thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-27; Reel 1 of 4
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
and who ate in but most to call for the president's impeachment simply on grounds of policy disagreement or something approaching that either approach in my judgment would destroy the propriety of the impeachment proceedings something in the middle of a meeting between these two is required and that is a political judgment but wonder when the policy but that the fundamental character of the constitution i believe that's the essential thing to look for during these procedure will rankings and i think what the view and they conclude is that this committee has cautiously and so brutally unfair come somewhere clubs
somewhere close to that metal that judgment will be made in a fundamentally political in a narrow legal sense but it will deal with a grave constitutional question rather than simply a dislike of the president or a disagreement on policy grounds they have to vet one short additional question right to i'm awed by the end it is his daughter in the way professor vernon alston has described what i would hold back against using the word great grave refers to succeed and grave refers to mortality and fight the impeachment cause wouldn't be in the constitution if it were great it is someone perhaps boston but it was put in the constitution to be used when the necessity might arrive without speaking to what the congress ought to do i want to emphasize this strongly as i can if it is ben farren if that is done or if it has done so
this political system is so strong that will be done far short of that probably in gravity but simply solemnly and said don't let me ask you a question how would you now assess president nixon's chances on the house or very poor through characters maybe slightly through three david and now that they're going for like fourteen power of others who are temperature did not seem to calm predisposed to see and anguish authentically and not just posture and then as they were pressed by salman and others on the other side to review the evidence point by point it's simply very implausible really rhythmic age can shape the other way adequately on for now could i think this resolution of impeachment forecast the military gentlemen thank you very much for that further ado let's go now to our videotape replay of those
four hours that led to that crucial vote tonight's debate covers just over four hours and deals entirely with attempts to modify the language charting the president's involvement in the cover up of the watergate break in in the four star charleston and urges that attends to further reduce the charges we drop you said simply let's get on with it also in this hour tom railsback successfully argues the president being accused of taking part not an apollo say to obstruct the investigation but rather that it was a plan second hour william cohen outlines the times that he says the president had information but that information was not passed on to the investigators' republican charles wiggins maintains that one reason he could not pass on information was that he was not informed you said that on september fifteenth john dean was up to his elbows in getting money for watergate defendants but he never mentioned that to the president in our three caldwell butler cited passages from the
presidential transcripts which he claims shows the president approved of gordon strands perjury also in this hour trent lott maintains there is no hard evidence the president never interfered with the fbi an hour for wayne owens says it has the presidential traits that made it real hard case against mr nixon also not our jerome all the charges that it was the president's public statements that say none of the cover up together until after the election following those arguments the committee pulled its members on the first article of impeachment now let's put things up from the beginning as congressman peter rodino gobbles the committee into session you know and there are challenges to announce that are still under the policy adopted when we consider the rule a procedure for this debate that
contemplating that they're the general debate rick perry about to exceed ten hours and that it was understood as agreed policy but the balance of the time or the consideration of amendments and the articles would not consume more than twenty hours chair wishes to point out that having commenced with the consideration of the articles yesterday for purposes of amendment twelve hours of already been consumed that that's not a lever as the committee certainly understands that the committee can expand time for consideration of the water goes for purposes of amendment until we
resolve the entire question which i would like to stay there a lot of some of the emotions they strike which are presently before they care chairman intends to recognize after a motion to strike has been proper there's an amendment to article one and in each paragraph thereafter that after on our plate those expire this year is going to have to pay they motion moving question the question will then be in order i would not want there to be any misunderstanding about the time limited or debate my recollection is mr
chairman that in an earlier version of the rule which was about that there was a twenty hour of imitation or that in the final version the wording of work around the concept of the five minute rule and the provision does not limit they call it art and that while i there was a real expression of all that they could be accomplished in that length of time still at large have already been consumed and we haven't yet dispose of article wanted become very obvious mr chairman that that it will be really necessary to consume more than twenty hours to handle all these articles and that and then in order to expand beyond twenty hours mr chairman i i do not think it would take any
formal action committee to expand the time for debate be on the twenty hour with regards to limiting they've begun a more from the strike the one arm of the german i would indicate that i certainly with interpol is no objection to that was in a right or gag i would like to say and i hope that others will remove the position i did yesterday and the va the argument was exhausted as far as i'm concerned yesterday on the articles of impeachment along the line that i suggested a vote as a vote has been taken are there are amendments on the best that have my name on them and i'd like to withdraw those because they see it are aimed at the same point a law that we discuss the great length yesterday
