Advanced Search
Liberace Show #105, Master 904
Selections: LIBERACE INTRODUCES HIS SISTER, ANGIE LIBERACE INTRODUCES SUSIE ROBERTS, PRESIDENT OF THE LIBERACE FAN CLUB LIBERACE INTRODUCES HIS NIECE, DIANE "Third Man Theme" "Old MacDonald's Farm" with vocal "Cow Cow Boogie" FEATURING VOCALS OF ELLA MAE MORRIS "Manhattan Serenade" "Chopin Melody"/ "Melancholy Baby" / "Latin Number" / "I'll Be Seeing You" with vocal
Liberace Show #106, Master 903
Selections: "Saber Dance" with dancer "Japanese Farewell Song" as sung by KC JONES Unknown Title "Nature Boy" with vocal "Bells of Geneva" (Liszt) "Waltzing Matilda" with vocal
Liberace Show #107, Master 804
Selections: "School Days" EDWARD HOUR, CHILD PRODIGY, PLAYS CHOPIN'S "SCHERZOS". CU Lib recounting his first recital before introducing Edward and his parents. Edward talks about his teacher, then plays. MS's of the child playing the difficult piece on Lib's piano. "Nothing For Nothing" with vocal "Wedding March" / "Oh, Promise Me" with vocal "Lullaby" (Brahms) "Anniversary Waltz" with vocal
Liberace Show #108, Master 906
Selections: "Piccolo Pete" with vocal "Jazz Pizzicato" "Harp Etude" (Chopin) FEATURES HARPIST "Sincerely Yours" with vocal "Hot Lips" FEATURING TRUMPET PLAYER "Cello Movement-- Liszt Concerto in A Major" FEATURING CELLIST "Piano Roll Blues" with vocal
Liberace Show #109, Master 905
Selections: "Over A Bowl Of Sukiyaki": MS/CUs Liberace sitting before a table at which components of sukiyaki are placed (meat, vegetables, hibachi, sake and tea pots, chopsticks). MSs Lib performing the rather blasphemous song, complete with broken English & woodblock accompaniment. (00.07.25) "Stardust" FEATURES A THEREMIN SOLO BY DR. SAMUEL HOFFMAN. "Home" with vocal "Mexican Hat Dance": Liberace recounts the places and people he encountered on his visit to Mexico, employing an old slide projector; film of he and band playing "Mexican Hat Dance" appear on screen; at outset, Lib, wearing a Mexican hat, thanks the audience in Spanish and English. "Traumerai" (Schumann) "Nola" FEATURING TWO PIANOS AND VOCALS
Liberace Show #110, Master 907
Selections: HAWAIIAN SHOW "I Want To Learn To Speak Hawaiian" with vocal "Tree" WITH RECITATION "Hula Hands" with vocal "Hawaiian War Chant" with dancer "The Rosary" "Cockeyed Mayor" with vocal
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.03] [in to NPACT logo] [shot Rep. WIGGINS arguing that "ABUSE OF POWER" can't be classified as a "high crimes and misdemeanors" ] [shot Rep. DANIELSON arguing that the offenses are 'uniquely Presidential' and that ordinary criminal laws are irrelevant to the case] [00.03.00] [opening sequence with weird rotating 3-d image of Capitol Dome] [00.03.35] [Jim LEHRER in studio] LEHER introduces the charge pending in the committee as ABUSE OF POWER and Violation of OATH OF OFFICE. there is expected to be a final vote on that article by the end of the night, almost certain to be adopted. [this is after the afternoon's debate has taken place] LEHRER says that the final vote may even swell to 28-10. The vote coming on what has "already been a bad day" for President NIXON. [grim-looking photo of NIXON shown on screen behind LEHRER.] LEHRER says that former Secretary of Treasury Connally was indicted by a grand jury for perjury, bribery, and obstruction of justice for the milk-producers campaign funding affair. Paul DUKE says that it has been all but conceded that IMPEACHMENT will be voted by the full house, with some REPUBLICANS estimating that as many as 60 HOUSE REPUBLICANS (1/3) may vote for IMPEACHMENT, as well as SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS. Notes that SENATE leaders MANSFIELD and SCOTT met today to plan for the TRIAL [00.05.50--Shot JUDICIARY COMMITTEE table, members settling in for hearings] As for the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, DUKE notes that the Presiden'ts defenders were defeated in efforts to limit the charges agains NIXON. Says that the Pro-NIXON side is "disheartened" to learn that the second article will likely be approved by a wide margin [cut DUKE in studio] Introduces interview by Caroline LEWIS with Rep. HUTCHINSON, the ranking REPUBLICAN on the Committee. [LEWIS standing with microphone next to HUTCHINSON, who wears a very conservative jacket and tie] LEWIS asks how the committee votes bode for the President's chances on the HOUSE FLOOR HUTCHINSON answers that the committee vote was strictly PARTISAN among the DEMOCRATS, with REPUBLICANS divided, which should not reflect