Advanced Search
Sea Birds - Least Auklet
(Tape 1) Least Auklets on rocks, then flying
Sea Birds -Thick Billed Murre
(Tape 1) Thick-Billed Murres flying
Sea Birds - Least Auklet
(Tape 1) Least Auklets flying
Sea Birds - Thick Billed Murre
(Tape 1) Thick-Billed Murres swimming
Sea Birds - Parakeet Auklet
(Tape 1) Parakeet Auklets swimming
Sea Birds - Murre
(Tape 1) Cliffs and Murres
Sea Birds - Red Legged Kittiwake Gull
(Tape 1) Red-Legged Kittiwake Gull
Sea Birds - Thick Billed and Common Murre
(Tape 1) 12:29:14 Thick-Billed Murres & Common Murres 12:29:47 Murres preening
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.16.00] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* [Chairman RODINO with Reps. RAILSBACK, SARBANES, DRINAN, others] DUKE/LEHRER v.o. discuss the conflict between the members over specificity, LEHRER saying it could become very drawn out and difficult. [01.18.55--GAVEL to order] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jordan, for 5 minutes. Thank Ms. JORDAN. Thankl you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this committee has spent 2 days receiving and listening to very eloquent arguments. We talked about the Constitution I and we talked about the Serious nature of the impeachment process and all which -was said, we were telling the truth. We believed what we were talking about. Now, Mr. Chairman, this committee is called upon to get to the matter of the consideration of articles of impeachment. It apparently is very difficult for the committee to translate its views of the Constitution into the realities of the impeachment provisions. It is understandable that this committee would have proceeding difficulties, because this is an unfamiliar and strange procedure. But, some of the arguments which were offered earlier today by some members of this committee in my judgment are phantom arguments, bottomless arguments. Due process. If we have not afforded the President of the United States due process as we have proceeded through this impeachment inquiry, then there is no due process to be found anywhere. Well, what did we do? The Judiciary Committee under all of the historical precedents available does not have to allow counsel to the President to participate in its proceedings, but this committee, because of its grace, because it wanted to be fair, because of its interest in due process allowed, suffered, if you will, counsel to the President to sit in these proceedings every day. He was present. Was he gagged? Was he silent? No, because this Judiciary Committee cast a rule which allowed the President's counsel to speak. Now, one might say, well, certainly that is minimal due proem. All I am saying is that the committee was under no compulsion to do that, but voted to do it. So, the President's counsel was here and received every item of information this committee received. The President's counsel suggested witnesses be wanted called and heard by this committee. They were all called. They were all heard. The President's counsel was afforded the right to cross-examine witnesses. I Now, I know that our rules disallowed cross-examination on said question. But, those of you who know of the capacities and abilities of Mr. St. Clair would certainly say that be cross-examined the witnesses who appeared before this committee. What else did he do? He submitted to this committee a reply brief: in addition to making and oral argument in response to all of the' material which this committee had received. Now. we have board a lot today about specificity, about our being so general that no one would be able to answer it, that the President would not be advised of his rights, and that therefore would not be able to answer or prepare for his defense. Well, Mr. St. Clair felt that the case presented before this committee was specific enough for him to file a reply brief and to engage in oral argument, both before this committee. The subpenas. We were very reluctant to issue a subpena to the president of the United States. But the President asked us for additional time to respond to our first subpena and we said we want you, Mr. President, to have due process, so additional time is yours. And we gave him that time. Due process? Due process tripled. Due process quadrupled. We did that. The President knows the case which has been heard before this committee. The President's counsel knows the case which has been heard before this committee. It is a useless argument to say that what We Would do is to throw 38 or 39 books at the House and say, you find the offenses with which the President is charged, and say the same thing to the President. We talked about a report and we say that the report will be filed along with the bill of impeachment, resolution of impeachment. That report will be filed and it will contain the rather detailed specific particularized information so that no one can question whether the President has been advised of the allegations against him. The CHAIRMAN. The time of gentlelady has expired. MS. JORDAN. Thank you. [01.26.15]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00--Opens with view of the legal staff, Hillary RODHAM is visible seated behind John DOAR--unfortunately, in closer shots of DOAR, her face is just out of frame] Testimony given by Special Committee Counsel John Doar and Assistant Mr. Jenner. Questions and Remarks given by Congressmen Wiliam S. Cohen (R-Maine), David Dennis (R-Indiana), Ray Thorton (D- Arkansas), Hamilton Fish Jr. (R-New York), and Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzmann (D-New York), Transcription of this clip is available upon request.
