't think that it seems to be the objective of some people in the less we impeach we are not carrying out our constitutional duty impeachment is it is not the course of four and i think we should start thinking about that was why i like feel to my friend from illinois mr elder through chairman warner i could
in connection with that joe as one minutes of his own and one that a genteel to five minutes mr chairman and members of the committee let me say at the outset that i don't attribute any evil motives to my friend from illinois for offering this resolution what was listening to have a job your well let me say though that i think this is a case where we risk committee which is somehow develop the rather fragile bipartisan support of two rather substantial serious articles of impeachment he is now about to engage in what i call political there are many republicans i can tell you on the house floor that have been impressed with the evidence that has been reduced and respect to the obstruction of justice charges
very serious and also the abuse of power charge now what is this comedy about to do we are about to be asked to impeach a president for refusing to comply with some subpoenas when he has to be a substantial quantities of evidence what other alternatives did we have available to us one number one we've been asked by our council and they made a persuasive argument but the president should refuse to comply and frankly i don't like the president's stonewalling us are refusing to cooperate completely element there but number one we did not strive to sign him for contempt and number two we've been asked to draw negative influences by reason of his failure to produce now were going one step further and we are saying now let's impeach him for his failure to comply what could we what could we have done we
could've done what has been done for years for hundreds of years they establish procedure has been for the witness to be given an opportunity to appear before the full house or the senate as the case may be and give reasons why he should not be held in contempt for example he can argue that is recusal was justified reagan agreed eternal material to the full house the supreme court a cell that this kind of notice and opportunity for airing our constitution required under that that the fourteenth amendment's nine states constitution we're bypassing that procedure because we didn't think we have time to follow if we refuse to go to court when there were many of us that i think a president has the right to assert executive privilege you have two contrasting political support the political branches what could be more natural but then ask the third branch which has been the traditional arbiter and this builds to arbitrate this dispute and determine once and
for all whether the president's assertion of executive privilege would fail let me just say i have no doubt in my mind but what in this case the court would have ruled in our favor the court would have ruled in our favor and i'll tell you it's probably the only way we ever would've been able to get the evidence we could determine the truth of a possibly of the allegations against the president i think mr chairman that with these remaining articles that understand we're going to have one and cambodia ordinary of war may have one in cambodia we may have one eye on the season and monuments this would be a political overkill and you watch what happens to your fragile coalition that thinks there have been two serious offenses committed under article one in germany and yes a report by the office of the president at the right on through life with and that they want to and that
courts and the committee has decided to we were not subject of a quarter of that let me just say that a major state of the gentleman that in retrospect i think history is going to show alexander becca one of the top constitutional experts in the country came under obama we truly after we decided this committee and so that's exactly what we should have done because it wouldn't determine whether there's a right final world in the review that was trying to get an enforcement of a subpoena we made a mistake but we certainly should not impeach a president because we made a mistake probably the dow months that over and hearing before the supreme court one mistake there in that jaworski argued the case of us presence makes them and i was there and i heard mr st clair make a very strong argument that the court should not rule and after the special prosecutor because to do so would inject the court and the impeachment process which is a constitutional
process in a separate status where were the congress went after the special prosecutor we have even greater rights to get the material from illinois has expired the gentleman chairman mr chairman i first lived indicate that the reason that i supported the book why radical and it's fallen under that diluted form or simply because there was no reason in the face of his first historic instance of willful noncompliance on the part of the president to refuse to comply but we should have to modify in any respect the enormity of the
challenge that he himself has been before but i think it's more important than to begin worrying about whether we're going to have radicals that do not meet with the approval of everyone on this committee that we continue this process as far away as we're able to not include this article one that is the enormous important of the constitution itself would speak very poorly all of the recommendations coming from the judiciary committee and certainly ultimately the decision that must have been made on the floor that to many members here are beginning to think that they are casting the final decision on impeachment and the judiciary committee let me remind you there are four hundred other members that are going to decide this and i resent any implications of people on the committee suggesting what ought to
and what ought not to be introduced now that we have two articles of inclusion because anyone that doesn't like whatever other articles including this one that is presented to them as their obligation to vote against them but i don't think that they can intimidate or curtail the views of any member on this committee is that what they're supposed to do know i interview was the first emotion that would have accelerated the impeachment procedure by taking to the floor immediately an article or the refusal of the president to comply because if there's anything we must pull out of this impeachment process is the impeachment process itself which the president himself now challenges by raising those areas concept that he has raised to executive privilege has no basis in an impeachment proceeding and most scholars have said so repeatedly and
