thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 1 of 6
Transcript
Hide -
If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it to FIX IT+
the pittsburgh and i think this is a case where we this committee which has somehow developed a rather fragile bipartisan support of two rather substantial serious articles of impeachment he is now about to engage in what i call political advertisement but to many members here are beginning to think that they are casting the final decision on impeachment and the judiciary committee let me remind you there are four hundred other
members that are going to decide this do so many things july thirtieth nineteen seventy four euros and correspondent jim lehrer good at the thirty eight members of the house judiciary committee closed their brave collective moment in the historical son tonight one more article one more debate one more vote and it's all over a final tally up for six days and nights the farm recommendation to their house colleagues that the president of the united states richard nixon impeach tried convicted and removed from office a recommendation comes in three articles alleging the
president obstructed justice in the watergate cover up that it is the power of the oath of his office and then he showed contempt for congress are refusing to comply with committee's subpoenas approval that they're going on the subpoenas came today they also turned down by an overwhelming vote today a four proposed article having to do with a secret bombing of cambodia and unless there's a sudden change of heart the committee's expected the wind up their session tonight by saying no again this time to an article concerning the president's personal finances i'm told luke and as you just heard it is now clear what the final form of the impeachment resolution will be what the impeachment resolution will consist of when it is ultimately sent to the floor of the house of representatives for a decision the judiciary committee began its work with the most serious charge against the president that he took part in the watergate cover up after four days of debate the committee recommended an article
of impeachment be approved buy the house charging mr nixon with obstructing justice vote on this twenty seven to eleven yesterday the committee debated and approved a second article charging the president with abusing his power in violation of the constitution and his oath of office this article past twenty eight to ten detail specifics involving the internal revenue service electronic surveillance and misuse of executive agencies then this afternoon the committee voted to cite the president for refusing to honor the judiciary committee's subpoenas for white house tapes and documents this article sponsored by republican robert mccrory carried by a twenty one to seventy and both also earlier today there was a fourth vote on impeachment but on this the issue of the secret bombing of cambodia a bipartisan coalition suffered heavy defections
and the article sponsored by john conyers went down to defeat the vote twelve four and twenty six members are against this article of impeachment this brings us to tonight's order of business one final article at least one final article as we anticipated this one dealing with the president's tax is an article sponsored by iowa democrat edward muslims get a vote on this article is expected after two hours of the day one of richard nixon the subject of these articles christopher paul who's been covering the white house forces here now chris there are two questions today first the page that line business but generally a president's chief defense counsel james st clair got the tapes to the district court judge jon stewart on time today in fact the rise of the courthouse about fifteen minutes before these four pm deadline center handed over for some workers review eleven original rules and copies of seventeen conversations including
taped discussions between the president and his former top aides hr haldeman john ehrlichman and john dean recordings david between march and april nineteen seventy three remaining three conversations do and today already been turned over to the court earlier in the day a deputy white house press secretary gerald warns that the president will claim executive privilege and your national security and some excerpts of the tapes the document detailing those claims will be given to judge the record tomorrow sinclair says he thinks most of the remaining forty four tapes will be surrendered to the court by next friday the day judge circus circus and clothes progress report that is strictly from a procedural standpoint there's one juror a warren says that the president made a claim that portions of these tapes involve national security or executive privilege that does not mean that the tapes will not be turned over to just rake in
other words that the tapes will go and they will claim that this these particular portion of these biblical plague should not then in turn turned over to jaworski eight years old right yet what this set of the tapes already are and in a gesture of his hands he were those excerpts that the president mike clem second approach on national security so it's going to be up to us judge the record to determine whether the president's claims about ari what about is anything new on the president himself today well the latest sign of the eyewitness accounts the president was from the secretary of the treasury a william seidman who emerged late this afternoon from an hour long meeting with the president to say that he's never seen mr nelson of that a friend of mine in fact simon said quote was i've never seen the president to be more positive affirmative frame of mind is dealing with the economic problems we discussed with intensity court impeachment however was not discussed in the meeting that was also attended by un presence economic policy advisor
kenneth advisor kenneth roth simon said when he was asked whether he thought the president would be engaged she said you know i don't always have them strictly personal opinion he also said that in his recent emily's trip there was some real expression of concern on the part of some of the year for an economic leaders that he met with about impeachment but that concern was expressed this on certain terms of really warm feelings toward the president and in the hope that this burden of song put it would be removed from the president show crist isn't this a formality doesn't a cabinet officer who has visited the president on this day of business time of times when the president is subjected to such an ordeal doesn't he have to come out and say that mr nixon is looking to find them is holding a world that is confident or fire secretaries signing of the hard pressed to have come out and
said the president was awful as the point that the word there was some film of the president's taken during that measure just before the meeting and i saw the film they don't look pretty cheerful on the circumstance in just a few minutes after that article five chris thank you very much a nice business has to do with a personal richard nixon rather than his official duties as president of the united states and caroline loew is outside the hearing room as a perspective report well and two hours of debate tonight the committee is going to look in to president nixon's taxes and the amount of money that was spent on his property in california san clemente there is a fifth article of impeachment its proposed by edward mezvinsky of iowa and it isn't very much of a chance of succeeding but in those two hours of primetime debate that will begin airing of the presidency dealing with his taxes as you know the joint committee on taxation joint committee of the house and the senate which
investigated the president texas decided that mr nixon didn't have to pay half a million dollars in back taxes and this particular article of impeachment is going to deal with whether or not the president committed fraud when he activated the detour is alleged in a back dated be so what you have tonight is not a new article of impeachment unless we have a surprise most people are predicting that it will pass that you will have a public airing of the state president nixon's finances and whether or not he did get good and mitch himself and lose himself with the amount of government money that was put into his san clemente property that you write like a nine and here the board now which is his label calling the role on nixon and wondering do at this point very quickly what the basic vote has been from the very beginning on these three articles of impeachment that of the us in the record irrevocably so unless the house of representatives
themselves to turn them down again of course first of all with a riverboat on article one that is the one is all those delineated alleges that the president because of their youth and obstruction of justice in the watergate cover up now the basic the basic rundown that vote the final vote of course was twenty seven don't let that twenty seven eleven vote ought to get the point on democrats all twenty one democrats on the committee plus six republican eleven eyes all republicans over here and this ball so that was the way that was the way it began twenty seven to eleven twenty one democrats holding fast at aided by sixty six republicans and of course the eleven basic republican votes against impeachment why do we want the article two which alleges the president of used as part of as president of the united states in his oval office now the changes here that forty one democrats the final vote was twenty eight jan twenty one democrats belfast remain and
