thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 2 of 6
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
it's b only one half million dollars it has been documented that president nixon took on lawful deduction on his income then the years nineteen sixty nine nineteen seventy nineteen seventy one nineteen seventy two for one of fraudulent guilt all the vice presidential type you thought of honeymoon at camp david the upkeep and maintenance of his private homes that key biscayne in san clemente in addition to reducing its taxes by these broader look good options there's the nixon failed to report certain income from the sale of property in california in new york and in florida and from the conversion of campaign contributions to his own version of huge we're not discussing a person i'm
familiar with a lot of all this is a lawyer who knows the requirement forget this is the man who stand with that prevailing question into law a few months earlier this is a man you unabashedly attempting to use the irs an income tax brackets are effective political and now with regard to my name is our direct your attention article two section one of our constitution which states and has statement about seventy eighty nine that quote the president shall ads they began to recede police service the compensation which only the increased no intimidation during the character which he should have been elected and he shall not receive within that period any other argument
from the united states or any of them in port alexander hamilton writing in the federalist papers are quote neither the union nor any of its members will be limited to get a nominee be at liberty to receive any other mit and then back which may have been determined by the first back now you are familiar with the expenditures of federal funds on president nixon's vacation retreat in san clemente california and key biscayne florida this is your been the subject of several extensive investigations by congressional committees and executive agencies the internal revenue service in a lot of president nixon's tax return and they determined that he received ninety four thousand six hundred and seventy nine dollars and sixty one cents in and reported income as a result public expenditures it is
california and florida homes and travel on authorized purposes the breakdown of about sixty seven thousand on those films about twenty seven thousand on an authorized travel with us on reporting from the internal revenue service declared the mac well this is not democrats is not republican this is the united states' internal revenue service they sit in view of the fact where of relationship with the united states government and its chief executive officer the about items constitute additional compensation to him for the proponents of these services for the government and hope and these expenditures were not the result of overzealous news on the pot of wanting to regret what were ordered by his virtual agent his personal lawyer is original architect
is still decorated is closest political friend in my judgment the president to be impeached by the house of representatives wanted gross and willful violation of what a good two section one of the united states constitution the highest law in this land and i would reserve the balance of my time gentlemen can i have a look you count as four minutes and forty five seconds remaining to give it because one out that there's been some question about what the government has done about this about whether it's fraught aware that a problem not an hour one out the dynamics and the current commissioner of internal revenue service i don't even know i refer to the question of washed out but only to revive the question of possible violations
effect and seven below six to have internal revenue current boat rising out the preparation of that sixty nine in combat ms de leon jaworski asking that they look into that and this is what he said in that last year and senate a long time ago the senate on april the second nineteen seventy four not last year but last year just want the syllable and he said we've been unable to complete the processing this murder and you the lack of cooperation of celluloid vision of the many inconsistency use in the test on an individual presented to the surface use a ranger prosecute it in determining all the facts in this matter it's happening at a grand jury investigation will involve presidential appointees we believe would be appropriate for the cat or by your ultimate message that that i understand that the grand jury as god are the black
is a town on two occasions one on july the twenty fifth of this year but last year the engine underneath the twenty six for the twenty seven at this year and that he's been discussing with them the details of these tax preparation in addition to that i understand that they probably are virtually of not today but tomorrow a lot of issued subpoenas for some of the financial records for that we can get to the bottom of it now there are additional income figures of unreported income that i hope ms baldwin would these crises are familiar with and that i would at this point if i had an ingenue you might thing rent i think the german feeling and all i'm alive this summer reading papers january twenty first seventy four i placed in the record statement that they're much controversy has arisen over president nixon's tax write off on his official papers in his assertion that the late president johnson gave him the idea i
think my colleagues will be interested in the senate or from houston polls regarding president johnson's papers just for the record and you have president nixon's references late president johnson as having given him the idea for taking effect right of official papers it is interesting to note as president johnson's own record lbj is thought to have taken a tax deduction for two hundred thousand dollars a total of thirty one million papers they dealt with his life up to the time he entered the senate ralph newman chairman chicago public library who's worked for every president herbert hoover phrase the lbj papers is related to the next in a pretty sad about twenty million to forty million on the lbj paper but president johnson bequeath all papers of his senate years his vice presidency and his presidency the lbj library without asking any tax advantage for is that you
say i'd like one on something about the president's knowledge on the record is the league with evidence evidence that mr nixon did involve himself in the operation and improvements renovated the key biscayne in san clemente beyond motivated his own expense those made public expects it was painted on the sixty five thousand dollars for opponents of the president's personal involvement in the knees i'm not because the secret service required for the house common activities committee the following discussions took place during a very and the secret service agent earl more honest more after the initial drawdown design was presented i think i passed along the gsa a comment from its rebuttal that the first ballot president first lady would prefer something more conventional probably something similar to the white house that
i think every job it has a copy of the white house fence mr brooks figures requested the fans be a replica of the white house mr moore knows you're willing to get a fence up there and testimony before this committee that a broad appeal in jazz to what extent the president give attention to detail he responded that mr nixon was very upset in the ground at key biscayne camp david stanton at the house of god and the branch still true for the other members really call upon other materials known to them only as a client there in this kind of debate the members or discuss the matter before then which is the matter of possible impeachable offense as it relates to the article that they fought
back the yemeni at the bottom so it was sort of this information to the committee and has water the committee records were made available through his began to mr lord of that committee they wanted the region i know i know i think it has to be shown and got the the attention this committee that we had an expert witness who have been the past head of the criminal division of the department of justice he was responsible for drafting the manual on the matter of fraud he said under the fact that we have had presented to us the taxpayer not answering the questions submitted to win by the joint committee on internal revenue taxation what did he say whoa if not a satisfactory response was forthcoming it would be my
