Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.24.08] Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman? Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman. from Massachusetts, Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I desire to yield my 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized. Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding his time, Chairman, and it does give me an opportunity to try and summarize of this initial outline of facts. I think it is important that the facts understood, that a perception of the underpinning that rests The this article be generally appreciated. Let me go back for a ]moment. I was up to August 29. On July 8 the President and John Ehrlichman walked on the ill California and the subject of clemency for those involved in gate was brought up and Ehrlichman -reports that the President. rejected it and said they were going to consider that. But the essential question is why was it brought up at all with respect to men had not yet been indicted, fully 6 months in advance of trial, as it was contended at that point, Who had absolutely no connection the Committee to Re-Elect or with the White House. On August 29, as I was saying earlier, the President made," statement that John Dean had carried out --t comprehensive investigation, and reported that no one in the White House was involved. There was no such investigation. If the gentleman will allow me to continue, I want to try and get out some of these facts. Mr. SANDMAN. Is this a new statement or is this a rehash of what we had? Maybe this is a new statement. Is it? Mr. SARBANES. Subsequent to August 2.9, On September 15. the President met with H.R. Haldeman, his Chief of Staff, and with John Dean. Haldeman at that time said to the President before Dean came into the room that Dean had done a good job and had kept people from falling through the holes. Now, that was a piece of tape we picked up accidentally -when the staff went down to record at the White House and it proved to be highly relevant, even though it had earlier been asserted that it was not pertinent to Our inquiry. Then John Dean came into the room and our transcript, the committee transcript, taken from the tape of that conversation, has the conversation opening with the President saying "Hi, how are you"? Now, this was, the day that the indictments were returned in the Watergate matter. They were limited to seven people and it was assumed that it had been cut off at Hunt and Liddy and would not go higher. So the President says to Dean, "Hi, how are you"? Dean says, "Yes, sir." The President, "Well, you had quite a day today, didn't you ? You got, uh, Watergate, uh, on the way, huh"? And Dean says, "Quite a 3 months." That "quite a 3 months," by Dean is missing ladies and gentlemen from the edited transcripts of the conversation of September 15 which were submitted to this committee by the White House and which were made public to the, American people. Subsequently, in that conversation the President went on and said that a lot of stuff went on, that Dean had handled it skillfully, putting his fingers in the dike when leaks had sprung here and there, and that "You just try to button it up as well as you can and hope for the best and remember that basically the damn thing is just one of those unfortunate things and we're trying to cut our losses." Now they they succeeded in covering up through the November election and then early in the year things began to come apart. They started slowly and accelerated. And we have in January a discussion, the President and Colson, about clemency for Hunt. Again, Colson says that there, were no assurances made but the discussion was held. The subject was brought up. Why were they bringing up this subject to people for whom they denied any connection at an time? earlier And then in late February the President begins to have some conversatins with Dean and those continue in late February and into March and, of course, beginning with March 21 and coming forward things begin to snowball. ' Let me go to the March 21 conversation. It is imperative that you take the transcripts and read through them and that. you read through them not only in term-, of what is being said then as to what is happening but refer back to what happened earlier. There are discussions of how it developed, what the pattern was, what the problems were that came forth, and in that conversation on the morning of March 21, 1973, in which the President, John Dean, and H. R. Haldeman, the President's Chief of Staff, were all three present,, the President said to John Dean: "right. Fine. And, uh, my point Is, that, uh, we can, uh, you may welcome--I think it's good, frankly to consider these various options. And then, once you"---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired, Mr. SARBANES [reading] : "Once you decide on the plan--John--and YOU had the right plan, let me say, I have no doubt about the right plan before the election." Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman? ? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman I would I like to yield my time to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sandman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I would like to start with one simple question. It certainly deserves a simple answer. I have just heard a rehash of all of the excerpts from all of the tapes. ,My question to the gentleman from 'Maryland, who just presented those, is this a new document that you submitted? Or what was your purpose? [00.30.44]
