thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 5 of 6
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
it's both fb and without court review certainly would lay the ground work for legislative abuse of power
i think the important that we do have a check and under our system the courts other finally tremor of what a lawyer there are many things about the power that was given to congress that might well have to be interpreted by the court there are other constitutional rights have been set down under are in 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 been the way that balance and it's the courts that have been given that authority under our constitution i think that it is vitally important that this committee before considers impeaching the president for failure to follow their demands that is appealing to take the matter to court over iran some of the other members on this committee voted to do some us that they're no longer is a privilege of
confidentiality in the president but in the united states for assistance in the courts specifically as to the case they were deciding in this case we must wave importance of the general privilege of confidentiality of presidential communications and performance of his responsibilities against the inroads of such a privilege and that their administration of criminal justice but they did not rule out applying it all to the problem mitt romney said moreover president communications and 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 the vital conversations with associates image casual references my the main concern in political leaders within the country are sworn statement think it's too obvious to call for further treatment it is
important that the president or 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 asked for a novel mr wood will be back for the last words in this debate and a vote on article three ampex videotape coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate you are twenty three washington week in review yell i think he doesn't think that living in a world of self delusion and washington week in review reports it's becoming
increasingly doubtful whether the same time this year to try the impeachment trial washington week in review discusses foreign affairs isn't there goes up and optimism pessimism carries on sensitive deal with moderator paula do washington week in review lots of the major national and international events of the week from washington and practice washington week in review raw neiman says romney is that's right
the nikkei meet the pope data it's
been and jack's coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate continues as we go back to the hearings it is congresswoman barbara jordan his turn to speak for the article it cites mr nixon for refusing to honor committee's subpoenas lead generating from texas is recognize as chairman was chairman one is saying where the president's burden started to resent the law says closing some action on the case before this committee east and that as a matter of first instance a president cannot be impeached
by putting infringed upon and french not agree with that but the president had complied with the subpoenas or information is you've got this committee that would be no necessity for an inference to be drawn in the first instance if the president had provided the best evidence which this committee sought that would be no necessity for us to infer anything example the june twenty eight conversation is important the eighteen minute gap is on that conversation the president had with his boss we subpoenaed this committee subpoenaed conversations with the president had all the point of june with mr josh calls and he talked in his goals and four times that day mr golson you about the levee plan for intelligence gathering
if we had had compliance with is the pain of this committee and have secured those four conversations we may not have to again for what the president knew on the june twenty eight k which was manually you write the argument that this set the nepal are on this permitting violent separation of polish doctrine has no ability in my judgment and that the fact that we have three separate branches of government does not mean that we have three governments they are independent but relatively deep pendant consequently this partial enter a mixture of pollard's gives rise to the whole workings of the whole functioning of the government the president to cooperate with this committee it would have been a part of the whole working all the matter of the
impeachment process as we have tried to go forward with it gentlemen from new jersey ms demeritt it is recognized reforms that i do have determined that in a recent a threesome three five point the court decided that the president felt that he held must exercise a right or a privilege for the welfare of the people of this nation and he should do so and the president did exactly that image awards security and a court decided now contrary to what he said here today at a doctrine of executive privilege it is still alive but as the ballot doctrine and the court as they did that set of their exercises they can exercise of the privilege is not sufficient at a mafia showing of a national security interest or a diplomatic considerations author the top of the stove top now this committee said we have the right
attitude to recommended that if i had to recommend that any number of articles of impeachment of the house yeah but as a devastating and this committee does not have the right and thank god the law that aside all constitutional questions that that's what the constitution needed every particular in this instance that we have a ms bielby claiming executive branch and the legislative branch and that thirteen cases of dispute between departments at the supreme court must decide that and the other side and i set that with the chairman that this committee and a very very simple solution that add to this dilemma with a pose in the venice the most in there several months ago as supported by some of us actor joined me towards the application and makeup application they get a decision and let me say here and now that if the court had decided
that the president stood at the exhibit those plates and deliver those tapes of his committee and of the review i would have voted in the economic grounds or failing in its committee and the committee failing to take the action and support via advantage both an act and get a different decision i cannot afford this on the head gentlemen from arkansas of authorities recognize through the minutes and thirty seconds as chairman i'd like to say that many of the views which have been expressed in opposition to the adoption of this article some attributes which have expressed emerging that it should more properly be considered for inclusion and one of the general articles previously about like in a short time that i have to refer specifically to some questions that have been asked during the debate team of new jersey refer to the words direct evidence used in my perfecting
amendments for the purpose of the record by those words i intended to refer to that evidence within the president's custody and control which is most direct the original documents and plates of which our subpoena with her next when i used the phrase that these papers and things were being necessary to our question i certainly did not in and to suggest that the criminal act we're in convincing evidence upon which to base its decision but rather than in resolving the questions before as a committee was seeking to obtain all of the evidence relating to presidential direction knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the president by supporters committee has already begun that there is clear and convincing no evidence which has compelled a large majority of our committee to reach its conclusions with respect to article one and two but we are not charged with a simple duty are proceeding until we find