judgment that in the case of an ordinary taxpayer on the facts as we know them in this decades woodward would be referred out for a presentation to a grand jury for a prosecution as defaults i'll yield now to mr danielson for five min tse joan from iowa has advised that is now consumed twenty one minutes of a sixty minutes and thirty nine minutes in and the gentleman from michigan has june twelve minutes or forty eight minutes winning jennifer mile i know you to the gentleman from california mr danielson for five minutes obama not like jamaica i wish to make one thing clear and a record three of our members have stated at one time or another in these proceedings that the president cannot be indicted for a criminal offense well he is in office on point out that my opinion that is also incorrect statement of the law sully gratuitous
comedy and i do not agree with a record should reflect its not the opinion of the committee officially the amendment which would have offered and accepted offer by mr winans accepted by mr ben nevins he and adopted by a committee put out the word fraudulently into the operative portion of this article a lot more about was not just a fine semantic difference this is a very carefully calculated very intentional amendment because by adding the term fraudulently after knowing way we have lifted the degree of the offense with would be charged by this article again for president from that of a civil matter to one at least in the context of criminal tax fraud which requires a very high burden a very high degree of proof will knowingly intentionally for a perverse purpose and whatnot but i remained a new dawn actor but for a good reason i feel that if we're going to impeach a president for tax fraud are probably familiar fraud of the highest degree
finally our minds of very significant there's one other really interesting point says this is not a criminal proceeding and if the house should impeach and if the senate should try on the ground the tax fraud and not finding conviction since it's not a criminal proceeding it would not be jeopardy barring a subsequent prosecution really consider this particular article i want all of the members pleased to bear in mind after chairman that we do not consider matters of this type in a backyard and we consider the burden of proof in a tax fraud case or in any other places like we must consider away all of the evidence against the background of common sense the conclusions and impressions we have complex come to in our lifetimes of experiencing serious matters of people are not held such a high degree of proof that we are splitting samantha here is we use good judgment and common sense but we bear in mind or all
kinds of pre people probably intended to do what we do in the serious matters in their lives and that when we do something as serious as planning a five hundred and eighty thousand dollar tax deduction we are paying attention to what we're doing and are aware of their proportion of gravity of that as above some other actor we may be involved here now this committee notes mr chairman from press reports that the president has not denied it that because the money which was charged against him or either on the fact that you're not remember the report also indicated he knew for nineteen seventy nineteen seventy one and nineteen seventy two but the records show that we have not yet made the song from nineteen sixty nine the principal of which was one hundred forty eight thousand dollars one hundred and forty eight thousand ad dollars and nineties seven cents which would carry interest for nineteen sixty
nine and conceivably a negligent spell a penalty of five percent which is about seventy five hundred dollars now any evidence of fraud well the most common types of evidence is produced in our primal part of leak is evidence of concealment evidence of the misrepresentation because in the ordinary if there is a man we do not conceal at something unless we have something to our eye we're not misread this represent unless we do not want the truth knowing what obviously when we can see or misrepresent this is some indication of the intent of the act or what evidence do we have in this case but not a great deal but some this rather significant can you imagine mr chairman anybody claiming a charitable deduction five hundred and seventy six thousand dollars more than one half of his net worth without giving some fair consideration to that
limited options certainly would not do it casually certainly were not built without fully intending to claim it and certainly he would've acted out particularly joe you really mean i can pay five hundred and seventy six thousand dollars off how often mr chairman when you write off your fifty dollars to st peter's church and he wondered what he had attacked the camera and i think and i do think mr chairman that our president when he took these big auctions in nineteen sixty nine and seventy and so ford was not in it you and you know what he was going he had taken the same time in nineteen sixty eight in this instance the appraiser looked at over after night at our gala they did i respectfully submit this is enough evidence to have considered by the senate and gentlemen i'll look i'll you to the gentleman from
michigan the idea of the format is the general manager for a macarthur do i have an idea that they jump in california when he was inquiring about the evidence which is not in our records may have been referring to lbj's income tax returns and practices the vietnam are not revealing his income which was substantial or any of his that attacks practices or anything like that we are we are you are considering whether or not there is clear and convincing growth of tax fraud on the part of president to the united states and we can raise that kind of a conclusion on suspension other hasn't been any tax fraud found by the internal revenue service or the joint committee on internal revenue although which haven't have investigated thoroughly the income taxes that the president and the president has not conceal anything i don't know anyone who has made a four abreast of his income and
his new doctrines and laid bare his federal income tax returns for all of the city and there isn't any mystery theres no concealment about this at all and there hasn't been any fraud found even against the precursor that that's even aldermen the pending some investigations in that respect i looked over the report of the joint committee on internal revenue and went through the various tax deductions that the president had planned including the before attempted before of a capital gain or loss with respect to the purchase of a residential property appraisal his apartment in the new york and the hotel pierre and bought a property on in california but that meant that the right to be for the cappuccino arce was the guy i'd never heard such a thing before and of course with regard to the year to the deduction for gifts which have been i've taken by others we know your recovery and a number of others who have made the us many other person's not public officials who've made this a valuable papers and that it seemed to me as
i read you this that the internal revenue service and the joint committee and internal revenue and resolve all the doubts against that they're richard nixon i don't think the president isn't that a special treatment but it seems to me isn't i looked there treatment i question whether he has enough that we didn't have before us that someone who formerly was with the internal revenue service a prosecutor or certainly the prosecutor thinks that something should go before a grand jury because it's easy for him to find things wrong and things that should be prosecuted but i also had a question asking my soul i think you ever pays taxes in some areas they still have a right to go to the tax court are claiming a rebate or refined and importing guns now where we're just talking here about the president's federal income taxes but there is no evidence here no evidence no clear and convincing evidence that all was substantial evidence of any tax fraud and the service report article should be some rarely rejected because it doesn't belong here not because we feel
sorry for the president or anything like that but because measuring it by the same standards that we've measured every other proposed article that come here there's no clear and convincing proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the president and it a bad development the german as forty seconds four minutes we preview of the gentleman from michigan that are you know five minutes on the virgin isn't just jam it well some people here want to richard nixon i was trying out of office for some a little vague circumstances anybody ever heard of as you have heard different versions of notice and fifth amendment due process modern times as richard nixon maybe don't have the
