thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 3
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
the purpose be the occasion of making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states but it's clear that on april eighteen nineteen seventy three for example the president talking through mr peterson the assistant attorney general of the united states paul peterson to stay out of the building break in investigation because of reasons of national security was a false or misleading statements we've documented at any number of times in the course of the months that we've been here and so you have to right is an unnecessary act because there is not just one or two there are several any number of them any of which as i read of this meeting it is then the alternative would be sufficient that means years to implement a policy of the
president i've included one or more of the following emphasis one or more of the following in the alleged nine specific courses of conduct that demonstrates that the president of the united states uses office to obstruct justice it with that in mind the future and i think that actor re analyze any number of these or three are ready to support the notion of impeachment as embodied in this very plainly worded language should be able to support it before this evening is over and i would hope that we would move to that point so that we can at least accept of this very first article of before the end of this evening i would view or
gentlemen from pennsylvania is recognize that in a half shell and i think that we should be very careful about the subject of specificity and human services any proceeding and in that sense i believe that monitors developing over time almost every day we're learning something more about the situation with regard to the white house i suggest mr chairman that he is as we know the supreme court has ordered sixty four subpoenas to be turned over to special prosecutors suppose that those tapes are portions of them become available to the house or even the senate at a later time i'm afraid that if the articles are or a sudden things are two specific that some subjects that may arise out of those sixty four subpoenas that might ultimately come into our possession might be denied consideration when they should be considered by the house or by the senate also mr chairman we have probably know is coming up on its attendant official it on and it's
entirely possible that facts are situations may develop which may bear on the ultimate outcome in the trial in the senate if there is one i like i said we should not be so frozen in here that we can use official information and that we don't know what other disclosures that may come about what other situations the next few weeks a couple of months and i suggested the chairman that he outline an article one does suggest the vote counted from maryland this is definitely not and still gives us the flexibility so that the actual facts make medical book the bitter irony and recognize that you know i thought that determining the specific charges all about i'd have been some talk about including all the other specifics report i wonder who would prepare that report would it be like just because that's what we should determine particularly when we come
out here with very general articles and i think that as we reach this important milestone in the actual draft of articles when the american people see the way in which to proceed see the confusion that we are faced with this agreement about whether it should be general for specific after seven months to look like something of a great importance would already been injured i'd intended all promotion described article one of obama for not you would call the whistle general of the gods of the present parliamentary situation was under sarbanes of three i will not do so and he's given some specifics here but it hasn't offered them to make them as a part of this of you i wanted her to be here today offered its specifics in support of his article that i think are not supported by the evidence i feel very strongly that several sections of article one baseball for obviously are not supportive of evidence it's clear to me that the use of certain words in this article frightens people
wrong and he's admitted nixon unless they get they were not attempting to impeach john mitchell or john dean or others the line would be drawn record to the broad appeal really feel at this point the target evidence i was thinking of the fact that this article is to forty journal nature and incorporate specific prejudicial joiner who liked the use of evidence or clearly emerges leave on the prosecution's original context and its impeachment provision citizen or riding confirm that due process be egg that incredible an impeachment actions the constitution's concerned with a non station of the grounds for impeachment under article two section four reeds inescapably that the one most important element of this is due process that have to be the grounds in the impeachment articles and i must be sufficiently specific correspondent to be impeached and must be also specific and explicit for the senate to conduct a fair trial if you're
richer they're members of this committee who would vote for an article that peach but that was specific and the different wording but i do not see how they can live arrangement we cannot santa margarita the senate and after all that is what mr bingham returning here now what moves in the senate are you about my plan to live with they can recognize and gentlemen i thank john or really i mean i do appreciate the comments of my friend marilyn as sarbanes and tempting to flesh out what he understands the evidence to be in support of this policy which is at the heart of article one i i think in fairness we ought to fold the oval helping of that evidence to ourselves and those who are watching these deliberations quickly it's intended that there was a patent on the committee senator about the twentieth of view that they contained a gap the only only evidence we have as to what occurred
during that are the nodes of mr haldeman and those notes indicate a discussion of a pr offensive and that is all now we can be suspicious but those suspicions have not provoke any grand jury was investigated this does not provoke judge the record does not provoke anybody else to return in criminal indictments because they don't know let's recognize that that gap is a suspicious circumstance to me but that's not evidence we have the situation of the president lending less than candid and fourteen mr sarbanes and saying there was no white house involvement on the sick on the twentieth of june of nineteen seventy two were like barely what john green say he said he talked to libby on that day and you know what he told him at first the state was made by being this follows the sport and he said i want to know whether anybody in the white house was involved in this and really the architect of all of this
