thumbnail of 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 5 of 6
Hide -
the pain in alabama has expired congressman cole is my opinion the second paragraph of sarbanes substitute is the operative paragraph it puts the president on notice to eat the committee charges charges but as president of the united states he made the decision there about the policy there would be a plan to cover up of the watergate affair that in further into that policy acting personally individually and also through his close associates and so important and it takes certain steps to further this part and that allegation it's
sufficient in my judgment with the president united states on notice as to what this committee is considering what this article charges mr cohen further divide the spending that you would be punished through the house a complete and full report outline in detail with a picture with jordan recently alluded to and also whether or not your opinion to think where would be entitled to file a particular at which time you on this committee in the house of representatives and furnish be specific and this is a clear on that request well i don't have with respect to the first question
i have no doubt that our report would do exactly precisely that specifically with respect to the second what the house might do representative would do with respect to record request by mr sinclair part of the time and consider the border and articles that would be american would be within that judgment was that office this as a matter of history savers presence here is the matter with the committee chair is not a matter of right there were also important for us that way a central issue in this case is the evidence that we give the evidence the strength of the evidence i hope into just a couple questions
he addressed to mr jonah that we can we can move on from this issue has to genoa in your opinion does this bill this article on the sobbing substitute violates due process notice requirement and sensation about not the first state and that's sufficient specificity they ought to preface for cormorants notice i haven't satisfies the constitution and for your do that article one does put the president on the alert as to specific charges against her her arrest following a numbers wonk the number of
tourists notice so that he may be more fully placed anomalous and as required under the due process clause of the first amendment defining is too generous to going beyond the present scope of this article is it not so that anna sui generous for saving such as impeaching that you do not permit europe leading to strangle yourself with respect evidence that you make and some fresh very much saw letters of banging on trial prosecutors concern themselves with all hiked over specificity with respect to indictments especially in modern times and protect areas to listen live generous proceeding which impeachment votes i think that's kind of themselves with respect to the nation and evidence of that which his partner in rolla for the basic and main issue presented on the plate
like very much as a survivor moment where are you i'm from indiana restaurant or at a moment of the answer to the gentleman from alabama mr flowers you said that you were prepared to specify here and that if that is true i wonder why you don't do so instead of waiting till the report of the house and whether you think that a ma report can be used for the purposes of our cauldron well congressman that is the reason that i'm perfectly happy and ready and willing to light you hear now it's my judgment that it's not great to make sure that all the facts complete all of the facts in your article of impeachment
certainly i feel very confident legally that new report which would go to the members of the house would be a constitutionally to give to the house members the underlying reasons for this article they say if i understand course i know you say that the articles are you asserting that your article appeared before the committee report were making the art no i'm not asserting that i'm serving as as positively than ohio that the article was not fully
it seems to me that we're pleased with the problem that confronts records of meetings constantly and that is a conflict in the requirement of trying to be specific and the details and the need to be clear and concise and stating the nature of the charges which are to grow in order to accomplish this today the procedure which usually politicians have a clear and concise statement charges such as one course and then the supplement that with either a bill or particular charles has been discussed by jo malone from texas jordan a report which would detail and great particular the specific language which should be and i say you know great difficulty and proceeding that way and would like to join the
gentleman from new york with the fish differences over a procedural matter are interfering with our approach to the very grave and substantive matters which we must consider i think it is important for each member of this committee to know the detail of information which does live behind each of the paragraphs which we have on our council has indicated he's prepared to give us that information we've learned during debate today very specific illustrations obviously a witch knows why behind some of these charges and the chairman i think that we should make every effort to get away from the problem of procedural drafting and move forward to have consideration of the substantive questions which are represented by this knocking