same rights as two hundred and twenty million other americans and then then i had thought that article for a bed and peaches him because he won't confess they had no evidence that if you don't give me the evidence at our don't preach you know and then a chorus the audience all of them all article for a guy throw him out because he had that the war by bombing can only at anybody else would get a prize but this man was vague impeached because the end of the war that the two predecessors could not now that's not good enough it was stepping out where we asset that he's got left possibly make them go to jail for the rest of his life i just can't imagine why we can dream up all of the sudden the act from my teammates you know it was a shrub minus or trips of mrs nixon took on air force one anybody ever
question jackie kennedy or leave word or anybody else very least it'll saying that richard doesn't surprise and reread a one sign at a rally and has been part of a rock the evidence that we get is always getting it's never right to the point and a chorus that he talked about an internal revenue agent talking about what happens in a hypothetical cases but look what happens mr brown chief intelligence man from the baltimore office march twenty second nineteen seventy four as prairies he said quite honestly said this because it with three people that have not been interviewed yet and he said that if they were given immunity in this mom all possibly possibly they could shed some light that would connect nixon in his fraud one the design as you
said that to date our investigation and reveal the global following reasons we feel we could not emphasize not sustain a thirty percent drop family that from the irs that's not speculation that's what they said about this awful building individual i think this is important than any other thing that we can say what the law is clear the law is clear that to be guilty of fraud it must be done intentionally it must be done well falling and it must be done before are to do something the law doesn't allow you to do the law is clear it says you cannot be held for fraud if that is a result of mistakes you cannot be all for fraud if you rely upon the advice of like an attorney and this is what richard nixon then and
everybody knows that have brought albee cannot be sustained when a rather tight where eliza on the advice of his attorney provided he uses attorney all the facts now one outstanding point you were humphrey did exactly the same thing and nobody ever so worried about you were taken a couple hundred thousand dollars in a deduction and so i have some other people there is no question that the papers were delivered the archives on time there's no question about that and he learned something else happened this fraudulent tax parents are signed into law a law which changes that that's the law now if he was going to be sort of forced then himself what may have made some kind of a change in that of course he would or he wouldn't sign if he was that kind of a person
but he wasn't he signed it into law there is absolutely no intent of the fraud and elevate it one other thing which i think is awfully important and i want to see these people are moving this revolution the nylon about this act there's a bunch of bologna was supposedly taken up the staff banana not that i thought there's a better audience on tv tonight and i want to find a gentleman has expired the gentleman from michigan his directions thirty nine minutes and forty seconds or minutes from its law with german after the march mr salmon i think because well apply them back and i tried to add to that fire alert emphasize again the remarks that he wound
up with the veteran i'm quite surprised fellow as we spent a better part of a new work in an article dealing with the bombing of cambodia which we loved that was new would be defeated why for very good reasons all that tonight we would have an opportunity to talk about the president's taxes it's a good political issue but is it wanted to impeach a president we the people don't like that the other our president has not paid taxes commensurate with his and got what will we not admit and he's entitled to make a lot of doctors were recording our legal you may not like it but the wimpy president for me or negligence and find personal income taxes the question as have been mentioned by the gentleman before me is a willful an edge and in this case it turns on whether or not the president knew no gift of his papers had been made before july twenty six nineteen sixty
nine if in fact they had not already been donated by the actual delivery i spent a good bit of time in it thinking i'm personally working on to get the papers in a similar situation and i know how difficult it was recalled all privately change from like a lot you had to really stay close to let us consider some of the facts of ornaments and to some extent at the end of nineteen sixty eight the president made and much smaller get to the archives a ton about eighty thousand dollars worth of his papers and he personally was deeply involved in this and questioned legal gift he discussed the deduction with his attorneys was briefed only alternatives and personally stand the deed conveying the papers in nineteen sixty nine he did not be of the same person attention to this year and for good reason he was president of the united states surely he could rely on the advice of the white house counsel and i know the personal tax attorney to see that it was properly and legally blind in fact he apparently should not
ever lied on their cubs and your cane in advance of like a goal with that first approach than they get the nineteen sixty eight second in late february night he sits a man the president told john ehrlichman the council that he intended to make a ball give up papers during the year next john ehrlichman wrote a memorandum to the president on the subject of charitable contributions and deductions then the papers were actually transferred to the archival march twenty six or twenty seven nineteen sixty nine on june sixteen in a memorandum to white house attorney morton who was handling the paper's conveyed a number of the president's decisions and concerns respecting his income taxes in the papers in november nineteen sixty nine appraiser newman wrote the president advised him of the body of his papers and i might add that those appraisal was substantially above the deduction that was actually taken it's important note the president did not send get it was a side that was signed by
turning morgan and with no written or oral power of attorney from the president in april nineteen seventy one the present sign of nineteen sixty nine income tax return is tax lawyer told him that he had a five year tax shelter here with his charitable election this is an evidence this was clearly a strong indication of the president that all necessary steps have been taken to consummate this year the act more importantly i think you can be effectively argue that a very confusing manner existed with regard to the ap the applicable law that congress changed that you're not like people were just read the debates there first of all there was no indication or any change and what was their mistake or negligence by the president in putting his tax returns should clearly not the ground or beat your you know
your marriage is very true with salmon i would like you complimented fifth time a gentleman from iowa but levin state he has done what some of the proponents of articles of impeachment had not done he has inserted specific allegations i do not agree with the position but i do agree that article is precisely and properly thought i'd asked myself through a paragraph to i know that i read two is an emotional issue that has more with gray's homicide up popular interests but it is really weak and the grounds for impeachment but as an out that analyzes particular article on
july twenty fifth nineteen sixty nine that they constitute the last date when a gift of presidential papers the man march twenty seven nineteen sixty nine that have been stated debate when the presidential papers we delivered national archive within about four months before the cut of a a number of questions involved here for earth how is titled the path to my faith wanted by eighty different for another legal method is by actual delivery of the personal property and the second question is with final at that are transferred on march twenty thirteen fifty nine well
the paper delivered to the national archives and in my opinion title was transferred on the day after that date the president was not able to repossess his papers he lost possessions they lost control and he lost florida a very interesting thing the chairman and members of the committee a government agency has actually ruled that effect and i refer to a letter put in evidence at june fourth nineteen seventy four our from the archivist and here's what he says in part long before the onset of the facts controversy long before it was a position of the general services administration which itself has absolutely no involvement in federal tax matters