reply no they were not and that the state of the president's knowledge thereafter if that's the kind of quality of evidence upon which this plot in fact this policy say the ambiguous it's confusing it might be susceptible of different interpretations that we know of a lot of you can't do it on that basis if there is a benign interpretation pointing toward a since we must take it we must think let me say that that first essential john president made it does is not supported by the other male female tennis chairman john from massachusetts they're much more yielding season in those who challenge the
word here at the drone up with another policy remain in the sarbanes subsidies very clear we are not saying that mr nixon invented this policy he made his policy to carry out the obstruction of justice it seems to me that this is the only possible conclusion that one could come through when you look at the vast amount of evidence following the incident at the democratic national committee if there's another explanation it has not turned up in a lot of our investigations usually the situation is unique for many reasons and the principal juan is this that the president has withheld the evidence and sixty nine cases are possible impeachment and all of our history only one individual has ever sought to withhold evidence from an impeachment inquiry and that present invoke the fifth amendment one of the alternatives to that cheerful wording the president made it his policy and you say that all these things about me a chance there's absolutely no coherent explanation you did take out that lawyers
resist that but there has to be some explanation of all of the tragic events that took place out in inside the oval office and we say that the president knew nothing about what halderman ehrlichman were doing but they themselves inspired along that is contrary to all audiences i say that for that we have to name some policy that the president had an inn a substitute we say he made it his policy to obstruct justice i love to find another policy i'd say for six months with the uk alysia or another policy i come to the inescapable conclusion that the president made his policy to impede the investigation of the victory in the democratic national committee i yield back and a gentleman in portland oregon jack dalrymple california's record as chairman i do want to address myself to the question of the president's policy we're dealing with a
lot of light it's an action on the plan and the policy of the white house miers people and the level of government in the united states and that simply will not their scrutiny they cannot stand to have anybody examined this policy so therefore to demand that we've provided a parchment squirrel of a presidential declaration that on such and such an hour of such and such a day a policy was established by the white house to engage in a cover up of illicit activities is really quite unrealistic and is not really advanced i think with the objective and the desire to really get out the truth but a policy of this nature a policy of this nature is a surreptitious called her policy that evolve is its parameters and its limits or not no one at its inception
the policy is we've got to cover up we simply cannot let the people of america know that we have finance political intelligence activity is that have resulted in the burglary of the democratic national committee headquarters of the watergate hotel because once they find that out they will find out that a whole litany of covert activities authorized them financed by the white house five hundred and really the principles of the water vapor the plumbers of illegal or covert activities the scribe by john mitchell as the horrors of the white house a policy is clear you can't permit the american people to discover that because you're in a national election year the policy is to protect the election of president nixon was nobody denies that the
policy is to protect the election of the president by immediately taking actions to cover up the entry and the participation an authorization and part of that country illegally surreptitious the watergate hotel by the white house and by the committee to re elect the president and it didn't start late in the period after the entry it started immediately howard hunt one of the burglars and gordon liddy another of the burglars who were not picked up the night of the seventy five were picked up they were not they were across the street and electronics gear room amelia we went back to the white house and picked up ten thousand dollars in cash that he had been paid by gordon liddy from campaign funds the committee to reelect the president for emergencies such as the us and he gave that ten thousand dollars cage early the morning of the burglary to an attorney or
defend those burgers are journalistic recognition on my own the channel i recognize i like it was like a message on when one of a lot of floridians a very important point the reply right the committee report that will go to the floor that will show all the members of the house specifically what is behind each individual paragraph in this article of impeachment the staff to write that that the committee have the right to repeal to rule that report ever grow or is it going to be written a side of arguing without i'm not
a gentlemen is advised that it report the committee report and that the department and of course if any individual the journey of the committee could sell to and there but the report however with the report prepared by the committee and a report on the committee circulated each of the members of the chorus all of us would have to recognize that as has been done has will be done that that the assistant set of staff is always complied but nonetheless the wire is the work of the committee and then last that committee report is authorized by withdrawing the committee does not become a reporter mr bishop mr john or one you indicated that some time just sort of thrones
one point in time when you return congressman price scuffle could wait until just before the d chief justice opened the trial and then moved with respect to the plate and i don't wish to compromise with obama i think that was the question you asked what point in time would be the enemy have a built in this region even though saw dust finally at any time after the bill of impeachment of the united states and were right about that
the house managers say the delegations saw a small group of individuals the house of representatives as a whole impeachment as you so eloquently as they had planned time again vicious only one carson for like i think not because when you reach that point in the course of the proceedings before the united states your photos waiting for sewing procedure and practice before the united states senate and the united states senate in this move with respect to this impeachment will be established i very much as i can the procedures and that joan numbers they threw the october nineteen seventy
three publications million people looking at the article was unavoidable and seventeen ninety eight i'm looking at the articles for judge james expect an anomaly of the articles for the and age of just west it's from lafayette the other government is known for judge child so why is one of these out of the region are specific they tell that they become a place they tell bee advance they tell what was wrong and what was worthwhile if it were worthwhile and things that he that unfairness injustice or the president of the united states after eight months of over a million now this committee could come to a conclusion at the wok with a cervix of his impeachment are in detail and advice specific job and i am ready as i indicated yesterday in some instances in some cases of the case has put in the proper order and about partnership a