kiara for impeachment out there we're joined by the same six republicans the only change with robert and glory and eleanor who had voted nay on the first article the article to him over and john is six other republican colleagues and made the vote twenty eight to ten and then ken article that was the basic coalition the majority coalition that everybody's been talking about for so long and that was referred to during the day to day and probably be referred to again is that fred got a coalition that's the basic the basic rundown that article furry it degenerating or it's split up in the final vote there was twenty one the seventeen only nineteen democrats on stage with the pro impeachment move there to republicans also voted for impeachment on that article i had to do with contempt of congress on the subpoenas on the anti side against impeachment the seventeen votes there were seven of fifteen republicans and two democrats now
oregon purposes as we go into this final vote tonight let's go through very quickly each member of his committee begin with chairman running out for the you know new jersey has voted and every case for impeachment within on those first three articles sanger donahue rocks after mr edwards i'm gay conyers i over waldie sarbanes called hands are going to the man whose name was attached to the substitute on article one the one that was finally approved a dry in of massachusetts water flowers the man who was undecided up to the very last moment is a democrat from alabama so iran analyst mann wrangle jordan foreign altman was visiting ann owen that is those are the basic twenty one democrats who voted all away at least an article won an article to now
those six republicans with your butler he voted on article one an article two voted nay on article for a simon mr fitt ii in the night of the frederick ii and in may mr cohen i mean i and then they just railsback a ii and then made mr hogan was the one other republicans in the original block who stayed with the democrats on article three which was the intent of congress with mr mclaurin cory also stay optimistic or as you recall as i said earlier voted nay article one they're what four and the article to record interviews sponsored and pushed very hard for article three the contempt of congress on the republicans' the navy boats this gentleman is and gentleman now voted nay on all articles of impeachment was far from hutchinson the ranking minority member mr wiggins of california the man
who became the president's most articulate most ardent supporter on the committee he and mr dennis of indiana as the latter but the miners at mr smith buster mr lat mr sandman as the morehead and mastermind that is basically a i'm not going to help and for me to take these now and reshuffle the muck according to the twenty one dissenting vote would be like taken a deck of cards et cetera but that's the basic the basic coalition all you well it seems to me that what you have shown here with this demonstration gm is that we have an exceptionally strong coalition emerging from the committee on the first two articles of impeachment as coalition holds gold for twenty seven votes on one article twenty eight on the other coalition a diminished on the third article even though it was approved today and now of course it has completely come apart as we've moved on to the
fourth and also there is no more coalition so what is going to happen on the house floor i believe is that on the first two articles those obviously are the ones which are going to have the strongest support could be questionable whether the firm is approved of course we've been seeing increasing predictions in the past two days the tide has turned so strongly against the president that the house almost surely will approve the impeachment resolution there's another angle of course there are still to be resolved in terms of this coalition would be at the selection of the house manager for the committee's selection of its managers to help push the fight only a house for poor for impeachment it's obvious of course that they in order to maintain this coalition and the bipartisan strength of it that they will probably select the award or two or three of these republicans it'll be interesting to see who selected and how they are selected
was that mr railsback is the republican from ramallah now a man who very strongly first two articles would not go on however one article for eight we want to discuss this day behind us and the night ahead of this or whether to studio guest gear do something with the robot said our guest tonight are jack murphy who is a constitutional law expert at georgetown university law center in washington and george will washington editor of the national review magazine and a syndicated newspaper columnist i wanted it is this first question with this short piece again a videotape from today's session in the words of republican railsback of illinois well let me say though that i think this is a case where we best comedy which has somehow developed a rather fragile bipartisan support of two rather substantial serious articles of impeachment is now about to
engage in what i call political over here there are many republicans i can tell you on the house floor that had been impressed with the evidence that has been a duty and respect to the obstruction of justice charges very serious and also the abuse of power charge now what is this committee about to do george will inject murphy the question is do the contempt of congress article the past or just the proposition of cambodia now tonight personal the personal finances of proposed article that they constitute political overkill in europe and george i don't think so i think with regard article three which was the twenty one seventeen both on citing this connection for failure to obey the committee's subpoenas this was obviously of a vexing constitutional issue on which honorable men and women of goodwill couldn't that
disagree i don't think would be fair to call political overkill when you realize that the second ranking republican on the committee was the move or this seems to me that the committee did maintain a truly bipartisan cast a vote there with regard to moving the cambodian man i think we'll come back and talk about that later on i think was unfortunate that was a disservice to the committee itself by mr connors to push that since it became apparent that the poverty of their argument became apparent in my judgment but the committee itself did rather well project that it with a bipartisan majority rejected him we'll have to wait and say what happens an article for but i suspect will say something like that tonight on the taxes so i think basically most robot with is is fear political overtones engaging in a little room for a political and again i think the important thing to emphasize is that the thrust of what he signed known as the evidence
already voted the charges already voted are quite sufficient themselves to kill the nixon administration yeah i don't know what what the political ramifications of those smart but i as a lawyer had no trouble with articles free i think jewish vote and given what's happened in reserve comment on the attacks matter until we hear some of the arguments well i can give you some of this with her notion there was for a concurrent users that the camel immigration issue particularly on a very troubled assets article forty nine she lives with me the decision by a much narrower majority of the committee to pass the article impeachment charging that the present wrongfully denied the congress in this case the committee information which it deems necessary to discharge its duty under the constitution respect and peter the reason i don't
like this is a lawyer and again i emphasize i'm not speaking for political you have no idea what's on the floor of the house or in the senate the ramifications of this decision is a lawyer in trouble because it's impossible among conservatives among are not normally listed that you don't decide a question of great constitutional moment was you have to take your time wait for the situation which is unavoidable but the only gratuitously to go out and offer for us the future of jurisprudence so generalities or other precedents which may be used only when the day comes when the decision is essential in this case this decision was not essential you have in the first two articles past or that the committee a strong evidence supporting the charges you have a unique custom of the coalition in order to sell to have times especially with respect to these parts i seen the decision with respect article three a screening potentially a situation
creating a freshly a situation in which a more frivolous congress in the future or more frivolous committee and the future of dealing with a president with whose policies it disagrees placing him an impeachable posture because of a finding as mr dennison said today that anytime the president fails to comply with infertility information request he becomes automatically impeachable seems to me a dangerous precedent to set one which is not bode well for the republican for relations between the congress and the president might buy basic judgment as a part of a law that's like practically functional this article is not going to serve any useful purpose the future of thousands who may be tempted to enter into some kind of criminal conversation on criminal activity will take great care to faithfully eliminate any records of what they've got and sniff subpoenas a future congress congress and the committees will not be comply with because there will be nothing with which one can afford