sufficient evidence upon which to base our conclusions we were charged with the duty of investigating fully and completely all necessary evidence and drawing conclusions from that period and our committee was impeding and its inquiry by the refusal to comply with subpoenas and we've already dealt with the question as to whether the courts should be called upon to determine the extent of our subpoena authority and an impeachment for singing i think we correctly determined that the duty to enforce isis arrested upon the congress not on the court ms jerman there must be a sufficient nexus between the evidence of pain at an independently impeachable evidence or a refusal to comply with a subpoena to be an impeachable offense i believe that the evidence gathered by the committee establishes that nexus between the obstruction of justice and a refusal to comply with unlawful something for the reasons i've outlined i'm prepared to vote for the article offered by the gentleman from illinois as it is
now connected by amendment to substantive up fences charts in article one into iraq would like to state that i consider the matter can be more appropriately included and the body of a substantive article that i will therefore supporting efforts of the gentleman from maine concluded there on the house floor the gentleman from alabama flowers is right for me kali through articles of impeachment your calls i was really convinced that they should have been voted for an active elements into fights justified it although i had a great deal of reluctance and in this instance i'm just as clearly convinced but i don't have any reluctance whatsoever in voting against the nsa actually syphilis that my friends on the side and now the two old someone's on the other side that appear to be voting for a deal is gonna love somalia to in the cyber world opposing it
i asked that that you consider what we're doing here and that's not kid ourselves if there's standing alone and i think that's the way we must look at it but if it were standing alone would we be seriously thinking about impeaching the president of the united states for this charge alone honestly if i'm not honestly think not at mit some to disagree with me but honestly like not for the majority of this committee and i do not see how we can possibly approaching in india want all that we've been through imbued with our new around our all we've been thinking too much about the house having the sole power of impeachment i do not know what went out by it but this is too much to impeach the president too much for me to consider impeachment president united states forces not sufficient
that you're kind of trying to run through my mind and again this is money at some point at least maybe there's a question of whether the president must comply with the subpoenas issued by this committee i think at some point that the president that he's a chief executive has an opt in to the right is the issue of whether not the nra given enough that wouldn't i don't think we anywhere near promised that in the sense that we never did what we had to do to insulate that charge against i'm not doing what we have to do and secondly man would not elevated this to the level of an impeachable offense by either going to the house floor or gone to the courts as much garlic no knowledge of the threat of my suggestions and this particular you might argue with putting the cart before the horse i think is my colleague from arkansas has suggested it would be better a place any the article was article two that we've already voted on all out
probably would oppose it theres an inclusion but it was certainly more likely a lion and one of those articles about one of our colleagues has quoted president polk in eighteen forty six this morning and i think that's a fairly little bit too far to present pope was talking in the abstract about a modern safely like you've kind of odd that you can seriously argue that if president paul were about to be impeached that this language which would mainly he was going to going to comply with a subpoena that was not the keys to weaken fear that there for that the situation may be what i'll talk about the other night when i said get something so that i'm a loyalist khamenei are pouring myself without objection is the representative of the non lawyers in the public may have hurt somebody stole a sense than i was best qualified to do
that in any event any of them are friends please reconsider what you're doing it doesn't stand on its own as an impeachable offense might not enough for only oppose this article of impeachment for my friend from illinois a time of the gentleman has expired gentlemen from missouri has done is recognized the limits of various at it as gemma those workers are going to do more than any other i respect those who disagreed hear the arguments i think i know now why there are no lawsuits in heaven the other side as all the gulags and scientists agree with my colleagues but i do and i disagree with professor vehicle through the strikes me that us versus nixon the thinkers argument with base and draw exactly right which they shouldn't enter and the bases are universal professor bit of writing
as i recall and he did not approve of one man one vote decision but he was wiser than perhaps i do not always agree with him is not always right in new democracies in and the public's we face different problems and totalitarian country for rulers in business the legislature and republicans they ignore the people's representatives at the peril how anyone can claim the fifth amendment get it includes the president and i think we would we would every argument about that are we to get evidently got in this case by accident we got a separation of powers and a confrontation we face here i'm indebted to you another to find cover from the late george anderson alabama for my education a subject and deeply impressed me we do every political branches numbers bigger mccormick used to say
all members of congress repealed some are more equal than others i think all kinds of government reported some are more equal you can become president without being elected and tragic assassination lyndon b johnson became president andrew johnson became president without being elected but he was never like that you can go to the supreme court without being elected you can go to the senate without being elected members serve their them then they never let people buy recently appointed but you can't come in the house representatives without a thing for the people and being elected and you only start for two years because of people better refresh your mandate and this is on the reason i think the founding fathers put the sole arbiter in the congress because the president and the congress the supreme court justices the ultimate power in the case of gotham confrontation i said that isn't the body or should be in the body there is the people closest to the people's control i said that house represented is that body i cannot acquiesce
in agreement as an inferior body i'm making one know if we're to simply push papers for many paper pushers of independents who will choose to do that elsewhere irish approval of artery and recognize the gentleman from michigan the thirties and performance was a private eye with the owners of the article of impeachment because i voted against sitting in me does the united states on every occasion i voted against both of the news because first i didn't think there was any practical way through an orphan but people in france perhaps even more importantly i voted against the beginning the president of space because