vote or not it will be but i don't think that the article lays before us aren't specific enough detail the ringleader of that conclusion today are you we continue elaborating on the fence the arrest of five employees to the committee to re elect the president and one employee of the white house to employees the white house that were fugitives immediately thereafter on june seventeenth to determine whether the president began implementing immediately a policy of cover up and i say he did and the evidence justifies that it was an evolving policy but the essential component of that policy was a cover of the nineteen seventy two election but the information that occurs from saturday june
seventeenth immediately after the burglary vote june twenty second is enormously important information these people are involved in the same area as it is referred to that particular moment in time in washington are mr erlichman mr levey and mr klein beats and mr dean in key biscayne on the president and mr haldeman investors that were and in los angeles a mr mitchell mr magruder most of the rumors that market the phone conversations between those three very big points in this country practically burned up the wires immediately on saturday as they discuss this enormously dangerous event dangerous to hold dangerous to the president the first notice that the president got out that according to colson was when he called the present president called wholesome as the president it apparently heard from harlem and who'd already heard that hire
an employee of the white house was involved and he of the plumbers and the white house horrors when the president was informed by polls of what had happened it is alleged that the president through an irish trade across the road and that's not a reaction of a man who was not aware that his empathy and until the canadian oil on the committee is not in order gentlemen that is not the action of an individual who has been learning for the first time in his life that there's been a burglary and washington dc there are burglaries that occur in washington dc was sufficient frequency but when presidents are informed they don't always straight across through the next thing we understand on that same day mr levy one of the burglars goes to the attorney general at the direction we are told that mr mitchell the former attorney general boston as the findings the very
day a burglary as sustenance decline these you've got to get our boys out of jail and fine they said get out of here interestingly enough that fault line the center or did he didn't say what are our boys tune in jail and who are they and let's get to the bottom of this and what are you doing out of jail attorney general didn't say that so he understood what was going on mr hartman called the president actually didn't he called mr holland on sunday the day following the burglar from washington two key biscayne and he told mr haldeman of the involvement of mr coke mccord a security officer for the committee reelected president and the involvement of mr hunt who is an employee in the white house and home the president knew ive been involved in palmer's activities he
told mr haldeman that mr holman was told by mr erlichman that mr mitchell had authorized will call them or the planned for pure political intelligence by bugging the tone of it was financed by greed farms and that hunt and liddy have worked in this team had been involved in previous activities and he really believed that hold them but forces are about an advisor the president on sunday june eighteenth one told the sparkling them down the facts had not conveyed into the president in key biscayne was he that this loyal that he would not conveyed to the president something as enormously important to the president's re election that does not add up to common sense of course he had to convey it to the president the next thing we know in terms of presidential involvement is that the president called mr colson good friend of mr hunt on monday from
key biscayne the president called mr golson and they talked for an hour mr colson and probably have more phone calls for more people in high levels of government over those two days since a break in than anybody in america because mr carson are brought into the white house employee and they were worried about this are on his restaurant at that point was a fugitive the only news employed by the white house that they wanted to know oh is he off the payroll of the white house so everybody was calling mr golson including the president and everybody that call mr colson testify they called mr golson to find out about it mr golson that that was where the president called they discussed watergate it was common knowledge in washington that the current president i wanted to carry on a conversation of key biscayne falling polls and in washington on a sunday and just to talk about the burglary you know he asked colson what he knew about then june twentieth june twentieth all the presidents
men gather in washington and the meeting to take place i think it's haldeman ehrlichman and actually been inclined he's joined with them in the morning of the twentieth and they discuss strategy for watergate that's all they really discussed and there's really no question about that in anybody's mind i recognize the california i cannot well understand why some of the gentlemen ladies here today are thousand eight pm rather than the issue at hand because they're on the wrong side of the most important issue one that i feel is as important here the citizens of this country as any rights they have under the constitution i think we have to uphold our constitution and the rights of people who argue that any kind of a fan
you can't arrest the man vs if you have a robbery in washington wait until the time of trial and having built up a defense and then offer evidence against him for a defense of a highly different day in another city that he hasn't had a chance to beat them there must be a time when these issues are formed when they're joining weatherman knows what he's charged with passivity i go but in the people who go on these articles i know the reason behind it that you had to have understanding i would have understanding the understanding is that all the way through these hearings there's a door in the future filled with committee you will be the judge of the differences you will be the judge of whether this particular fact is truly a factor or
whether it is not you will be the judge of the traveling whether this fact constitute the advance of whether it doesn't but now it will have to do as a committee is to not be fat i drew or whether we accept them or whether we expect a particular version of them were left a path on a lot of generalities the really don't allege three charges don't tell president what we believe is guilty of what he is not and the reason is obviously that you couldn't get twenty one people on this committee to agree to many of the things which haven't been proven for which there isn't that whatever that so i don't blame anyone that wants to go by the very general from leaving let me read one place with are the means used to implement this policy have
