thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; 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+
well yeah this article that's presented to you meets for the impeachment with respect i didn't ask that i asked you understand the law to say that an article of impeachment must be specific not in the same sense that a criminal indictment must be specific and i do not believe that the standards which govern the specificity of a criminal indictment are applicable to an article of impeachment of that as the front of the gentleman's question how knowledgeable leave a candidate to process clause of the constitution that every individual including the president is entitled live alone so what he's charged for i think this article does require warning as i see that you have about twenty different jobs disappear all in one piece of paper and our one on one specific as a gentleman from california has asked for a date for example
on charred want to locate you say that he withheld relevant material whether how is an entire lilac out of the answers such a charge this is not who knows due process i would point out that the gentleman from new jersey that the president's counsel and this committee room at the very moment at the very moment the members of this committee entered the room and began to receive the present patient of information and it was at in this row idle eleven about that process i feel it for a lot of old kind of the day i want to answer those who are entitled this is the charge against the president of the united states why he should be tried to be thrown out of office as well as for now for him debbie dooley notice of what you are charging him in my judgment he is entitled to know specifically what he did wrong and how to the gallon that from what you
say here my response to the gentleman is that the article sets out the means the president's council has been here throughout the proceedings and is aware of the material that was presented to us in that this article in question one last question even if you can answer do you or do you not only an instant it as a now that the president has and piled on mall and the articles of impeachment specific ways a separate way own one that he did that thing which you say he should be tried to be removed from law is the entitled and all that and the article of impeachment not by virtue of the fact that his counsel was there leave at the article of impeachment is that eichengreen all the specific facts which go to support the article if they were to do that the article of impeachment would be eighteen
volume for whatever number of volumes or apartment the place into a ball of the specific information i don't think it has to say that a war what i think it has to say that on a certain date he did something which is illegal wasn't so clear you can say that the simple science which you are not saying that iran and in fact there's money on lawn on this point and he says that these things cannot be general lee's they shall not be general they shout these are separate this has been the case of every impeachment trial tried in the united states all the way up the last one in nineteen thirty six you know about that i do dispute that if the gentleman is talking is referring back to criminal indictments them the thrust of the germans point as the merit but i do dispute it when he a lot of lawn i don't know
thank you mr chairman patrick told me that i am i don't like to point out that all this is not a criminal prosecution there's ample precedent in our federal criminal procedure laws to establish that the only point knowing necessity for establishing a date an indictment too if this is analogous to bring the activity complained of within the period of this battle limitations here since the bleeding would indicate that on june seventeen nineteen seventy two and farther through but obviously in its context within the period of time that richard nixon has served as president of the united states an airport clearly within the theory of limitations for the preceding these events did take place and the policies were established the only other requirements interview the port waiting which label of impeachment will be after that the beyond fact is that the fact you
describe with a fish and particularly so that the person charged work you can be aware of the advantage of which is chard and thereby unable to prepare his defense secondly our conviction on that charge of factual information will serve as a bar to any subsequent prosecution i respectfully submit that they leaving before superbowl leaving it submitted by mr sarbanes does clearly established as to time that this policy was established on june seventeen nineteen seventy two a fire there too but within the term of office or further richard m nixon therefore after time this is officially specific number two after the fact i would respectfully submit that their lead from the great particularly and sufficiently and they've only president precariously fans and have an acquittal or conviction serve as a bar to a subsequent prosecution thereby avoiding
the constitutional ban against double jeopardy lastly i would like to point out that this the documents it built a particular is not an indictment and criminal law presidents do not control their valuable as an analogy but this need not be as specific as an indictment in a criminal case moreover the added information which counsel for the president may want in the nature of time in a nature gates places particularly on facts can be reached by him in the event this go to trial in the senate who is bringing a motion for a bill of particulars or emotion to make more definite and certain and it's not an attack on the ability of this proposed article of impeachment maybe a lot of you made a point
not necessarily right after i not even if we were to agree on that point we guide on all together bowman says only the bus the president have any alaska right for training the due process now been any common criminal would do and unlike he does not have less rights as a matter of fact that the eu has enjoyed much greater i will take that and i will point out that the president has been president and participating and these proceedings since the very first hour that we have met palin permitted to introduce evidence to examine witnesses he has a complete copy of every document that and before this committee process has not merely been observed here and have been exalted and i'm proud of it that
no one else has ever had an opportunity to be informed it had been provided to him and the first lady will yell and admit that this begins a new chapter in this began the new charred i was about development or doubt about who you are my colleague from california mr anderson oh thank you be a purpose of course is to always be very intimate by that and that's why it should be in fact an awful do you think that the president and his attorney can understand and great particularity exactly the charges the specific events that this bill of the patient refer to author of the fun at any one part of the nation for an ethical article of impeachment effort and if i haven't been clear you'll have the
remedy for your particular part our greater detail in the ability of the facts and appropriate i yes welter and fairness have been revered in the jail wow on you all many committee members thank you the committee will come to order in the gentleman from texas best books it recognized me and you my five minutes to the gentleman from maryland mr
sarbanes gentlemen i thank the common for yielding mr chairman of the two points i want to clarify stemming out of the discussion that was held this morning the first deals with the procedural aspects of this matter with respect to the detail ng of the factual material that underlies the article of impeachment and i wanna make that three things very clear first the president's council has been here throughout the proceedings all of the factual material that the committee has considered all of the statements of information all of the summaries are provided to him on a daily basis just as they were provided to us so the contours in the details and the pattern and the interrelationship of the factual matters has been spelled out fully to the president's counsel nothing has been concealed from him second this committee wants it makes its decision will have to make a recommendation to the floor of the