and here is the important part that there had been a valid years of the celtic papers to the united states that is the ruling of an agency of the government of the united states now if there's no fraud by filmmaker you but even if you do have a tidal path when the president directed and south of possession of the residents of papers and a voluntary way certainly as enough to make a four drop now what did the irs do in this particular situation what i think that they had sex and six six five three of the internal revenue code as well while they checked the return and i found the tax would do an ss the path there's two sexes is if you think that the recession and secondly that he may provide for
the assessment of a negative which was dominant picture kate five percent that the salmon indicated section be provide for a fraud penalty with the irs has the right to affect fifty percent only here we have the most thorough and complete blip in the history of the irs your performed on the return with addiction and the irs with their investigation not withstanding what had been said here in our year did not assess the fraud and share it cannot flee that's a matter of impeachment under the constitution in your opening remarks he said my concurrence we must be fair to every man i've tried to be fair to mr nixon and i've tried to
persuade the members of this committee the vote against impeachment and the power that we have not succeeded in this is that new jersey has expired the gentleman from is i have one life as a gentleman from michigan was dodging centers consumed twenty nine minutes and twenty seconds or thirty minutes and twenty seconds remaining adjourned from iowa has consumed twenty six minutes gentlemen i was chairman of the nine year old in the spokesman new york five minutes gentlemen thank you very much mr chairman i am greatly concerned about attacks that we have seen before this committee i would like to clear up the record on one point a top
irs clear the president on taxes or in fact irs did nothing of the kind of iran said that the reason they could not find tax roy it was because they didn't have the testimony under oath mr erlichman mr morgan and ralph newman and that without that testimony under oath they were unable to make a decision one way or the other but they didn't have a clue that possibility that in the future of these persons did testify under oath they could connect the taxpayer with fraud in this instance so i don't think it's a on the record to say that irs found that with no tax fraud they found that it was a members close to the president and members of the president's not testifying under oath that they were unable to reach that decision let me precede with other points we had discussed the question of the
tax deduction which is very sizable i think that you know and i understand that we ought to take a look at some of the other matters that were not reported on the president tax returns carrying nineteen sixty nine to nineteen seventy in nineteen sixty nine it was a sale to mr nixon's new york apartment he failed to report seventy five thousand nine hundred and twenty four dollars and the sale of his property in nineteen seventy it was a sale of a portion of this and many property is to mix and failed to report a capital gain of fifty four thousand five hundred and eighty one doubts in the period of nineteen sixty nine to nineteen seventy one the joint committee staff found that the president did not report well being she should have reported in nineteen seventy two it was to nixon failed to what the use of five thousand dollars apparently from campaign funds that we use to purchase platinum and
diamond earrings mr nixon's president to his wife on her sixtieth birthday party and my word of honor is that there's absolutely no testimony our record on the subject of which you're referring and therefore it's not a gimmick to argue it here we just haven't heard anything on that this is one of the lawyers not well i would like to see where it was before that committee i can't i met noland been pointed out speakers banking as chairman i was referring to the
drab to file reporter the senate select committee on presidential campaign activities of the united states senate which we received i've recently received only week or so ago and that refers specifically to this matter and i believe that we have some briefings with respect to this madness that felony proceeding with respect to this five thousand dollars that was used to purchase five thousand us from campaign funds that was used to purchase diamond earrings out just one thing about this is very interesting to know it is five thousand dollars was taken out of a bank and asked to be de repos so in june of nineteen seventy through two and went through four separate banks and four separate accounts in one day and we've heard of laundering money in the watergate matter i would suggest at this there's a strong resemblance to that finally came out i'm saying that i think what
the practical and think there's any question about that oh that's the members like pose like the general is making reference to material that they've been properly before the committee in many of these documents in and they say that they're requesting this is madness we may hire i'm objecting on the ground it hasn't before so if this report has been made a part of our record and introduced as a senate report which bin laden mentioned years and i don't recall his testimony before up the gentle lady and i thank the chairman i just
like to point out that the senate select committees report raises other serious questions and unfortunately neither the senate committee nor out maybe he was able to fully explore some of which show that apparently forty five thousand dollars worth of improvements it this game update personally it the rebels are now one of the problems in terms of getting the records regarding these transactions and whether or not in fact defined campaign finds deflected a very large a substantial amount the president's personal use fake all these are serious questions i think that they are very difficult questions because of this country is kind of work on a system of voluntary tax payments and certainly the president of this country ought to set a standard of straight unscrupulous obedience to the law and strict inskeep scrupulously hearings in the capital i would thank the chairman to recognize me and i would you know whatever time i have remained mr brooks from texas my
distinguished colleague that they do with the law in mississippi was concerned about whether we have a gamble here are taxed united tomorrow afternoon and it reminds me of the story of the hard working mother who they were stunned to try for his birthday the next morning he came down with one minute dives on and you sense on it like the other that it's by i have to pay gentlemen gentlemen why him and we love our important
question after i heard a lady from new york by one as well were chooses the answer that question and over time when thirty seconds no more interview of all those accusations i got a taiwanese cell in my mind whether we stand on what we say here tonight and so far the law is concerned only protector we immune from that i'd like an answer i don't know we're like to suggest that the member knows what the privileges and the rights of
members of this committee are in lincoln there's no suggestion that day one has a lot of others lively and i think that this is a question again that goes through the perfect and i don't think that anyone is going to as sam malone on one is attempting a while chairman i like to be heard generally these writings i would like to state that i resent her remarks with salmon as i presented this as fairly as i could in terms of my reading of the senate reports the material before me i certainly agree that we must be fair and honest and honorable and i've tried my best to do that i think by casting aspersions on my integrity mr sandman is trying to undermine the integrity of the committee are prisoners at it and ziad reconsider his remarks
it may be in order and i think they recognize that information on foreigners let's look at the record before us and the law applicable or two ago and there are two parts this proposed hard won deal with allegedly unlawful compensation said to be acquired by the president through government expenditures of these privately owned properties which were not legitimate government expenditures and the other is in combat role as has already been pointed out no fraud has been and in fact there has been a time for a fine you understand that