compliance will be no records and its engine in this respect to the decision was a non functional additionally i think that they complain that many committee members that if they failed to impeach on this article that would be nullified he thinks the park is a false time i do not believe that in future situations lord save us from where we may be looking at impeachment situation the evidence upon which impeachment after the bank will be exclusively in the control of the president seemed to be there already on this record and evidence which was not brought from the white house which had other sources which was developed independently and it seems to me this provides an example of what i suggest would be a future case the president will not be the exclusive custodian will the white house the exclusive repository of evidence supporting putin's future cases a lot i don't think a decision the can down the president in this can't necessarily precludes a congressman impeaching later and differences of service that were you on battling agree with that republican
congressman dennis who criticize this article today suggesting that it was the bootstrap operation and he went on to say that what the committee were saying or what the majority were saying oooh is that if you don't agree with our interpretation of the constitution and we're going to impede you why it up i've begun to reduce denizens the first time in five or six days about how but i think what you're observing here is the question a very very serious important one very doubtful conclusion and the house committee in this condition has edited if i may use such an emphatic word unto itself apart inside the extremely delicate constitutional issue which is not your clues are the fashion which they have dennis at the president was asserting what he regarded as a legitimate constitutional and the question about that you're facing two branches of government asserting a ukulele banner of goodness on their side
marching toward under the banner of the same ward in these collisions russia folio for the anticipated on both sides but i think the resolution but economy is not really consistent and all the constitution from a pragmatic standpoint sure is do you believe the fact of this article of the three witches contempt of congress and of those subpoenas and the fact that they've been and our income taxes tracks from the power of articles on and to have that they didn't have before the house you know as a practical matter not aesthetically it's sort of that happened because of a private performance of gentle them but certainly not mr nixon is not in trouble because of parliament the nuances and will not be saved their song because of a shift of a voter to hear or even feel drawn particular article either voted or submitted debate in one part this is coming down increasingly to a very
basic judgment on the vast abuses of power and fitness next to continue to keep an eye on this instrument because sitting near tacoma washington have a tendency to shoot these things to death often think that with regard to the possibility that article three an unemployment rate that's the last article that will be asked if that was an advisor there still remain too when owen processes down the road one has the full house for that vote and the other is the senate so should its survival three i think that would be they were somewhat more strong if not it can be taken out and if anything it seems to me that perhaps the force and strength of the other two is magnified and the fact that the committee a has demonstrated that it can distinguish that kind of overwhelming
persuasive a vote on behalf of one overwhelmingly convinced an article and between those that are less less sensible the gradation the voting indicates they're continuing exercise discernment would help the image of the kind that you think aren't out on political matters a whole lot i don't know let me ask you both about the cambodian do either of you or both of you agree with the argument of those who oppose this article that was invalid because congress share a composer with the president george i don't use the word positive conversations evolve congress a centrist and as george bailey i'm chairman of the house appropriations committee and certainly in members of congress
had knowledge of what was going on that's right and i think the president can convincingly argue that there was a compelling practical necessity for not allowing it to go any further than that that is the bombing of cambodia was promoted by print stand up on the condition that it would remain a secret so that he would not have this about maintaining neutrality i don't know anyone who knows anything about congress who believes if you could spread that information much much further in congress without it having fun with flying with them to listen in on this one remind everyone that we're awaiting the you know the re convening of the house judiciary committee evening session so its last session before righting its final report and sending it to the house of representatives the last major the result is a proposal i propose article of impeachment to be introduced by congressman this against the apollo
alleging that the president is guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor and that should be impeached and by virtue of first low income tax problems of the president was the additional charge of growing out of the use of federal money for improvements on the presidential homes in santa monica calif and he was paying for i want to go back now to george will unarmed and jack murphy jack they're looking at these three articles that that are going to the house and looking at a former lawyer turned down for a little bit better and different which do you think that will be the easiest to prove well it up depending on the theory which is adopted by the house of representatives of sitting in it and it's a little competition in the senate thereafter i would i would think that article two maybe easiest through article to of course is the abuse of power article and the debate yesterday
on this are made fairly clear to me that the majority which passed it was prepared to accept the evidence which implicated directly the president's lieutenants or the president's men on a recall now but we actually reach the smoking gun or facts into the president's office himself as they're saying that under this abuse of power he had an obligation to better superintendent and his subordinate i think the evidence in that respect is very strong george will shake i think what you're describing is madison rule as it's come to be common shorthand where mr madison said the president should have the power to appoint movies subordinate so that he could then be impeached for failure to adequately superintendent excesses i think as a congresswoman jordan's thought that they'd really she articulated what i think is the
really for the majority that they do not need to rely on emotional because there are lots of smoking guns a careful analysis of the articles sig and also of the discussion that went on with respect to women in paragraph one out at the beginning of the debate yesterday attempted to add language to the honey substitute which would have made it absolutely planet the managers of these articles and presented to the senate would have to approve personal involvement by the president and that weakens demand it was rejected and if you look at the things that surrounded the rejection the motivation of those who voted against the news and often ambiguous at the beginning of the latest on the eights and i agree with mr mcdonough few clarifying questions were asked since there might be some disagreement the debate went off the point but seemingly can result was properly summarize by prime minister does that they were prepared to vote at an abuse of power on a cool
on the basis of the evidence which did not directly linked the president to decision making or even to ratification but in effect tolerance of a terrible activities in the partisan it's avoid so i it i think you know that superficially you have a rejection by majority committee of a mouse superintendent victor i think you also find on the record of this case and impose an acceptance of the two s and a great slot afford to buy it it is sometime wrestler ever refer to a lot of criminal activity or protect them and for all the criminal and yet the thrust of it is abuse of power and there's no there's no violation of the criminal code involved in words abuse of pop i think that is a critical distinction between rival to ottawa in which parades examples of obstruction of justice and charges obstruction of justice which is a violation of the criminal code as the basis of the charges have been heard all the pie on the ball week we have listened to thirty eight lawyers in their splendor number thirty