house of representatives in at that point oh what we bring forth will be supported by report which won after detail the underpinning for the action that we've taken so the material will again be spelled out there for the benefit of our colleagues in the house before they make their decision at this point or in the house that neither of those instances is a president yet on trial is only on trial in the matter reaches the senate and thirdly won the matter does reach the senate the president's counsel is in a position to seek further specifications if you do you don't necessarily want my convictions but his participation here and the further report will have to be prepared for the members of the house of representatives will fully provide him all the material necessary to prepare a defense for the trial which will take place in the other body that's the procedural side of this than the return for a moment to some of the substantive things i'm of course was not going to permit may lose their jobs or are the matters which
underlie the allegations in this article but i do want to set some of the mouth so there's some appreciation of the detail that life behind the charges being made against the president of the united states and contained in this article one of the purposes of impeachment let us look at the pattern of conduct the big and subsequent to the break in on june seventeenth president professed ignorance of both the involvement of the committee to re elect the president and white house involvement in watergate in the face of discussions of watergate on or before june twentieth alderman colson an actual persons aware of such i'm bob on the president's closest advisors on the morning of june twenty alderman mature like my findings can be met in the white house in the early mornings later that morning halderman met with the president later that morning halderman met with the president the chief of
staff met with the president and his notes indicate that in that conversation with the president watergate was discussed be part of that great pertaining to the watergate discussion is the eighteen and a half minutes that is missing which an expert panel has reportedly juts or a cup was manually he writes the president has refused to our subpoenas of this committee seeking conversations with alderman colson on june one on the twenty second of june the president made a statement that mitchell are mature ones ignore it stated the fact accurately when they have said there was no basis for believing or involvement on one a third of june the president had a meeting with the alderman his chief of staff subsequent which all women in ehrlichman met with townsend walters and in
effect the record them to indicate to the fbi the two or so on so the investigation into mexico should be halted because it might encounter cia activities the day before on the twenty second of june hollande said oh where the fbi director that there was no cia and bob and at that needy at that meeting initially homes and waters reported on halderman ehrlichman that there was no such a bomb on the thirtieth on the twentieth of joni mitchell apologized to the president because some of his people were gotten out of pain he regretted that he had not police the people in his organization we heard that tape on the thirtieth of june there was a conversation with mitchell and which the president indicated that they must cut the last from potential disclosures about crp involvement watergate by having mitchell resigned his campaign director on the sixth of july in a conversation with the present
director of the fbi patrick gray told the president and members of his staff were trying to mortally wound him the president called for a long time and then said to pat gray you just keep on with your aggressive and thorough investigation he did not i asked pat gray van or later what he meant by that was and paul who was trying to do and how they were trying to do on august twenty nine the president issued a statement concerning that the report he went before the american people study attached on being investigated five minutes the gentleman from maryland explained why did not necessary to detail the facts
mr lee given effective because over the president there with president in the room when the batteries were being with us that is not satisfactory of its position of the madden remind me of council for a defendant appearing in the magistrate court to prevent a teammate of an hour two that a prosecutor the county with a very general indictment it's not sufficient for profit of economists say i don't have to specify because the council for defendants attended a preliminary examination and i prayed the knowledge of the council is not the knowledge of the president we don't know whether the council for the president that appear here is going to be an associate counsel or one of a number of counsel or whether there will be given counsel now
he makes a point of what the resolution that the articles get to the floor after they can be justified the mandan song that may be so but i think it's necessary of chairman members of this committee for us the members here and now before we know for or against a particular article didn't know the time and played and made them know all big event now i have done some legal research adoringly at noon recess because it was represented that the law that pertains to indictments of not necessarily apply to impeachment proceeding and then i found that on the very beginning at one impeachment proceedings with jilted
and as seventy nine the day right down to the present time that impeachment of judgment or nineteen thirty six that every responded charts i've been faced with articles of impeachment that alleged was that that there's a reason for it there's a reason for it so they feel is charged in this is fundamental to anglo saxon law that he who is charred must know on one particular charge four point he must defend himself not necessary for him to go over a tremendous amount of information at that we have here and say well maybe go to the un as a maybe on that simple mr chairman because the gentleman from maryland began to specify certain times places and events now with that visit it back with the charts is simply included in the articles
of impeachment but as an example on the lawn article making false or misleading statements all right what statement one where they may and where were they made that simple because of the garden know about it when i go to the house of representatives want to know about that too to more fully authorize investigative officers what officers one two three when and where what's so difficult about that number five approving condoning and acquiescing and payment of substantial sums of money all right how much money are we talking about your wealth a purpose i will tell you the number of the
purpose at four wiki of the money was given to home wasn't given how many prices aren't all the respect endeavoring to misuse of federal intelligence agency that the very broad general statement it may be true i am not deny them a prominent either and that rate them as fuel is the cia what we want to know how and why the salmon at information received from officers what information what offers another department justice and that friendly fact the rise throughout the entire part of this article number of a making false right i view