Liberace Show #58, Master 506
Selections: "Mozart Meets Liberace" "Rondo Gavot" (Bach) "I'm Always Chasing Rainbows" with vocal "Mares Eat Oats and Does Eats Oats" VARIATIONS THEREOF "Rhapsody by Candelight" "Dance of the Skeletons"
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.28] Mr. DENNIS. But, you do have to say, if you are charging the man with making false and misleading statements, you do have to say in that on April 14, 1973, he did say to Henry Petersen, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, the so that he will know. He cannot be, required under the Constitution to look back over everything he may have said Sometime that somebody is now going to Say was false or misleading. You have gat to specify to that extent, and there is only one precedent in this particular case, and that is the case of Andrew Johnson. And if you will look. at the articles set forth on page 154 of our own publication, you will find that they were exceedingly specific. On a certain date he discharged Secretary Stanton contrary to the Tenure of Office Act by writing him the following letter. And on a certain date he conspired with one Lorenzo Thomas to make him Secretary of War when--- Mr. DANIELSON. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DENNIS. I will yield for about 30 seconds, but Mr. DANIELSON. That is about all the gentleman has. Mr. DENNIS. Well, I hate to yield to you then, but I would like an answer to that Mr. DANIELSON./ I wonder if I understood the gentleman correctly at I understood him to say that if we specify these acts in our accusatory pleading, the evidence to be educed at the trial is restricted those items? Mr. DENNIS. Why of course, and that is the whole purpose, and at you want to do is give a man no chance to know what he must et, and then you bring in anything you happen to think of, and it ,not constitutional, and it is not fair, and just because you are a congressional committee you cannot just tear the Constitution up and row it away. And that is what you want to do here. Mr. DANIELSON./ Would the chairman yield 2 minutes to the gentleman that he could yield to me to respond (1, please ? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the. gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. I do not -want 2 minutes to yield to him. Mr. DANIELSON. May I The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine has been seeking recognition Mr. Cohen. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize you for 5 minutes. Mr. COHEN. If I could, I would like to address a question to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes Mr. Sarbanes, I would assume that in each of the subheadings under the article that you propose to substitute, and let me say that I think these statements and the conclusions I can agree with most if not all of them, but let me turn to page I under article I, where you list submitted title, 1, making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees-of the United States. Now, -would it be fair for me to assume that you would rely upon certain--Mr. Dennis said essential facts--I would hesitate to use the word operative, facts in this context, but is it fair to Say that You Would rely upon one, two, three or four, specific dates an operative set Of,, facts to support that general statement, the making of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigators? Is that fair', to say that, you have that in mind Mr. SARBANES. Yes, although in most of these. instances, when it is, finally detailed in the the report, I would assume there, would be, many more instances than the number the gentleman suggests--one of the points is that there is a course of conduct, and not a single event. Mr. COHEN. I understand, and -would it be fair to say that you -would., probably refer to the summary of information that has been prepared! by Mr. Doar and Mr. Jenner, such as summary pages 30 through 32 to support that specific operative set of facts? acts Mr. SARBANES. Well, I would assume that the report would go further than that. The report could do that, but I -would also a that the report would spell out the matters I indicated in the response I gave this morning to the gentleman from Illinois. MC COHEN. But the problem that I have had for several months now, and usually with counsel, Mr. Doar and Mr. Jenner, you may,-` recall that at each time we issued a subpena, I specifically asked you, inquired and was always rejected, as to whether or not we might attach a specific justification Which you Set forth in great detail justifying the issuance for those subpena and the reasons why we needed them, and I would just like to inquire, I think I know the answer you will give me, but is there any reason why a document could not be attached to the proposed articles of impeachment, with a phrase to the effect "All of -which is set forth with greater