nineteen thirty nine the i don't want to dwell on the inadequacies of lawyers for the rights and special pleading but i must say that what is at stake here you say what did they or did they not established or plan to establish or agree to commit themselves to establish a direct personal relationship of the president to walk forty two a crime wave organized in his house on his behalf by his best friend's and mistrusted subordinates now that this is going to be judged by eminently practical matter the politicians who don't get to washington by being naive little bit they're going to look at this and they're going to understand that this is not how the white house for example would operate as if you had a hit as i say i think fairly a crime representing if he was not involve the most unprecedented an unbelievable insubordination on the part of his trusted aides and friends and that's really the kind of
basic judgment and thats going to give me a james madison what i think the vote in i think what you said a fully fully controls of a perception out there will be an indulgence on the part of most practical man and friends guilt if you're active guilt by the president in order in these matters ratify the point is we need to affectively i thought by the conservative support in this election that he was surrounded finally on the basis of this record with a group of his subordinates at the very least the best you can say for use among those aboard is to the extent that he can be impeached for surviving seven support that you have an adoption of a joint committee of them out there remember you had cement say in his forceful way but there were lots of crimes committed by lots of people in the white house no one on either side of the aisle contest at that point and again let's keep our eye on the ball on the year of the lord nineteen
seventy for both sides of a congressional impeachment committee conceded the fact that there were lots of crimes committed by lots of people in the white house would come a long way but the crunch question is the president's responsibility what you're saying is that when it comes down to the crowds at the numbers the house will will vote on the question well that was not the smoking gun or not the president is or is not responsible right regardless of innocent there and everything else practical practical facts are involved and many of them will find smoking guns and transcripts of others will say it is inconceivable that takes the heroic suspension of disbelief about the president knew all his friends were doing and others will say can shift mountain that's impeachable it's just that things are coming together generally back in and then we're going to come back try for each one of you get your list of nominations for managers in terms of this group and also the major floor manager the
president's side based on a farm and you can have three on each side a reminder that we're awaiting for the house judiciary committee to contain fourteen in session until its final bit of business of two hour debate and then a vote on an article proposed by congressman lipinski of island and into the president's finances as you know we are going all the time back and forth a carolyn wilson was our reporter down at the rayburn office building where this activity is taking place is not in the capitol building he was in the rayburn office building and carolyn has their own unique spot there and they always a river going around tell us about your daily work it's out the spot where i stand gm is just behind a piece of tape which is marked they're four hour network there are equal pieces of tape all along the floor here it's a gray carpet those of you have a color television and see that it's a great cardinals
it's actually one of the engine says to the rayburn building and that has been taken over by the electronic media we also have some still photographers here in order to keep bumping into us when we're on the air but you can see it's a noisy crowds of boisterous crowd are we are locked into this little spot by a young well i don't call it a kind of rope you see in those fancy theaters all around america and that the rock is attached to a brass rail but you can see it's noisy it's crowded the lights on most of the time say you get headaches from that this is where we work this is where we do our deliberations not thinking well the committee has locked into the into the hearing how the rayburn building is not his usage and not part of the capitol itself the rayburn building is an office building just across the street from the capitol is the newest office building a house of representatives as a marble building and has very hard floors it's tough on the feet of all the people have to stand wait outside and that sometimes it's been called here in washington a white elephant because
it was named for sam rayburn it costs an awful lot of money and frankly it's a very very ugly building this is whether this dark moments are happening this is where the house judiciary committee isn't the high end of that this is a spot from which we are reporting to you and have been reporting over these long and agonizing days all you spend many hours i spent a few hours there going through savings i must say that as carol an indicator this building was something of a white elephant when it was first constructed it was widely criticized and i've told the story before there was one critic the new yorker came down into one awful look at the building and walk away and described it as mussolini modern architecture but the building obviously will endure even though it may not present rayburn finest wine in it that's for sure maybe we should say that we are waiting for the judiciary committee to resume its night session practically no one has
shown up yet surprising maybe a few of the numbers congress have their own baseball game and simple because it no longer is a professional team in washington tonight is the night that unfortunately the republicans are without their star pitcher who happens to be a congressman william cohen one of the key members of the judiciary committee democrats last year as i recall you know well the committee members have been debating a small national television and facts that are david weiner has been an hour office to see other mail and phone calls of them coming or representatives in their opening statements touched on the nerves of both sides of the impeachment issue since the congress when he checked on so that their male was running about fifty percent for and fifty percent against maryland democrat paul sarbanes is one of those who finds the pro and con about even
but he noted that the night because of an overwhelmingly obscene and a busy california democrat jerome wally find his male is three to one in favor of impeachment like other congressman he's been getting anti putin letters with small stones in the envelopes an admonition that he who is without a hill cast the first stone and quote all you've been responding by paraphrasing scripture quote if i remain silent these various towns will cry out against him and quote there are some other sharp geographic contrasts and the responses match which are of wrangling represents a section of new york city that includes harlem reports that his nose been running almost ninety five percent pro impeachment across the country the president's strongest offender charles williams who represents the suburbs of los angeles has found the opposite response is miles been favorable to the president are two to one margin that mayor was not without somebody an anti nixon criticism however is as one letter to what one letter to and said your property defended pro quo republican thomas
railsback is one of those who has had the split is naloxone to national and local divisions senses opening speeches at five hundred favorable letters and three hundred unfavorable national from his district has gotten sixty favorable letters and nine against railsback also reports some interesting changes in public sentiment until my first the mail was fifty one percent pro impeachment and then until july the fifteenth isn't it was fifty eight percent and a sign that says the fifteenth and i was going about sixty four he said you too is getting it from both sides one rider told him quote start acting like a republican and on the other hand a fan wrote you're the scout the president has made our presidents are made i don't most of the committee on the judiciary committee members have said repeatedly that mail telephone calls and telegrams will not influence their votes but that is not turned off the flow of public opinion it should note of course that most of the snail was prompted by their vote so it's truly
influence most of them republican charles mannon reports that it took four hours opening is mayor monday morning and that was using unilateral pain the shame they do respond to public opinion among that group that believes that most members of congress are going to decide this issue have bases conviction of conscience but a few weeks ago i remember the house republican leader john rhodes telling some reporters that that it felt that the president was in great danger and that in effect he didn't know how he was going to vote on the impeachment issue and there are native played his office was they moved with male according to court and to have mr rhodes it was about eight to one in support of the president they were told that the best roads that who presumably under ordinary circumstances would be the president's she'd offenders only one industry defenders on the four day mr rhodes is quoted as saying that he still has not