those ballot i thank the gentleman for you in his time mr chairman and it does give me an opportunity at least to try and summarize a few of these of this initial outline the facts i think it's important they be understood the perception of the underpinning the rest behind this article be generally appreciative and they go back for a moment as of august twenty ninth on july eighth the president and john ehrlichman walk on the beach in california and the subject of clemency for watergate for those involved in watergate was brought up and ehrlichman reports that the president rejected it and said that they are not going to consider that the essential question is why wasn't brought up the war with respect the man who have not yet been invited six months in advance of trial people was contend that at that point had absolutely no connection with the committee to reelect or with the white house
on august twenty nine as i was saying earlier the president issued in a public statement the reporter john dina carried out a writ a comprehensive investigation and reported that no one in the white house was involved there was no such investigations not at the moment the gentleman will allow me to continue our onetime get out some of these factions are somewhat like to rehash of what we had maybe this is a new state visit and subsequent to the twenty ninth of april on the fifteenth of september the president met with h r haldeman his chief of staff and withdrawn being an alderman at that point said to the president before being came into the room and he had done a good job and it kept people from falling through the holes and i was a piece of cake that we picked up accidentally on the staff went down a record at the white house and it proved to be highly role even though it had earlier been asserted that was not
hurt during or that idea came into the rome and our transfer of the committee's transport taken from the table the conversation as a conversation opening of the president saying how are hi how are you know this was the day that the indictments were returned in the watergate matter they were limited the seven people and it was assumed that it had been cut off and hunt and liddy i would not go higher for the president says the high how are you being so just serve the president well you had quite a day today eventually you got on watergate on the way and these sirs writing a three months that's quite a three months by the business and ladies and gentlemen from the edited transcripts of the conversation of september fifteenth which were submitted to this committee
by the white house which were made public the american people subsequently and our conversation the president went on and said that a lot of stuff went on the dean at handled it skillfully putting his fingers in the dike when leaks it's wrong here and swung there you know you just ride a botnet up as well as you can and hope for the best and remember that basically the damn thing is just was unfortunate things and we're trying to cut our losses were trying to cut our losses how they succeeded in covering up through the november election and then early in the year things began to come apart we started slowly and accelerate and haven't in january discussions the president in question discussion about clemency for how big and paulson says that there was no assurances
made that the discussions were held the subject of why were they bringing up the subject with respect the people from lake denied any connection to an earlier time and then in late february the president begins to have some conversations with b and those continue in late february and into march of course beginning with march twenty first in coming forward things began to slow let me go back to the march twenty first conversation it is imperative if you take the transcripts and read through them and that you read through that not only in terms of what is being said than his to what is happening but referred back to what happened earlier because there there are discussions of how to develop what the pattern was what the problems were they came for and then the conversation on march twenty one nineteen seventy three in the morning to which the president john b h r haldeman the
president's chief of staff were all three present the president said the jaunty our eye on and on my line is that we can now you may well come i think it is good frankly to consider these various options and then once you want to decide on the planned john and you have the right plan let me say i have no doubts about the right plan for the election do you know so like this with one simple question that certainly deserve a simple answer i've just heard a real actual excerpts from all of the apes why question that the gentleman from ireland and yet risen above
is as a new document that you submitted or what was your purpose non reclining back over the transcripts of the tapes purple when the conversational if it's not a new documentary why are you resisting the fact that they should be any any articles of impeachment is that the congress untitled and all what they're going to vote on one against the man show and they know when it happened and how it happened schindler's be any articles a brief answer from the gentleman from marijuana be as one i responded to a question this morning that if we were to bring into the article's all of the factual material which underpins them we would act out articles that ran into volume and now that that is not so you know it is not so you know the moment
i will yield you know that that is not so anymore than it is in an indictment you don't need bowl or even an indictment and i wanna be confused begin by saying as an indictment what the heck the common criminal and a criminal case as no more rights than that than the president of the united states in an impeachment gave isn't widespread you know why won't you were not fetish the important thing here is why isn't the president entitled to this kind of simple explanation it can be in a single sentence we don't have to go through the speech that you made all you have to say on any one of your articles a very simple sense on such insight a date the president then contrary to the law a simple act actually act are saying why would should say i want him to you you sure a simple answer behind each of those delegations lives of the extensive pattern a condom
that will be spelled out let me finish line i'm endeavoring as best i can to respond to it and that pattern of conduct will be be spelled out in the report that accompanies the article but there is not one isolated incident rest behind each of these allegations there is a course of conduct spending over a period of time involving a great meal at four heads that line they're using up i'm like an eel money for over that kind of unanswered and you are entitled to your pro ball once said that you want you are entitled to as many articles they didn't get the democrats and some republicans or require an island so that you're not entitled to that but that each of these mud for an old law from the beginning of this country up to the last impeachment in nineteen thirty six ad when you like it or
not it has to be specific and this is not in a moment the chairman will try to show some mile wide on the issue by asking for advice from special counsel's door jenner in garrets and that videotape coverage of activists jerry committee's impeachment debate will continue sharply reduces pbs for public broadcasting service in nineteen year it sounds familiar and feel that it was really the scene and he came down the
wind power were it to the great american remake he will make a feel good that may be in the ice cream it's both it's been it's been leaking to pass but it's but
at washington national student film festival has judged by nicholas ray and stan vanderbeek it's b fb
and dr coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate continues as we go back to the proceedings the issue under discussion is whether or not the draft article of impeachment is specific enough to be fair to the president joel like to address a question to counsel of new staff which as maggie or about a report for a period of time studying the president's and the history of the impeachment as to whether or not there is a requirement that there be specificity in the preparation of