particularity in the appendix attached hereto." In other words, getting into the civil pleading. I happen to agree with counsel, Mr. Jenner, that we are not talkin necessarily about criminal pleading, but perhaps civil pleading and we do have notice of pleading in civil cases and we also have a very -well established doctrine of incorporation by reference. Now, -wouldn't that be helpful in this particular instance? Mr. DOAR. It is my understanding, Mr. Congressman, that this would go along with the material would be included in the report and with articles. Now, whether it is attached that way or attached to the pleading, it is my understanding further really is immaterial. But generally speaking any civil pleading that I have been familiar with, is that you don incorporate this by reference. You furnish it by way Of answers to interrogatories or other discovery, pretrial procedures. Mr. COHEN. But it certainly -would be helpful in this instance to least incorporate by reference several operative sets of facts supporting the general allegation which again I can agree with, that the making of false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized officers, I agree - with that, there were false statements made. I think we can by the simple act of incorporating by reference clear away the probably really. Mr. RANGEL. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. COHEN. I yield to Mr. Rangel, the gentleman from New York. [01.09.23]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.14.51] Mr. HOGAN. Will the Chairman Yield Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON I thank the chairman for yielding. If I understand the chairman's remarks, it is that perhaps this committee in working on articles of impeachment so-called, that our responsibility is not now actually to perfect any articles but simply to decide whether or not we should recommend impeachment, and that those recommendations could be included in a report, and so on. However, somewhere down the line the House of has got, to draft some articles of impeachment, which in the opinion Of the House will stand the legal test in the Senate and if that is so wonder whether or not--whether the House will look to anybody but this group in the Judiciary Committee to do that, very task-. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have that responsibility And we might as well give our attention to those problems right now. The, CHAIRMAN. I do not want to take more, time except that I must correct, the, gentleman from Michigan who I am sure would want to set the record straight, does not want to misunderstand me. I did not state that, we should not perfect the articles. What I merely stated was a legal proposition that in impeachment proceedings there is no requirement in fact that the articles be, specifically set out. That is what I stated. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman? Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Now, I recognize--I have to go to this side. I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. . I thank the chairman, I would like to begin by commending our colleague, Mr. Sarbanes, who seems to be the target for tonight, on a rather excellent job I think of explaining what he has worked out here and what is going on. This reminds me a great deal of an old saying of our former distinguished chairman Mr. Celler, "I can give You explanations. I can't give you understanding." I think Mr. Sarbanes has done an excellent job. The impeachment grounds, as the chairman has indicated, indeed are quite broad. As I understand it, in the case of Andrew Johnson., they passed a resolution of impeachment. came back and drew up nine articles, went over in the Senate, decided they needed some more and drew a couple more. So going into all Of this great, I hesitate to say specifically, I really can didn't mean to say it. [Laughter.] As we get into all these legal terms. it is a lot, of fun, for 38 lawyers, 38 good lawyers, I think --well--37 good lawyers. It is a lot of fun, but we forget perhaps that in the House of Representatives they aren't all lawyers and the public likes it that way, I think. They may like it better. As for strict standards of proof--I saw where one of the distinguished Senators said yesterday that some of them had differing views from the discussions we had about rules of evidence. The Senate will decide on the rules Of evidence and as I recall in the, Johnson case they did. They overruled the Supreme Court's Chief Justice so many times that he finally threatened to quit and leave unless they behaved a little better. So I think it is educational for us lawyers but the doctrine of impeachment, is as strong as the Constitution and as broad as the King imagination, and we have that problem no now, perhaps. All the technicalities just remind me of the story of ,in old Missouri lawyer--the fellow was, kind of a country follow and got a case finally in the Supreme Court. He was nervous. He got up there and was arguing along and one of these judges looked down at him and He said. "Well, young man, where you come from do they ever talk the doctrine of 'que facit per aluim facit per Se?'" Well, he said, "Judge, they hardly speak of anything