decided how he is going to vote but perhaps the most significant thing which you said was that he is not going to try to persuade other republican members in other words he is going to leave them to decide on the basis of individual conscience and so that certainly must be regarded as a setback for the president they also on that series of small meetings among the republican membership where you would wear this issue would be debated and they discussed lesson from that that you would have say a wiggins than anat cohen represented there with the two the two sides of the impeachment issue could be debated in terms of the art which brings us back to george will inject forty two my question before we were talking to iran about the rayburn office building etc and that's the the nominations for all the managers both girl for impeachment against impeachment i have a hunch that
human nature being what it is that a lot of people in this country are making them and making their same kind of less jacqueline who would you nominate welcome first met his client this is obviously in the political phase you know out of my area of expertise i'm an attack is on the basis of our combined political legal judgments will be the most affective presentation on the republican side is easily without any questions the women's us in our selection committee which only fallacious assumption i have no idea mr williams he carefully articulate persuasive the spokesman for instance is cause for a massive these harrington golly if there is a central figure on either side of mountains left a lasting impression of the nation for his calm deliberate of qualities mr willems i would certainly make in captivity and i think it was to dallas for his sprightly and aggressive speeches
would be ineffective representative and then i would add a lot of why i found an effective in southern scotland from important force in some kind of fuel to the southern senators for the majority of selected a bipartisan and sex are sexually oriented the current mayor and flowers but i think on the basis of articulate most and persuasiveness combined with other political actions in terms of party associations and such an affiliation than conventional truism george and chairman of the military does not know this burden to understand the chairman i think with regard article one i think we may see this with regard article was the sarbanes of the cover up of the arguments on those of maryland
that he was selected to be the point carrier when i decided to really lay out the evidence are article to mine get their chores or b caldwell butler was that there's a man who can speak in the towns on with the access to the southerners an article three of the damage from the private sector i think of the conference for republican vote on i think he would be a marvel or george let me ask you am political question there is a report here tonight which is certainly not confirmed but nonetheless report that some republicans in the house are urging president two pro forma which would be a recognition of reality what's standing ties in the house and this was from that some republicans to get off the hook if they could say well the president is now permitting you to
vote pro forma for impeachment pave the way for an early reducing inequality that's not going to happen i think of it not only because recognizing reality of not white house strong suit with a garden just throwing and sponge a much a dish should throw him sponge sense it's obvious that this is going to be something like a trial getting republicans off the hook is not the first concern of the president at this point if it ever well speaking of republicans on the hook karen lewis says charles new jersey on purple mr sandman first on ask you have you got any idea who is going to be a manager for this for both sides and for the house mine's bigger than any recommendations about them i'm at yale
mr railsback earlier today talked about the french out coalition falling apart at what point do you think that that coalition of democrats and republicans just fell away so that you're able to earlier today to vote on the article of impeachment what really needs right away you think well he would know but on it cause illness and working with those as i was i really don't know i would use as the presidency has announced the rebels well it came for a vote today there isn't any question in my mind he would be impeached or say the vote in the house is not going to happen for at least thirty days more than an interim thank you can save the president at this point well as it can be a realization that the only paper thin evidence does exist what has been
sketching is israel public things aren't real what was his plan and sam and the white house has called this committee a kangaroo court and has been very critical of it you are a republican and you have defended the president quite articulate or an expression you think that it's justified for the white house to make that kind of attack on this committee and its deliberations nye i don't think some of this third way because i truthfully believe that chance has tried his best to be fair we've had something happened i don't like that as we
think about politics being what it is i was prior to that i would call that came forty years the votes or the votes that long in advance the rise prior to that time the president's attorney would either excellent job at the time i felt that in his case and secondly we broaden witnesses came out of the public to see those three year six days of hearings we publicize you have an altogether different job looking to the future right
now let's imagine it going to be asked to vote on the president's taxes you think there is an argument for impeaching the president because of his tax situation now one big sign in here that i hope comes out is the fact that we do have a memorandum irs which were prepared by our irs and not by anybody on this committee instead says very clearly that the president was not helpful in any kind of family are due to fraud because they could prove wrongdoing against president that they have they say that matter injury or asking <unk> investigators taxes well you get as many wagered choose the best that i could have your eye or by the same token we have to end right now mr sennott i think the chairman's about acting well another reminder we are waiting for the judiciary committee to begin its night session there's chairman latino who has just taken a seat so perhaps we will be getting underway momentarily
what do you see is the white house right the white house strategy so far as i can tell is to push beyond the election in the hope that after the election some people who might be willing to stay in the present might not be willing to sustain him before withdrew afterwards or perhaps to the level in the next year and then raised it receive your own complex legal question asked whether not a bill of impeachment that comes over from the house that lays in the senate while a new congress begins does not buy a start over again i don't really believe that's going to happen but they're gone and it's going to go that slowly but i'll the white house is really complicit in something congressman salmon just said he said and this is the president's most vigorous supporter says that right now president would be impeached that something might happen or yes indeed lots of things might happen in the coming weeks make of them
there are new tapes coming out every day now i don't know anyone who believes that the contents of those tapes include exculpatory evidence no one really believes the president was fighting like a tiger to keep secret the evidence for some of this evidence sooner or later is going to find its way in the public one way of going to find its way forward and the second thing is going to happen is that on september nine six watergate cover up defendants including the spirit of mr haldeman his two closest aide to go on trial but it's not going to help is indeed even possible that some more more one or more of these defendants might at that point begin to engage in some kind of plea bargaining because at that point they may get the idea that nothing they can do or have any real impact on the president's ultimate fate in this regard and we shouldn't really lose sight of the fact that a fourth thing that can happen is the discovery of yet
another or if you're inclined to look at this point the first smoking gun that is there are a lot of investigative reporters in this town who do not think they've found the last of the what john mitchell call them a poetic moment the white house horrors so the odd thing about what mr sammon said there was a gang of bad now but something might happen and the trouble is the trouble from the president's point of view when you look at the things that might reasonably be expected to happen it isn't very careful is that likely to help the president well takes of course we need to point out just you know once again because things get very confused on the tapes that these tapes survey sixty four tapes that are before sarabia twenty sixty four puerto rican out others along process involved eventually the other forty four will be submitted to the jets are again and he waiting the objections of the president