Liberace Show #64, Master 512
Liberace Show # 64 (CHRISTMAS SHOW)
Liberace Show #65, Master 513
Selections: "I Want A Girl Just Like the One That Married Dear Old Dad" with vocal "Sophisticated Lady" "Take A Letter, Miss Jones" with vocal "Yakety Yak Polka" "Laura" "We Belong Together" with vocal
Liberace Show #66, Master 601
Selections: "Varsity Rag" SKIT WITH GIRL AS A PIANO TEACHER "The Rosary" FEATURING THE NORMAN LUBOFF CHOIR "A Flat Major Polonaises" (Chopin) "Walkin' My Baby Back Home" with vocal
Liberace Show #67, Master 602
Selections: "Whistle While You Work" "Try A Little Tenderness" with vocal "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" "My Buddy" vocal with female singer (Annette Warren) "Grieg- Peer Gynt Melodies" "Never Make A Pretty Woman Your Wife" with vocal
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.15.20] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Utah Mr. Owens. is recognized for 5 minutes Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield my 5 Minutes; to the gentleman from California to continue that, litany of Watergate activities that he was half halfway through. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California recognized for 5 Minutes. Mr. WALDIE. We will continue with this story of intrigue and high drama in high Government circles. As you recall, we last left, our group of people with the President, With the President less than a -week after the break-in announcing to the public facts acts that, in fact, he knew were not true. When he confirmed the statements of Mr. Ziegler and Mr. Mitchell that there were no Committee for the Re-Election of the President people or no White House people involved in that incident, there were, and he knew it. And that was the first publicly surfaced act of coverup -on the part, of the, President. But, very shortly thereafter the, President continued the coverup, a coverup that was necessary to protect that which all were most concerned about, the fact that he might it lose the election in 1972 if the", American people, understood that the White House was involved in Surreptitious entry. and illegal surveillance for political intelligence and all that litany of White House horrors. So on June, 23 another problem had arisen and that was keep those, folk quiet who had been arrested. the five that had been arrested that, night, Saturday night, June 17 as well as the two who were across the street in a roomful of electronic surveillance, Hunt and Liddy. It took money. It took money to keep them quiet, and if you did not pay them money they would tell. And if they told, everything would fall apart, and the election of the, President might be jeopardized. The first $10,000 of money we saw was delivered the night of the burglary when Mr. Hunt went back to the White House. if you will, into his safe, and took out $10,000 in cash, the only deal in cash in this operation, and delivered it on behalf of the burlglars to keep them quiet Then, Dean is operating to bring about the coverup, not to investigate, not to report, but to implement the coverup. And Dean goes to John Mitchell of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President in the period June 23, June 26, somewhere in that area and says Mr. Mitchell how about you folks putting up the money to bail these people out and to pay their attorneys' fees? And Mr. Mitchell say don't want anything of it. That's your problem. It s you young fellows over in the, White House that brought this idiot scheme to the fore by your Plumbers, by your Hunt and your Liddy, by your break-in of the Fielding' office. It was not the. Committee for the Re-Election of the President. It was Haldeman and Ehrlichman operating on behalf of the President and the Committee for the Re-Election of the President wouldn't finance any more of the coverup. So then Dean goes to the CIA, if you will, and he says to the CIA ,look, isnt there some way you fellows--you don't have to account to Congress or to anybody and they don't for anything but particularly they don't for money--can't you fellows in the CIA put up enough money to take care of the follows that were working on behalf Of the President. He said it was a national security mission and the CIA gets all turned on usually for national security missions but they didn't in this caste, and they said no, we are not going to Put up money for burglars, no matter for whom they were working and they didn't. So then he went back to Ehrlichman in the White House, and he said I really need the money desperately, these follows are about to blow, and he says I need to talk to someone who can raise big money,. and he went and was referred to the President's personal lawyer, Mr. Kalmbach, and the President's personal fund raiser. Now, surely it stretches credibility beyond endurance to believe that the President's personal lawyer, the President's personal fund raiser, would be enlisted in this illegal scheme of raising money with out having first gotten approval from the President. And I believe the inferences are abundantly clear that the President .granted approval on the part of Ehrlichman's Ehrlichman to refer Dean to Kalmbach came in that night, the 28th of June, mind you, 17th of June is when the break-in happened and this is 11 days later. That night he came in and raised $75,000 by nightfall and got that into the hands of the people that were buying the silence of the burglars. Now, that takes us up to the end of June when the next act in our drama unfolds, June 30. They call in John Mitchell and they say John, we've got to get you out of the limelight because the press has asked you questions because you are the chairman of my reelection campaign and you know too much, John. And John knew "everything. There was not anything John Mitchell did not know at that time about the break-in of the Democratic National Committee. And so they concocted a story, and it was concocted, we have the information on that conversation, and that story was that John and Martha were having trouble, which they probably were, and therefore, that would be the excuse by which he Would allege the necessity resignation But, it was, mind you, and so portrayed, as an excuse. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Utah has expired. [00.21.36]
Liberace Show #68, Master 604
Selections: "Flight of the Bumblebee Boogie" "18th Variation" (Paganini) "Till The End Of Time" with vocal "Habanera from Carmen" "Concerto #1" (Tchaikovsky) "Lover"
Liberace Show #69
Liberace Show #69, Master 603
Liberace Show #70, Master 607
Liberace Show #70, Master 607
Liberace Show #71, Master 605
Selections: "Got to Get Going" with vocal "I've Been Working on the Railroad" with vocal "When Day Is Done" with vocal "Darktown Strutters Ball" "Stella" "Too Marvelous" with vocal
Lisbon harbor (ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98969-13:02:33)
Superb Starling
Superb starling ON PART TWO
Will It Be "Lucky" Pierre?