so with those words mr chairman i've only and strongly support this article and hope that it will be reported by the largest number possible on this committee and that it will be sustained by the majority of our colleagues on the floor and what this really comes down to is does this committee mean what it says about conducting an impeachment inquiry in reno nevada far the primaries are one we really faced was gone on the plight of religious a pool from all of the gentleman from indiana mr dennis has recognized reform thank you mr chairman listed sermon articles one and two can be the date on the lawn on the fact says in the day and in and will be what this proposed article we have to force now is utterly without
merit the president in this instance assorted what he claimed to be a constitutional right based on executive privilege and the separation of powers and that's a right answer that way which under certain circumstances has now been recognized by the court in the course of its recent opinions we took a different position and now we're going to save without any real resolution of that question that because you mr president invoked a constitutional position we're going to impede you now that argument talk to carry its own ends meet elected never to test the question we never went to the floor of the house and there's the house the vote open and as we might have done and should have done if we thought he was and then we elected bible of this committee not to
test the matter in the court as we might have done any even though all as the court reiterated the other day the courts are emphatically the province to determine what the law means we could've been parties to the recent sale or a similar suit and we would probably have prevailed and we know now that the president would never comply and we would have this evidence if we just go on and ask for it in a proper farewell but we refused to do that that's all right to impeach doesn't carry with it the sole right to determine what the constitution means doesn't make us the sauder traitor of the constitution this is a bootstrap cooperation ladies and gentlemen we are in effect trying to say to the president if you don't agree with our view the constitution were gone on preaching now
that is not a reasonable position to take part and nixon gets a rake in the other day said that every president concludes that compliance with a subpoena would be injurious to the public interest he may properly invoked a plan of bribery and that's exactly what the present day and it will reply no credit on this and many if we try to impeach him for doing that do you sharon notes that there is a roll call vote process on the rnc chair will recess a comedian continuing the debate on this question of recognition members that the two third
house for answering the roll call their committee members took time for lunch when they return to the hearing her own merits and the debate over whether or not using congressional subpoenas constitutes an impeachable offense at the time a committee recess is still considering the mccauley article three as amended and that time there were eight members too speak in opposition in support of the article it will happen in its reach number and the six members just weakens authorities recognize now mr al gore chairman i think there is no
justifiable defense for the president's refusal to comply with subpoenas i respectfully submit that members now considering voting against approving this article did not think the president should be disciplined or punished for refusing to comply with a subpoena is why did they vote for them in the first place is that true that subpoenas are demands backed up by the threat of punishment for noncompliance as a practical matter i emphasize practical matter be disciplined or punished for noncompliance at no time has any reasonable argument could have asked for the president's refusal his lawyer argued that the president has executive privilege in this matter he said disclosure of these conversations would endanger the principle of confidentiality and threatened the ability of the president to conduct the business of his office but
during the invasion of andrew johnson there was a far reaching inquiry into the conversations between the president and his aides know information was withheld from the committee making that investigation that cannot be argued that this resolve in any way and limiting any subsequent presidents are going to communicate with his aides no argument made which justifies and a riot of executive privilege in an impeachment quiring the legal scholar which i'm aware past the president has argued that the president has the right to limit innovation inquiry into his condo in any way except possibly by pleading the fifth amendment however the president's lawyer jim sinclair's said at his press conference last week that the president would not claim the fifth amendment but failure to adopt article three shelby unleashing a presidency which has no limitations the framers of the constitution put the power of impeachment into the constitution provide a
check on the president they know that a president who cannot be called to account for his actions might become a dictator and if we do not impeached richard nixon for not cooperating with this investigation we should be giving up at least some of congress's right to question the president's actions i can recognize me gentleman from virginia was the butler for a form of whether the president is very sought impeached or not is in many ways a matter of discretion we have a public radio discretion of the whether or not we will impeach and within the framework of a our decision as to whether an impeachable offense exist or not there is still the judgment which is imposed in us determine whether it's in the best interest of the country not to impeach are not under those circumstances