we have a government of three co equal branches and that means to me that while the president is not a ball the house of representative and lives and senate neither is a bill congress is equal the court and the court does not absolve him more is the above the court these are three foreign interventions it seems to me to make that system work there has been accommodation between those branches but their own foundation never never settled and if it was my expectations of an expectation in the beginning and that the president and that this committee could go through
negotiation and discussion on the part of cancelled work out that way and with the president could voluntarily went voluntarily make available necessary material and i'd kind of the chairman of the canadian waters for the president making such requests i think that that and there were a lot of material i'm not going to and why did it all because members of the committee are looked extensively aware of the vast amount of material that has been turned over to the committee but in any event
like anticipating the president i did not think that even the power of impeachment i think that just as president cannot order the house of representatives to do anything new to do i think that the house of representatives in order to do it i feel the same way about the core i don't i can't imagine that the court that that the president could order the court to do something and so it's hard for me to accept the proposition that the court can order the president to do anything at that level at the very top of our structure of three corn and wages for the president to people in all respects for the other two branches i think the only way through to get along is through cooperation and working things out in a
satisfactory way in order to preserve the prerogatives of all three branches now earlier early on in this and i made a statement that i thought that in the face of an impeachment inquiry that exact doctrine of executive privilege must fall it is my opinion and that was the other day recognize that the doctrine of executive privilege that exists and as the plates we announce we have the privileges i wonder did people generally realize that any time that a member of this house representatives is someone into a corner but that's that someone's cannot be answered without remember going to the house from getting the permission of the olive to comply with the subpoena gentlemen from illinois is recognized for four minutes
and twenty seconds after the gentlemen from illinois consumers time is no fruit and the gentleman from why you as he's seeking recognition for some purpose i'm david greene i respectfully suggest poll numbers around her say that i raised my hand this committee has urged the president to provide us with a necessarily relevant information to conclude that ira and annoyed at their own company didn't want we measure those opinions you've rejected those following the rejection of the subpoenas we warn the may
thirty that if he did not respond we would i consider this as a ground impeach the president's council has emerged and i think that he's very appropriately the charges against the president should be in separate in specific articles this is a separate entrance in a specific article and it's a separate type of charge i hold myself that the additional evidence which will be presented that that is presented in the senate there were any other time what i think that scope it and exonerate the president and i kept urging madden during these weeks that i've been urging the president to respond favorably to our our subpoenas that same rift urging of the president has been directed by the vice president by the republican leader of the house now what did the president turn over in response to our requests he turned over nothing if it were not for the fact that we got materials from the special prosecutor we wouldn't have evidence upon which to operate there to conduct their inquiry is a matter of fact it would be entirely appropriate and respond to the gentleman from alabama
to vote this as a stolen separately in his article of impeachment if we received all that we receive from the president and for the present which is virtually nothing so what we're considering in the evidence that we have we didn't get from that we got elsewhere how exactly it's pure speculation that by going to the court that that we would be able to get some kind of a remedy as a matter fact this this committee has taken a position definitely in order over again we did not want to subject ourselves to the jurisdictional authority of the court in the argument which took place in the case of us against nixon the question was asked of mr sinclair and he responded white white that correctly that the congress had the sole jurisdiction of the subject of impeachment and this was not a just a symbol or a subject before the supreme court as the courts are excluded from our consideration of the house has the sole power of impeachment and we have we have expressed that now it seems to me that the other prices that we could've
gone through a content would be quite unacceptable we did not want to go through that i say i suggest that some months ago but i was the third in that by the leaders of both sides of the aisle and with the prospect that we would take this up when it came to the consideration of an article of impeachment and that's why we're going to this guy when it seems to me that it's entirely appropriate that though you should well the president then this will be a guide for future presidents or future for a future impeachments that if there is no response or the response is inadequate the request that we make if our subpoenas are defied weatherly the congress is going to take the kind of the size of action content of course is a strong action you can have summer a content into court and in prison and all kinds of strong so that this is decisive action that says this is from action but it seems to me that it's the only kind of action we could take on those circumstances my
urge a favorable vote on this article three my parents really about forty five seconds or that i might say to my friend from illinois that he's using my former securities i'm very generous soul you are in libya and we sat there in sixty seconds and a flop or not one thing before we build on this very important article is a very important article israel record lows of the festival and in the future whenever any congress wants to impeach a president united states it can cite this article as an asset whenever you have a gentleman from virginia as part of that a majority of any committee that has subpoena power the sides to stand down to the white house a subpoena and that the executive chief group
that has used the honor he studied to impeachment and this is a dangerous precedent and i think when we're talking about an amazing the powers of the presidency here's another example of that and i don't think we should take this one step towards further diminishing the part of the president the same conclusion that it's what my calling for michigan's is true that we're also when it comes from expressing our forty with regard to impeach and then for another branch of government is concerned we have to take whatever they give and that's all when of course the apartments would be would be sterile and time has expired the question now there's an article three as amended all those in favor please signify by saying i suppose