these expenditures which are allegedly on improper or card to the president his income so because of that technicality the author of the amendment it charged that president with a violation of their constitutional provision on the theory that this is additional income which says that the president shall not receive additional him monuments be on his factory compensation is indeed a novel theory and i call at reaching is a similar argument as to whether these things were proper expenditures or not and whether their income or not most of them we're security matters are proving every time buyers of secret service all of the
more painful or by the government and some of them already paid it will ever finally be decided by the internal revenue service and knee joint committee that they ought to be disallowed and then there were classes income for several arguments such as happens between taxpayers environment every day in the week that technically under the income tax laws when you lose one of those arguments you get some additional income but that that makes a galley of a constitutional violation of woodsy of monuments in excess of your salary of a car you know even in complex argument with internal revenue people is truly reading as i say it's truly a novel approach their ears and if there were anything wrong here and it's been found that the country you have to come under sanction six forty one of the code which makes it a criminal offense to knowingly convert
farmer prior to your own use or unknowingly we see norman for the euro news knowing it is pure mccartney which are not ideal but of course that's a criminal offense that requires a fraudulent and we can't be proved so i was in the lead so they go to this easel character in theoretical violation of the ninth right now let's go to the matter of income tax there can barely a similar argument everybody realizes that this gift of the papers is our it gets done on time now normally adult needed the bridge here you know never the property within and to make a guess about any other people accept it which is usually infer from the fact that they latched onto it and keep a village at a backdrop is what happened here there's a year you don't need to be not normally i don't know anyone here what the president said there are probably unwisely let the
politicians on this inmate inside and so you start with how beckett and the gentleman has expired any lawyer jenner won the case or there's no fraud here just a charge broad and the income tax people assess the negligence barely under a section would say as you can use it and the gentleman the gentleman from iowa has twenty nine minutes remaining are you german or you're fighting through mr oliver chairman down from pennsylvania mccain and i have a slightly different point of view and my friend from indiana there's not a simple act of tax fraud or misuse of government funds is a clear case of a president united states using the power and
prestige of his office to enrich himself the point of granger who else would have the opportunity or the part a decorated landscape is home with unlimited federal funds going is not in office mr nickson has acted more like an imperial ruler than any of his predecessors and it has obviously decided to continue to live in this matter after he left office in order to do so he took an illegal tax deduction so you could do a huge personal fortune and he used federal funds to make his home is no more green honors the decoration and landscaping and a commission calls was supposed to be disguised as necessary security measures but like any greedy management and try to take too much that simply could be another reason why the tax money and the american people should have been used to pay for sixty nine dollars shuffle board court ten thousand dollars for the removal weeds twenty eight on ours was so important or five and at seven dollars for a flagpole a key this de san clemente we paid
for sixteen hours for dan windows windows thirteen thousand dollars for a new electric heating system when the orgasm was working perfectly thirty eight hundred hours for a new storyline at eight hundred hours for sprinkler system and to remove week three hundred eighty eight dollars from exhaust fan and eighty nine dollars for another flight pulled nearly five hundred dollars the bank that michel but many arts managers of his injuries no idea what was going on now might be argued that most nixon did not approve these improvements that they were carried out by his subordinates notably the ubiquitous mr haldeman david the president did not approve and i do not believe that really think or the money to pay for the redecorating landscaping was coming from as anyone really believe he thought he was paying for it's my opinion that he thought this was his go even though it was in violation of article two section one the section providing no increase in perry monuments as for his dad's mr nixon center senate returns the years nineteen sixty nine to nineteen seventy three that would have had the internal revenue
service after any ordinary citizen white walls after a sheet regarding deduction for the vice presidential papers with an over that story many times story was so called tax deductible gift now it can be argued that the president did not know what was going on could be said of the tax laws are so complicated that all of the lawyers understand that the case to the president out of state decided as the militants are we're told the president overstepped to terms with his accountants and lawyers line by line it must be a sony knows that huge sums were being the docket for the donations vice presidential papers are we suppose to believe that he did not ask for the details of how she worked our way to a so that is the counselors decided to commit tax fraud without telling their client that is simply not how these people operate a normal circumstances in this army when i think such a chance when the president of the united states is involved what i see that happened as chairman of the most innocent of advantage of the fact that a
president's tax returns receive only the most cursory review of events have run out and they try to get as much as he could well i have a chance with the chairmen sometime ago mr nixon for the nation over three dollars in that network's that he's not a crop he had not been present when he committed these crimes as exactly what the internal revenue service and the justice department of peruvians in a portable it is said that the income tax issue is not a grave enough constitutional views but there is similarity to the offense inaudible two in that the president used his power to cause the horsemen of his enemies there's evidence he sought to use the internal revenue service to help his friend john wayne and reverend billy graham for example he also used the top and self for the irs was used to short circuit the investigation of a joint congressional committee and a committee evidence was not pursued i i would point out that none of the president's tax preparers of lawyers or they've told various stores were subpoenaed now mr chairman the questions turn over the jaworski even of nautical them patients approved of the special prosecutor will pursue the matter and this committee in the house are
reserved to itself the right to go further if you're a new new developments time of the gentleman has expired and gentlemen from michigan's twenty six management mr hall where the time allotted to me i think it's unfortunate that these deliberations which to date have been hamelin a robbery i manner of the chariot into partisan wrangling tonight i think not only are these deliberations tonight unfair but the entire tracts handling of mr nixon's tax returns are unfair he alluded to the fact that the irs and decided that mr nixon had to pay income on the honeymoon which his daughter spend at camp david i
asked the ladies and gentlemen the committee whether or not this is where they also decided that he had to take twenty seven thousand two hundred and ninety one million additional income of twenty seven thousand two hundred and ninety one thousand eight cents for the travel of his relatives and friends out what that means is that the air force one or flying to stamp on it and julie or treasure and their husbands were going along the president has been required to pay the fair market value of the travel from putin on the basis of the cost of traveling first class on commercial airlines to the various destinations reported in the flight logs this is an income to him was declared virus i asked the ladies and gentlemen of this committee if that's their address a question to their own consciences let's take a hypothetical case oppose members of
this committee are went overseas on a study on a mission and their wives accompanied them now if that had happened as it says i wonder if the members would enhance reportedly the first class here for years as being confident i think the answer's obvious that they did not let one of the other things that troubles me very much about this is the county and fairness but this in no it rises to the level of an impeachable offense the staff report on grounds for presidential impeachment makes clear and i'm quoting as a technical term a high crime signified a crime against the system of government not really a serious for this element of the injury to the commonwealth that is to the state itself and to its constitution was historically the criterion for