articles for impeachment i just that the archives mr john ahmad in my judgment is not necessary to be fully specific i think this article meets the test of specificity as the congressman from maryland said there will be a report submitted to the congress with respect to this article if the committee uses a vulgar this article and behind that report will be this summary of information as well as the all of the material that was presented with this committee prior to trial the specificity gretchen morgenson will particulars because of all those details from the standpoint of this article with conviction
but this is the thing the same question i don't want her while it may very well not be a requirement of the law it clearly can be certainly uniform practice you have a considerable degree of specificity in the arts i would cite three members of the committee to a publication of this committee in october nineteen seventy three and every article of impeachment
and i would be less than frightened terrified and suggested a simple reading of those articles that suggests an enormous amount of fractal effect an extent that is actually not included an invite what are the sounds of money allegedly been misappropriated over for you for example on page one seventy three through the fifth article against the english in which the integration in iowa i'm sure exactly when i'm working like do it justice same question that his agenda the gentleman is
associate counsel of this committee associate to the staff and counsel and for a while and were great wine served by selection of them and i think as the monarchy count was jammed with journalism through eu the present day it used to be you know to in the light of the progress made in the field of criminal procedure by the us congress and by me mr ickes a united states marine corps suddenly rising out of a local cases by which are complicated cases are reviewed
whether they're moderate district or otherwise and as a result that progress that has been made with respect to the federal civil procedure and the new cd with phenomenal who by the house representatives and i believe this committee it is not longer necessary to specify either in civil or criminal complaint a razor specificity that accompanying venetian of a past era and all of this necessary and of the cases is that the bill the complaint am i respectfully suggest they are because the basement you want what is called a notice or no display and that is in itself sufficient honor the federal rules of criminal procedure of the discovery provisions the president maintained all of the thirty eight books all of the summaries are the materials
before this committee specifically stated and route sixty in those the real drama fact not even caught a new travel rules of the proto are not yet in effect so they're considering present day articles of impeachment you must have in mind the progress made in those respects in the last decade thank you mr chairman i think it's important to continue to present proof of the charges in the bill of impeachment i'm sure they're going to be many borrowed many other issues to be brought up but i think it's vital that in these proceedings the evidence be be spelled out so that we all can understand it better in support of
the first portion of the bill of impeachment mr sarbanes presented some very clear evidence of the president's knowledge almost immediately after the june seventeenth nineteen seventy two burglaries after watergate and that i think that anybody here can understand the reluctance of the white house in and the president to do another probably find out about this and find out i have a connection with his committee to reelect mr hunt and the people who were arrested for the robbery well one of the choices would have been just to let them go to jail and caught a bizarre incident and i think it's very clear that that was a choice and every effort was made to have it appear that was it just a bizarre incident so yes perhaps it could've been some connection with the white house and mr hahn so forth or another choice would've been
justin that lester hunt worked at the white house we have an office there within the white house phone book and then down the road let libby chief counsel i believe for the committee to reelect surface he was about to serve as well why not take that choice that could be written out perhaps by the white house even even as watergate itself was written out of why do you imagine the president had to or felt he had to encourage such a massive cover up after june seventy shortly thereafter the one that let it hang out that wasn't that was discussed quite a lot of weird all remember that in the transcripts why not direct the fbi go ahead and do a darn good job and really complete investigation as they start out trying to deal why rob the cia in this unfortunate behavior why why encouragement almost demand that the cia go
to the fbi and say stop don't continue your investigations stop where you are by all means don't get into that money that was found on one of the burgers well incidentally is that it was successfully efforts by mr dean and the others to direct the cia to influence the fbi not to continue investigation it was successful though john fetterman went that way finally said no i'm not going to do it anymore and went to the cia and of the ice that i know of course we don't have anything to do with that say anything in mexico where your investigation might disclose some unfortunate things are going down there's something kind of theme by the cia well here's the key to it immediately the next day actually the white house knew that i was involved in his name is in the phone book he had an office at the fbi executive office building and that he had to be
exposed somewhere down the line the money on the borders could immediately be traced to levy the mexican bank and back to the committee to re elect the president sloan had given the money to ready to launder that was all sure to come out but what would the exposure of hot and lady rubio in addition to their participation in the watergate burglary and the connection with the committee to re elect the president and the white house got a regional plumber just about the original palmer came aboard the white house in july nineteen seventy one and that's probably what happened all right there were this was an fbi investigation fbi investigation and that after mr hunt went to work at the plumber the white house in late night seventy one he composed the fake
pm tables linking trying to lake attempting to light former president kennedy would be an assassination dr reinhardt fell out those cables thought to sell about to get life magazine to to write them up and real it's very much of a pride in the magazine and they didn't do it on july twenty seven with a few weeks after mr huff became a bomb at the white house he went to the cia and the famous jazz history got a red way again a voice changer fake identification papers and so forth he put a list of five shortly after that went to massachusetts to interview with nba mock in hopes of thinking of the underdog senator ted kennedy what else was was that mr hahn doing during this period shortly before watergate that would've been exposed he had taken the famous trip to denver colorado in the same graduate with a voice
changer to interview the beard who was in a hospital bed there in connection with the itt case we all remember the famous the beard itt memorandum and then for all we know another project of the plumbers that john dean testified to but did not come off might've been exposed the planned bombing allegedly ordered by charles colson of the brookings institute saw that in the confusion people could rush in and take out a report with the rent but more importantly what would have been exposed to burglary the robbery in los angeles on september second nineteen seventy two about her feelings office in los angeles who was involved in that burglary that was also involves participants arrested at the democratic national committee of author mark a gentleman has a piano yes i was chairman