included one or more of the following and they alleged nine different general wang one of more well i suppose he rejects everything that maybe a government paul lee one of them is true i think the president of the united states as well as any other citizen of this country has a right to know what he's charged with and have the right to prepare a defense i know we've got thirty nine volumes of materials the moment here say some of its newspaper articles some of it as quotes from my other tapes that some of it comes from all kinds of various sorts of love it has never been couldn't be admissible in any court of law you can't tell whether or any other person we've got charges that you may be accused of anything within the books or anything else that we want to bring in the last minute let's follow the constitution that we talk about and
many people said last night with on point i believe in the constitution i believe in our constitution more than almost anything in the world about white defendant in every way that i possibly can if one pardon richard nixon for me or anyone else in this room the constitution is the thing that has given us freedom but i would tell you that if a modern lot of supposedly you think in fact i don't think that leaves california but they're really adopted in a lot of people with plenty of lost some other constitutional rights in very bad shape because you will know what you're accused of and that you get a trial i think the president of the united states have more opportunity or should have more opportunity than that getting down with the theory we've been told of the bill a particular is to be happy when the thing both of them and we heard earlier in the newspaper at least as the mansfield was discussing giving the president fifty four day for the fans who offer it
went against the mission that might be filed by the bottle but i read the other day that he was considering starting with our media gleefully to get all the press to our collection but we'd be in the newspapers and on television showed playing up a mistake for the republican administration that have made and prime time of the election day this isn't just there's no job that i can't laugh and joke with one gator anyone of my health care if i'm like this is an important time for the people of america were fighting for far more than watergate or any other theory all quite crippling government the baltimore all of our elected officials but surely love to have the effect of well now
the first question about who draws up the charges you said the man his own behalf of the house i'm sure you didn't mean to live in the house would not approve those charges i think that's a very good question i don't have one minute's worth few seconds because counsell a bill of particulars in criminal proceedings the line and it would be my judgment that perhaps that the reporter would have to be some of the last for
me and that the constitution of the united states specifically provides that any event that some ideas and each day ryan trial or indictment or conviction according to war that we're not talking about a criminal procedure at all and very surprising you're the gentleman stated rules of there are rules of civil procedure which were enacted late nineteen thirties had not yet reached california that i'm aware of them at least in new york they certainly by federal proceeding throughout the united states and those rules of civil procedure allow her notice now i see i don't think we ought to be bound by criminal practice i think that these articles eminently fair and emily within the procedure isn't the answer albert have replied of the question but to me the nominee given an additional was a basic difference
in court hearings in which the defendant almost immediately upon being presented with the tribes is it's both the particulars in this case there'd be no way that the president you know of the charges the very shortly before he began trial either i would also what about that while this may not be a cruel procedure impeachment and the heavily almost worse than that any human being with the president of the united states and the fact heavily and certainly deserves the average cost of a like that and in almost every single impeachment that we've had in recent years of president would have the right to know when he was charged with before he went to trial are we going to generate the benefits that we give to a president or any other accused in this modern day when supposedly we are expanding the rights of freedom instead of rejecting and as a
gentleman from south carolina's mainstream recognition i don't think that i have to you know any money in mind the science to street in utah and in the end and if it goes to trial in that senate the times article referring
specifically the cover up consumer effect of our view of that but we'll all over activity and balance article goes on to list means we've been impeachable offense then there are those here who would assert that we should list in this article all of the evidence that applies to this chart because its very clear of course that if we weren't going to do that that we would have a people in several of these books but what was an emotional on the loose statements on which we've just matter that the president's going to go
trial without knowing what the charges the president if he goes to trial is going to trial not only knowing what the charges but knowing what every apple and every word every i and every tree every bit of evidence have been made available to this committee has been presented here in the presence of the president now i can assure you you will have my support the presence of thousands of them were present in this committee and it is present with president of the house of representatives have new evidence is presented so what we're talking about all of it will be available to the president tomorrow the next day he's gotten up until now he's got some of course that we would like or
so i don't know it really is is in any way violate anyone's constitutional rights who spent awful lot just as possessed of every fact known to the prosecution possessed of the description of the charge of which he stands trial what's the point jack include other than that this is not a substantive objection is a procedural matter is a matter that i must suggest that i'm somewhat protected as i realized that the arguments made here and for me as a member of this committee and all things the same would be so strident was even so partisan at these proceedings were
not being conducted to influence the opinions of the american people but i am here to study law and they'll say richard nixon gets a fair trial that is advised all the evidence against an inadvertent the charges included an article want notify him of what he's charged with they fan out something extra the means by which he is alleged to have a committee and that offensive obstruction of justice let us be reasonable we have had the advice almost agenda because of his arm objectivity as band stripped of his title isn't an arctic council a man who was chairman of that body of the american bar association the advisory committee to revise the supreme court own rules of evidence and criminal procedure