distinguishing a high crime or misdemeanor from an ordinary one now obviously in the drafting of this the words previously were included against the united states after high crimes and misdemeanors so it's clear that that's what the founding fathers intended for maryland despite the gentleman from iowa to mr sutherland mr sharon's mission has been made yet president lyndon johnson and senator humphrey i have also made gifts of their papers and taken deductions but i think it's also an awful lot of me mention that there's been a no time any suggestion that there was any backdating of deeds or other fraudulent act in connection with that give their gifts i must say that the effects in this situation of the only great deal of trouble
because while the factory was the undisputed what is in dispute of the conclusions we ought to draw from the evidence is largely circumstantial but i remember that right if they're all once said that some circumstantial evidence is very strong as when you find a child in the middle now what we found in this place we found a fraudulent be and i don't think there's any doubt that at least i don't have any doubt about that in my mind and that it was used to secure an enormous tax deduction now the question is whether the president was involved in that fraud it determined that he was involved in heavily against them which is they now the
question is totally decide whether there is a sufficient case to send it to the senate for a trial and my feeling that they're considering all the principal factors is that we should do so and i just liked outlined in them very quick because they've been thrown out and the tail hit the first is that the president signed his tax return and by so doing verified at all the facts there and were true of the best of his knowledge and belief and that he personally rather return and also i veterans that before he signed it he won over it made by page with his lawyer but thirdly we find that he failed to answer questions addressed to him by the internal revenue service regarding certain key fact he refused to answer that the fourth point is that he has shown a habit of great attention to detail regarding his personal finances first of all we have a great size of this deduction five hundred and seventy six thousand dollars a huge sum of money
and finally we have the testimony that the case that if the case involves every anyone other than the president himself it would've been referred to a grand jury for prosecution that seems to me that we cannot have one standard for the president and another standard for all other tax next year we're going to have to hold him to the same standard and submit him to the same process oregon apple or those standards i make things easier or another tactic well maybe as a taxpayer as taxpayers we prefer to have it that way but i think that if we're going to protect the integrity of the system we're going to have the subject him to the same kind of scrutiny that any other taxpayer would be subject to and that means in my opinion a trial so that all facts can be brought up
and that trial courts have to be in the senate as far as this body is unfair oh yeah and discussed with respect to the san clemente key biscayne of benefits the monuments of the fact that there's also an abusive our aspect of that is that the president clearly has used his power through his aides and i'm personally over the judge general services administration over the secret service to obtain benefits which you would not otherwise have the chain and this has been a source of embarrassment for the gsa and say could serve as i recall monday questions first were submitted to them by the press as the weather expenditures had been made for the president's first the benefit of san clemente gives us a refused to answer on the grounds but the facts were classified because of national security now the secret service the next week released at some of the facts so they couldn't have been national security but this is an
example of the spurious use of the concept of national security to cover up embarrassing things but as we're seeing an earlier discussion before this committee and fire anytime i thought like that's the gentleman from texas mr brooks if you could give us the chronology of how the figures were gradually brought ideas to the expenditure consume five months you realize my english then in may nineteen seventy three the gsa somewhat reluctantly under pressure and the press said they spend about thirty nine thousand dollars on those properties on certain workloads that they ask about then in june of that same year they found that they had spent a million nine hundred thousand dollars and then a little bit later
that same year nineteen seventy three last year they got the number up to seven hundred thousand and then a little later there was considerable pressure we announced the hearing and in another congressional committee it became obvious that it was going to be hell and the white house then announced that all agencies had total about ten million dollars expenditure as a key biscayne in san clemente and up when there was over reliance the gentleman is one is a gentleman from michigan by three minute audio formats thirty seconds to the elkhorn number of which you mentioned seventeen million dollar or not improvements on the president's property that included that entire military office complex rather than committing to that effect
on one of the interview that correctly that pick a breakdown on at the elbow you know you're not talking about the president's property that that the radicals that precedes gina meyer thank you mr chairman i think i would set a higher standard even then the gentleman from ohio mr tsai really seems to me ladies and gentlemen that the president has a very i obligation to set a good example to the american people in carrying out these personal as well as his ugly responsibilities and that is especially true of the way in which he claims the factions and
that requires income on his federal tax returns and regrettably it seems to me this the president has sent us a very sorry example in the way that he has reformed its basic obligation of american citizenship even if it were technically legal i think it was highly questionable or and to claim such huge deductions for his personal papers and for that matter it was a very grave mistake by this congress of the united states than ever authorize such a deduction in the first place i was not in the congress one action was taken a law was passed that i was here in time to vote for its repeal in nineteen sixty nine i think we have to accept the facts however that this provision
was in the law and the president's tax advisors they did advise him to take advantage of it i wish they had not and i certainly wish we had not taken their advisers but much as i deplore the way in which his tax affairs were have the question remains did he commit criminal fraud in connection with his taxes and after listening to the evidence very carefully it is my considered judgment that proof of criminal fraud is certainly insufficient in this case and i was particularly impressed by the testimony of one of the few witnesses who is permitted to appear and testify before a committee a person that was herbert combat related now he was present when the first tax return in which this deductions claimed was read to the president by his tax attorney mr demarco and his dear
mr cole went through the return eighty five pages that it took about that's margo did if you're the president what was a legitimate a valid tax deduction not only for that year one for four or five years in the future so the evidence does indicate that the president like many americans relied on the advice of his tax advice is now even have criminal fraud had been pro then i think quite clearly it is not then we would still have the question whether it is a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the constitution is that is why we're here ladies and gentlemen to determine whether the president should be impeached not the call through every minute detail of his first more taxes for the past six years rating up every possible mn issue which had