your back the balance of my time recognized a gentle lady from new york ms olson thank you very much mr chairman i just briefly once day that the debate here is whether we ought to follow procedure that was used and developed centuries ago when we had this impeachment proceeding will bring us ourselves and in the latter part of the twentieth century we find ourselves it's true that the earlier impeachment proceedings pleaded very specific language it's also true at that time than they were based on the general civil practice which require specific factual pleading we abandon that system of specific factual pleading in nineteen thirty eight in our federal court system and since that time i've been operating on a notice leading system he's been held by courts a new mobile times supply defendants with due process of law i think that's the issue here whether we can
bring ourselves up today or whether we're going to discuss a really a phony issue and bombing and he practices i'd like to address myself and chairman to the substance of the article before us and a particular the language which says subsequent of june seventeen nineteen seventy two richard m nixon using the powers of his high office maybe his policy to cover up to conceal and protect those responsible for the watergate break in and to conceal the existence and scope of unlawful covert activities the question was raised earlier today when did the president make this his policy mr wallace been trying to get the chronology starting from at least june seventeen and i'd like to point to the very important conversation that took place on march twenty first nineteen
seventy three what happened in that conversation jumping out of the president came to president nixon and said here's a cancer growing on the presidency he said that there's been blackmailed there's been perjury there's been cover up there's been obstruction of justice much money has been paid to buy silence clemency has been promised to buy silence and he told this to the president and he said to the president i was on pretty clear instructions to investigate this not to investigate this whole matter during the summer i worked on a theory of containment we tell the president i know that magruder is urgent and so i know the poorest perjured himself he also said to the president bob that is bob waterman is involved in that the hush money payments
john is involved in that john erlichman i am involved in it mitchell was involved in that and that's an obstruction of justice and what did the president of the united states say in response what did he say he said john john being you had the right plan let me say i had no doubts about the right plan before the election and you handled it just right you can change it and i think in that conversation the president wasn't proving why the new talent and that the perjury and that the blackmail about the theory of cover up about the clemency and i'd like you to explain to me though that you say that the president has an improved this and made it his policy how that that how that even though it a bank
account the gentleman from you guys recognized five minutes but still the future of a month o'neill my five minutes gentlemen from california to continue that litany of the watergate activities it was halfway through that gentleman from california's recognized that i've been you continue with a story of intrigue of high drama in high government circles america you recall we last left our group of people with the president with the president less than a week after the break here announcing to the public facts that in fact he knew were not true when he confirmed the statements of mr zeigler mr mitchell that there were no committee for the reelection of the president people are no white house people involved in that incident
when there were and you know and that was the first publicly surface of cover up on the part of the president but very shortly thereafter the president continue to cover a cover up that was necessary to protect that which all were most concerned about the fact that he might lose the election in nineteen seventy two if the american people understood that the white house was involved in surreptitious entry and illegal surveillance for political intelligence and all that and a new white house for us so on june twenty thirteen other problem how to reason and that was to keep those folks quite who had been arrested the five that have been arrested the night saturday night june seventeen as well as the two or across the strait in the room full of electronic surveillance hunt and liddy it took money it took money to keep them
quiet and if you didn't pay the money they would tell and if they told everything would fall apart and the election the president might be jeopardized the first ten thousand dollars of money we saw was delivered them either the burglary when lester hunt went back to the white house if you well into his statement about ten thousand dollars in cash the only dylan cash in this operation and delivered it affordably on behalf of the burglars to keep him quiet then dean is operating to bring about the cover up not to investigate not to report but to implement the cover up andy knowles john mitchell on the committee for the reelection of the president in the period june twenty third june twenty six someone utterances mr mitchell on watching folks putting up the money to bail these people out and neither attorneys' fees and mitchell says i don't want to think that that's your problem julian
fellowes over in the white house that brought this idiot scheme to the four by your plumber it's by your heart then you are living by your break into the film in office it was not the committee for reelection the president was haldeman ehrlichman operating on behalf of the president and the committee for the reelection the president will finance any more of your coverage so lending goes to the cia if you will and a sense of the cia about isn't there some way you fall as you don't have to look up to congress what everybody 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 fellows that were working on behalf of the president he said it was a national security mission and a cia it's all turned on usually for national security missions but they didn't in this case they said no and put up money for burglars no matter for whom they were working and they