the foremost expert in the united states and you tell them in his judgment these are this article is adequate to advise to respond to the charges against him and as is what it's required i would settle for nothing less than us in that this article transplants in the highest tradition of american jurisprudence an artist wanted to exercise its serious are going through iowa may chairman ideal three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey mr salmon reserve my remaining humans that i'm absolutely i'm a genius all of the isi
verdict today i can't believe that this is the same group that made almost speeches yesterday in it for everyone a lawmaking that constitutional because of those remote viable thing that we've ever made and it is and yet so willing to cast aside the most important provision and they're the one moment to process that one for their own convenience they will throw on a rock isn't it amazing they're willing to do anything such resistance to making the things specific isn't it amazing they have so much what they are willing to say so little isn't it amazing willing to do anything except make these articles specific it's the same old story in our new novel on his side to talk about it don't have a fight on your side you just talk and that's what a lot of people have been beyond that i we talk about this
going through the for the senate what about the house of representatives are you going to get down there and say fellows we've got so many stories that now have forty books of them put together by the war and derek you'll get a reaction well you don't need anything else will pay any attention than a constitutional law or emails just look over the fine and maybe this is the reason why they don't want any what lessons never won a witness why didn't that as you write that have the big man in iran the man who the man who the money the most martin what does never testified before this committee because of comedy doesn't want witnesses this committee doesn't wanna be specific this committee is was the rematch males that's what this committee wants and that i say as a miscarriage of justice now three quarters of all of the charges leveled against his president
will not be involved in any articles of impeachment prevented the committee found it and everybody out and the president of that title which ones are alive and every lawyer here now says it's the only fair thing to do the only fair thank you don't require an adversary to do all kinds of things what is so wrong about in a simple sentence saying what happened what is so difficult about that you have so wet like you have raiders it so much we are in a few minutes we'll go through managed to the gentleman from indiana mr dennis i thank that i thank my friend from allah i marry want to suggest that there are at least two points deserves some thought first you're
going with mr sarbanes very you've got a figure out wham and now they're the so called pass they come into being and prove because until unless you do that you can attribute act of anyone else to the brand new non state sector if you're gonna rely on implementing the policy by the allegations here you're going to have to come up with one hand and what were the specific occasions on which that policy was implemented by for instance making false statements to investigating officers or counseling with witnesses to give false testimony housing here happened or they'd get if they did it's very easy to specify them and the law says that you've got to do it and it doesn't make any difference whether their responded knows or doesn't know some other thing you may have in your mind is still entitled to a
good chart that's due process of law you can't satisfy it by saying that statement senate committee report can perform a function of a good charge or that you don't have to pay any attention to the rules of evidence of the chief justice in the chair i have a cousin impeachment thing is somehow different ads you've got the votes of course involve anything but somewhere down the line you're gonna fall on the constitution improve your facts here travers it recognizes your chair i quite agree that due process is absolutely essential if the constitution require that in an impeachment proceeding as in any other judicial proceeding under crohn's patients but due process is not require any specific form of proceeding it required certain essential matters of substance such as
notice to the defendant or the person who is on trial as to the nature only we pay all the charges against him now as mr jaeger point out under our modern practices we don't do that anymore in the indictment or the similar of knocking we get into the details through other matters of discovery and that is just as much due process as they do in the old way what was that a hundred and seven years ago in the trial of senator johnson isn't necessarily the only way to do it but the thing that i like to read some authorities older than andrew johnson's trial alexander hamilton in the federalist papers thirteen with respect to reach the nature of the proceeding can never be tied down by such strict rules in the delineation of the event by the prosecutors as uncommon places served to limit the discretion of the courts in favor of personal security and justice story in his commentaries on the constitution said it is obvious that the
strictures of the forms of the proceeding in cases of offenses have come and a lot of ill adapted to impeachment ian and here's the technical principles with perhaps the thing which is criminal law more than any other are also adapted to the trial a political offenses in the broad course of the rupee there is a little technical and the more proceeding the charges are sufficiently clear yet in general for there are a few exceptions were to rise in the application of the evidence which grow on their technical rules and level and while now every time we thought the fact why dont new jersey wants to talk about procedure and when we get in a procedure then the gentleman from indiana want to talk about the facts i suggest that the fact that only to be discussed the new jersey residents might yield about a month i mean no help wanted why a pretty good job of that i
thank the gentleman five minute segments of the water gets saner as we left the principles president mr colson on sunday following the burglary or haven't ours chat at which they discuss watergate but only in general terms of never discussed any particulars of all according to mr golson we don't know according to the president but we do know something that happened on june twenty all the president's men gathered from all over this country back in english and they came in from california they came in from florida and they came to washington or they could meet and confer and decide what to do about this threatening the calamity of threatening calamity to the reelection of the president the most important thing all of them had facing their entire lives with the reelection of this president in there blind dedication to that objective is just not even argue and after they met and discussed their policy the president met