prejudiced the president on national television i certainly do not believe that madison and the framers of the constitution had in mind any century cycle is we're hearing here tonight they did not want the president to be removal will simply because he did not enjoy the support him after them the majority in the congress and the gentleman peter i know it's a sensitive issue and i don't have acrimony here and i think it's been pointed out about the matter concerning other presidents taxes or make one point before i you time to the gentleman from texas let me to say that i respect this congress i also respect the joint committee on internal revenue taxation i believe that they made a conscientious effort to look at the matter the presidents facts series
at a critical time they sent questions to the president specifically on this matter regarding his knowledge and the question of whether or not you should respond and faced the issue of fraud joint committee did not rule on fraud the irs specifically set and was cited by mr sandman in that report that seven days later what'd they do they sent a letter to mr jaworski saying let's pursue the case for possible prosecution by the grand jury but i want to bring out one point i'll be glad to take into account the gentleman from argentina on no in the mid part of july i asked mr st clair the final letter but i asked mr st clair on behalf of the president is to say where would you tell the president and asking whether he would respond to the
questions that were submitted to him on the tax man i also asked whether or not he would give a special accounting of a fund that had a million have thought i also asked would he supply information as to his new york state income tax i'm sorry to report that this committee that the answer is negative or you not only didn't respond to the joint committee but he doesn't care to respond to questions directed by members of this committee and i would say that that kind of attitude should not be tolerated and for that reason which coupled with all the other remarks i think a president whether he be richard nixon were a democratic president should not be tolerated in a tax system that sacred to this country i know you wrote that
you've been a frequent the united states for now with the us playing a little bit more please about the rollout a monument and i read from the constitution and his point bothers me that what precisely does it mean that the president shall not receive within the period of his presidency any other a monument from the united states nancy when we don't use very often and i have found no law on this particular you know law in any relationship to impeachment i do i understand correctly the exact sound that you are suggesting is the other a monument that he has received is that the ninety four thousand dollars that's absolutely correct on more about any history of the monuments as the us government and us ought to get back at a
monument from a president has any president ever unchallenged as to this particular section of the constitution before not that i know of what i've been on the books in seventeen at that monument in my judgment and i didn't even look it up later you get something that's good money my judgment that everybody in this country us what is in a monument of the opposite that you're not supposed to get any more all made me not able to get any more money and i think that he did and that he received ninety four thousand dollars work of that which is what the fed the tangible value that was a sign to the to the valley on the improvement and is now they're not assigned by me but to stand by the audit bureau on such an interview made at this factory by the irs they determined that the old ninety four thousand dollars and they
say that's sixty seven thousand dollars of that money three hundred and eighty eight dollars was for improvements to those problems and the twenty seven thousand three hundred and ninety one watch for fat expanded the rights that very concisely that in view of the fact where relations with the united states' nominated chief executive officer i don't want to do the additional compensation to him with a lot of its services for the club and i thought that that at all or there's a provision in the constitution cannot receive any additional money mine to understand current limits the reason he hasn't that baby taxes esteban iii four thousand dollars he has paid a portion of that that are sixty seven thousand dollars a lot of both improve romanian sixteen that it has not made this sixty nine factors although he said in a news release that he would pay for but it's not legally required if it was not an audience that he would ban the
facts as i understand in nineteen seventy nineteen seventy one and nineteen seventy two a question of which was that same type of the monument based on improvements to this personal property is one last person is audi of these two items in your article in several key item of the taxes with which i and others here obviously are having difficulty and the question of the embodiment of a so inseparable that they must remain together suddenly it there could be a separate article of impeachment thank you very much gentleman knows now as well a gentleman in wisconsin says ninety minutes going to carry you after an audio formats that german commanders to call government to indicate to you in two minutes first i'd like to say that i did not was describing a malevolent motors to the majority members of this
committee and the timing of this issue i think that is an important issue which would be discussed in primetime as good as any other i'd also like to suggest that mr brooks it is my hope that this committee will understood wisdom see fit to reject both of the ties that don't have selected ms degennaro an ip address a couple of questions for you and it does have yes or no answers because of the time limitations my understanding is that the joint committee sent a derogatory to the president we're not anxious for this committee ever sensible and robbers to the president because many have undertaken a separate independent investigative work that there are so even though the joint committee of commissions it did not do on the question of taxes even though the justice department has not seen fit to prosecute the issue and even though the internal revenue service said it was not fraud this committee has not done anything independent of his own to establish facts that
we've undertaken some interviews of course call on that we're not have the capability to make that kind of an aryan a fraud investigation rick grimes then that this question if indeed as sixty nine pages had in fact been properly executed friday july one of that year they became infected with the president's deduction of the law based on the information that we've now yes sadly that's a city that our investigation the question for us is whether or not the president acknowledge that the date had not been delivered his and that the real issue is whether that the gift had been completed fourth year and you wouldn't necessarily know get the consumer to rent you would know of a gifted been completed necessary about what is that internally
so on the face just one final one eye for the irs praised day after day like pope francis our brains maryland words integrity that would not been yielded even to the pressure from the united states the president of the us and the question i would ask if in fact it was wrong ask yourself this question when this independent agency that has the justice department or the grand jury the prosecution how you like that one has to walk there chairman i want to speak against this article is gemini speak against this article because of my thirty that the impeachment process of the process designed to redefine presidential pardons in cases where there has been enormous and use those powers and then to limit power as a
concluding result of impeachment process though i find the conduct of the president in these instances to have been shabby who have been unacceptable and do have been disgraceful and i do not find a presidential power that has been so grossly abusive or teasers redefinition and limited if there has been any abuse of a presidential how it has been that the president may have utilized his office as to the internal revenue from conducting a complete and thorough investigation that has not been alleged if that had been the case that should have been included with an article to yesterday's action on this committee when we were dealing with the failure of the president to faithfully execute a lot i do find them that this is not an abuse of power sufficient to warrant impeachment and thereby a
redefinition of a limitation of that power and i hope the order will be rejected as it's by a gentleman from michigan as fifteen minutes we may move from my eyes so check it out five minutes of them from virginia mr butler oh thank you you're two minutes to them from utah with all of entertainment for maryland i bruised the nixon didn't knowingly underpaid there's taxes in these four years in question by taking unauthorized deductions and it knowingly order custody ordered improvements on his properties in florida and california government expects these are offenses against the people and i think the government should pursue its remedies but a daunting peach for