didn't so then he went back to earn it than in the white house loses i really need money desperately these fellows are about to blow and he says i need to talk to someone who could raise big money and he went and was referred to the president's personal lawyer used to combat and his president's personal fundraiser the short stretches credibility beyond endurance to believe that the president's personal lawyer and the president's personal phone carriers would be enlisted in this illegal scheme of raising money without having first got an approval from the president and i believe the differences are abundantly clear the president going to root for call that came in that night the twenty eighth of june mind june seventeenth of june is when the break in eleven days later that night he came in and raise seventy five thousand dollars by
nightfall and got back into the hands of the people that were buying their silence of the burglars now that takes you up to the end of june when the next act in our drama unfolds june thirtieth they call him john mitchell and they say john we got to get you out of the limelight because the press ask you questions that you're the chairman of my re election campaign and you know too much john and john you have a wasn't anything john mitchell did not know at that point 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 congress and that story was that john and martha were having fun which they probably work and therefore that would be the disputes by which he would allege the necessity of resignation but it was my and
you know portrayed as an absolute gentleman and you know the gentleman is now recognize that this gentleman from ireland has been misspent unidentified man fall you three minutes of my time to go to jail for you to continue his presentation well i do want to make clear freeman is an idea that is because there's no question and the public know if that john mitchell and this is mitchell were having some difficulty in this is that show in fact told him that if he didn't leave public often she would leave town and but that was the excuse given and in the conversation when they discuss this they all agreed that was the excuse because the public would understand that news the president said anybody would dare criticize a man for leaving this office because of the white man's well we'll
just we'll do that with more broad terms but what they really wanted to do was to get john mitchell out of the public eye that was covered now i just think you say that through june third there was just no question that there was a policy which was to protect the election of the president by concealing the involvement of white house in committee for the reelection people in the burglary of watergate because once their involvement had become know and they would go back to the plumbers activities involving that break in of the psychiatrists or doctor else for the orioles productive feelings office they would go back to the fourteen of those cables designed to implicate john f kennedy in the assassination south vietnam they would go back to the investigations of senator
kennedy they would go back to all kinds of very ugly things that were always described remind us national security and that's the other key phrase you find through the cover of scary when you want to keep something covered when you don't want people to inquire you put a label of national security on they always talk about how its activities to be a national security nobody's ever pointed out the one single thing hundreds ever done that had anything to do with national security forging cables surely is not national security breaking into a psychiatrist's office this is a national security and john ehrlichman and clearly yo ma none of the things described by the special investigation into were really in the implementation of national security
what this plan was right up through june third was to cover up and ceo and to keep it contains from june thirtieth on the plan evolved into a much more dramatic turns where john dean's efforts relative to the fbi relative to containment by coaching witnesses relative to really raising big money to pay off the burglars bishop has been shown to be a minute when i leave the last line in the next chapter we will go into it the next meeting the question of picking up monday with gloves on because you don't want fingerprints when you're going to deliver for compassionate purpose i know as
a thank you a mixture of very brief of i think that's what's interesting is we're having now the layout of the evidence and when we listened to the debate this afternoon i think a lot of the public may have wondered though actually what's going on here because we're supposed to be considering an article on impeachment and that says they're whether richard nixon has prevented obstructed and impeded the administration of justice somehow things are so my colleagues have been more concerned about making a crusade out of the word specificity as common as possibly the word watergate and i think it's the meaning really for the president to think that you can understand the meaning of what's in the sarbanes substitute i think it's still not quite well and i think we understand the tactics is really being diversionary i just wanna say to my colleagues the evidence that the gentleman from california and others a pointed out is overwhelming
and i also want to say that the evidence will not go away the german you journalist ten seconds remaining i kill you the gentleman from new jersey seeking recognition town of the military was to sandman the gemini i am a man man and the nature of the world in the right arm or want another moment that the clerk's desk as a man of the miners want to appear as an american reporter media