with holder his closest advisors and they discussed watergate that's a moment's notice everybody agrees that was a discussion of watergate on that tape at eighteen and a half minutes of all that's missing there's nothing else missing on that tape except the discussion of watergate right after that big strategy session now it is now determined that human hands the race that it monotonous what was in the explosive in full possession of the president and it is attributable to sinister forces my own inclination is to believe that it is in this inescapable inference that the president how about eighteen and a half minutes the race because it would have been so devastating in its incrimination of the president immediately in the cover up where but there is something that was not the race there was a decade ago of a phone conversation the recollections of president habit of events that day
and one of the event's fire the gentleman was thinking i thought i remembered it down for a gentleman is recognized for five when it was chairman it's interesting the city's far away from william senter carino statements before you get an opportunity to speak and let me just say i'm the chairman and i was surprised and remember the rules committee here that he proposed sending these articles of impeachment in general for at that they're too as a supplement i might say in the report of the rules committee for consideration mr chairman members of the rules committee are supposed to read those reports before we make a finding a reporter over the house representatives
and certainly you're not avoid are rules i think that we owe the same way that the members of the house of representatives on a counter about what you're proposing you're saying that the order to send these general article of impeachment of the florida house without being specific without saying that time the plate and say to the members of the house of representatives you out on this committee go through all thirty eight or thirty nine ios are out what we think of members of this committee are impeachable offenses and make a judgment there are isn't what we're saying if you are other members of the house
good luck mr chairman i think we ought to rethink what we're proposing a commentary walker charges were jaywalking and employees in the united states isn't i don't know where the alleged offenses supposed to have occurred is the president in the united states in time the less yes he's entitled to know him and all the constitutional problems impeachment proceedings ground does not specifically spell out but you have these two sixth amendment the star prosecution are going away that in this case they didn't waver in other impeachment patients it got a seven and present and here
are these civil libertarians i think we've got to rethink what we're doing nobody is kind of the lay the action here because i well know anytime that the chairman puts down that gavel and says call or all of those are here to do it exactly as you like whether that was a huge error mr doerr prepared these articles would say probably get whether they certainly ought to agree with what they prepared and i thought that was a question that really didn't have to be asked by the chair of the role or not the gentleman agreed with what they had prepared i think that was a useless but i think that it's important that
we do something fair for the other members of the houses forget about the president of the united states we're not the only members of the house of representatives who are going to be called upon to make a judgment and a drawl thirty eight thirty nine months ottoman say here here's what we meant was just that allowed them on the first days at the bottom number one charge of making false or misleading statements from lawfully authorized investigating officer well how many investigating officer who live in the united states why and employees of the united states while in june of nineteen seventy two there are only two million six hundred and fifty thousand employees
in the united states government and colonies and see in common sense we ought to be more specific than that i can't agree with everything that was drew jen and downs are then alluded to or that outstanding member the barbarians i know that other members saw an item in the wall street journal if they didn't agree with the committee that he served as chairman of as just reported that they recommend the repeal of the anti prostitution laws in the united states which turned the state laws quote one of the most direct form of discrimination against women and quote committee is chaired by harvard i entered now we don't agree with that janet yellen only carrier every day at mr gehrke proposes that remark about special counsel our
general be subject to further comment animal and that videotape coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate will continue sharply reduces pbs for public broadcasting service washington week in review analyzes the president zine el i think he doesn't think that's living in a world of self delusion but i think that anyone who genuinely believe that washington week in review reports on the congress it's becoming increasingly doubtful whether the senate will have time this year to try the impeachment trial washington week in review discusses foreign affairs isn't there goes up and optimism pessimism daily sun sensitive deal and you said it's worth a 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 raw the plan to put off by nico need to pay
no matter it's been and coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate continues
when we raised our video today you'll be hearing from one of the more outspoken critics of the president's father robert ryan recognize the gentleman from massachusetts another violent crime in this agenda which is the state that we are unwilling to make the outpost was in the middle of indiana us when and what let me give you some specifics that the president obviously know on june twenty nineteen hundred and seventy to john mitchell said that the committee to relax have no legal mylar ethical responsibility for the watergate break in two days later the president publicly said john mitchell has accurately state of the facts on that same day the president said the white house has had no involvement whatsoever in watergate the very next day however the president directed all the men to get the cia to head off the fbi investigation everyone knows that really in the day the intent
to have the cia tell the fbi and the cia doesn't involve and mexico why because the laundered money the president of the united states hadn't know about be laundered money because the jets had shown up there with frazer well for the bank account this town where the cia told most of all the ministerial it and there's no involvement of the cia in the watergate and the fbi can go forward in mexico and that we have no interest in that matter hardiman said that he feared that the fbi shouldn't do this and ehrlichman said that the president himself was concerned about the mexican money and the florida bank account this is the president who three days earlier said we have no involvement whatsoever in the watergate and at the end of that meeting on june twenty third reich and advise walters enlisted lead would take over a negotiating with the cia on june twenty six with the war that all the studying that no fbi investigated could compromise any cia activity june twenty seventeen that