today while raul is the man and then they will go as ordered all those in favor of article three as the nineties signify by saying i wanted all those opposed no an article iii mr brooks mr kahn yeah mr amr mr wooley mr flour mill mr mann well as disarming are mr simon i mr danielson are you mr ryan i must
rankle our message or do this or part of our missiles more mr owens i listen as vincent mr hutchinson whole mr mccourt mr smith well mr sandman mr rosen i know mr wayman tisdale mr dennis cole mr james you know that's your main goal mr hogan by
mr butler no mr cohen well mr lyle know mr friedly no mr morris well mr myers even though mr leiter know this drug you know i mr jim doig
twenty one members of both and i seventy members of ana now and the amendment is agreed to another resolution article three is about and will be refined hours together with e dido resolution about an article on and two and the cello recess until for everything committee democrats recession john conyers the committee will be appointed mr chairman recognize the gentleman from michigan have an article out the best friend that has also been distributed to the members as a move that announcement the rent at this point as the clock will leave it in the article as conduct of
the office of president of the united states richard m nixon violation of his constitutional oath and faithfully execute the office of president and those states and to the us the visibility preserve protect the family constitution of the united states and disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws being faithfully executed on and subsequently march seventeen nineteen sixty nine authorized water and ratified the concealment for the congress of the facts and the submission to the congress of false and misleading statements concerning the existence scope and native american bombing operations in cambodia variation of the power of the congress to declare war to make appropriations and raise and support on things and by such conduct lawrence impeachment and trial and removal from office janice i recognize mr
chairman as unanimous consent that all the date on this article number four including consideration of any amendments there to be limited to a period not to exceed two hours to be divided equally between opponents and vocal elements of the article this would include of course the debate on any amendment she'll be limited period not to exceed twenty minutes divided equally also between opponents and promote proponents of them in the jungle and wow is the gentleman checking her relatives oliver can make it normal i think that we agreed to ok
with that section and nia article that it for one hour and thirty minutes the ninety minutes to be divided equally between opponents and proponents of the article this of course is the gentleman has already expressed in these unanimous consent requests what also told the limitation on the time the debate on any amendment here too which would not exceed it and proponents such a plan coming out of the one hour and half about objects in his soul and that will leave members who seek recognition on this kindly and it carried by raising their hands all those in support of the moment so that the chairman recognize an unopened for recognition or mr rollins
spokesman mr randall wanted conner's mr edwards has an all those in opposition there's the lighted so we'll overlook you with a lot of this the column about where the spirit that mr owens was going on shopping going mr dennis virag mr fairey railsback reading the
poem settling in opposition just so that we won't overlooking honest a lot of his the columnist the bottom of its denizens this man's vision is the fact that sam and as the flowers cycling as the main and those in favor of mr owens spokesman cason mind that word khan is largely violent crimes but the pieces
belong to pass opponents will be recognized for a period of last informant about three minutes forty five seconds huge support we recognize first six minutes and fifteen seconds each supportive in it i recognize the gentleman from michigan or six minutes and fifteen seconds thank you mr chairman and members of the committee that we've set here again and
again during the course of these deliberations that be one part of the congress that might in fact be even more part will learn that which brings us here has the power to declare war and i think that we might make an observation about the nature and the importance of this proposed article from the outset because as one who has worked with all of the members who have labored toward an understanding and a supportive in other articles i want to extend first my commendations to the chairman and then to those who composer the quote unquote fragile coalition because i have been as concerned as any about putting it together and keeping it together
so far during these proceedings no one has been required to make any compromises of conscience that have to do with those measures that should be considered as impeachable offenses and i think that to do anything less would denying these proceedings and leave us open for criticism for all time in the view of those who will study and great detail our conduct during this historic event so i bring this article for repeat not with some trepidation because it seems to me first of all to have been that matter which underlies all of the articles that have been voted so far because we have stated time and time again that the reason for watergate and its cover up
and incursions into the various agencies and departments of government was motivated by a necessity that was political blood like to suggest too that the reason that the political motivation heroes in the first plays with a flat of the vietnam war in which this cambodian incursion is a an incident because this president unfortunately unlike the one before him is to a greater extent than a casualty of the vietnam war and i would point out too that we need to stage only the matter quite simply tapes are not required it is not necessary that we go beyond the documentation that has been put together a by the committee and analyze the
president unilaterally and it's a major military action against another sovereign nation and then consistently denied that he had done so to both the congress and the american people know my colleagues i suggest that the consequences of that and there are still enormous but for us assembled here not to seriously consider this as an additional article not too many ed articles upon articles but as one of the most important to go to the perhaps most important duty of the fall of the us in the congress you know many people go know or had forgotten who has the authority to declare war in nineteen seventy four in the united states many people have forgotten that the congress
constitutionally has that sole authority and so i would urge that we in an attempt to re assert those powers which we consider to be vital and pressures if the constitutional form of government is to prevail and continue and improve the grammys now i know that there is something of a struggling us and i and constrain to speak frankly to me because there are members who regardless of the hall much agreement that they may give to the arguments that will be presented by myself and the proponents will that perhaps they have some implications in the results of undeclared war zone i think the world should be said about it i don't think that we can absolve the fact that the congress has failed to declare