chairman in atlanta has been as david i understand that it did not contain mr salmons may remember mr stan strikes a paragraph long the sarbanes substantive i hope that we don't have to carry this gone through all of these paragraphs long time seen as a listen what we have to do to get some kind of a ruling on a lot about which there should be no question not the outset of course my objection to iraq won is that his indefinite as is the preamble him for her and for this reason is not a legitimate article of impeachment i may say at the outset i wondered after i had heard the
nine witnesses before our committee on the lead prosecutor would use as witnesses oneness major would ever get the united states and tonight i think i found out that you rally and then they use a gentleman from california and they're using them as a wet this is gonna be about as legal as using the evidence that he's trying to make people believe that act now back to those particular i so much has been said about me how well that the special prosecutor has been his job as compared to what we are doing here inaugural now this is an amazing set of circumstances the special prosecutor looking into exactly the same case of course is a little different because crime of being charged or an impeachment in our cars or just that but the special prosecutor with a handful of people and only a fraction of the time that we've been sewn
has been able to produce a theory of the case the special prosecutor in exactly the same case has presented eggs that precise article them and by now why can't we do the same thing with a hundred and five employees of which about apple's lawyers why can't we do the same for him to be so levy why are we arguing about out of the us everybody knows this is the only legitimate way to do their assistants a sample i reference to build a particular reference than any other item is not the same as making the original bike human specific a sample by being think it has to be and as to say what you gave it violated the law that i have a license of your car if that i have that they could use that you want to replace ad and say that doesn't have to apply to the president why this is ridiculous and this is of all the government all
you could talk about all the days and months that we've been here and say where i've been here but that changes want to adopt an article about men article of impeachment that's a new ballgame because that echoes the house of representatives of the site whether or not a trial should be held in the senate and i think the house of representatives is inviolable little bit of information i think that it's altogether fitting and proper that tell them specifically what you're buying a pro i don't think they should have to listen to their tv all night the night and find out the next chapter of the most so all these nomination i don't think that's the way this case should be tried he cannot replace witnesses that you're unwilling to call you cannot replace him from asthma that you didn't want a public daycare this is what the case is all about
let's idolizes thing now the house and going and along the way four hundred and thirty five people are going to have something to say about this and they should not have to wait until a sign maker bethany and i don't think that when is this a clerical the first time according to learned how full will have the right to act or a bowl a particular after representative doesn't happen after a bowl of what they do is they are entitled to live but they do it from the per day on your knowledge and i know it and let's go this is what we should be talking about now now i would like to have counsel the simple question you have given some pretty good wide searching opinion and i especially on paragraph was where you have given your blanket endorsement to that paragraph ra played wood generalities as being sufficient i will ask you one simple
question or so the special prize here is working on exactly the same date and fight you want a cabinet you want to the case would that be sufficient for the special prosecutor went out in the us this work with salmon of this were conspiracy case criminal conspiracy theories in addition to the first paragraph there would be a requirement of the criminal law that won over via be done by one or more of the co conspirators yours for sort of the agreement but the essence of occult conspiracy cases an agreement that's the essence of the conspiracy theories and the essence of this case is the president's policy and the essence of the conspiracy case of that song for this a conspiracy
i'm not interested in the difference between here we are working and i'm talking about being specific is the language recording your opinion and around one would use that is sufficient for that act is it also sufficient for any kind of aid that the federal prosecutor we are all witnesses sufficient for indictment isn't annika for her and recognize the gentlemen from illinois chairman mr dorough in response to a question put to buy our congressmen flowers you indicated that it was the intention of the staff and its report to specifically document with evidence and with references to the particular some paragraphs of each article is that prep let what will those so well
that documentary statement be submitted to us for our consideration each individual he's big what are the goals and it is it's going to the report it that we have the right to either provide separate views are dissenting views the house of representatives and i remember as a right he was with his staff the committee would report and not work the work with the written by the committee
let me i'll just say mr chairman that i personally at this point in time and that perhaps it is a good idea to have a motion to strike on each of those counts for those of us that are concerned about the various allegations have a right to submit our beliefs and our concerns and this particular paragraph which is i don't want in the sarbanes having to do with false and misleading information happens to me every one knows what my major is the concern in drafting your report it would seem to me that you would want to consider a conversation that took place on march twenty seven nineteen seventy three when the president instructed ehrlichman to meet with attorney general kleindienst and tell him that whole thing was being was not involved had no prior knowledge that neither haldeman ehrlichman or colson had prior knowledge of that there was a serious question being raised about mitchell it's my belief that