it is my hope and mr chairman that will be able to proceed without a cool one i with a degree of discipline that existed yesterday and last night no doubt continuing today and there is no way that the outcome of the vote is going to be changed by debate and i therefore hope that we can with this batch there are really as sarbanes substitute and there will be no objections from a law amendments from a mr willoughby in emotions a strike right mr allen oh if i might be recognized for a short moment all knowing of my friend from new jersey's conservative bent which i share how i would ask if they would go you got it about law purposes the same motion to strike that city have proper two subsection one
i would oh really well updike it is importance importantly to know here in these debates that we're having all this week this committee only allegations that contain an article on and if any of our codes than the specifics of the case of the chart i think it's important to develop wisconsin i think agrees with me on this we discussed it here on the committee last evening and i with all the numbers so all i had to follow that you're not like them at all that it would be my apartment i'll give you all for a motion to strike the paragraph was take out the information that would support a paragraph from yeah you're
right and i think that the first recognize those are affecting already indicated that the gentleman and i would like the suspect that that fifty accountant from alabama was asking that his name be substituted for that a mysterious sandman which appears on the motions to strike that on the court that there is no objection so that the gentlemen will have that the promotion of political expense the challenges of the time
listen when i want to speak and i want to congratulate my friend from new jersey for are or what i thought he says it's about time for doing something that i think is very wise been very prudent and very thoughtful on his part and also the best interests of this committee and i will once again i think that i think he has shown his good sense as far as lester by the finest her flowers i hope that if he doesn't move the strike every single number i don't know we maybe can expedite the debate on each other because frankly i think a lot of us thought that there was a great deal of a petition last night i go i think about the only be able to either prevent the case for or against in a little bit more it's expeditious manner
i want to join in a very distinguished gentleman from new jersey for withdrawing his emotions to strike in the interests of saving time and then ask the distinguished gentleman from alabama that if indeed it is his purpose to rank facts before this committee as it relates to specifics of presidential wrongdoing and certainly not to strike it but to serve as an educational function and recognizing that emotion to strike my service that column every vehicle i was wondering whether distinguished gentleman from alabama with its that you know is that our members reciting specific dates at times that's the point that particular article i think the question really is once you take the general public then perhaps we could recycle
that information but secondly whether any of the members of this committee agree on his standard of evidence that we will be using there is no question that that we do know what evidence we using at this time we made this different on the quality and quantity that we think is necessary to support an article of impeachment of it as the distinguished gentleman from alabama that if indeed he wants to educate the general public and have specifics would not he can sense of those specifics being given a device that all members to support the article so that we can move on and finally get an opportunity to vote on this historic question this three minute it on i only only way in which we can elicit this of my shoes through this vehicle as it pertains to a paragraph which tend to go back for support the general statement that
reptilian and that that my purpose is to elicit information and to find out what evidence that is and now i would hope that the staff and members of the committee won't be able to respond not play a great amount of time but not going through which has sacrificed their midst of ford expedition if we were to read too and if in fact staff or a member of this committee would give you information and specifics as to what the president did or did not do to support that paragraph would you accept that and be prepared to allow the committee to vote as to whether or not this is sufficient evidence to support that i was in new york at the only american gain the floor is to offer an amendment at this point and there is no other parliamentary device from and again the four having already used up to five minutes which were allocated and joe debate on this article
and out of that park was audible say that farmer situation would allow that if you stick to that word very is no question that we have to deal with emotion just write when i'm certain that that gm would allow loss as mr sarbanes go to get that specific information which we have used to support it and then if that was done there would be no need for thirty eight members to debate it could be a question as to whether we agreed with it division or an article to a proposed article to an ad for the article three and i just want to be sure that i understand what our procedure will be for today understand that you entertain perfecting amendments which will be discussed and that that you propose that with regret with respect to motions to strike articles for purposes of bacon for
getting additional information such a gentleman from alabama suggested you will entertain a motion to close debate and a motion in the previous question at the end of one hour of time when we get to eat one of the paragraphs that correct or prehistoric art but not to exceed one hour of discussion with regard to information with respect to the proposed center the chairman of a second term that mr salmons a statement we are certainly not bowing down now anger vowing to be obviously obvious that we don't we're not visiting our position we think of the opposition and yesterday those who believed deeply as