in my judgment will be in the workplace after about finn of articles one and two by the host of representatives we will replace the issue of presidential conduct sufficiently before the senate of the united states for determination of whether the president should be continued and others are not and any additional articles would expand the proceeds on this is that we don't need this article as there's no useful purpose to pursue it and i would recommend against it the principle problem with me for this from the bottle problem for me with reference to this article is that whether the context then alone is an impeachable offense and the constitution i think not i'm concerned however that what we really suffered article three is to impeach a president for a failure to cooperate in these olympics and to me that is basically and fire in my judgment the house of representatives as a responsibility to go further down the road that
we have at this moment before we impeach the president for its noncompliance with our subpoena i would prefer that our determination be affirmed by the courts an apartment sitting on at least five from their determination of conduct an appropriate sitting before them out the issue is also a lot of legislative responsibility we're saying today if we pass article three or twenty members of damage it over thirty eight member committee and for reasons been sufficient unto itself issue a subpoena to the president i'd recommend his impeachment for their judgment as to the sufficiency of his partial compliance with the survey does article appears that sense of fair play and i'm going to vote against it and a gentleman has no time remaining gentleman's time has expired and i recognize there in the
gentlemen california mr chairman i support this article of impeachment and would like to point out that the power of the congress do in any and every document from the provenance of impeachment of the most powerful far back as seventeen ninety two by president george washington and with restraint and seventy nine effect robin tyler an eighteen hundred and forty three president polk an aching forty six president grant anything seventy six president cleveland at an eighty six year old girl in nineteen hundred and nine and franklin d roosevelt in an opinion by the attorney general in nineteen forty one i think that we should continue to assert is very important the right and responsibility of the house counsel mr denner have provided for me an excerpt from the recent
decision and i think versus nixon by simply substituting of the order of the equivalent of the house of representatives for court an impeachment of the function here for you find on pages twenty four and forty seven of the supreme court decision the ends of justice respect an exercise by the house of representatives of the full power of impeachment would be defeated if it's judgment would be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts the very integrity of the impeachment system provided in the constitution and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts to ensure that justice is done is imperative to this constitutional function of the house of representatives that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed by the house of representatives twenty seven on the other hand the allowance of the privileged to have poll evidence that demonstrably relevant in an impeachment
inquiry would cut deeply into the guarantee of due process of law and bravely impair the basic constitutional function fully on the house of representatives ladies and gentleman of the committee chairman that is what the supreme court would probably state if this is you were before i yield about more time the government will monitor our the gentleman that has consumed three three minutes and ten seconds or two minutes and forty seconds of the gentleman from name the colonies recognize perform it with the gemini like the planet when honestly that whether this article fails i wanna make it clear that this number of that fragile coalition has remained firm ones and two the label gentlemen california mr wiggins suggested this article is logically
inconsistent with a vote articles one and two and i simply cannot agree with that statement and the fact that one can arrive at a conclusion based on clear and convincing evidence in no way diminishes the need to review all of the relevant evidence i would point out that was not decided until just recently in the final days of our proceedings with a test that we would apply would be that a probable cause they're in convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt but to conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the committee to reach a decision does not mean that we were not entitled to all of the information that was relevant and the president was not obligated to friendship to us or the senate is not entirely evidence they insist upon a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt the reference to logic probably to think of justice false statement that a page of history as were the volume of logic i think it's clear that the information that was relevant or in korean necessary was without some of it had become through this special prosecutor within the grand jury
suppose and the committee then unable to reach a decision to his satisfaction on the issues that women are viewed logically but you cannot impeach a president for invoking executive privilege when the issue had not been resolved on the final arbiter in the supreme court so the other day that while most unfortunate aspects of this case regardless as a mild melancholy wounds were those it was self inflected jazz band the degradation of valuable doctrine such as executive privilege national security as they might believe have been invoked for illegitimate purposes i mean all the wounds are fatal i believe that the withholding of the evidence was just one other example of presidential action that was calculated to impede but i was raised in a justice and to the extent that is not covered by article one or by article two i like to put my colleagues on notice that i would propose to introduce an amendment to include such a provision on the house floor were concerned about setting precedents and i would no apparent that way neither the procedure know the spirit it permeated the johnson's