the full HOUSE vote. HUTCHINSON claims there will be DEMOCRAT votes for NIXON and REPUBLICAN votes against him. He is not willing to make a prediction, but he says it's likely that the HOUSE will send the matter through to the SENATE for TRIAL. [cut LEHRER in studio--photo of REPUBLICAN HOUSE LEADER John RHODES on screen] LEHRER says that RHODES suggested that the PRESIDENT go on TELEVISION to lay out his defense publicly. This raises the issue of What NIXON can do or has been doing in his own defense. Introduces Chris GAUL to comment. GAUL says that it seems unlikely that NIXON will go on TELEVISION to defend himself at this point, that VP FORD in a statement said that NIXON was best served to leave the defense to lawyers. GAUL adds that it's not necessarily true that FORD speaks for the WHITE HOUSE, but he agrees that it's unlikely NIXON will make a public defense on TV. As to what NIXON can do next, it's not clear how confident NIXON is. GAUL says that among all of the CHARGES against NIXON, stupidity or lack of political savvy has never been one. LEHRER states that it seems the list of NIXON'S options is very short. GAUL notes that it's difficult to separate the WHITE HOUSE'S true actions from it's statements about its actions. For example, the WHITE HOUSE has argued that its staff is not even making a "headcount" of the HOUSE, which seems hard to believe. [00.10.21] [cut to committee room , Chairman RODINO holding gavel] DUKE comments that the meetings might actually start on time for a change. [return DUKE/LEHRER in studio] DUKE introduces guest commentators Jack MURPHY and Stephen HESS. [cut Chairman RODINO] v.o. LEHRER says the night's debate will be over the "HUNGATE Substitution" to the second ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT DUKE says that a final vote on the article could come within two hours. (this is the EVENING SESSION) [00.13.00]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.00] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. At the time the committee recessed, the committee was debating the Wiggins motion to strike paragraph 3, and those in opposition to the amendment had consumed 8 minutes, and those in support of the amendment had consumed 5 minutes. And I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, for such time as he May consume out of that time. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes of my time to The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mayne is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those of this panel who would impeach the President for setting up the special investigative unit would have us believe that there was just no national security involved in It at all. Well. then, why is it called the Plumbers unit? It was called the Plumbers because Its purpose was to plug leaks of secret information vital to the national security of the United States. There were many instances where, those leaks occurred. I mentioned several of them just before the recess. There was the secret Intelligence Board's report in which it estimated the Soviet Union's strategic strength and the Russians' first-strike capacity, a Matter of Great importance to our defense effort. Well, that was leaked by a Government official to a reporter who printed it in the press for the Russians' information. There was the disclosure by one of our senior officials, at least so the newspaper reporter said, of our Secret fallback position, our final offer in the SALT talks the strategic arms limitation negotiations, in Helsinki in 1971. Our negotiators there, our negotiating team, were trying to achieve as much security for the United States as possible from nuclear attack. The package which we had on the table therein dealing with the Russians -was asking them to stop the construction of all nuclear, missiles, both land and submarine based. But, according to another reporter, one of our senior officials con. confided in him that we were -willing to settle for less, that we did not really expect to get that much security from the Russians, and that if they turned us down we would be willing to settle for just a ban on construction of land-based missiles, and let go ahead -with the submarine based. Well, now, when that was printed in the newspaper, and the Russians read it, you can imagine what that did to our chances of getting the more secure arrangement the greater protection for our country. That was definitely, a security leak which needed to be plugged. Then there was the