officially that war that has haunted us but that we can lose this moment as a new beginning as a point of departure whether congress says from this moment on from this day forward we will re institute that law constitutionally asserted from the beginning that somehow during the course of previous administrations i'm frank to admit as corroded and we find that that car is no longer hours and hours alone but on march seventeen nineteen sixty nine the president of the united states and i might note less than two months after he had been given the oval office approve the beginning of bombing strikes and in cambodia which continued until august fifteen nineteen seventy three it was not until july
sixteenth the secretary of defense schlesinger before the senate armed services committee revealed formerly led bombing had occurred in cambodia party may nineteen seventy the date of the american invasion are incursion into cambodia the gentleman from la and his delight is recognized there in three minutes and twenty five seconds added as chairman they say that first of all i think that we have to recognize that for mr nixon took office he had a very serious problem we had over five hundred thousand american troops
in south vietnam casualties were having we had hit iran activities by the army going in the sanctuaries that or not being hit action had to be taken to save american lives listening to the gentleman from michigan i noticed it overlooked mentioning the fact that we didn't have very much dissent from the cambodian government in fact they indicated that publicly they couldn't see anything but they were giving us passing of consent but i think this is important to note they're not
opposed to overdoing it mr laban early modern expressing outwardly their displeasure we had a situation a military situation that have to be taken and i think the american people especially the mothers and the whys of servicemen alive today because having actually be asking us about it not about an article of impeachment because this president took a decisive action to save the lives of their loved ones i think this is the crux of the matter the things that go on and i'm a war and this was a time or that you don't put on the front page of every newspaper i can recall back in world war two the other a lot of things that went on that
we didn't like that we learn about and that were put on the front page of every newspaper there's one piece time as in wartime president was concerned about a concern about awesome president want to get us out of a couple of lawsuits and i worry about the condemn him because he brought those troops on even brought home the prisoners of war i wonder whether or not they would be on the day where we would still be losing american man in vietnam he had not taken his decisive action it seems to me that we ought to stop look and listen the radar bring up these articles just when plainly the minds of the american people as then alluded to just recently and the washington post
that we really consider these items on the map and this is not american or its article or preach that we've already taken some action without my support in this committee which ended up about a house the president these databases of the articles recommended by the senate would set a dangerous precedent and reduced the office of presidency to merely a travel eye for the congress of the united states i think it's important that we continue to have in this country political branches of government that we don't reduce that officer president which or why that will let them remain as commander in chief it seems as though we forget that responsibility that's given him on a constitution a cat commander and she
sometimes has to take actions to protect the lives of his dreams i know well now recognized that won't be all unfolding thank you very much mr chairman and i would like to speak in support of this article and a matter of great conscience and the utmost seriousness i think that those who would argue that this is a matter of policy this understand that thrives of this article of impeachment this is an article buzz to this system of government and his article buzz to the words of the preamble of the constitution we the people and this article goes to a system of self government and the people of this country
through their elected representatives of congress can participate in decisions of substance of this country and there is no question that the decision to go to war with the decision to conduct a major war effort decision to spend tax dollars the decision to commit american lives is a substantial decision and went out and for people who are free people a decision for the people ultimately to be involved in and the decision with respect to the secret bombing of cambodia was a decision interrogation of this system of free government and the participation of congress i'm not saying that it's the secret bomb were made public that the congress would not approve that congress may very well have approved it but it was the right of congress to have approved it and it was the right time is to know and it was a right of the people to prove it and that is a point that's made here and that is the seriousness of this article and that is the seriousness of the president's actions i think it's
very significant to know that there are some facts here that up and just be that there is no question that the president himself order the secrecy of the bombing general wheeler has testified that there is no question about it there's no question also that the bombing that killed place the secret bombing was a massive nature three thousand six hundred and ninety five b fifty twos sorties one hundred five thousand tons of bombs dropped there is no question that the president and ratified in confirming the concealment of this bombing from the congress on april thirtieth nineteen seventy the presidents state after we had already been bombing for over year the american policies since then has been to scrupulously respect the neutrality the cambodian people and then again on june thirtieth nineteen seventy president reiterated that for five years american and allied forces actors or cambodia
neutrality but even more serious and february twenty fifth nineteen seventy one after the bombing and gone on for almost two years the president in his foreign policy report submitted to the congress stated that in cambodia we pursued the policy of the previous administration until north vietnamese actions apple frenzy and it was supposed to make this impossible so there is no question of the president's authorization of the secrecy there is no question the president's failure to tell the truth to the american people there is no question it ratified the submission of false reports to the congress and there is also no question that there was no justification for this the only justification offered by this administration was that somehow we would affect corinthian of this administration in cambodia well let's assume for the moment that that justification is wide but prescient up with a post on march eighteenth nineteen seventy and for
three years they're after this administration including the president lied to congress and lied to the american people without any justification it seems to me mr chairman that the issue here is the greater gravity and great seriousness and the issue here is whether or not the cameras can participate in decisions which it has given power over under the constitution the power to make appropriations and the power to raise and support armies and the power to declare war and there is no question this president acted interrogation of that if we remain a free people and we are as a people to govern decisions over our lives and death and we have to be able to participate in this and we must get noticed that this president of the president's the deceit and deception over issues is grave is going to war and waging war cannot be tolerated in a constitutional democracy our