Pierre Salinger, following his surprise resignation as White House Press Secretary, opens office in California to run for a U.S. Senate seat. A former White House aid is helping him, Andrew Hatcher. California Hanging on a door, hand written on a piece of typing is a hand written little sign, "Salinger for Senate". CU - Man knocking on the door, and Pierre Salinger opens the door with a smile and greets him. CUS - Their inside a motel or hotel room with a whole lot of political activity going on. CUS - Pair of hands holding bumper stickers in his hand " Salinger' US Senator. MCUS - Pierre Salinger sitting by the window in his hotel room as he consults with an aid.
Sea Birds - Northern Fulmar
(Tape 1) Northern Fulmar in nest cavity
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.07] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Senate and Members of the House, I hope that we won't have to carry this on through all of theSe paragraphs, all nine, but, it seems as though this is what we have do to get some kind of a ruling on the law about which there should be no question. at the outset, of course, my objections to paragraph I is that it is indefinite, as is the preamble in the first paragraph. And it is reason, it is -not a legitimate Article of Impeachment. I may say at the outset, I had -wondered, after I had heard the nine witnesses before our committee on who the prosecutor would use as witness when this measure would ever get to the U.S. Senate, if it ever got there, and tonight I think I found out they apparently intend to use the gentleman from California, and using him as a witness is going to be about as legal as using the evidence that he is trying to make people believe tonight. Now, back to this particular item. So much as been said about the that the Special Prosecutor has in his job as compared to what we are doing here in our job. Now, this is an amazing set of circumstances. The Special Prosecutor is looking into exactly the same case, but, of course, his is a little different because crime is being charged there, and impeachment on our score. But, the Special Prosecutor, with a handfull of people and only a fraction of the time that we have consumed has been able to produce a theory of the case. The Special Prosecutor, in exactly the same case, has presented exact, precise articles of indictment. Now, why can we not do the same thing, with 105 employees, of which about half of those are lawyers? Why can we not do the same thing? It would be SO easy. Why are we arguing about all of this Everybody knows it is the only legitimate way to do this. It is a simple way. Reference to bill of particulars, reference to any other item is not, the same as making the original document specific, A simple parking ticket has to be specific. It has to say what you did that violated the law. It has got to have the license of your car it has got to have the date that you did it. You want to replace that and say, that does not have to apply to the President. Why, this is ridiculous , and this is an altogether new ball game. You can talk about all of the days and the months that we have been here, and St. Clair has been here, but that changes once you adopt one Article of Impeachment. That is a new ball game, because then it goes to the House of Representatives to decide whether or not a trial should be held in the Senate. And you know, I think the House of 'Representatives is entitled to a little bit of information. I think that it is altogether fitting and proper to tell them specifically what you are, going to prove. I do not think they should have to listen to their TV all night, and find out the next chapter of Mr. Waldie's summation. I do not think that is the way this case should be tried. You cannot, replace witnesses that you are unwilling to call, you cannot not replace him for Mr. Hunt that you did not want the public to hear. This is what the case is all about. Let us itemize this thing now. The House is going to go into a 10 debate, 435 people are, going to have something to say a-out this an they should not have to wait until the, same measure gets to the U.S. U.S. Senate, when Mr. St. Clair for the first time, according learned counsel, will have the right to ask for a bill of particulars. [00.32.25--here is a much better shot of John DOAR that shows Hillary RODHAM (CLINTON) seated behind DOAR] House of Representatives does not have to ask for a bill of particulars, they are entitled to the particulars from the first day one, you know it and I know it and let's do it. That is what we should be talking about now. Now, I would like to ask counsel this simple question. You have given some pretty good, wide-searching opinions tonight, especially on paragraph I where you have given your blanket endorsement to that paragraph, replete with generalities as being sufficient. I Will ask you one simple question. The Special Prosecutor is working on exactly the same case and, in fact, you want his evidence. You want his tapes. Would this be sufficient for the Special Prosecutor? Would it? Mr. DOAR. If this were, Mr. Sandman, if this were a conspiracy case, a criminal conspiracy case, in addition to the first paragraph there would be a requirement under the criminal law that one, overt act be done by one or more of the coconspirators pursuant to the agreement. But, the essence of a conspiracy case is an agreement. That is the essence of. a conspiracy case. And the essence of this case is the President's policy. And the essence of a conspiracy case is something is done in furtherance of the, conspiracy, in Mr. SANDMAN. IS. Pardon me. I am not trying to interrupt. I am not interested in the difference between conspiracy. We are both working on the, same case. I am talking about being specific. Is the language, according to your opinion, in paragraph 1, which you said is sufficietn for this case, is it -also sufficient for any kind of a case that the Special Prosecutor would bring? Mr. DOAR. Yes I believe it is. Mr. SANDMAN. Oh, this is sufficient for indictment? His is an indictment. Mr. DOAR. If one overt---- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. DOAR. If you allege one overt act. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman [00.34.38]