with wall that once again and he had the effrontery you asked the cia to deviate from its basic purpose and a pig tale all the people who were involved in watergate and repay them salaries and as the walton said i shall not unless the president or does it and he said that this development has approved of it and he went back to jail again and elegant set to think will schwalbe is a little hot and the very next day because the dean summoned mr walters to his white house office and being brought up five night of inject an objective mr dobry and dina again as mr walters have the cia stopped the fbi investigation is no involvement we have no specifics on june twenty eight being an ironic been newly graham well when i come to collaborate and a gentle opening other specific things happen in that long summit two years ago the update brought out of that right on the fbi watergate investigation and this to being churned out over to the committee to reelect attorney general findings that refuse that information and that information impeded the investigation
other things happen in that early august of nineteen seventy two the president himself asked mr erlichman to arrange that stands not be compelled to go before the grand jury and that was granted and so much compromising our arrangements were made by the special prosecutor for goldson a growing young and chabon and strong they gave testimony before the prosecutors and not before the grand jury the only possible explanation as the adoption of a policy by the president himself a policy to obstruct the investigation of a rate an ideal balance of my kind of a gentleman from the california law back to the even to the twentieth where we're where the president is having a conversation with john mitchell and they're talking about watergate but the fall and happily is a phone that is not particularly taking system it's one of those things that happened on the twentieth we just have to live with those unhappy
circumstance and so the only evidence we have of what they really talked about was the deck about the president recorded as was his custom the events that occurred during the day and on that day about e got in the spirit of social doctor john mitchell tried to cheer him up a bit is terribly chagrin that the activities of any body attached to his committee should've been handled in such a matter really regretted not least those people more effectively in his own organization there's another one of a certain circumstances of the forty six forty seconds forty two second silence on that that the bill that we have to put up with that after that we know that john mitchell knew what had happened there's no question about that john mitchell told the president that creative people weren't all the next day john mitchell puts out a press release saying he deplored that watergate break in watergate break in but fortunately there were no creek official people in senegal
no campaign people and runs it would join their city or you're right neither other any white house people in third rate burglary or a john mitchell lot of body agreed job everybody job at all for the record john mitchell my there were campaign people involved and he now runs a learn why wasn't that may not have known it runs ago as an ability to understand many things that occur but there were white house people can't and the president knew was there then on the twenty seconds here is the overworked acceptance of the president of the plant the president asked in a press conference what he thought about the watergate burglary were any people from the white house involved and he said john mitchell and ryan sickler have told you about that event and they told you the truth and i agree with that he said there were no white house people involved he said there were no committee to re elect the president people involved there
were he knew at that point he'd joined publicly in front of all the american people the plan would cover up as he of necessity thought he had to he could have gone before the american people at that press conference and said it's incredible this fall and libby wanted my attorney general out on the golf course in poland the bailout the spell is live fire the attorney general because they've been reported and put lillian gish he could have said i have been told that there is greed money involved that they've found down their money for that material like the president i can't believe that's beyond my in fact you know i get it on a huge tree across the room when i was oh that's what he could have said that we want to tell the truth the president's lawyer mccrory
the chairman of the committee are doing poorly an undercover and two articles of impeachment but i think that this article which is proposed as a substitute article proposed by the gunman from maryland is a very faulty brake more the weakest article which i think the committee recommend how it's been correctly said that the process of impeachment is not a criminal proceeding with the civil war and we know that our council has confirmed that by recommending that we should only consider that the role or doctrine of evidence that must prevail here and that appear in convincing not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what we have before us curious an allegation of a conspiracy what's called a policy and this is their faces which are our come from mr doerr is propounding it in his when he took on as partisan a
posture very final days of our investigation and they face is is that the president organized the managed to cover up from the time of a break in itself or immediately after and it was this is the basis upon which my colleague from california and from massachusetts are trying to do and it just doesn't or water it waited five years contradict the theory just doesn't exist i'd maybe it on the twenty first of march when the by the next year when the president learned about this and would talk about it with mr allman in the thirteen he got involved in another in another another type of activity but enjoyment in september they were talking about that all the matter of fact on september fifteenth when the president talked about this subject with john dean he has begun again you said what do you think is in bahrain what's your guess we're standing firm uses i think the dnc planet it quite clearly
infected villages see at that time other trying to consider what the political implications are they suggested possibly the democratic national committee themselves planet the body in order to try to trap the republicans and was granted political shenanigans were going on and on september fifteenth if you consider that testimony to consider that very rarely had clearly and honestly you'll see that they're talking about the political implications not criminal implications and so far the white house is concerned and so what it seems to me is that what we've got here we got a criminal charge and that were trying to back them were kind of supported by non criminal allegations in non criminal group now it's very well and good to say well all the progress that we've got thirty eight volumes but you know the kind of proof that you're recommending that we're supporting those leases this