release of the he Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg also In June of 1971. Of course, Ellsberg had been identified so that' case is somewhat different, because the President highest national; security and foreign policy advisers had warned him that it Was extremely important that these officials, who were leaking this information, be identified and stopped. Well, Ellsberg had been identified, but it was by no means certain that he would not leak more information. Only part of the Pentagon Papers had been published at that time. It was not known whether he would go ahead with the rest, and there was also reason to believe that he had additional information. John Ehrlichman, in an affidavit, a sworn affidavit in April of this year, testified that in a week or 10 days of the days after the publication of the first Pentagon Papers, these papers were related to our decisionmaking in a war which was still going on, in which American troops were still in combat, which Kissinger was trying to settle in sensitive negotiations in Paris, and Ehrlichman said that Henry Kissinger met, with him and the President and hold them about Daniel Ellsberg, and told him that he was, and I quote; "In knowledge of very critical defense secrets of current validity, such as nuclear deterrent targeting" And I am reading from page 621 of book 7, part 2, and I continue the quote: "having never heard of Ellsberg before theft of the papers, my impression from Kissinger's description was that the Nation was presented with a very serious potential security problem beyond the theft of the larger historical Pentagon Papers. I later learned that the papers themselves were believed by defense experts to contain vital secrets. Dr. Kissinger told the President that the theft made very difficult our foreign relations with allies with whom we shared classified information. In these meetings, both the President and Dr. Kissinger were obviously deeply concerned." [00.19.15]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.24.11] Mr. WIGGINS. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from California for the purpose of completing his sentence. Mr. WALDIE. Well, I appreciate. that. If I--it is hard for me to complete a sentence when I want to analyze a conversation, but let me just--- Mr. WIGGINS. Do the best you can. [Laughter] . Mr. WALDIE. I appreciate that. I do appreciate that. I referred to March 21 and the conversation that I will be reading.. -will be a description of how the Ellsberg case became a national security case. The, President is told by Dean about the break-in out there and he says the President said, "I don't, know what, the hell we did that for," and Dean said, "I don't either, and the President Said, "Who in the name of God did that?"--and then move on to page 112, of the March 21 transcript and the President says, "Properly, it, has to do with the Ellsberg thing. I do not know what the hell uh"--and Haldeman says, "Well.-- The President says, "I don't know. The President says, "What is the answer on that? How do you keep that out? I don't know, -well we cant keep it out if Hunt"--"the point is, it's irrelevant." Dean says, "You might, you might put it on a national security grounds basis, which really, it was." Haldeman says, "It absolutely is." And Dean says, "And just say that--uh." The President says, "Yeah." And the--- The CHAIRMAN. The, other minute of the gentleman has expired. Mr. WALDIE. Well. I really did not finish the sentence. [Laughter.] It is a long sentence. Mr. WIGGINS. I think you have, I think you have, Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on this side? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has 8 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. I will be happy to yield to my colleague from Ohio, Mr. Latta. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 4 minutes. Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman from California. This is about the longest minute we have thus far. Let me say he mentioned one conversation that I think we ought to go back to a prior conversation. His minute did not permit him to do that. And I have reference to the first, time that the President of, the United States found out about this, months after the break-in. And that is the conversations between the President and John Dean On March 17, 1974. Let's read that. Ehrlichman "And this"--and the President spoke up and said, "In connection with Hunt?" Dean says, "In connection with Hunt and Liddy both", The President inquires, "They work for him?" Dean, "They--these fellows had to be some Idiots and we have learned after the fact. They went out and went into Dr. Ellsberg's doctor's office and they had--they were geared up with all this CIA equipment, cameras and the like, they turned the stuff back in to the CIA at, some point in time and left the film In the camera," Good sleuths, I might interject. "The CIA has not put this together, and they don't know what it all means right now." And the President says, "What in the world. what in the name Of" blank "was Ehrlichman having something," and this is unintelligible, "in the Ellsberg?" This is the first time he ever heard of it months after- this had taken place. Dean says, "They were trying to--this was a part of an operation in connection with the Pentagon Papers. They were--the whole thing--they wanted to get Ellsberg's psychiatric record for some reason." President, "Well, this is the first I ever heard of this. I"-unintelligible again, and perhaps some expletives, that were not deleted-"care about Ellsberg was not our problem," and Dean says, "That is right." Now, the gentleman from Iowa has mentioned something about the FBI not getting into this case and I think we had better talk about that. It was brought out before our committee. The late J. Edgar Hoover happened to know the father-in-law of Mr. Ellsberg and the FBI was not responding to the prodding of the administration to get on With investigating these leaks to which I shall refer in considerable length when we get on general debate on the articles themselves. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time to Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 1/2 minutes remaining out the total. Mr. WIGGINS. May I be recognized? The CHAIRMAN. It The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to discuss the Huston plan and to clarify for the benefit of our members the origin of that plan and to demonstrate that, it was a plan of the top people in this country recommended to the President of the United States, and he acted pursuant to their advice -and approved their plan for a period of about 4 or 5 days and thereafter canceled his prior approval upon the, recommendation of the Attorney General. I only intended to take the time on that subject because some of my colleagues seem to be concerned about that 4- or 5-day period of approval by the President of the United States in 1970. Rather in my remaining moments, Mr. Chairman, I Want to try to place this Plumbers issue in its proper focus. The question is not whether the creation of the Plumbers was justified. There is no law nor regulation nor rule nor act of Congress prohibiting the President of the United States from establishing unit within the executive branch for the purpose of coordinating intelligence activities. That is not the issue. The issue is rather whether or not the activities of that, once Created, constituted an impeachable offense with respect to the President. We know that they do not unless the President approved of them, acquiesced in them, condoned them.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.37.31] The CHAIRMAN. The 3 minutes of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Father Drinan. For 3 minutes. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This fiasco called the Plumbers had three names. It started out as Project Ellsberg. David Young named It the Plumbers, and the President, 18 months later, gave it the name of Special Investigative Unit. It was political and covert and unlawful from the beginning. Patrick Buchanan had the good sense to decline the good job that had been offered to him to be head of the Plumbers, and so on 'July 1971, he gave the best description of the purpose of the then Project Ellsberg. He wrote in a memo to Mr. Haldeman that "This is a project for a 3-month period to link the Pentagon Papers with the left-wing newspapers and people of America." There, was no national security involved. Mr. Pat Buchanan had an alternative which he thought was better. "Let us undertake, a major public attack on the Brookings Institute." Everyone had hysteria over the Pentagon Papers except Mel Laird. Ten days after they were released he said that 98 percent Of the Pentagon Papers could have been and should have been declassified. The hysteria, I assure you, was created months after when the of the Plumbers came out. In Mr. St. Clair's brief on page 94 he, said that the Special Investigative Unit was created "in an entirely legal manner," And I doubt if he can support that because this is an entirely outside of the ordinary that the executive branch of government operates. Mr. St. Clair concedes at, a moment in time that there was a shift in the Unit's way of acting. But, he, said that the purpose, was legitimate. He failed to tell us why they had sterile phones whatever they are, in this little cubbyhole in the Executive Office Building and needed Special passes to enter this section and why, in total defiance of the law of the CIA, they regularly violated that prohibition any internal security matters of the CIA. Henry Petersen testified before this committee on July 12 that he said there is no area of violation of Federal criminal laws which was not covered by existing statutes and that if there is any residual jurisdiction it goes to the. Department of Justice. I suggest therefore that this was political and unlawful from the beginning and the names came later. If the President says that there is an epidemic of leaks, that is substantiated by the evidence. And let me quote you one justification that has come out today in a minority report from this committee that demonstrates the hysteria that is still going on and with that I close. And the statement in justification of the Plumbers that "Foreign espionage agents read English and they can read the New York Times." Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, I recognize the. gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen, for 3 minutes. Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to direct my attention to the final sentences of this paragraph whereby the President attempted to prejudice, the constitutional rights of the accused to a fair trial. Several days ago the gentleman from New Jersey made a statement that we must view the totality of the evidence, and I happen to agree with Mr. Sandman. He is absolutely correct, because only by viewing all of the evidence can we trace the threads of attitude and action that are a pattern of spirit and conduct that is the very basis of our investigation, And I want to call your attention to the September 15, 1972 conversation between the President, and Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Dean whereby Mr. Dean indicated he was talking about Edward Bennet Williams, at which time the President says "We are, going after him." Haldeman says "This is the guy we have got to ruin." And then I am skipping on to page 10 where the President says "I think we are going to fix," and I am paraphrasing "the SOB, Believe me. We are going to, we have got to because he's a bad man." Now. I think this statement is relevant that respect to the Ellsberg matter because Mr. Colson told Us, as he told the court, that on several occasions the President urged Colson to disseminate information about Ellsberg and also his attorney, and this is the same act for which Colson pled guilty to corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the criminal trial by devising and implementing a scheme to defame and destroy the Public image and credibility of Ellsberg. Now, Ellsberg, in my opinion, and I agree with Mr. Hogan, he should have been prosecuted, but his trial should have gone, to its full conclusion according to the due process of law. What was done in Ellsberg reminded me of what Commodore Vanderbilt said to his adversaries: "I won't sue you, I'll ruin you." The administration did not seek to sue. or prosecute Ellsberg for his wrongdoing, they set out to ruin him, and that, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, is not only contrary to the spirit of our Constitution, it is also contrary to the laws as stated in the cases of United States v. Krogh and Colson. A man cannot set attack dogs loose on general instructions to stop and destroy leaks at any cost, and then say he is not responsible when the constitutional rights of citizens are shredded in the process. [00.42.42]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.49.01] Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. I am in an uncanny position, Mr. -. Chairman because I can't figure out, as I couldn't yesterday, whether or not the proponent of the motion to strike really wants that motion carried. Now. if he does, he has my assistance, and I know a lot of other people, will give him their assistance. Now, before I comment I would like to hear from the gentleman from Texas. Do you really want to strike paragraph 1 ? Let tile know how I should proceed. Will