terms of national security and as sarah palin turned him over to that jaworski who then could use them along with the defense in this trial and the question about whether there ever becoming available this house judiciary committee a question actually was really talking about a six or seven weeks that you assume they're all going to be ready by september the night for some counties in that trial assuming that the trial begins on september the ninth in lake george old history mystery why don't the true damage in the tree and the president somehow getting out somehow being movies somehow finding its way into the hands of the house judiciary committee for example of course this could this could find its way here or or additional material could come up about the time of the senate trial for example minneapolis quickly and georgia a no question was
first transcripts were released they heard the president terrible because of tone setter right and in addition any any evidence really negatives that were in there with that impact has already been felt right before the fact that the president use bad words and it characterizes people in less than a lot of tori why the second batch would not have been like zero and that's kind of great the threat they would not have the profanity and such would not have that impact on public opinion but i for one and i think public opinion matters and what you have now are a lot of congressmen who are going rather good at reading the evidence again rather than becoming watergate ologies scholars are learning how to read these things i haven't had a cruise through one of a meandering jordan played dreadful conversations between the president and family
and have their eyes arrested by a significant point they're getting in other words that enormous information background that really requires to read this and that's what increasingly the vast majority of the american people who do not have access to the transcripts and thirty eight volumes of evidence and the continuing press analysis of this get a larger papers increasingly there is a gap between the understanding the american people can possibly have witnessed and the understanding of the congressmen are getting through their crash education in a way it's an addictive and dangerous as it was before so utterly inevitable you've been struck as i have why these thirty eight thirty eight members of this committee whether they're pro impeachment or against impeachment their photographs of the facts of the evidence and then when one has the denizens billions of making an argument against a particular point and they cite facts and figures and changes in the brains of those of
it's incredible that this committee is unethical and i think that's the difference many people now someone speculate on the proportions of a substantial portion of the house hasn't read much of all of those that they couldn't follow the argument because one startup law that you mentioned i'm the republican from the suburb of most of the young men around congress today before a camera there comes from south mississippi you can't get any further south like that went up to talk to him in the summer to write a column and i asked him i said you believe the vice president was unfairly treated by militias press off that's a lot have you read the forty page justice department thought was submitted today agnew resigned less than they some of the evidence suggests that against you know georgia's
not just a lot of very well informed because he's a part of this for some of them going on for seven months of that average member of the house i'm afraid probably is in some of the same condition trapped what was one that wasn't his business was just another fellow and a man in klein's sporting way has dragged on he did not have the options or standing by waiting for the judiciary committee to resume its evening session with one more article of impeachment as chairman latino who has not taken the state most of the committee members first pick up your point and what you're saying would not follow logically than that the judiciary committee itself and become extremely important in terms of the debate and congressman i'm never conversion immediate legislation that has specialists on the committee chosen and the momentum from his committee work in the house
chairman latino now banging his gavel was a definite pattern that his gavel banging six days as a first gavel which means ok fellows were almost ready photographers reporters or get out of the way and then there's a slight delay of a minute or so and then we then it comes down again for real three times and this looks like it will be the final night's session for the committee which generally does not meet at nighttime i mean we're dealing with other matters the judiciary committee it's you know normally do is a civil rights case is that you whistle so there was a
constitutional amendment supporters course one other major received recently listed nomination gerald ford of conduct hearing in the house goes first term as chairman and he succeeded manual seller a brooklyn who had been in congress since nineteen twenty three it i recognize the gentleman from iowa and they can with chen and i have an article at the desk clerk will reveal it
the additional article and his conduct at the office of president of the united states richard m nixon violation of his constitutional faithfully execute the office of the president united states and to the best of his ability preserve protect and defend the constitution the united states and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws and faithfully execute that they see the violence on the united states in excess of the compensation provided by law is still an article two section one of the constitution and that will be attempted made the payment of a portion of federal income taxes do and going by forty years by eighteen sixty nine nineteen seventy nineteen seventy one nineteen seventy two and that one he during the period for which he had been
elected president and lawfully receive compensation in the form of government expenditures at an on his privately owned properties are located in or near san clemente california and key biscayne florida too they knowingly failed to report certain income and find deductions in the years nineteen sixty nine nineteen seventy nineteen seventy one and nineteen seventy two on his federal income tax returns which were not authorized by law including deductions for a gift of papers to the united states approximately five hundred and seventy six thousand dollars i ask unanimous consent three gentlemen world a foreign allied
workers read otherwise unless there's incentive for the reading the defense policy remains richard m nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his first as president and subversive of constitutional government of the great tragedies of the cause of law and justice and manifest injury of the people of the united states wherefore richard m nixon by such conduct warrants impeachment trial and remove from office chairman i ask unanimous consent that all debate on this article including the consideration of any amendments there too it appeared not to exceed two hours to be divided equally between the proponents and opponents of the article they don't any amendment shall not exceed twenty minutes divided equally between proponents and opponents of the edmund fitzgerald
you're right i know there were thirty five minutes late getting started i was considering using his time on our hands twenty minutes amendments that they made it to our innovation that would include a twenty minute would include all amendments and all that they made on the original article and allman that's correct and in fact how we set not to exceed two hours that i would expect that it very well could be less than two hours
with the feeling was we should at least have an airing of the issue and it very well could be less than two hours but it cannot exceed two hours and it would also include any amendments that's german and your past experiences when we say time and evidently that we use all the time and believing that we probably can't cover those adequately an hour to happen with the request of the nazi yes i did that you might expand his friend from our mr mckenzie i would hope that we could retain the two hour limitation that would give only one hour body explanation and discussion on a very involved article which involves residents factories as well as a monument under the constitution and they're out we could do it with that and with the amendment would probably within that two hour period i think it's not an excessive amount
and i would hope that the gentleman would withdraw its rejection of time and i certainly do my own survival of our forty five minute gentlemen from maryland this survey of a parliamentary inquiry mr chairman if there's an objection that we can refer to for the governing rules are procedures or to give each member the five of the committee five minutes to speak in general debate and also five minutes to speak on what every amendment down and is correct what seems to me the proposal put forth by the gentleman from iowa's quite reasonable under the circumstances and a compromise no compromise and the inauguration was jammed i asked questions warner thank you michele and i ask unanimous consent that i have the first cannon minutes of the year to out
without objection that will come out of that gentleman spare i think leaving their mountain but mr wiggins on page one and some paragraphs to add the works unfortunately after the word knowingly only take a few moments with respect to this amendment and perhaps there can be some agreement between myself and the author of the article so as to make extend debate on this question are necessary the reason that the language and fraudulently is added to the second some paragraph is because there is an ambiguity on the face of the article between the introductory introductory language willfully