policy of this conspiracy is proof of circumstantial evidence of innuendo the conference's know what circumstantial evidence is this president and his council supports a look at it's in the thirty eight by and that's on what that isn't the kind of person specifically and a half it seems to me that in connection with us op in connection with this charge of conspiracy we should be clear in government where is the direct government sure the video gentleman talk about people windy of what as a matter of fact the basis for this a media involvement of the president as the press releases put out by john mitchell would somehow i cry to a critic of the president not no indication no proof in this hearing the president never saw our dear anything to do with a press release or nor did not win it was false or
true and i kind of truth justice and legitimate doesn't seem to me and just kind of i have a serious political here and now clearly that what we should do require if we're going to charge the president with a criminal offense which is what this is to not only have clear and convincing proof but it proved beyond a reasonable doubt because that is the standard which we require in connection with a criminal charges so i'm hopeful that the committee will either require that we do make these charges as effective they're going to be offered at all or that we have disposed of this proposed article in court of the one which relates to the president or the markets in which the president did indeed fail to take care to say that the laws are faithfully executed the violation of wisconsin a constitutional this doesn't require that kind of specific proven
allegations and also i think we should turn to the subject of whether or not the president is now in contempt of congress and subject to an impeachable offense because he refuses to comply with our subpoenas in providing information we require reckoning recognize the gentleman from new york and my colleagues it seems to me that our constitutional responsibility is really to respond so the house of representatives seems to me that we would be taking on more than a mandate allows if we want to draw some very narrow allegations and not have the evidence that we every day and what all of these months presented to the members of the house i think there'd be a judgment as to what the final allegations of any is going to be presented to the senate we get the presumptive i'm
not that it just means that our needs and to cut off to them the benefit of all of this all of these months of research members are having some type of a problem in terms of what they are prepared to vote for in connection with an article of impeachment does not necessarily have to be done and i am a parliamentary way to just delay these proceedings i think that each member would have the opportunity as to what in his own mind he believes it's an impeachable offense and i personally believe there's enough unedited transcripts of workers but they should not preclude the information which we have compiled from reaching the floor of the house of representatives we really have a responsibility to report on findings to the house we vote articles of impeachment they may in fact be rejected by the house we suggest to them that
three of water pools of them voted on by the majority of members of this committee they may see fit to expand so it seems to me at this late time that if the numbers one fax my god would have more than enough facts to reach questions of whether or not we should vote on a critical article but they are members of the band to vote on a particular article it seems to me we should be prepared to vote on that and that moves so that we can work out well and report back to the house of representatives i think that as our restrictive constitution responsibility and that's about a while boswell to be interpreted as being the vote of the full house i i yield to the gentleman to suggest that the other gentleman from ohio all this committee and mr general apology for what i consider to be an unprofessional and certainly an eye on judicial comment on a
completely extraneous matter with respect and i would hope the gentleman reflect it's unbecoming to the dignity of these proceedings and all my time on this committee as the first time i ever heard that kind of a thing that i don't have the time so you might say that the gentleman referring to some of the items that you're the articles that you dream of the matter some of the activities of listener janet that he agreed with and i'm not going to give a blank of embarrassment for what came out of a lot like that reflect on the bbc well i think it are people are interested in what was an article in america but
not at this time is still discussion over where the chair is quite a recess at this time until eight o'clock and so and then five hours of daytime debate as the house judiciary committee moved through the third day of its historic impeachment the day today marked another turning point as the members began debating specific articles of impeachment of the day was interesting on several counts first it became obvious that the president's defenders of the republican members of the committee who believe mr nixon should not be impeached that they intend to use a variety of parliamentary and debating devices in an effort to slow down the impeachment process and even perhaps to try to block it second there's indication that
the democratic majority which does favor impeachment may have some difficultly in getting republicans to go along and supporting all the articles of impeachment try to drive with one thing that has that there's now a clear majority on the committee for impeachment and that ultimately some kind of impeachment resolution almost surely will emerge from the committee jim all tomorrow's to be another full and complete day for the committee as it continues to wrestle with the exact wording of the proposed articles of impeachment will be back tomorrow tomorrow night with our coverage of the day's proceedings until then or older car in fact colleagues on john mara thank you and good morning from washington you have been watching videotapes gavel to gavel coverage of the house judiciary committee proceedings fb production funding provided by public television stations the ford
foundation and the corporation for public broadcasting reza you're moon noon three
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Reel 3
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-c824b2xz5m).
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. Includes approval of the second article charging abuse of power. This is day 6 of the Nixon impeachment hearings.
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: 2402944-1-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 3,” 1974-07-26, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed April 25, 2024,
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 3.” 1974-07-26. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. April 25, 2024. <>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 3. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from