else. [Laughter.] Let me tell you I think Mr. Haldeman faked it per aluim and 'Mr, Ehrlichman faked it per aluim there is lots of evidence. If they dont understand -what we talking about now, they wouldn't know a hawk 'from a handsaw anyway. Seriously, we know what we are discussing. It is really a question of pleading and I think we are seeking to--piling inference on inference. There you go again, making inferences. We sit through these hearings day after day. I tell you, if a guy brought an elephant through that door and one of us said that is an elephant, some of the doubters would say, you know, that is an inference That could be a mouse with a glandular condition. [Laughter.] And perhaps one of them might be, but not 12, or even 28 volumes. Let talk some about this evidence. I know these distinguished gentlemen know the law far better than I and they realize that we don't have, to plead it with all that great whatever that word was. Article III, I would like to talk about it a little, "approving, acquiescing, counseling witnesses to give false and misleading statements," et, cetera, of, cetera. [01.20.32]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.25.00] I yield to Mr. Wiggins from California. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank the gentleman for or yielding. Let's not confuse apples and oranges. We do not have any responsibility to be specific at all here -with respect to the recommendation we Make to the House. Indedd, the House is able to recognize any member at any time to impeach Richard Nixon without any degree of specificity. We are talking rather about what happens at the Senate. This is a job which will be ours to carry to the Senate. Now, ladies and gentlemen, each in turn yesterday and the day before, we paid tribute to the Constitution. Now is the time to put tip or shut up because we are talking about the Constitution. We are talking about the, fifth amendment and the rights of a respondent 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 demands it. Wouldn't it be a damning indictment, Mr. Chairman, of this committee if, after all this time and all this money, we 'were unable to state specificity what this case is all about? I think it would. Now, all we are asking, Mr. Chairman, is that we get about it and do it. We shouldn't argue over that point. We should be precise and I suggest we do so. [01.26.33--cut to DUKE in studio] DUKE says that the next speaker will be Democrat John CONYERS to argue that the resolutions are specific enough [01.26.48--PBS network ID] [Promo for Masterpiece Theatre Sherlock Holmes feature] [promo for ATP tennis--a doubles match] [an anti-pollution/environmental message] [01.30.00--title screen "Impeachment Debate"] [Duke in studio, introduces Rep. CONYERS.] [01.30.17]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.01.50] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* [NPACT logo black screen--trippy rotating image of Capitol Dome--title screen "Impeachment Debate" ] LEHRER in studio, discussing progress of debate, to debate an ARTICLE introduced by Rep. Paul SARBANES (D-MD) charging OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Appears to have majority support, possibly 25 or26 votes. Majority of debate, says LEHRER, over whether the SARBANES ARTICLE was specific enough, with lines drawn clearly pro and con. Paul DUKE notes it was a new kind of debate, with parliamentary procedure governing a more heated confrontation, with more partisanship. 2 things clear: President's supporters will do whatever necessary to derail impeachment drive it may be more difficult than previously thought for the supporters of impeachment to agree on a drafted article. Introduces reporter Caroline LEWIS LEWIS at Capitol reports on the abundance of posturing and grandstanding earlier in the day, giving way to closed-door sessions to try to iron out differences quickly. LEWIS says that amendments to the proposed article have not been serious, and a vote on the final article may come quickly if [cut DUKE/LEHRER, L.standing at "scoreboard"] DUKE asks LEWIS if she thinks the committee will bog down on inane details, does she think there will be a vote tonight? LEWIS says she's talked to Chair. RODINO'S chief aide, who indicated a vote by the end of the night was possible. Expect a motion to strike by Rep. Wiggins, a motion to table, and debate about amendments, leading to a vote by the end of the evening, but congressional committees are often unpredictable. [DUKE/LEHRER in studio, L. standing at "scoreboard"] DUKE says that one certain thing is that there is a likely 2-1 majority for impeachment, with many taking a side who were uncommitted. LEHRER frames the count as votes on the first OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE article, saying a tentative 23 votes for the proposed article. LEHRER points out photos, names names. 23 sure votes. Of definite nayes to the ARTICLE, points out faces, reads names. 