re offense nor on the other hand the excuse any offense by saying others didn't want to impeach or not is a question of judgment saluted each of the members is that it is insufficient is it that serious and on the evidence available these offenses than i rise in my opinion to the level of impeach ability it is not sufficient to the standard i said i promised the people in utero when i sat down to impeachment that i wouldn't be totally if there were hard evidence and which was sufficient to support conviction in the senate and i found in four instances and i do not find it in this fifth which i feel i must apply the same remedy at least twice in the past once the first presentation of evidence one as recent ones as recently as two weeks ago i asked the staff forget obtain the sworn testimony and the presents attorneys and the appraiser and others they're unable to get in as i understand because of the expressed wishes of the year special prosecutor mr juras ski and
so we're having to decide this issue without any hard hard evidence at which will sustain find the president of a fraudulent be or which will support in my opinion that the inference was the impression of gap that has been has to be presidents with an impeachable offense and based on that evidence i simply i urge my colleagues project there's about a lack of evidence a birdlike bodies to reject this misery on and take it in this area there has been a breach of faith with the american people with regards incorrect income tax returns and improper expenditure public but it might be that these charges may be reached and this course in the regular process of law this committee is not a tax for more criminal court or should endeavor to become one eye chart
is serious and full enough and determining whether high crimes and misdemeanors affecting the security of our system of government must be brought to the attention of the full house debated there and found to exist presented to the senate and in my view by so doing and by bringing those serious charges to the attention of the house which we have already brought we're doing our part to ensure that the system of justice which will enable army and receive equal treatment before the laws will continue and can be applied in these instances which have been described last night virginia's one minute remaining just like repeat what senator david the impeachment now in the house of representatives is discretionary sound judgment would indicate that we not had this article and robert we
already have i will therefore vote against narco war for us at this moment and i you remember my primary think of maine but also point out the giant lake new york said this committee has not fully explore the question owen as the senate then we should continue our investigation we should not seek the rarified our suspicions are believed to be clear and convincing evidence on the issue of fraud and the gentleman has expired the gentleman from iowa call me mr chairman know it seemed to me and you know some of the statements here that are some of the members feel are that's a question maybe
action on this question may be premature and that there is still some incomplete most of the investigation of this whole matter and i would like us to share if it wasn't correct that are the resolution of resolution at all three of which were operating unauthorized staff to continue to keep your investigation open on this particular point that even after we have voted on this matter the seed that correct ursula motion a shade of three and though it's this committee has been conducting its inquiry the vitality of the investigation will continue and the investigation that were in this hour jenna now has
eleven minutes whether they detail as now the one included joan different those two gentlemen from iowa who controls the time and who has the right to serve is for your listeners he intended use of the time that i will yield about summertime phone from texas gentleman has eleven million do i have to make more clear that the president does deliver first the latest in his activities in our conversation said before this committee and testimony mr butterfield testified instead then there's the hall and never did anything without the knowledge of the president our ultimate testimony of mr butterfield
within ghana was anything and all the time that you were at the white house that became your attention then on everything anything without the knowledge of the road but i feel no no that again a meeting with white house that they're just about a feel no never nothing in ladder at all usually about an implement implementing that decision to the president of inadvertent or perhaps for a lesser extent paul especially was an ample amount of the gaza present ran his own personal fire he was not a decision maker ms janet just about a few would you repeat that for me i didn't hear about it i said i did not know mr holland to be a decision maker he was entirely in my view and implemented i don't i don't recall the decision is a decision that he made unless that it was at the white house
day of mass personnel would wear a jacket or something along that line he implemented the president's decisions the president was the decision maker the president would one hundred percent in charge now on a point out and but the last minutes before this committee mr combat the president's personal attorney who served as the president first a representative of san clemente doing is apparently falling discussion took place when it's gone back after and the future of gender a previous whitney's as justified as a matter of fact alexander butterfield that president nixon would go to very quickly in the ground he became convinced and committed about the cottage in the ground inserting and as you've indicated is that a fair characterization to combat the years and then a ragged from your personal knowledge and experience in dealing with this
matter has to combat yes sir how about a complete this left combat the final question that again i recall walking with the president and mrs nixon around the grounds of the debate and they'll move into that problem and of course we're in san clemente they pointed out today the president pointed out to me in orphanages makes a certain road was eager to be pulled out and change and move around there is a great interest in the ground to break into small things relative to that property and the president's agenda and that the president will in some detail as to specific items list of combat yes the record for all his attention to the detail involving the building other than a couple questions so that in nineteen sixty nine if you can like i don't recall when the william e r ga and one of it is they both with the president mr rideau so mr erlichman
myself college and i think frankly marco were there and the president will look schematics and the layout with great attention and i can't pinpoint the day my log we show that oddly i would at this point you know my friends drove back are i think the general feeling or ru ru ru establishing were trying to establish i referenced in particular with the president what you trying to say that the other was an online conversion by reasonable well we're trying to establish is that very clearly these persistent and close associates and executives for the president get what he wanted them to do it fb
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Reel 2 of 6
Producing Organization
National Public Affairs Center for Television
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/512-f18sb3xp72).
Episode Description
Live and videotaped coverage of the debate of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Peter Rodino, Jr., on the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Also shows President Nixon in Los Angeles giving economic address to the nation, sponsored by California business groups. This is day 3 of the Nixon impeachment hearings. (Segment 1 of 7 is missing)
Broadcast Date
Asset type
Event Coverage
Politics and Government
Nixon, Richard M.; Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: National Public Affairs Center for Television
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
Reporter: Lehrer, James
Reporter: Duke, Paul
Speaker: Rodino, Peter W.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2403261-1-1 (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; 1974-07-30; Reel 2 of 6,” 1974-07-30, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed March 2, 2024,
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 2 of 6.” 1974-07-30. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. March 2, 2024. <>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 2 of 6. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from