the gentleman from Texas please answer? Mr. BROOKS. I would be pleased to answer. I thought I had made clear to my distinguished friend from New Jersey that in the Interests of debate. of getting the facts about, just what happened to the IRS, how it was Used, -who told them to do it, -what they did, that I- thought that, we ought to have this motion so that the people of this country and so this Committee can fully evaluate just what happened and I want you to have every advantage of a full 20 minutes to discuss why it should he Included. Mr. SANDMAN. That is fine. but I am still asking wanting to know, do you want your motion passed? Mr. BROOKS. Well. to be candid about it, when you offer a motion for debate purposes you are, not necessarily confined to wanting it Passed and I certainly do--- Mr. SANDMAN. . Oh, well, then--stop using my Valuable time. The public now knows what you are up to, Mr. BROOKS. Glad to give you that time, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. I AM not going to hand you any more of that valuable time because it is obvious 'that this is a game. In fact, we have been Involved in quite a, few games here. and you aren't any more serious about striking this article than my friend from Alabama was yesterday in striking any of the articles that he tried to strike. I'm, mindful of the fact that they tell me we have about a 20-percent audience which is about 44 million people and it gives exposure and maybe you can convince them with some of your generalities. That is the purpose behind all of this. I know it. And 44 million people know It, Make no mistake about it. Now, I would like to yield some time to some other members of this side and I would like to Yield to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Sandman. I would like to say, Mr. Chairman---- Mr. SANDMAN. Four minutes. Ml-. DENNIS. [continuing]. That if I felt that the evidence here substantiated that the Internal Revenue Service has been misused and abused for Improper Political or discriminatory purposes, I take a very dim view of that myself. I would do so even though abuse, misuse. and discrimination has not been entirely unknown in Past administrations because that would not, constitute a defense now even though nobody bothered to fool with it then/ I believe, for instance, that in his diaries the late Drew Pearson says that the late Harry S. Truman turned the, IRS loose on him at one time, and that doesn't make it any better if it was done now but I think it is ,I good thing to bear in mind that we have a certain amount of, obvious hypocrisy in these proceedings from time to time. Now, the truth of the matter is that there, really isn' ally evidence connected with the President again, if you please, which we are Sort of sloughing over here. than the, President did anything out of the, way about the IRS at a11. The only thing they can even attempt to cite. Is the conversation of September 15, and as a matter of fact, the President doesn't refer to the IRS in that conversation. He says, "We have not used the power in this first 4 Years as you know. We have never used it. We haven used the Bureau--- that Is- the FBI--"and we. haven't used the Justice Department." He doesn't talk about the' IRS, as a, matter of fact, but the interesting thing is that all that conversation is talk anyway. Now, it, is not good talk. It would be damaging talk if there was something to be shown that. the, President ever followed up on it. But I haven't seen anything in this record where the President did follow up On it. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has used 5 minutes . Mr. SANDMAN. I reserve the balance of my time and request that Brooks take up the cudgel again. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. Mr. BROOKS. MR. Chairman, I would yield 2 1/2 to minutes to Congressman, to the gentleman, Mr. Danielson from California. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized.
Thirty Minutes With... William Safire
Channel 26 WETA Public Broadcasting Washington D.C. logo. Card: "Special Report." Announcement of public television news special examining America's urban crisis and some of the solutions found by some cities to combat the crisis; show airs the following night at 10pm in Indianapolis where the International Conference on Cities will be underway.
Tell It To Hanoi Committee
PART ONE OF TWO TONY MCDONALD INTRODUCES DOLF DROGE TALKING TO REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIP CRANE ON VIETNAM WAR.