own thank you mr chairman i'll be brief on this particular issue the bases as i understand with this article is that this constitute a usurpation of power by the president our property belonging to congress and i don't think that anyone here will contest that the bombing was wrong and secretly was done without congress of consent but while this usurpation of taken place i happen to believe that he's a patient has come about not through the old president but rather through the slot and default on the congress it's over the years the ten years of congress failed to take very strong action in the scenario which they have the ultimate and soul control so what happened after the bombing was disclose what action the congress take at that time i can recall my first year in congress have a fan being in the halls listen to the countdown on a vote without congress finally be chairmen to cut off the bombing in
cambodia i couldn't help but there'd be impressed with the electricity in the air for the first time congress is funny going to retain the power that it had given up again through its own slot in the fall so what happened is that last year congress will in condemning the president for past actions they actually went ahead and ratified in my opinion to pass legislation which would have allowed the president to continue to bomb for additional forty five days so that to me was tantamount to ratifying the path act i can see us imposing a double standard on the president united states by having some complicity this that we come awfully close to the margin one when we don't pass a law which says the far right the bomb just for another forty five days but after that you can't bomb and decide within reach of what you've done before now that's what happened i know the gentle lady from your kid not sure that vote nor did i a number of other members on this committee did not affect the matter is that congress did
have some complicity in my opinion are likely yield to the gentleman from mississippi who want to speak on this issue and there's another theory to a request i believe everybody will follow when your comments he needed to act when we've as literature the so called war powers resolution but the effect of actual wording of that resolution in my opinion and in other is that instead of this question and generally restraining the president actually authorize assumption of the cambodian bomb i mean if congress had tried to cancel it out of the congress have to share the blame here having once again we must look the result of president nixon have inspired this war began to dip and that the cambodian bombing obviously with one of the things that was used to bring into conclusions like oh you know your eye just wanted to respond to that point and ratification when congress voted to cut off the bombing on aug fifteenth i was not aware at that point of the secret bombing there is the secret bombing was real and july sixteenth nineteen seventy three
and the votes regarding cambodia bombing took place prior there to there has never been a vote in congress which in any way to these construed to ratify that secret bombing and congress said the prior knowledge about well the activity taking place in cambodia that's when the basis of the argument that's been going on in a moment we'll be back with more of the discussion over whether mr nixon overstepped his bounds as commander in chief and backs videotape coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate will continue sure racers premiums broadcasting service sound familiar
in nineteen sixty six is that american christians it's both fb he
can to put off by its board i mean winning by nicholas brody and stan vanderbeek the pay to play it's
b as bell and coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate continues now as we go back to the hearings the members are discussing whether the secret bombing of cambodia amounts to an impeachable offense that will decide the controversy with another round of votes thank you with a congress this is
very troubling as a no matter if this were brought to us for the first time the totally unauthorized war but the present what it was no outside danger to the to the country would be the closest dispensary pretty impeachable unfortunately in this particular case that this is not historically after the raids were part of the war's that began years before the vietnam war president johnson was chiefly responsible for the huge escalation i recall first full on the vietnam war in the house on may fourth nineteen sixty five four seven hundred million dollar special appropriations and only successful against the vietnam war wide wide congressional approval for
entirely too many years and then after that by the number of democrats worked very hard percentage of eugene mccarthy cheaply on that have a second puppy because the said that he would end the war in vietnam while president johnson made no such commitment and my dad has a decidedly know very difficult years and they were very difficult years for the people who were working to get out the united states doesn't get in this war we had very little help no help whatsoever from private citizen a new york lawyer mr richard nixon but it is time to send a message two future presidents next president about undeclared wars congress alone has our present or not does not have the power original plans to weigh in on
but since shortly before i came here in nineteen fifty three we had a bit of an american invasion of cuba and declared this thing we had a nineteen sixty five the huge escalation get non jamaican republic the marines the american marines landed for the last time i hope in latin america last time i hope anyway we have you where someone feels that we have to invade a small country to keep order and in cambodia a cambodian incursion in a bombing in nineteen sixty nine which was a massive deception the american people commentator christine up with a part of the deal that he agreed to it i have never yet seen a statement from france to the effect that this drone camera wheeler says that he had into macy's or something like that from christie about your information i can find from the senate
hearings back in nineteen sixty nine of hoarding as the end up at a press conference on march twenty eight nineteen fifty nine a non fan and it says i was to reaffirm that i have always been a lot of bombings that we have no other means then we have been using so far to show that the us aircraft and the rest of the state but he vehemently and indignantly denies the allegation that he is a part of any agreement for the americans to be bombing the country for which he is responsible it is a problem a certain selected members on the members who have chosen to be told about the bombing in cambodia work very carefully selected they were selected so that they would keep quiet about it actually at a senate hearing senators signing things that i have been on this committee this is my twenty first year i knew nothing whatsoever about the secret bombing of cambodia i put up the money about and nobody knew about this except you are
three senators have them all if we aren't after appropriate money for one thing it is used for another regardless of it and it's affected if that puts it in a pretty difficult position i personally think it's unconstitutional because you got over a hundred thousand times on this country and i had no idea you drop even want nor did the other members of the committee accept those chosen few all of whom i might answer for the war but i didn't want to major change in nineteen sixty seven but with the chairman all right everything else is our responsibility in connection with a constitutionally in these proceedings we've always get back to this amazing document that is supposed to determine how we behave ourselves in this country now are supposed to govern this country now congress has cultivated exactly are supposed to behave and it yes to congress allow not to be that the department not to the present not to the pentagon the power to make war and presence are not able to make war without going to congress first getting permission by