we did that were not resorting to deliver effective that tactic has been reported in some places but we definitely thought that president arab states should be able to answer the charges that were being made against lieberman were not specific there's still general that's the way they're going to be here they're going to remain i would like to at this juncture was a german point out that there have been some misinformation got across the country that headley then a successful made these articles specific that they could not have been amended on for the house i know that your nose and i remember this committee knows that we're not going to grant on the game and the rules committee a close rule on this matter and open rule and so the two men on the floor so if there are any additional
charges that was to be your time to places under the articles that an invention here that was to be included could've been included my amendment on the floor of the house i just like to make the record straight years one member and i'm sure that there are the fourteen other members of the rules committee on this matter and there are going to be voting for a new rule like to point out that while those yet been established since that will be a matter before the rules committee the chair certainly is going to recommend that there be full and free debate that this matter which is of such moments they considered theirs it should be considered that are deliberately and full of it allows therefore i think that the numbers that recitation of what could be expected in the nordic and i won't recognize for parliament including those things and the chairman at the appropriate time i will wage to offer of perfecting amendments to paragraph or article one i
wish to reserve the right to offer that amendment any i do in choir as do when would be the appropriate time reflecting the amendments are in order it it kind of girl is now being read there by way of the vehicle of these sites to vote and there is a man about whether any state should it should be a man and be offered at the time we pick up some paragraph or for consideration now the amendment there may be offered at any time if it's not i am glad i'm out for the purposes of recognizing mr alden who has already oppose perfecting amendments and their skin apart however as common as announcer thank you again and i have to imagine city desk mr chairman i would ask unanimous consent that it permitted to dress myself to vote for them at the same time
we vote on them all at the same time and then invite mr hoving one page one of article one on the second paragraph and on page two paragraph i strike illegal entry where it occurs in a certain mood thereof unlawful entry then administer only on page one paragraph three quoting some paragraph one after the word making insert the following new language or causing to be made we should be aware of
mr recognizes the nice to say only chairman returned last night my wife who had been watching the deliberations on television reminded me that many of the fire impeachments were not handled by the judiciary committee and she wondered if the deliberations would take as long if speaker albert i entertained they're sending it to a select committee made up of non lawyers if it would take us as long to complete she also then said that she understands for well why lawyers are barred from serving on grand juries and having said that i'm going to have before the committee to what i guess could fairly be characterized as little a stick up amendments however i do think they're important addressing myself to the first one listed chairman where we use the word illegal entry
rather an unlawful i know that in the dc code section twenty five final twenty two section one in a one armed burglary is entering within an hour away and while a gay pride parade is very frequently referred to as a burglary it is not strictly speaking or into the dc co worker it's a breaking and entering for what my amendment does it tries to track the language of the statute and titled twenty two section three one or two are relating to unlawful entry on property yet also i understand tracked the language in some of the indictments on not conspiracy i do think that a while it may have seemed to be a minuscule change i think it strengthens our situation by adding more accurate the second one mr chairman would in paragraph one after the war making
in our include work hard thing to be mary i think the record's substantially supports the edition of this language while the president personally had been in fact made false and misleading statements he also abused others to make false misleading statements so i would i urge that both of these amendments which i consider perfecting amendments on the about it or whether i yield to the gentleman from our law mr chairman i i would like to say that i think as my colleague from allen has stated that these are healthful invaluable perfecting amendments i appreciate the legal scholarship really that has gone into these amendments i think they are they do help to improve the proposition that is before us and i would hope that the numbers all
members of the committee would recognize that in and accept and except these amendments to the substitute as chairman of the previous cart is the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from maryland and i understand you've been offered him back all those in favor of the amendment please say aye aye those opposed and i was a gentleman from california has today is to pay mr chairman i have an amendment to the best of them into a big one offered by mr danielson on payson two subsection for strike the word and in mind three
and strike a semi colon after the words special prosecution force in line for and at the end of the line for the following and congressional committees for as is apparent relates to the interference by the president or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigation by the department of justice the fbi the office of the watergate special prosecution force i should like to add to those agencies congressional committee i have in mind specifically the house committee on banking and currency under the chairmanship of the honorable right happen and you will recall that a couple of days ago during early stages of argue page i ordered its online from the september fifteen nineteen seventy two