Tell It To Hanoi Committee
PART TWO OF TWO TONY MCDONALD INTRODUCES DOLF DROGE TALKING TO REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIP CRANE ON VIETNAM WAR.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.12] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. I, I would Yield Minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois IS recognized. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is one of areas that I mentioned I was concerned about in my opening statement. I want to express the feeling that I share. the concern that was expressed by the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. Let me just say that this story is what would call both bad and good or good and bad. The story is bad in the respect, that top officials of Government clearly tried to misuse their power. Good in the respect that in this particular case, contrary to many of the other aspects of the Watergate affair, there wore some good people in the administration that rejected and fought against what I think was a blatant misuse of power. The facts are these that trouble me so much and I realize, that other administrations have been guilty of similar activities but, certainly I don't think on the massive scale that this was attempted. On September 11, John Dean gave 591 names to the Internal Revenue Commissioner and asked him to audit those persons returns. What is an IRS audit? 'What is an audit? well, to begin with, the taxpayer asked to furnish a full and complete justification for everything used within the tax return itself. The IRS agent has access to prior returns. An audit of civil Cases can go back 3 years and in a criminal case if criminal fraud is suspected they can go back without limit, checking any and all returns filed by the taxpayers. In a typical civil case the agent must be provided by the taxpayer access to all records involving deductions, medical bills, information regarding outstanding loans, and other significant financial data. If the IRS agent suspects there has been income received and not reported he will prepare a net worth analysis and to do this he will interview friends, neighbors, associates to determine a taxpayers life style. Oftentimes the taxpayer will have' to hire a lawyer or an accountant at an expense to him. Many of my constituents have complained about IRS audits. Now, the direct, evidence that we. have, is testimony by John Dean along these, lines. This was Conducted by Mr. Doar of John Dean in secret session. This list of 591 names is a group of McGovern supporters and contributors. The CHAIRMAN. The 2 1/2 minutes of the gentleman has expired- I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey. MR. SANDMAN. It is interesting to note that the gentleman from, California, Mr. Danielson, has given me an opportunity to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt what we have been arguing about. The Specificity, it is a real word, and that is the thing that is going to be remembered here because those who have that solid 27 seek to violate it so badly. Now, here is the whole case. Let me make in Illustration of what the gentleman has said. They are willing to be specific, sure they are. Look at bow specific he just was. He started out by saying on a number of occasions In 1971 and 1972 John Caulfield, a member of John Dean's staff obtained some IRS confidential information. In any Court in this land, would that kind of' indefinite thing hold up? Of course it wouldn't. Let's go down to the next one. In the spring of 1972--the spring takes in 3 months. What part of the spring? He doesn't dare tell you because. he doesn't know. That is why they don't want to get specific. And in that one, John Ehrlichman received some information passed it on to someone else. The next thing he told you, during the summer of 1972, a span of 3 more months. Now, the 38 members here have tried more criminal cases than they. ever want to remember and there isn't one can tell you that. this caw hold up in any court in the land. Each of these, periods is 3 months. When in 3 months? And you can go right on through the whole bit. It is just a whole conglomeration of generalities. That is why they don't want to get specific. They don't want to do this thing the right way. Never did., Now, we have valuable time and I want to yield to my friend from California, Mr. Wiggins The, CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. 1 thank my colleague for yielding and I will only take a moment but I do want to put in focus what my friend from Illinois has just said about this egregious act of John Dean in going into the IRS' with some 500 names Of political opponents of the President./ That is absolutely indefensible, ladies and gentlemen and no one at this table, Republican or Democrat. friend or foe of Richard Nixon, condones for 1 minute that act. But, you see, the President didn't know that. He didn't know that John Dean went to the IRS and there isn't a word Of testimony that he did know when Mr. Dean went. And it is important ,as well to know what the IRS told Mr. Dean. The person that, told Mr. Dean was the appointee of the President, executing the President's instructions, I presume, and there is no dispute as to what Mr. Dean was told. and in so many words, and if you will pardon the expression, he was told to go to hell, Now that is what hap happened. Mr. SANDMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. With that the gentleman is not to be impeached . This whole case of IRS abuse turned on the conversation of September 15 and on that we will just have to submit that and we will study it. review it to decide whether or not at that time the President approved of this OF whether it was simply a discussion in the context of the time 3 months before an election in this country. I yield back that time to my friend from New Jersey. Mr. SANDMAN. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. The CHAIRMAN. The. gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman. continuing the situation I think it is worth remembering that Commissioner Walters said on the occasion that Dean came to him that Dean stated that he had not been asked by the President to have this done and------- [01.04.17--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.46] Mr. WIGGINS......at that time the President approved of this OF whether it was simply a discussion in the context of the time 3 months before an election in this country. I yield back that time to my friend from New Jersey. Mr. SANDMAN. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. The CHAIRMAN. The. gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman. continuing the situation I think it is worth remembering that Commissioner Walters said on the occasion that Dean came to him that Dean stated that he had not been asked by the President to have this done and he did not know whether the President asked that any of this activity be undertaken And Mr. Dean stated here in this committee in answer to Mr. Railsback, "I don't know of any audits that were accomplished," and that the, Joint Commission Internal Revenue Taxation found that in fact, none of these people were audited. So that is the record on the situation. as to what actually took place as against a political conversation on the 15th day of September. And there is no evidence in the record anywhere that the President ever made any request except a hearsay statement by Clark Mollenhoff, who says that Haldeman told him that the President asked for a report on Governor Wallace's brother, which wouldn't stand up in any court, in the land, and there is no evidence that that, in fact, is the truth and it has been denied by two or three other people during the course of the testimony. And as Mr. Railsback said, there, are good people in this. There is Secretary Shultz, there, is Secretary--Commissioner Thrower, there is Commissioner Walters. All of them' turned Ehrlichman's efforts and Dean's efforts down. There is no evidence of a Presidential effort and the, thing that there is evidence. of is that Secretary Shultz and Commissioner Walters and Commissioner Thrower were Presidential appointments of Richard M. -Nixon. I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. SANDMAN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Thank you for yielding. I want to reemphasize, underscore in capital letters what has been said by the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, that no one at this table condones any such request that Mr. John Dean put forth, and certainly if the President of the United States had put forth that request I would think that would be an impeachable offense. Now, the question is did he or did he not authorize John Dean to do this? It has been pointed out when he went to Mr. Walters he specifically stated that he was not there at the President's request. I think it is important to note when this whole matter was submitted to Joint Committee on Taxation here in the Congress which is controlled by the opposition party that they Made this report: "The staff's investigation paid particular attention to the cases, of those, individual, mentioned in the press as victims of politically motivated audits. The joint committee staff has difficulty in discussing these cases specifically because of the, problem this would present in violating the individual's rights of confidentiality. Now this is the place I Want to emphasize. "However, none of these cases has the staff found any evidence that the taxpayer was unfairly treated by the Internal Revenue Service Because of Political views or political activities." Now. this conclusion is further supported by the House Judiciary Committee's materials, this committee's materials Commissioner Walters stated in his affidavit of May 6, 1974 with respect to a list furnished him by -Mr. Dean, "At no time did I furnish any names or names from the list to anyone or did I request any IRS employee, or official to take any action with respect, to the list." The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 2 minutes and the gentleman from -New Jersey has 6 minutes remaining Mr. SANDMAN. I would like the gentleman from Texas to take the next time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 11 1/2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. 'Mr. Chairman. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa, is recognized. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this article is the. article on abuse of power. To me it really symbolizes -what the drafters of the Constitution really meant had in mind when they gave us the impeachment process. They were worried when they Just came out, of a revolution that they would find that a President that would abuse the Power Of the Presidency. One of the gentlemen from Virginia, Mr. Randolph. said he. advocated the impeachment process because he was specifically worried that if the President abused the power, it could very well lead to "insurrections" by the people. [01.09.21]
Nuremberg and Vietnam: Who Is Guilty? - PT2
PBS PRESENTS A SPECIAL REPORT: NUREMBERG AND VIETNAM. WHO IS GUILTY? - PT2 A mock trial comparing the standard for "laws of war" set by the outcome of the Nuremberg Trials to US military actions in Vietnam. Was the United States in violation of international laws of war? This section features Telford Taylor (Counsel for the Prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials, Author & Scholar) as he gives a lengthy chronicle on the history of war followed by his argument as to why the United States should be held accountable for their military actions in Vietnam.
Nuremberg and Vietnam: Who Is Guilty?
PART TWO OF TWO A SPECIAL REPORT FROM PBS-- NUREMBERG AND VIETNAM: WHO IS GUILTY? A SIMULATED TRIAL
Montreux hotel (Switzerland)
Snow valley
Montreux (Switzerland)
Sunrise over Swiss Alps
Swiss cows
Swiss valley, scenery only - no towns