i would go i share the concern raised by new jersey in the senate and i would write if i may have to return to our questions and was to generate a few more questions for me oh oh we will have so much information that is not sufficient to say in the council for the president that isn't i'm almost thirty books of women have so much we don't have any oh i'm concern that the president is entitled to know what what facts are going to be used against him so my question is this based on your view the precedents and your experience is the entitled and no at some point prior to trial just exactly what backpacks will be and used against him how would the council for the president go about getting that information if it were not
specifically and are competing in the proceedings take place prior to trial he isn't it over as for every state virtually without subpoena with the process but my requests under supervision of the chief justice who proved on the function of the presiding judge the production on materials and the possession of those committing bearing upon the issues presented by the article of impeachment under the present practice especially in civil cases that successfully so also in criminal cases and the cardinals and the moment this trip now amanda cassara require and criminal cases subject to love the offense the moment of course but for the moment rights to all of the motorola bears
on the issues in the case at all one more question all is the president also entitled know sufficiently in advance of the trial the fact that they get used in order to come to him at the last moment i think he is and he's not aware of a specific plea he's entitled to know it will receive under the present modern practice the facts which really in evidence of well all bearing upon well here's the question of course he's experienced both the
soul and cromwell field and leah anticipate our adventure who oversee i would like think that joan freely and i like as mr jenner if rules seven of the federal rules of criminal procedure does not for why that the indictment or any information now be a plane can size and definite written statement of the essential facts that constitute in the offensive you're rueful rooster i think you're back to remain gentle you jump around now if i could do a microphone as counsel interested though in recent years to get some when the would it be possible for mr st clair to not request any additional information
or specificity and wait until the time of trial in the senate and then move to dismiss the beach on the grounds that it's not specific it led to that mr owen the greatest possible grave risk of waiting until a particular time event that is except as a practical matter it has all you're right that's correct sir but what the real force to my question is would he prevail in offering the most important effect the directive or i think not certain of the present modern practice an object that has expired and recognize the gentleman from wisconsin seeking recognition yes
john has recognized five minute joan i like to take this time to you my colleague danielson because the only question which nags out of specificity i think that is something for that contribute to that that like alec mr kastenmeier freely and are the point raised by mr vaughn a gentleman for maturity mr sandman in and others on his wine and fearful i have of my motivation perhaps an intent which we must avoid in this case of impeachment namely by specifying someone overreact following one of the article one of the listings of impeachable offenses we might thereby narrow the area of proof under which the prosecution of this case the managers in the senate would be entitled to produce evidence why think for example under the first item and making a
false statements to investigative officers or whatever that is if we were to list if specific false statement that may have been made on lettuce at a june thirtieth nineteen seventy two would we not then in the senate be limited and are proof to evidence which relate directly to that is that a false statement in a moment i made you are likewise the fact of notice bleeding which are councilman for general pointed out it's clear here the president is put on notice as to the specific types of unspeakable conduct which we allege against him this is enough to alert him to get him noticed as to what are the charges and bear in mind that if and when this matter reaches the senate it will be accompanied only by a committee report but of course by the final articles of impeachment and he will then if he desires have the right to make a motion for a bill of particulars are related motion the idea
being to request greater specificity in the charges against him or in some of the charges appear to be a little bit vague and uncertain after time and place and manner he can make a motion for to make more specific uncertain and aided by the results of those emotions but he will have a wealth of information everything it could possibly need to make his own defense in this case wheat he is even in a better position simply because and i know this cannot be charged to him at the present time but as a practical matter and in the real world and which were operating the president does have some forty volumes of evidence fury and statistical matter already at your disposal and in his office and i think that unless jordan staal defy common sense we're going to acknowledge that that it is a fact i would say this if we if this committee should be
fried in order to lessen the concern of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle listen any specific party quite a factual information in the vatican it must be couched in such language and the committee report worded in such language that it's eminently clear that pro from the senate would not be restricted to those specific items it's not my time i yield back gentlemen german i would like this one question and my friend from maryland briefly if he give me his vision for just one moment on the ferry you advanced of your article this morning and i understand you have an am i correct that
before he acts of alleged agents and subordinates could be attributed to the president you would have buy some beans and some type of evidence to establish the existence of the house say which you allege he had adopted as a career b b acts of the subordinate or have to be carrying out the policy hasn't and before you could prove them as against the president you have to first established the possibility not well theres a possibility of although ratification involved here with it before you could attribute their acts to him on your own theory you'd have to have a costly there which they were carrying out isn't that right yet at the policy is that not if there were a ratification involved and there could be a ratification involved on the part of the president with respect i actually had a variety of that case us and absent a ratification there have to be an established policy gentleman is really doing under another name is that that
theory of a conspiracy of me why was the question this morning and i think i indicated that while i did not iv article to say to the roof of a criminal conspiracy that i did that i did say that the article contain elements of a conspiracy theory advanced by a porn book law you've got to prove that the conspiracy exists before they actually co conspirator attributable to depress wages elementary as a president can intrude into that conspiracy and ratify advance if that happens then i think a gentleman would recognize that those types are carbon fourteen parcel of the gentleman that proceeding on their theories for sitting on the better in therapy has not been of course he may have guessed by what evidence he's gone to establish this policy opens first year where you want to cry it doesn't really does that the acts of these other people are going to