a transcript of that conversation and the president's oval office in which it was apparent that the president is the case that mr haldeman and mr dean were planning on how they could possibly prevent the house committee on banking and currency from conducting investigations into the whereabouts the source the transmission of certain funds that were found in the possession of the people arrested in the watergate on june seventeenth the plan was rather elaborate the president first offered to do so and self in any suggested that that era like manure from it or some other person contact him unless the aig gerald ford that i'm of the minority floor leader of various other members of the house of representatives to prevail upon mr badman to not totally sets from conducting its investigation in all fairness i want to point out that
mr dean's testimony later was that the members of the house who were being prevailed upon too infirm prevail upon after batman we're not aware of the fact that they were being used for this purpose the guy's of the argument was that what with the trial forthcoming of the workers say any unlawful entries that a congressional hearing into their activities might prejudice or cases might interfere with their civil rights this with the support of some nine the law which to reiterate here because you all have heard it in addition they have a plan whereby they were compact mr robert bly who was the attorney for four five other defendants and this trip that miller the attorney for mr khan and have them in turn called on this trip baton and virtually not conduct the investigation because it might interfere with their clients civil rights other testimony before this committee is that mr benjamin acknowledges
that he was so complex and was requested to get in touch with mr patton but that he declined to do so the records of the house committee on banking and currency reflect that there was a letter from the rock rap rock quiet are making the same argument are carrying on i have also a minus b senate select committee on campaign practices i might add going back at the banking and currency committee was not able to do these efforts to muster enough votes to pass a resolution to conduct an investigation and the investigation was possible the fear in the minds of the president mr haldeman and mr dean well i talked to y'all a lot what if right back and was able to issue subpoenas in collin the witnesses you might uncover almost anything it was a can of worms and it didn't know what might happen if that were given a chance to conduct an investigation he wanted their fear was the disclosure of the fact that the thirty two hundred dollars in new consecutively number bills from
the watergate the impact on through a florida bank account could be traced back to him minnesota bill maher to be laundered in some kind of an operation on mexico for a fitting on the senate select committee we do have testimony from some of the tapes prove to have by the white house and at various times in the preceding council has changed two if they did appear to stonewall and to say nothing to say they could not recall the memo to do anything but not let the plant about besides that mitt is a specific example of an effort to obstruct and interfere with the lawful function of that committee and thirdly i refer your own committee the house committee on the tradition in connection with the cover a plan which i submit is still going on the president has openly a notoriously unknowingly persisted in the fighting this committee and its lawful subpoenas in its failed and refused to turn over the
documents we requested respectfully submit that we should include that in some paragraph for congressional committees mr litan not opposed to most of the california to the underlying problem of the prosecutors in this case let me review my recollection of yes with respect to whether the president interfered with a congressional committee first in the context of a pattern here is very right ladies and gentleman happened here what we have is an intention on the part of the chairman is to write that when to do something which he announced publicly but the members of this committee including six democrats would not go along with it he was ordered by the members of congress and the media and that
never got off the ground i'm i'm not going to a tribute to the twenty members who voted against the chairman of the committee at any or upload even though regard them as co conspirators in this case building next to the senate select committee the only interference of the president with the combat of the senate select committee was for a period of time a consideration of the invocation of executive privilege with respect to his aides testifying before the committee we all know shortly thereafter that policy which was characterized as a lawyer that is the implication of executive privilege that policy was abandoned by the president and the policy director was that all of his aides would go before the senate select committee and testify freely without claiming the privilege of course we know that he is in fact what are the legal question the legal question on the basis of those factors whether or
not we are going to punish the president in the context of impeachment for considering the invocation of executive privilege it's all future presidents are in jeopardy because in both of the executive privilege concept is still alive and well in american jurisprudence finally i mean with respect to interference with this committee i think probably we will debate that more extensively in the context of a separate article and so i will not address myself to that now but in essence i say to my friend we are still talking about punishing reclaim it right and with all the evidence by reason of his assertion either executive privilege or a claim about relevancy i don't understand that our system of government that prohibits the punishment the records of a claim on a narrow and rather confused and legal issues and so i say to my friend the only remember that
all i just simply indicates the facts are nuts or even if it is i think when i i i don't disagree with my colleague argument i want to make an eminently clear i thought it had that the thought of the members not the whole week committee meeting was certainly not corrupt they were having the background to which i alluded was not brought to their attention and i make no assertion that no implication third and corrupt voting on the other portion i agree whether or not this article in the fruit as a mater prove that would have to be resolved in court the proper time trial in the senate ah but we're bringing here under impeachment all we're doing is bringing an accusation i think there is sufficient evidence to warrant that that matter be tried and therefore i heard the adoption white men