an act of congress and i'm going to support the end of the year i'm an article offered by the gentleman from michigan he has been a leader in this important areas of our national life for a long time i compliment him or am i for survival contribute the supplemental point of information press center of cambodia during the last twenty seven months of his regime file one hundred and nine protests of united the bombing so that there cannot be accurate that there is no information as to whether he acquiesced and furthermore just as the suvs have you ever heard of anybody approving getting bombed a leader our service
and i think that's an absurd suggestion to begin with now in connection with the possibility that we may have wittingly or unwittingly ratified the president's conduct in cambodia i'd like to point out to you that the consideration of this article will determine whether or not we ratify the president's conduct this is the first time gentlemen and ladies that this matter has been before the congress and its before this committee i am on an event in virginia adrienne reports on the chairman of our questions this time because i share with a media concern about the question that's been raised and rather than investments of some elements i think it is now chief resource for the cambodians analytical
new york if you're going to promote their references were made to the members of congress which were aware of these bombings in the world i would ask you if you would tell us what the testimony is with reference to that and i thank the county words i'll try the existence there's apparently some testimony that the following person's appointed defense department given information about the bombing because of the name what was the chairman of the appropriations committee in the senate is now deceased senator that seat isn't it a pointed one a scientist dennis chair of the armed services committee says he does not remember the rise of the massive news of the bombing
yes he said that he did not recall a specific reading and certainly does not remember being invited the nastiness of the bombing that's open representative hans ranking republican armed services cannot remember being told that might represent the fence was that there's a river is chairman of the armed services committee president represents a bear president and chairman of the armed services committee suggested also testified that selected members of congress have been informed i'm unaware of whether and i testified as i think that testimony the prisons is and that they are the sun clears exactly what they were informed are you
actively opt out as test that resolve person here oh interview with your name is mr walker is your information indicate that any other portions of an allusion to the conference dr moore in the house representatives was yesterday i was the foreign minister for was instantly also noted that there is president and a single individual who has been totally contradicted the representations that he's selected members were caught on a recollection of the details about the deal your research and has not indicated any limitations were placed on the real membership of conflict as to whether they
should not have this information on their conditions i know that's a pretty pretty clear that the congress threw its leadership was that vaudeville of the set and see these incidents and that bill that congress has leadership and pass it on its response to the congress will share with the president candidly to ourselves yeah ms chapman it seems to me and that it's a process of impeachment what we ultimately are seeking to do is a constitutional process were at the conclusion we will have redefined the power of the president and we will end that redefinition
hopefully have limited power because if we impeach we will have come up with a conclusion that power has been abused and that there has been too much how articulate in the executive branch so it would just seem extraordinarily unusual for this committee and the congress and their examination a historical examination vinnie the first of the presidential power to ignore the exercise of the war power and to determine if in fact the war paul has not been abused and if the president has now accumulated too much authority and that we go when those prices as writers just occurred to me wait and proceedings it is difficult to separate richard nixon the man from richard nixon the occupant of the executive branch whose followers are being unlimited and hopefully
circumscribed and in those incidents particularly it's difficult because i'm a believer and the lesson of the pentagon papers and if that lesson have any message to an adult it was that the war pop as i exercised by most modern presidents has been of you and it had was abused by a president of my own party the predecessor of this president in the very areas in which we are examining exercise of this war part by this president that is in the section and consume president johnson have not been characterized essentially by the deception and concealment that was revealed in the pentagon papers it is entirely proper that have a country known what truly what else the
information that there would have been no way that president nixon would have been presented with the tragedy of vietnam that was presented to him when president johnson left office but the fact of the matter is the abuse of the war power by president johnson in the section and consume create a problem that president nixon sought to extricate the country from muddy in his exercise of the war power in that expectation process he resorted to do so now if your only examining not as richard nixon are not as lyndon johnson but as the congress be turning whether a redefinition of the powers of the executive and in this book power the warpath ought to be undertaken i think you have to conclude that were deception and concealment is you lived in
order to acquire support for a war policy we ought to draw a line and say in the future as we've redefined this part of the executive reception and concealment to obtain support from the american people will not be taller and the voters he's clearly the deception and concealment of this president in this instance be signed to obtain support from the american people which would not have been forthcoming perhaps heavy in fact reported to them the extent of the bombing of cambodia is not acceptable now if you can assume that the president report of the american people of what he was going in the reasons for him having done so they would've supported that then you have to ask yourself this question why did he not been reported i personally am kind of wave they may very well have supported that effort the president says he did not
report it because parents are you know would not have prevented the bombing to continue it would have been known to the american people deception and concealment views of the war and as we really fight the powers of the executive in the hope that we limit those pups if there's ever how it ought to be limited it's the war power and in this very reason no president in the future the exercise of the walkthrough shall be permitted to resort to deception and concealment in terms of his responsibility and duty and obligation in dealing with the american people i think a gentleman for his very accurate perceptions on this epic and i'd like to point out that i don't think anyone in making a decision of whether to support this article are not on this committee could be getting through