maintain my opinion now shifting to another matter i just like talk about is there specificity for a moment and a criminal charge against reading criminal and that's the existing criminal role this is at least the quayside criminal case and my friend from california mr danielson i'm sure you wear of the due process clause and the very reason why a real requires specificity is the exact reason why my friend from california seems to be against that it is for the exact for them and may know what you start with and that the proof may be held down indeed do that with which he is charged and i said yes ordinary due process of law can still really requires that now i'm a billionaire for a minute no one can fans i don't think and certainly that you've got the lead in an indictment all the evidence by a quick
u n and to support your specific car like you do have to say if you're dragging a man with making false or misleading statements you do have to say in that on the four eighth day of april nineteen seventy three se and repeated senate that secretary general united states the following so that you'll know you can't be required under the constitution to look back over everything he may have set some time if somebody is now going to say will fall or misleading you've not specify and there's only one person in this particular case and that's the case of andrew johnson and he'll look at the articles airport and paid one hundred fifty more of our own publication you will find that there were exceedingly to be set on a certain day he gets a charge secretary stanton conferee do that ten year
was that by writing him the following letter and on a certain date he conspired with one of iran's of commerce to play key and secretary or women gentleman yield that i well for about thirty seconds unity of and i can hear in a way it was i wonder if i understood the gentleman correctly and that i understood him to say that if we specified these acts in our accusatory pleading that evidence to be a deal with at the trial is restricted to those items we are financial markets and why do you why i don't is yemen and obviously no it means of them bring in anything you know and it's not and it's not fair and just because you're a congressional committee it does very well in a way with a lot of anger with the chairman yielded gentleman two minutes that he could yield to me to read
on name calling biker like to address a question to announce the sarbanes son and i would assume that in each of the some headings under the article that you propose to substitute let me say that i think the statements those conclusions i can agree with most if not all of them but many turn to page one under article one where you list some parts of someone making false or misleading statements a lawfully authorized investigative officers employees of the united states that would be fair for me to assume that you would rely on certain that the dentist an essential facts i would hesitate to use the word operative facts in this context but it fair to say that you would rely on one two three or four specific days and an opera
sets of facts to support that general statement of making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigation not fair to say that you have that in mind yes although i would say most of these instances when it's finally detail i would assume in the report were really think and many more instances the number that gentleman one of the problems is that there is a course of conduct and not a single and then it would be fair to say that you would probably prefer to the summary of information has been presented by mr dorman jenner such as some rape ages thirty three thirty to support that oh i wish i'm from illinois the problem i've had several months now unusual council most of the warmest jenner may recall that and each time we issued a subpoena i
specifically ask you inquired as to what we might have specific justification for which you set forth in great detail justifying the issuance and the reason why i just liked me but is there any reason why a darkening could not be attached to the articles the ozark odes and the man with a phrase to the effect all of which is set forth particularly in the appendix attached to two other words getting into this little pleading i can't agree with the council won't just a gender that we're talking not necessarily formal pleading but also perhaps is so pleading and we do have noticed pleading and civil cases and we also have a very well established in cooperation wouldn't that be helpful in this particular instance peter overby reporting
whether this affects the wire attached to the fleeting my understanding further release the material but generally speaking in the civil war great information with discovery making false misleading statements they were all things i think and one simple act thank you i wonder as we tried to talk about specifics of the president would be in a better position to defend themself whether we really taken a consideration that the mandate of this committee is three what to the house of
representatives and it seems to me that if we got bogged down with specifics before the house of representatives has worked well that perhaps we would not give the general recommendation to the house that it might really deserves is not the constitutional responsibility to impeach a president but merely to report to the house so that it seems to me that we should not be talking about specifics but give the maximum amount of information to the house of representatives so that they can deal with the problem constitution what you're into i wonder i asked impeachment case the procedure that the judiciary committee has recommended and then on some occasions the house of representatives itself as normally directed an unprepared articles of
impeachment which were then submitted to the senate other words it's my recollection of that may have been cases where the house judiciary committee simply made a recommendation at the house itself had the responsibility of directing and adapting the articles of impeachment based on the recommendation of a wonder if we couldn't do it that way richard land first of all we don't know that we are proceeding under a very unique proceeding impeachment cat is offered us except for the case of andrew johnson no guidelines no precedent it is a fact however that the rules of evidence
do not apply as such the wrongs that will be the wrongs that will apply sure this impeachment proceeding move on into the house and then the trial and the senate will be the rules that the senate will it up we do know as a matter of fact from impeachment proceedings and the research that has been extensive and i thought all i need to do is we call to the members of the house that the house of representatives has indeed impeached without any articles of impeachment accept nearly two mph and that out on your emotions a privileged motion of any member of the house that the house could move to impeach so that
therefore this discussion and this issue requiring specificity in order to lay the groundwork for articles of impeachment same estimate to be backing of a question which i think as long been settled what we do we err is to proceed with deliberations concerning the proposition that certain articles of impeachment be recommended by this committee through the house of representatives over the war in the report that the committee will then finest hours of representatives that information will be specifically included together with that counsel for the president and has been properly pointed out by the gentleman from maine would be provided with all of the information which is
contained in the summary of information which details on others percent it's and that prior to trial in the senate upon proper request by counsel for the president to reach that stage discovery and other proceedings that these materials would be then provided and i believe that this affords all of the opportunity for fairness in this proceeding to insure the house of representatives not act as a trial by it under the exacting rules of evidence as we know them because this as a matter of fact in all of us are aware i think who had been a long wrestling with this question that the house of representatives is indeed not the trial body but the body merely recommending articles of impeachment even if they may be