novelists perfecting this the article we should include the words and congressional committees this is suggested by the gentleman from california mr danielson but because it's in my opinion only the defiance of this committee and by the president and refusing to provide information for this committee is a serious situation and one which in my opinion as a guest valid grounds for an article of impeachment i propose a later time to offer a separate and i like to call attention to the fact that following the president's refusal to respond favorably to our subpoenas we notified the president on may thirtieth that this would be regarded as an impeachable offense if he did not comply with us now i don't agree with
the interpretation of executive privilege as suggested by the gentleman from california mr williams i think that the doctrine of executive privilege must yield when the office of the president as being investigated otherwise the president is in the position where he can't dictate what he wants to and what he does not want them anyway it seems to me that in order for us to carry out about them full and fair investigation we need all the information which we have required which we deem necessary and the opposition has been definitely strengthened by the recent opinion of the supreme court which has not found this is a doctrine of so called doctrine of absolute executive privilege and in our ocean yesterday or the week before our of our proceedings for the purpose of giving the president an opportunity to provide the additional tapes that we requested it seemed to me that an opportunity again was offered for him to provide the kind of cooperation which it seems to me he should've been
providing throughout this city and so i think it is probably valid forth to put in this article the inclusion of awards a congressional committee because in addition to its interference in the misuse perhaps of other agencies of government as defiance of this committee that is in my opinion a more serious matter and that is entirely to be presented to the house of representatives and together with this proposed article as well as a leader article which i proposed to fight intruders might recognize chairman i am opposed to the article by the gentleman from california anybody that time had any knowledge i believe of the possible motivations at that particular time of the patent committee i think that would have been who was on the receiving end
of a possible investigation to be conducted by right now and probably would have had good reason to try to avoid what they believe very easily could have been a political fishing expedition and i think it is very significant that the members of his own committee decided not to go along with the chairman and conducting that have an investigation which i think many of them believe was going to be a political fishing expedition and respect to executive privilege i agree with the comments made by the gentleman from california mr wiggins and as foreigners refusing to comply with our subpoenas it's my own belief that that failure should not constitute an independent or separate either article or item in an article of impeachment i think the president probably had a right to assert executive privilege even though i'm convinced that if it had been taken to court the court would have
ruled against the president i think you know i think mr chairman what we're doing here is we're adding something that cannot be proven that would certainly week wiegand me an article on the site will affect the general feeling i just like to associate myself with with his remarks i think that india now considering a language in an article impeachment was always bear in mind that it must rise to the gravity a penny a crime against the constitutional system and i grew to that this proposed division language simply doesn't need that first date question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye aye ay oh the chariot
the iraqi parties that it will cause at an idle on this didn't you know mr brooks i'm used to customer i mr edwards well as german gay mr connor i was joe oliver mr wooley oh yes life business
ms jordan ms jones i was going to play mr mclaurin i was just met mr salmon was to rails know mr wiggins mr dennis our division though is the main goal was to main goal was true mr butler well
mr cohen no mr lat well mr fred millar was the more western eyes at least eleven <unk> you are i know i was a german oil twenty four members of voted
aye fourteen have voted no recognize the fact that mr chairman i have to pass an amendment at the desk which are like are really mad men includes drills on page one beginning of nine eleven after the word intelligence strike all that follows through i'm seventeen and uncertain the law thereof following subsequent they're too rigid and news using the powers of his high office engage personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay
and he announced fraud investigation oh such unlawful entry to cover up and ceo and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities this land which replaces the following rich subsequent there to richard m nixon nixon using the powers of his high office made it his policy and in furtherance of such policy do that correctly and personally and through his clothes subordinates and agents to delay impede and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry to cover up conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert
mr chairman members of the committee i have a great deal of difficulty believe that richard m nixon at eight particular point contrived any kind of a policy or at least any kind of a policy that so i would continue to follow through and i think the word policy gives the impression of an end of an affirmative orchestrated declarative decision that occurred at a given point in time i thought that some of mr reagan's objections yesterday were very well may i think what the record reflex however is a course of conduct or in the alternative a plan of action over many months which was responsive to and develop as a consequence of a bounce that occurred and