attempt to evade the tracks the language of the final twenty six sections seven he doesn't do all one and the language of some paragraph to which does not interject the element of fraud in its text it is my belief that the gentleman from i live in and this to be a broad gates and that there is no intention on mission on his part with respect to some paragraph two to remove elements as fraught as the upper crust of the case and if that is in fact his intention and i see no reason for me to pursue my amendment simply aren't agreement i'll be happy a little gem of a mile up so that he can state his intentions i accept the many injunction tell you i appreciate that and mr chairman that being the case and leaving that the members of the committee will similarly accept the amendment
i think about their own narrow the focus of the debate we will be talking about whether the president has committed fraud in the execution of their tax returns and all the data on extraneous matters although interesting perhaps to some will not bear directly on the issue before us this committee has been complimented chairman that over the days of immediately part of this on the high caliber of our debate and i'm confident that we will in fine art of a sleeping beauty issues before us especially after the adoption of the amendment which i have made question is an imminent government down from california all those in favor of the amendment will signify i say and i was appalled
i think that the question question is no please signify by saying it was a closed the eyes have it really don't think it was you know i know they were tired and i know that all of us to have wrestled with the votes we cast are waiting with relief which has promised when you as the chairman bring down the gavel to unwelcomed tax but i believe that the kind of conscientious the switch so poorly marked our deliberations would be jeopardized if we failed to give some serious consideration to the president's failure to pay his property income taxes and his
misuse of tax dollars i respect my colleagues reasons why they didn't include this in the other rivals but i feel so strongly on this issue but i must introduce this article so that for consideration then be given to the overwhelming evidence on the matter the president to wrongdoing know my special concern will be the area of the tax which i believe both constitute criminal wrongdoing and abuse of office and the other part of that article is equally important and the evidence is that the president violated the monument clause of the constitution which is equally distressed as we proceed with the debate i will yield to the distinguished gentleman from texas with the rocks who will thoroughly discussed this issue because he understands it and can get the kind of loosely view
it's a very vital because as chairman of the government operations activity subcommittee that handle the matter of the presidential east and west coast the state's growth and commentary not really well or discuss there's the question of whether or not richard nixon willfully evaded the portions of his federal income tax in the years nineteen sixty nine through nineteen seventy two an addition to the work that's been done by the committee i've talked with staff of the joint committee on internal revenue taxation which reviewed the president's taxes and i'm thoroughly convinced that the evidence justifies indeed it really demands that an article of impeachment calling the president into account for his actions on the matter of the facts accurate number in my opening remarks last thursday night i went down the litany of president
nixon fact fighting the great discrepancy between what the audit and how much you pay we remember nineteen seventy one in an income of about three hundred and fifty thousand dollars the only paid seven hundred and ninety three dollars of the more than ninety thousand dollars that was though you'll recall that in his first four years as president he underplayed his federal income taxes by nearly four hundred and twenty thousand dollars and this was because he claimed over five hundred and sixty five thousand dollars in deductions that were not allowed and he had over two hundred and thirty thousand dollars in unreported income so what we see we see a tony blair on his tax returns in excess of three quarters of a million dollar that's right three quarters of a million dollars
now some might possibly argue and say that this was an honest with a button for chile the facts really don't support that conclusion is that they point or the president the lever of failure the pay is proper tax and really what the central element of north korea to the fold our tax law if that are lawful deduction taken as the death of his personal papers and i also said last thursday night that the reason that that happened million dollar production was improper was that the pope a loophole they trying to come under allowing that production was close july twenty fifth nineteen sixty nine and he claimed on its tax returns that actually the gift was made prior to that time but what we find we find it in the spring of sixty nine the papers which actually made up that hadn't yet even been selected enterprise and the man who supposedly
selected them and appraise them didn't even see them until months after the cut off date of july twenty fifth nineteen sixty nine and then in the spring of sixty nine the recipient of the gap the national archive had no idea that the gift had even been made now don't you think you would know about it immediately if anybody gave you five hundred thousand dollars in papers that were death a thin that if you will and really the only thing that lends credence whatsoever to the claim that a gift was made prior to nineteen sixty nine was the fact that a d on its they said that it was executed in the spring of sixty nine but what we find is the fact that is the irs rule that the deal was actually signed in nineteen seventy and was awfully backdated i know that the white house has argued and so my
colleagues my content that pattern of the section which resulted in a personal enrichment of the president was really manufactured by his aides and without approval allah but we know that mr nixon takes an active interest of personal financial affairs we know that he was involved in very detailed fashion and personally executed a deed a much smaller gap in nineteen fifty eight and we know anyone honor of nineteen fifty nine tax return page by page before filing under penalty of perjury and remember he is on the bottom line and we know that he personally discussed the tax benefits of this half million dollar death with his lawyer and we know that mr nixon knew that he never signed a deed for the gate so really what the question for this committee we have to consider whether we believe that president nixon who have told us publicly that he practiced a lot of tax
law did not know the truth about the death of over one half of the million dollars the largest gift he's ever given his wife and i think we're all aware but some of argue and this is a key point in our day that a president can't be in people criminal conduct and then there's another vacant and that the subject matter although it involve criminal conduct its not an impeachable offense because that involve quote an official conduct a let's take a look at the president's plan and see whether or not it's really impeachable knowledge on the committee know that if one of us took an unlawful deduction for a half a million dollars on our tax return we would be funded for criminal prosecution no question and the president finding of his tax returns may not be an official act but it's likely that if it weren't for the sake of the path he too would be
prosecuted for willful tax evasion but unfortunately due to a special position really only the impeachment process can call the president into account for its actions so we must also confront this other as an extension of the abuse of irs and i heard the members last night so eloquently waller flowers alabama tom railsback from illinois think about the abuse of irs and how it rose with the thumb that were under well let me say that i think the fourth in that category because we have a president to this position he could assume that his tax returns or not funded the same scrutiny as though the mother taxpayer and rather than taking care to ensure that his tax returns complied with the law he took advantage of the
presidency to avoid paying his property acts and really what's more significant and this to me is the key is that this poses a serious threat to our tax system which operates on the premise that everyone is expected to be honest and the reason it worked so well is that we expect the laws to be equally applied to every taxpayer whether he's a resident of iowa or alabama massachusetts new jersey and arkansas or whether he revived in the white house and when the president of the united states read you this but the balm by the revenue was an atheist i think the judge when here as he evaded taxes then