in the broadest sense mission i think the chairman for human have i understand the chairman's remarks it is that perhaps this committee in and working on the articles of impeachment so called that our responsibility is not now actually protect any articles presented to decide whether or not we should recommend impeachment and that that those recommendations could be included in the report and so on however some were down the lion and out of representatives that would grab some articles of impeachment with him a billion of the house we'll spend the legal test the senate and if that is so i wonder mr chairman allows will look anybody else with this rope and the judiciary committee to do that very fast and so mr chairman it seems to me that we have that responsibility in
mind is a lot of guidelines and those problems right now not like a hard time except that i must correct the gentleman from michigan who i'm sure you want me to set the record straight does not wanting this understand me i did not stay that we should not perfect the article ordinarily state it was illegal proposition that in impeachment proceedings there is no requirement in fact that the articles be specifically set up that is all that i said now i recognize i recognize the gentleman from missouri by amending our colleague with army within the party for tonight one rather excellent job i think of explaining what he's worked out here and there and what's going on and you remind me
greatly a little thing about former distinguished chairman the seller i can give your explanation i can give you understand i think mr frum is that an excellent job at an impeachment of the chairman has indicated grounds and b there are quite broad as i understand that in the case of andrew johnson they passed a resolution impeachment came back into nine articles about over the senate side needs more into the couple more so i'm going and all this great idea that they could try to say specificity i really can't say specificity i didn't mean to end this week and all these legal terms of alarm on for thirty or thirty good lawyers by thirty seven good lawyers it's a lot of fun that we forget perhaps in the house representative the art all lawyers in the public likes it that way and think
they may like it better and that the state standard of proof i saw where one of the stately senators said yesterday that some of the discussions we've had about rules of evidence that they have different view of the senate would decide on the rules of evidence as i recall johnson case the deadly overrule the supreme court justice would not be a thrill so many talents that he finally threatened lately even leslie daigle better soul i think of educational front of lawyers but the doctrine of impeachment of a strong prosecution and it says broad is the king's imagination we have a problem now perhaps all the technicality just remind me of the story of the older lawyer that follows them a country file and got a case file in the supreme court he was nervous and he got up there and he was arguing along one of the judges look down at him and he says young man there where you come from to the ever talk over the doctrine of cave at probably i'm a keeper say police agency hardest think of anything else
yet like mr holman think the problem and there are conflicted probably minister michel know there's lots of evidence you're less though if they don't understand what we're talking about now eleanor hawk from a handsaw anyway seriously we know what we're discussing is really a question of pleading and i think where we're speaking to through filing infringe on average there you go down bowing and princes we secure these areas they have to ever grab an elephant through the floor and one of us said that fell apart from of the doubters would say you know that the inference you that could be a mouth with a glandular condition the pizza peel and frank what might be but not well not twenty eight
volumes and the fellas talk some about this evidence here normally distinguished gentleman know the wall for better than i and they realize that we don't have pleaded with all agreed that whatever that word was article three and let's talk about a little approving can only acquiescing counseling witnesses to give false and misleading statements etc etc when he was seventy three conversation thanh twelve olympic five i am of antics to keep the old eighty five twenty six conversation with me there's no doubt i was only aware of what the bureau was doing at all times i was fully aware of what the grand jury was doing hamlet where he's going to be called i knew what they were after i had to nixon i infer that present why did peterson play the game so straight without us being because peterson is a soldier and he kept me in farm he told me when we had problems where we had problems he believes in you in the bleakness ministration
our listeners raises maybe i don't think you've done anything improper but he did make sure of investigations merit down the very very fine criminal play which was a way for us there's no doubt about it the another great we're listening now president nixon do you honestly feel even that would jam mean they ran that investigation to the fullest extent they could fall even that was it nixon but the way that the point is when i suppose he could be criticized for not going out without why didn't he call haldeman why didn't he get a statement and colton orr by that people mean that's right that is based on their fbi interview there was no reason to follow up there were no leads their course and said i had no knowledge of this to the fbi's van zandt and allow what they didn't ask about any question about watergate they have combat ready as a result of song coaching scott appeared to be the labor of what's really about the wife of the week that
was in maryland's of cheering as a realtor correctly observing andrew johnson impeachment the committee brought to the ford general economic recommendation of impeachment the house approved it and then and only then was a committee appointed to drop i made a list of charges to go the senate over there though as someone observer were not only some added that there were some ignore our i think one of the traps that were falling into here is that i know we're drawing this grand jury and now it much further than that it wants a number of within our remarks in general debate tried to indicate one an impeachable offenses if you subscribe to the idea that an impeachable offense must be an inviolable of fans than perhaps you have some a justification for arguing that we are really here drawing an indictment
but such is really not the case we're not a grand jury we're operating here under a constitutionally authorized extra legal power we are not involved in a criminal proceeding suddenly go to the floor are we can go on with as broad and nebulous there are an impeachment resolution as we possibly desire to draw is amendable on the floor depending on what rules we operate under it is even by the precedents amendable in the senate but he's been killed but even beyond that mr chairman i think we're really strange here as we talk about precedents there are not really that many residents there have not been that many impeachments and there have been far fewer than the bellybutton a dozen impeachments and if my memory serves me there were only three convictions and the those impeachments are contradictory
one with the other so i think we really are not looking at the the responsibility that we had here is to go forward with a recommendation to the house that's really all that we are about now i personally think it would be preferable to have specific charges naming places and dates and times and names but it is not essential and to argue that that is art responsibility under the constitution is just ignoring what the constitution gives us for the impeachment trial for you like about our ideals it is the wage and how far to go we have do not have any responsibility to be specifically at all here with respect to the recommendation we make to the house the house is labeled you recognize any member at anytime to impeach richard nixon