that's the reason for my amendment it seems to me that we're going to be asked to prove the charge is that we make and it seems to me that we would have a great deal of difficulty proving that the president and any kind of a policy that we could pinpoint as of june twenty third are for july sixth august twenty nine but rather that many of the things that he did were in response to certain events that occur that's a reason for me i'm on the radio he'll be aligned with yours aligned with which we've had before from an agenda that i think that the basically better reflects the attitude of this committee at doing a reasonable
job of drilling this language it's not a pleasant joy to impeach a president certainly won't do it in the most legal and reasonable manner i think that this language is a perfectly adequate to explain the factual a situation of that and i think that it eliminates some of the bodies in the mind of some republicans about policy i think that porter and a plant is quite adequate indicate that situation i would commend with the family boarded a genius individually working on those some of this language and mr railsback the end implementing it putting it together and i would open to weaken adopted without a tremendous deal a deal to my friends demand is appealing expressing frustration with the world by developing this more definitive line
we although we want to get as much specificity as possible for the general allegations of this article i think this contributes to that and it removes a fuzzy area the callousness and difficulty of the entire operation last evening arguing that the president had and i really believe the evidence sustains it but i will support the amendment because i believe it will make the proof in the senate much easier and that much or an anchorman two gentlemen from illinois that will likely be needed mr chairman and a lawyer with the saltwater recognize them in an improvement when it comes along i know the concern the mr railsback is head of this
language and i know how you work on this problem i think that the language that is proposed here this afternoon is a very constructive suggestion i commend him for that for the scale of the showman and the language i would hope that the community would propose in my name i wanted a quite quickly that i appreciate is over lavish praise for its a very small foreign language and i think that it is due to the thrills but for finalizing the us and i just wanna say that anytime we can making improvement language to focus on substance rather than automatic i think it's a real step in the right direction the family gentleman has expired but the gemini like address a question to the author gentlemen is likely
to my distinguished colleague from illinois what is your view of the difference between planning you propose and policy is contained in the farmlands of the value let me say that i have some difficulty that myself with the word plan and at one time it was suggested that the language recourse of conduct and planting and now i'm not sure that i can answer that there is that much difference between the word plan and policy except there seems to be a feeling on the part of the counselor dealt with and wrapping that policies seems to give an impression of an impression of a of an affirmative orchestrated and declarative decision otto you're the reason why i took out the word n is because i personally
favored the word course of conduct which i think more aptly that's the situation field further as the gentleman think that his change yet says further away from the conspiracy theory or nurture well i'm not gonna i really would prefer not to express my legal opinion on then i think the job i'd be really interested in your legal opinion on well i'll say to the gentlemen are what the amendment does express my belief that there were certain events which occurred which for one reason or another the president had not seen that either see fit to respond to or in some advance responded to in what i believe to be an improper way i don't think that they were necessarily orchestrated if
there ever was a time well now if there ever was a time when the president perhaps came close to a policy it would have been that time in my opinion after march twenty first gentleman one more that i thank you for your answer i suggest you in august that mr sarbanes yesterday and honor his version you have it first established the us say before you could use against the president the actions of subordinates you think that that would be equally true or not under your average won't let me make myself very clear on that i don't buy him feuding criminal responsibility to the president for acts of his subordinates know when i make it very clear i don't believe in inferring anything either i think that's why some of us on this i believe very strongly that there should be a bill of particulars are mr flowers know that you are
taking by your amendment you are taking out the possibility of attributing to the president reacted third persons with mr sarbanes was definitely under is there attempting to do well my my recollection of mr sarbanes response when i inquired yesterday of him was that he does not believe in the medicine very early on you know east or was attempting to date it has very of the passe now are you saying we're taking it out altogether oregon and you know what i like to say what not rely on my runs i guess is get away from the language of policy and i think i answered your question as far as my own beliefs about including from a responsible adult i can answer many more clearly i don't worry and if you're any kind of amputation of criminal responsibility i think that the president should be charged with acts or knowledge i think there has to be
some kind of presidential knowledge or involvement i think there is i think the gentleman for his answers and the reserved for me a gentleman from them native recognize perhaps i can add two thousand real facts response seven discuss this not with this online i believe the word plan was used in his substitute because this is the exact language that the president used referring to the transcripts of march twenty second nineteen seventy three when i was especially mr mitchell and the president recall words that up to now our planet than one of containment and then there was additional reference to the fact that we're putting a new plan now and that new plan was going on to the use and implementation of executive privilege to be a surrogate for some of the occasional before the senate select committee now that the reason i think that you incorporate work are you