it's not just the treasury before it's the very integrity of our system of self government gentleman that incident and then it who are the other side terry our claim and i'm on the spiderman who financed mostly millions of that i thank you for the only ladies and gentlemen we reach an agreement a few moments and all that what this case is all about willful evasion attacks we know although the gentleman from iowa causes me to doubt that you know that this case has nothing to do with an innocent mistake if the president in fact earn on his income tax abed so innocently only live in good faith
upon his counsel then we're not talking about tax fraud in the states it is a sweeping inaccurate statement saying that any citizen complaint improper election in this amount would be criminally prosecuted that is not so much a prosecution generally proceed if there is fall and i want to discuss the evidence about a theory not a theory at all but the evidence with respect and whether or not fraud exists in this day this story began in the fall of nineteen sixty eight ladies and gentlemen after the election when the president elect nixon met with president johnson president johnson recommending president nixon that he might consider giving as they get them taking a tax deduction certain pre presidential papers president johnson recommended the president elect picked them the name of an appraiser one mr johnson avenue when he claimed that the action the appraisers name was known and
he was from chicago president nixon apparently thought that was worthy of pursuing and contacted his law partners up in new york the firm of nixon might throw an amateur it proceeded thereafter to perfecting of certain pre presidential papers for the taxable year nineteen sixty eight and that was the only presidential involvement in the year nineteen sixty eight president elect next in talking to president johnson and dealing through his attorneys concerning a gap we move now into the year nineteen sixty nine which is the critical here in so far as presidential actions are concerned in february of that year john ehrlichman sent a memorandum to the president in which he discussed the tax planning for the president and suggested that the president might welcome center making a gift of his pre presidential debate there was no question at that time as to the propriety and la promise of making such a guess if it were properly perfect the only
presidential act so far as our record is close is the present writing on the bottom of that memorandum the word good and if you do on those sentences with respect to a foundation of the word dirty is the operative word suggesting that the president was instructing during the money to go forward and perfected yet of his pre presidential papers the president now is removed from the picture for a period of many months now after john ehrlichman and had morgan of the white house in cooperation with that remarkable effect of turning out a lot in the los angeles area reform certain acts were the purpose of claiming again i make no claim ladies and gentleman that they acted properly that will be determined that a later time we're talking about the president's actions and his alleged fraud the president played no role ladies and gentleman in that at all the next act of the president is in a
social occasion at the white house when he meets mr newman and as mr newman go down the social reading line that we've all had some experience in that there was a brief exchange about the appraiser appraisal of the pre presidential papers then after the next attack occurs in january reverend december the president signs the bill the tax reform bill and the final act upon which this whole case is premised is that in april april the tenth nineteen seventy mr demarco and mr khan baucus to attorneys come to the oval office with a completed tax returns they spend approximately thirty five minutes in the oval office a portion of which was devoted the pleasantries approximately ten minutes of which was devoted to the tax return itself it is dated by the witnesses that they went over it page by page and the critically ladies and gentleman critically the evidence is that the president's attorney van
and there's a video that the deductions were properly taken and the president signed the reader a few moments thereafter mr demarco the return of fear for mrs nixon resigned and that's kat that's all the elements were talking about now on that on that this way above broad is fun and i suggest you ladies and gentlemen is holy holy and supported me or five minutes and gentlemen as its actions you five minutes to rail backers recognized fine mr chairman and members of the committee but let me i associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from california who i think has really accurately stated the facts i just want to elaborate a little bit more on the facts as i know them to be and they say that i also don't question me sincerity of the gentleman from iowa and i know
of his concern about this particular area personally i can't help but think this is another case where we haven't leachman i guess which along with some of the other things that we were going on earlier today were were little bit engaged and overkill as affirmative action that was claimed in the alleged presidential misconduct against the president's signature of his tax return which was done on april tenth i just one elaborate a bit on what mr demarco testified to as well as news to come back to mark cold the president's tax counsel explained in his interview with the inquiry our inquiry staff the explanation for the president consistent of the marcos morning to the appraisal the papers and stating and i quote this of
course is the appraisals supporting the deduction for the papers which you gave away and quote according to demarco the president's response was that's fine demarco said there was no discussion about that the giving the gift of papers to the united states' moreover demarco has stated that there was no end up analysis of the tax return while he was with the president i remember seeing an interview via an interview of demarco after some of this came to light were to mark who indicated that he still thought that everything was proper then in addition to that what has the president done on some of this came to light he agreed to turn over to a joint committee of congress to make a determination concerning his nineteen sixty nine seventy seventy one and seventy two returns the committee made its determination which resulted in a finding of tax responsibility in the amount of something over four hundred
and thirty two thousand dollars plus interest and it's my understanding that the president agreed to pay out all other is some discussion about the nineteen sixty nine when he will now if he does play that which goes back before the statue the limitations you rehabilitate that as a deduction my feeling here is this man who has been impeached by this committee are too serious brave acts of what we believe to be alleged misconduct who has an income tax liability of four hundred and thirty two thousand dollars plus interest i really think that i think that it's gone just about laura now i suggest that there's a serious question as to whether something like this that happen to him personally whether that had anything to do with his conduct of the office of president and i suggest that we rest with the three articles that have been adopted against them
and maybe let him have a little relieved it's been gentlemen as thirty seconds and that was a gallon from iowa is that the yemen no man in america can be above the law it is actually to establish now that evidence of specific expected or crimes and constitutional violation by the president of the united states both object for president now and in the future an impeachment with respect to the president's tax is i submit to the committee that when hispanics and personally signed his tax returns he attested to false information with the purpose of defrauding the american people of approximately one half
Series
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Episode
1974-07-30
Segment
Reel 1 of 6
Producing Organization
National Public Affairs Center for Television
WETA-TV
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip/512-g15t728654
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip/512-g15t728654).
Description
Live and videotaped debate of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Peter Rodino, Jr., on the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. This is day 4 of the Nixon impeachment hearings.
Broadcast
1974-07-30
Asset type
Segment
Genres
Event Coverage
Topics
Politics and Government
Subjects
Nixon, Richard M.; Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producing Organization: National Public Affairs Center for Television
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
Reporter: Lehrer, James
Reporter: Duke, Paul
Speaker: Rodino, Peter W.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2403168-1-4 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 1 of 6,” 1974-07-30, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 24, 2019, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-g15t728654.
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 1 of 6.” 1974-07-30. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 24, 2019. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-g15t728654>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-30; Reel 1 of 6. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip_512-g15t728654