without any degree of specificity we're talking rather about what happens at the senate this is a job which will be ours to carry through the senate now ladies and gentleman each in turn yesterday and the day before we pay tribute to the constitution well now's the time to put up or shut up because we're talking about the constitution were talking about the fifth amendment and the rights of a respond and not on the floor of the house of representatives but at the bar of the senate and specificity is required over there because the constitution demanded wouldn't be a damning indictment of the chairman of this committee if after all this time and all this money we were unable to stay with specificity what this case is all about i think it was now all we're asking mr chairman is that we get about it and do it we shouldn't
argue with that we should be precise of nice reviews in a moment we'll hear from the other side of the committee as democrat john conyers explains why he believes the charges are specific and blacks videotape coverage of the house judiciary committee's impeachment debate will continue shortly roses pbs for public broadcasting service well it really is so sort of waiting cars the great man and the show just like the on the city i suppose i should congratulate you on the ingenuity and coming at all costs even as they sometimes show up we professionals robert scenes of the nepali miscarriage of justice you think somebody was just believes what recently
held office they refused to see you again what a lot of important because i we use the what's happened that at the summer tennis tour will attract world famous players competing for top prize money stands on the lid on rod laver and be on board are just a few of us from indianapolis us professional championship from last fall they can't fall on the station also it
nico nice nice nice nina keneally the pipe judiciary committee's impeachment a great interview
now back to the house impeachment debate and we picked it up with democrat john conyers of michigan adding his thoughts to the discussion recognize thee gentleman thank you mr chairman i like to observe if i might that we have spent a good deal of time talking and i think we may have reached some agreement up on the validity of the sarbanes substitute we will vote for the congress this matters so that to attempt to detail the policy or the plan that has been suggested as the basis of our article one and a substitute would be a little bit ludicrous mr sarbanes has outlined on at least three or four five minute period of members times the basis for that continuing course of conduct
and it seems that for us to continue to say that we want to write it in article one of a resolution of impeachment would be highly and so a part of this now in subsection we at alleged a plan that the president using the part of his office mate of a policy to delay and keaton obstruct the investigation of the illegal entry of the dnc on june seventeen nineteen seventy two and as the first classification of making false or misleading statements to law we authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states on it's clear that on april eighteen nineteen seventy three for example the president talking to mr peterson the assistant attorney general of the united states paul petersen this day out of the building
break in investigation because of reasons of national security that was a false or misleading statements we've documented it in a number of times in the course of the months that we've been here and so for us to have to write this again is an unnecessary act because there is not just one or two there are several in a number of them any of which as i read of this meeting it is and the alternative would be sufficient the means used to implement a policy of the president have included one or more of the following emphasis one or more of the following and realize nine specific courses of kind of that demonstrate that the president of the united states uses office to obstruct justice it with that in mind mr chairman i think that after re analyzed
any number of these right of course are ready to support the notion of impeachment as embodied in this very plainly worded language should be able to support it before this evening is over and i would hope that we would move to that point so that we can at least accept of this very first article of before the end of this i would you know if i have time remaining true gentleman or pennsylvania went on vacation and gentlemen from pennsylvania is recognized then and half china and i think that we should be very careful about the subject of specific city and human services a unique perceiving and in that sense i believe it is one that is developing over time almost every day we're learning something more about the
situation with regard to the white house i suggest the future may not the year as we know the supreme court has ordered sixty four subpoenas to be turned over to special prosecutor suppose that those tapes are portions of them become available to the house or even the senate at a later time i'm afraid that if the articles are or a sudden things are two specific that some subjects that may arise out of those sixty four subpoenas that might ultimately come into opposition might be denied consideration when they should be considered by the house or by the sun also was chairman we have probably know is coming up on september of mitchell it on and it's entirely possible that facts are situations may develop which may bear on the ultimate outcome in the trial in the senate if there is one and i've i say that we should not be so frozen in here that we can use additional information and we don't know what other disclosures made may come about what other situations the next few weeks a couple of months and i suggested that chairman at the outline an article one does suggest
jennifer maryland this is definitely enough and still gives us the flexibility so the actual facts make people thought the beer kind of a gentleman from michigan was fired i recognized that determining the specific charges with what this was all about i'd have been some talk about including all the other specifics the report i wonder who would prepare that report would be left just to the staff i think it's important we should determine particularly when we come out here with barry general archives and as chairman i think that as we've reached this important milestone in the prestigious actual drafting of articles of impeachment american people see the way in which to proceed see the confusion that we are faced with a disagreement about whether it should be gentle our specific after seven months it looks like
something of this great importance would all ms barras be 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-qf8jd4qk65).
Episode Description
Debate of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Peter Rodino, Jr., on the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Includes approval of the third article charging contempt of Congress and rejection of two other articles which dealt with income taxes and the bombing of Cambodia. This is day 7 of the Nixon impeachment hearings.
Broadcast Date
Asset type
Event Coverage
Politics and Government
Nixon, Richard M.; Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Producing Organization: National Public Affairs Center for Television
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
Reporter: Lehrer, James
Reporter: Duke, Paul
Speaker: Rodino, Peter W.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2402928-1-6 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Chicago: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 2 of 6,” 1974-07-26, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed April 21, 2024,
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 2 of 6.” 1974-07-26. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. April 21, 2024. <>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; 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