doing thank you mr chairman i have several questions without the directing to my colleagues drove back about his amendment i have before me and it seems to say the only thing the parent medical expressions richard nixon engaging personalities became a portal design curricula in connection with an obstruction of justice trial i want to understand is the word design i mean that really mean that the president intentionally and corrupt really acted for the purpose of delaying impeding and so forth is
accurate then i think the top that design can relate to either the course of conduct or the word plan and i think that it clearly means that the action that he took he took knowing way and to carry on and knowing the purpose of that is to obstruct delay entered in the middle of the day if you answered yes then that evidence which maybe before which does not suggest that the motivating purpose of presidential actions was to obstruct delay and guarantee so forth would not be covered by the language of years well let me make myself clear on that if you are if you're suggesting that the litany or the recycle of events that was made by mr walley
i yesterday which referred to many ex about which we have no knowledge of direct presidential direction or involvement the answer again is yes i don't know i don't think there is a frankly a proper place to be considering things other than relate to the president we're talking about the impeachment of the president united states we're not talking about their criminal indictments return unless they happen to relate to his knowledge or his direct involvement i think it'll be a decision by her director to correctly that you and then by this language to put two managers in the senate the burden of proving the president recently acted to corrupt the new administration of justice i intensely engaging in a plan or design of a course of conduct or a plan which was intentionally designed to obstruct justice is that a fair statement what i am can buy the amendment
is to suggest that richard m nixon if they can be shown in the summer and now if he can be held account in the senate that term he used his powers of high office engage personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct a plan designed to delay impede an instructor obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry to cover up conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities other words the words speak for themselves well i'm running out of time i want to hear a question however of the comeback of evasion in order to have this to be the president that you would require i am sure that it least to have knowledge of the activity or that he instructed them with the requisite intent to obstruct justice when they answer i would answer the gentleman by saying it's the
language still speaks for itself but it is a lively that to hold richard nixon to account and to remove him from office it must be proven that he has committed a serious offense serious enough for which he should be removed from office our po directed something or three participated in something or if he was involved in something that was clearly elicit if people sleep misled the american people pretty obstructed justice or impeded justice or interfered with the new administration of justice or if he abused the power of such of the sensitive agencies is the irs will that i think he meant i think that's what i'm going to be held to account for it and us a little time live in pursuit of the policies that no member could preserve any time of the gentleman is taking more time again request unanimous consent it has already been
recognized while i am and i appreciate the chair if i could have it i would like this the jerome kern mr sarbanes a question without objection the play german like there's a gentleman let's do you subscribe to mr railsback says explanation of the meaning of his amendment as do responsibility the president for a third person's actions or do you still feel that is the man that will support your own theory on that subject is announced value yesterday well as i understood the last response which the gentleman from illinois mr railsback gave i thought that was a at a proper operation of his amendment as i understand a lot of what we've been discussing is this whole concept of that of the madison superintendents the theory and i think this is very clear with respect for the
opposition and the opposition is not contained in this article was that potential promise i understand your answer then you feel that mr railsback is virgin com works very well if you're on its advance before the event was it like i must confess to the gentleman from indiana that i did not pay very close attention to the fall colloquy between mr railsback mr wiggins that i should have in order to respond definitively that the question that is just so many and i apologize for that but i it is my impression of the last response with driver mr railsback hero all seen them at hp three operation if you are together with
This record is featured in ““Gavel-to-Gavel”: The Watergate Scandal and Public Television.”
Series
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Episode
1974-07-27
Segment
Reel 1 of 4
Producing Organization
National Public Affairs Center for Television
WETA-TV
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/512-9882j68x5w
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/512-9882j68x5w).
Description
Live and videotaped debate of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Peter Rodino, Jr., on the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. This is day 4 of the Nixon impeachment hearings.
Broadcast
1974-07-27
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: 2403168-1-6 (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; 1974-07-27; Reel 1 of 4,” 1974-07-27, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed July 17, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-9882j68x5w.
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-27; Reel 1 of 4.” 1974-07-27. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. July 17, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-9882j68x5w>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-27; Reel 1 of 4. 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_512-9882j68x5w