impeachment trial was binding or influential on his body i do not think we should set in concrete as a matter of law that no future president should ever be able to invoke and arkansas executive privilege or national security interest rate on a car i believe the facts are clear that we can decide this case as a matter of fact rather than as a matter of law that recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts father john thank you very much jeremy since i've been in congress i have voted on through contempt citations on the first act defines them and july thirty nineteen seventy one i found myself with a vast majority voting to recommit that particular citation up and jam it turned out that the subcommittee in question already had the
full text of the material deleted by cbs as a result i voted to recommit i was happy to see that that has the debt isn't as the widows and many others in this committee were they were drying a key question of gordon liddy was different kinds of damage than it had had in seventy three i voted for content with the overwhelming majority of the house of representatives mr liddy refused even to give his name and he didn't even get to the question are they are invoking her fifth amendment so i find the question of the president really in the same category as these two individuals and any other person who's documents this congress does in fact seek to subpoena and a professor robert book that i looked at just now i find nothing that would justify defiance of us here and in the supreme court decision last week the court went out of its way to say that the president had not actually invoke and in our diplomatic justification
for his refusal or disappeared similarly in this case we have not even approach any justification by the president in the military or diplomatic justification i wish i could understand so my colleagues who are saying that we should have gone to court and less that less reasons we did not do that we are not not able to cite the president for contempt and encased in the case of the president and gen turns out to be impeachment since he cannot as a sitting president be indicted in a court and i and it's a relatively that i must disagree with those who will vote against this the article and i think that this article straight man's the other two i was that it didn't have to be done but i hope that we have a strong agreement a vote in favor of article three and recognized john from california's more one of our listeners the chairman this particular article concerns me more
than any of the others that have been filed against the president because i believe that a very important constitutional privilege constitutional questions involved the assertion by the congress that under the impeachment power it can exercise absolute power over impeachment or any and celery matter in connection with the impeachment without court review certainly would lay the ground work for legislative abuse of power i think it's important that we do have a check and balance under our system the courts other finally tremor of what the law is there are many things about the power that was given to congress that might well have to be interpreted by the court their other constitutional rights have been set down under are in the united states constitution
those rights on occasion come into conflict with the part that was given to the house of representatives bring impeachment proceedings those powers have to be weighed and balanced and it's the courts that have been given that authority under our constitution i think it is vitally important that this committee before considers impeaching the president for failure to follow their demand that it's a teeny take the matter to court and the island some of the other members on this committee voted to do some have said they're no longer is a privilege of confidentiality in the president but in the united states versus nixon the court said specifically as to the case they were deciding in this case we must weigh the importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of presidential communications and performance of his responsibilities against inroads of such a privilege and that their administration and criminal justice but they did not rule out that claim in all
cases to the privilege later on they said moreover president communications activities and trump as a vastly wider range of sensitive material that would be true of any ordinary individual it is therefore necessary in the public interest to avoid presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the administration of justice the need for confidentiality even as their idle conversations with associates image casual references might be made concerning political leaders within the country of warn statements think it's too obvious to call for further treatment it is important that the president nor any other citizen of the united states have a right to have a judicial determination of the validity of any section of the constitution or any law before he places himself in jeopardy of being you know there in a moment we'll be
back for the last word in this debate and a vote on article three impacts videotape coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate zero three washington week in review analyzes the presidency yeah i think he doesn't think that anyone can leave washington week in review reports on the cupboards it's becoming increasingly doubtful whether the senate will have time this year to try the impeachment trial washington week in review discuss use foreign affairs isn't there goes up and optimism pessimism and he's such as a good deal and the cities with moderator paula do washington week in review lots of the major national and international events of the
week from washington that's washington week in review raw neiman says me that's right nikkei meet the peak
then the odor it's b
Series
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Episode
1974-07-30
Segment
Reel 4 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/512-6h4cn6zp3w
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/512-6h4cn6zp3w).
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: 2403261-1-3 (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 4 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 August 20, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-6h4cn6zp3w.
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 4 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. August 20, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-6h4cn6zp3w>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 4 of 6. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-6h4cn6zp3w