11 "nayes", with McCLORY checking in against the particular ARTICLE while still advocating other articles of impeachment. All Opponents are REPUBLICANS. Points to Rep. FROEHLICH (R-Wisc), who has stated his opposition on grounds of the drafting of the ARTICLE. Maybe "AYES", called the three crucial people, are REPUBLICANS, FISH AND RAILSBACK, and DEMOCRAT FLOWERS of Alabama. LEHRER asks LEWIS if she agrees with his scorekeeping [cut LEWIS at Capitol] LEWIS says agrees on the whole, has questions about Rep. BUTLER, saying that he has expressed a desire to have more specificity in the ARTICLES. Asks if his committment to the ARTICLE has been confirmed. Says that in the crunch, FLOWERS will go along with impeachment, but BUTLER as a stickler for the rules may pass over the ARTICLE. [00.13.31]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.16.39] Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition On my Own part. The CHAIRMAN The Chair- will have to recognize the, gentleman on the other side first. I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.' Froehlich. for 5 minutes. Mr. FROEHLICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When Lott had the floor he. asked a very important question. I would like You, Mr. Chairman, to reply or the staff to reply. Who is going to write the committee report that will go to the floor that will show the members of the House specifically what is behind each individual paragraph in this article of impeachment? Is the staff going to write that ? Does I he committee have any right to review, to approve that report as a ("1-0111) or is it, going to be written outside, of our view and without our knowledge? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is advised that any report, is a committee report find that the report -would then, of course. if any individual member wanted to exercise individual views, additional views or views other than the views of the majority of the committee, could-, so do. But the report, however, would be a' report prepared by the committee and the report of the committee circulated to each of the members and, of course. all of us would have to recognize that as has been done, as will be done, that the assistance of staff is always employed but nonetheless the work is the work of the committee and unless, that committee report, is authorized by majority of the committee it does not become a report of the committee Mr. FROEHLICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jenner. when you indicated that some time, prior to trial in the Senate a demand could be made by the attorney for the President for something, akin to a bill of particulars, what point in time were you I referring to? Mr. JENNER. I think I was responding to Congressman Hogan's question as to whether the President's counsel could wait. until just before the Chief Justice opened the trial and then move with respect to the he articles of impeachment. I don't wish to compromise Mr. Hogan but I think that was the question he asked. Mr. FROEHLICH. I don't want that answer, Mr. Jenner. I want the answer as to what point in time would it be proper for the President's attorney to demand in behalf of the President a bill of particulars as to this impeachment. Mr. JENNER. Subject to rules adopted by the Senate, he can do so time after the Bill of Impeachment is lodged with the U.S. Senate. However, he must do so at a reasonable time before trial. Mr. FROEHLICH. And where is the bill of particulars? Mr. JENNER. The House of Representatives, that is, the managers for the House of Representatives. Mr. FROEHLICH. Would you say that this could be an unconstitutional delegation of the sole power of impeachment to a small group of individuals in behalf of the House of Representatives as a whole since the power of impeachment as you so eloquently have stated time and time again rests solely in the House of Representatives. Mr. JENNER. think. Mr. FROEHLICH. Solely Mr. Excuse me. Mr. FROEHLICH. Solely in the House of Representatives. Mr. JENNER. Congressman Froehlich I think not because a bill of particulars is but a pleading. It goes only to the scope and specifies particulars the proof and not to the article of impeachment. As to the time the respondent must request a bill of particulars, that will be fixed by rules to be adopted by the Senate. None of this goes to fundamentals. It is only practice, pleading and procedure. No delegation of power is involved. Mr. FROEHLICH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have just paged through the October 1973 publication of this committee on Impeachment and I am looking at the article for Senator Blount in 1798 and I am looking right at the article for impeachment of Judge James H. Peck and I looking at the article for the impeachment. of Judge West H. Humphrey. And I am looking at the articles of impeachment for Judge Charles 'Swayne. And each one of these articles of impeachment are specific. They tell the date, they tell the place, they tell the occurrance, they tell what was wrong and what laws were violated if there were laws -violated. And it seems to me that in fairness and in justice to the President of the United States, after 8 months and over $1 million, that this committee could come to a conclusion as to what the specifics of this impeachment are in detail and with specific charge and I am ready as I indicated yesterday in some instances, in some cases if the case is put in the proper form and the proper shape, to vote for an article of impeachment. But I don't think that the articles placed before us are in specific enough detail to bring me to that conclusion today. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie. [00.22.08]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.31]. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead, for 5 minutes. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I can well understand -why some of the gentlemen, ladies here today are discussing the tapes again rather than the issue at hand because they are on the -wrong side of the most Important issue, one that I feel is as important and dear to the citizens of this country as any right that they have under the Constitution. I think we have to uphold our Constitution and the rights of the people who are accused of any kind of offense. You cannot arrest a man for suspicion of a robbery at 10th and L in Washington, wait until the time of trial and have him build up his defense, and then offer evidence against him for an offense on an entirely different day, in another city, that he has not had a chance to defend. There must be a time when the issues arc formed, when they are joined, where the man knows what he is charged with specifically. Now I do not blame the people who have drawn these articles. I know le reason. Mr. Hungate said you had to have understanding think we have understanding. The understanding is that all the way through these hearings Mr. Doar and Mr. Jenner told this committee You will be the judge of these offenses, you -will be the judge as to, whether this particular fact is truly a fact or whether it is not. You will be the judge of determining whether this fact constitutes an offense or whether it does not. But, now what we are asked to do as a committee is to not determine whether those facts are true or whether we accept them, or whether we accept a particular version of them. We are asked to pass on a lot of generalities that really do not allege specific charges, that do not tell the President what we believe, he is guilty of and what he is not. And the reason is, obviously that you cannot get 21 people on this committee to agree to many of these things which have not been proven, for which there is not *adequate evidence. So, I do not blame anyone. that wants to go by these very general, and in some cases misleading statements. Let me read one place in this article. The "means used to implement this policy have included one or more of the following," and they allege nine different things. One or more. Well, I suppose if you read that carefully it says that there may be eight of them that are false, but maybe one of them is true. I think the President of the United States, as well as any other citizen of this country, has a right to know what he is charged with, and has a right to prepare a defense. Now, I know we have got -39 volumes of materials, some of it is hearsay, some of it is newspaper articles, some of it is quotes from other tapes, and some of it comes from all kinds of various sources and a lot of it is not evidence, could not be admissible in any court of law. You cannot tell the President or any other person we have got these general charges, but you may be, accused of anything that i's in this, book, or anything else that we want to bring in at the last minute. Let us follow the Constitution that we have talked about and which many people have said last night was so important. I believe in that Constitution. I believe in that Constitution more than almost anything in this world. And I -will fight and defend it in every way that I possibly can. It is more important than Richard Nixon or me or anyone else in this room. That Constitution is the thing that has given us freedom. But, I -would tell you that if this modern law that is supposedly taking effect, and I do not think that it has reached California yet, thank goodness, if that's ever really adopted into law, the people of this country have lost some of their constitutional rights and they are bad shape, because you would not know what you were accused of until you get on trial. I think the President of the United States has more opportunity should have more opportunity than that. And getting down to specifies, we have been told that a bill of particulars could be had when this thing goes to the Senate, and we he earlier in the newspaper at least, that Mr. Mansfield was discussing giving the President 54 days to prepare a defense, to offer argument against the petition that might be filed by this body. But, I read the other day that be was considering starting the immediately so that it would get all of the good press just prior to election, I am sure, so we would be in the newspapers then, on television , pointing out the mistakes the Republican administration made on prime time right up to election day. [00.33.48]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.39.32] Mr. MANN. But, what bothers me most of all are the loose statements, some Which we have Just now heard, that the, President is going to go to on trial, Without knowing what the charge is. The President if he goes to trial, is going to trial not only knowing what the charge is. but knowing, what every