assert that telling a few members selected throughout the senate about the bombing would constitute the notice that is required of such a high constitutional level especially when the president was at the same time the two separate reporting intentionally misleading not only the american people but the congress as well but historian henry still common two men one statement that i'd like to attach i think appropriately to be considered judgment of my friend from california who said it would be a pity to impeach mr nixon is there a technical error if such offenses are all that has involved the nation could afford to wait three more years for the moment when mr nixon would be automatically retired their private life which he so richly americans
lawyers national security i oppose the state's comfortable being back by fred for michigan mr khan has said that whoever heard of anyone improving getting bar no implicit in that statement is that the bombs were dropped on our cambodian citizens and that's not the case some of us have been there to see the jungle area sometimes triple canopy jungle and there's no way to really see we're the vietnam border and the cambodian border and allow supporter and nor begin how we should not lose sight of the fact that for five years the continents both in north vietnamese soldiers
and viet cong were using these cambodians thank you were used to attack the allied troops in vietnam for five years we let them get away with it now there's no testimony from any source indicating that burnt sienna did not approve these bombings they weren't planning his civilians they were bombing his village's just over the border from vietnam work on his soldiers were using launching bases to further the war if the cambodian government headed ho's there's they had every right to go to the united nations in protest now members of congress as has been indicated by my friend from virginia knew about this from the beginning but let's recall that virtually every single president has engaged in military activities
without the prior consent of congress the korean war was called a police action there never was a declaration of war and i don't think it would've been justifiable to impeach president truman on that basis on military and other experts agree that the cambodian bombing helped was celebrating an award in the return of the prisoners of war it would have to conclude that the president's actions in this instance exceeding his constitutional authority no one can say that he did not act except in what he perceived to be the best interest of his country there was no gain there was no cover up was no effort to evade responsibility for actions of the in his associates that we've seen in some of the other nature of the forest he was doing his duty as he sought to protect american troops to end the war and to
use bargaining power to get our prisoners of war while i think it would be an american tragedy if you were impeached on this basis mr chairman members made this decision on cambodia was a matter of five military and diplomatic policy made by the president is capacity as commander in chief and hard to attack an enemy's sanctuary in fact troops in the field in an ongoing war which he had inherited it was mainly the niger the leadership of the congress of both parties and made of the niger the reigning prince of the country involved it was made in a war which basically was
supported by a great majority of congress of both parties for a great many years and was already at that time it was made in accordance with plenty of bad practice such is the bay of pigs which has been mentioned and to be honest about it if the same thing were down tomorrow in a popular war or nobody would say anything about it now if the congress wants legislators meal plan as it rained a rather clumsy effort into land here but to have this high you know it is the weapon of impeachment against the president for this action which was taken in the past and supported at the time by almost everyone involved would be both unrealistic and unfair and i do not believe for one moment that this committee will seriously consider doing so i knew that
the gentleman from the art mr smith is recognize your limits of what mr chairman the other night where know we started this debate i said that as far as i was concerned i didn't like that where in convincing proof of the president's direct involvement and of all the charges of american anthem had been brought forth before this committee and the months of our efforts in the mountains of testimony we walked out when i was there i was bothered in one ear and that was this area of the bombing in cambodia and watch the proceeding of a clear and convincing for may that the president directly ordered a bombing in cambodia and the other three and silver jewelry from american
journalism and that does not even i congratulate the gentleman from michigan those countries for bringing as article for i'm gonna vote against the article because there are too many aspects of this situation which are still not clear and perhaps won't be clear for years i think perhaps this committee should have gone into this matter more deeply than we did i think we should have pursued perhaps more vigorously and the quest for information but you we have heard about the president's duty to and former congress about military moves thus was one question was this militarily justify it and the consensus seems to be that it was that it didn't save american lives the red santa acquiescent really at the evidence there appears to be that he
did you know we were told by a briefing of members of congress that he acquiesced and a buddy said since i am a neutral if you tell anybody although not he was bothered by the fact that north vietnam is the viet cong were living on his eastern borders it that the price of his neutrality were taught them dog or they were going to go the country now the evidence indicates that even acquiesced because i want some of those honored nine protests led by the permanent member former commissioner cambodia to the united nations and a lot about helicopters of a skybox there isn't one as i understand about it b fifty two bombs missiles went all those ahmad be voting to replace the tower that although sarkozy a b fifty two everybody knows when they've been around because you're not insured and apparently there isn't one protest on the foreign
press in iraq's ambassador to the united nations nearly gadget that and it was that that was the beginning of the violin that was sick so i think that perhaps are right it's been the
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Reel 5 of 6
Producing Organization
National Public Affairs Center for Television
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/512-8911n7zd5g).
Episode 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 Date
Asset type
Event Coverage
Politics and Government
Nixon, Richard M.; Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: National Public Affairs Center for Television
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
Reporter: Lehrer, James
Reporter: Duke, Paul
Speaker: Rodino, Peter W.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2403261-1-4 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 5 of 6,” 1974-07-30, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 2, 2024,
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 5 of 6.” 1974-07-30. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 2, 2024. <>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 5 of 6. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from