word, every i and every t, every bit of evidence that has been made available to this committee, which has been presented here in the presence of the President's counsel. If we get further evidence, I can assure you will have my support to see that the President's counsel is present when it is presented to this committee and that, he is present when it is presented to the House of Representatives, if -new evidence is presented at any time. So, what are we talking about sneaking tip on someone? The evidence all of it, will be available to the President tomorrow or the next day. He has gotten it up until now. He has some, of course that we would like to have. Now, I do not find that this proceeding, which admittedly has sparse precedent, is in violating the constitutional rights of anyone who stands before the bar of justice possessed of every fact known to the prosecution and possessed of the description of the charge against him. What surprise--what surprise can I conclude other than this is not a substantive objection; it is a procedural matter. It is a matter that I must suggest that I somewhat predicted as I realized that the arguments made here in front of these cameras would not be made for the benefit of me as a member of this committee. I do not think Mr. Sandman would be so strident or even so partisan if these proceedings were not being conducted to influence the opinions of the American People. But, I am here to study the law and the evidence, and to see that Richard Nixon gets a fair trial, that he is advised of all the evidence against him, and in my judgment , the charges that are included in article I notify him of what he is charged with. And they set out something extra , the means by which he is alleged to have committed that offense of obstruction of justice. Let us be reasonable. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield'? Mr. MANN. We have had the advice of Mr. Jenner who because of his objectivity stands stripped of his title as minority counsel, a man who was chairman of that body of the American Bar Association, the Advisory Committee to advise the Supreme Court on Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure, and the foremost expert in the United States, I submit on this subject. And he tells us that in his judgment this article is adequate to advise the respondent of the charges against him. Mr. WIGGINS. the gentleman yield? Mr. MANN. Fairness is what is required. I would settle for nothing less. And I submit that this article grants fairness in the highest tradition of American jurisprudence, and of the power of this body to exercise its serious power of preserving our Government through the power of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WIGGINS. Would you yield for a second, please? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, for 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, and reserve my remaining 2 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I am amazed that I have heard some of the arguments I have heard here today. I cannot believe this is the same group that made all of those speeches yesterday and the night before, everyone of them making that Constitution, the Constitution the most valuable thing that was ever made, and it is, and yet, so willing to cast aside the most important provision therein, the one known as due Process, that one now for their own convenience they will throw under the rug. Isn't it amazing that they are willing to do anything such as resistance to making the thing specific? Isn't it amazing they have so much, but they are willing to say so little? Isn't it amazing? They are willing to do anything except make these articles specific. It is the same old story, you know, when you don't have the law on your side, YOU talk about facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, you just talk, and that is what a lot of people have been doing today. Now, we talk about this going to the Senate. What about the House of Representatives? Are you going to get down there and say fellows, we have got so many stories to tell, here is 40 books that have been put together by Doar and Jenner, you just rehash those, you don't need anything else. Don't pay any attention to the constitutional law or else, just look over these things, and maybe this is the reason why they didn't want any witnesses. Never wanted a witness. [00.45.42]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.51.27] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie Mr. WALDIE. I thank the gentleman, but a 5 minute segment of the Watergate saga is a pretty hard one. But, we left the principals after the President and Mr. Colson on Sunday, following the burglary, 'were. having an hour's chat, in which they discussed the Watergate, hilt Only in general terms and never discussed any particulars at all, according to Mr. Colson. And we don't know, according to the President. But, we do know something that happened on June 20. All the President's men gathered from all over this country back into Washington They came from California, they came in from Florida. and they came to Washington where they could meet and confer and de- what to do about this threatening calamity, the threatening calamity of the re-election of the President, the most important thing all of them had facing their entire lives. the re-election of this President, and their blind-dedication to that 'objective is just not even arguable. And after they met and discussed their policy, the President met with Haldeman, his closest adviser, and they discussed the Watergate. That is in Haldeman's notes. Everybody agrees there was a, discussion of Watergate on that tape, That 18 1/2 minutes is all that is missing. There is nothing else missing on that tape except the discussion Of Watergate, right after that big strategy session. Now, it is now determined that human hands erased that 181/2 minutes while it was in the exclusive and sole possession of the President. And it is attributable to sinister forces. My own inclination is to believe that it is ,in inescapable inference that the President had that 18 1/2 minutes erased because. it would have been so devastating in its incrimination of the President immediately in the coverup plan. But, there is something that was not erased. There was a dictabelt of a phone conversation or the recollection that the President had of the events that day. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Is the gentleman from Ohio seeking recognition? Mr. LATTA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I thought maybe they would never get down this far. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is interesting to sit this far away from the center of power. You get all of these statements before you get an opportunity to speak. And let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I was surprised as a member of the Rules Committee to hear that you propose sending these articles of impeachment in a general form. and attached thereto as a supplement I might say, in the report to the Rules Committee for consideration. Well, now Mr, Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee are, supposed to read those reports before. we make a finding and report a rule to the House of Representatives. And certainly you would not want us to void our own rules. I think that we ought to ponder about that, the same way that Members of the House of Representatives ought to ponder about what you are proposing. You are saying that we are going to send these general articles of Impeachment to the floor of the House, without being specific, without, saying the time, the place, and say to the Members of the House of Representatives who are not on this committee, go through those 38 or 40 volumes, try to sort out what we think as members of this committee are impeachable offenses, and make a judgment thereon. Is that what we are saying? If you are, other Members of the House, good luck. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to rethink what we are pro posing. A common Jaywalker charged: with jaywalking any place in the United States is entitled to know when an where the alleged offense is supposed to have occurred. Is the President of the United States entitled to less? Yes, he is entitled to know, even though the Constitution from which impeachment proceedings comes does not specifically spell out, but you have to do so. The sixth amendment is still in the Constitution, and are we going to waive it in this case? They did not waive it in. any other impeachment case. Are we going to set a new precedent here and waive that? Where are these civil libertarians? I think it is high time that we stopped to rethink what we are doing. Nobody is trying to delay the action here, because I well know that anytime that the chairman puts down that gavel and says call the roll, the votes are here to do exactly as you like. Whether or not Mr. Jenner Mr. Doar prepared these articles, which they probably did, they certainly ought, to agree with what they prepared, and I thought that was a question that really did not have to be asked by the Chair as to whether or not these gentlemen agreed with what they had prepared. I think that was useless. But, I think that it is important that we do something fair for the Other Members Of the House. Let us forget about the President of the United States. We are not the only Members of the House of Representatives who are going to be called upon to make a judgement And to throw 38 or 39 books at them and say here, here's what we meant, let Us just take a look at them. On the first page at the bottom, No. 1, he is charged with making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigating 'officers. [00.58.27]
Pigeons fill frame (Italy)
Florence - Palazzo Vecchio, Ponte Vecchio, pan of city
Florence - Palazzo Vecchio, Ponte Vecchio, pan of city
Florence - Palazzo Vecchio, Ponte Vecchio, pan of city
Capri - Blue Grotto
Capri - Blue Grotto
Not in canister
Capri - Blue Grotto
Capri - Blue Grotto
Capri - Day/Night
Capri - Day / night
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE # 97481 Capri - aerials, island (POV boat)
Pisa ? - cemetery
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #991962 Pisa - b & w leaning tower, aerial
Pisa - b & w neg.
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 210219 Pompeii and other ruins
ON PREVIEW CASS 98448 Pompeii - festival - renaissance - costume