this is the time they were trying to set the sep mitchell up on the following day ehrlichman telephone kleindienst and executed the president's instructions you relayed the president's assurance but there was no white house involvement in the break in but that said serious questions were being raised with regard to michel this happened following the march the famous march twenty first conversation when john dean went into some detail to involve ehrlichman haldeman and sol magruder and porter i think i would go to the series of events that took place in mid april which was after gem being decided to blow the whistle on april eighth followed by magruder on april thirteenth followed by the rwandan i think the fourteenth when he said the jig was up and then finally silver call henry peterson peterson internet touch with the attorney general findings findings in turn with the president and meetings were arranged between henry peterson and the president the
president met with henry peterson on april sixteen nineteen seventy three from one thirty nine three twenty five at this meeting the president promised to treat as confidential any information disclosed by peterson to the president this was at a time that finding instead decided to recuse themselves in other words because of his close association with john mitchell and others he decided it was not proper for him the lead the watergate investigation and this job was assigned a henry patterson the president emphasized to peterson that you're talking only to me and there's not going to be anybody else on the white house staff and other words i'm acting counsel and everything else the president suggested that the only explanation might be that more when peterson express some reservations about information being disclosed more the president said let's just better keep it with me at that meeting the president the
peterson supplied the president with a memorandum which it requested on april fifteenth the day before from arising the existing evidence that implicated haldeman ehrlichman and strong then there was a telephone conversation later that same day april sixteenth and in my opinion this is even more clear the president when talking to peterson's estimate there are any new developments that you should know about and he reassured peterson whoa of course as you know anything you tell me as i think i told you or will not be passed because i know the rules of the grand jury peterson and recount of the president the developments of that day in the watergate investigation the following morning on april seventeen the president met with haldeman somebody who'd been implicated or fighting on march twenty first also implicated by henry peterson early in the meeting the president relayed dean's disclosures which had been given to him by henry peterson a special prosecutor the president also told haldeman that the money issue was critical
another thing and i quote another thing if you could get john and yourself referring to generally when in my opinion to sit down and do some hard thinking about what kind of strategy you're going to have with the money you know what i mean and other gentlemen from illinois by the gentleman from alabama <unk> would be you know more oil i appreciate it and i recognized deal in five minutes i knew prime minister i think the job for you in addition to that particular statement by the president then there was a
fight about but there were some material deleted and then the conversation the senate went home back and in this particular case the transcript shows this is the president's own ever the transcript shows that the president instructed haldeman mccall called back to attempt to learn what the union called back were gonna say being had to all combat regarding the purposes of the fundraising in addition the president instructed haldeman will be sure their calling records at least aware of this that rule has talked very freely this is the man the statements that involved henry peterson were between the president and the man that was really in charge of the watergate investigation then on april twenty of the world's twenty fifth and twenty six the president instructed john hoberman a man who had been implicated a man who has been implicated by john being on march twenty first i got a hold of certain tape tape conversations
that took place in february and in march and hall and carried out his responsibilities and reported to the president on april twenty sixteen met with the president for five hours and reported to the president of the united states about what he had heard on those tapes this committee has subpoenaed that five hour take conversation and this is one of the tapes that we have not been able to get our hands on then on i think it was april twenty seven the president again met with henry peterson henry petersen at this point indicated that these attorneys were threatening to complicate the white house the president assuming that i've known him as well and that's one i referred and this is also in the other the transcript the president said the only thing he could really bring too is that famous march twenty first conversation and heater he didn't tell he did not tell henry peterson that you'd have halderman listening to that they needed and tom there was a tape message is that the day before
but what do they do he told him that they had talked about hush money a hundred and twenty thousand dollars and i think that his final four was that he had turned it off totally mr darr if you want to get and the false misleading statements i can't think of a better place to be again and i feel so strongly about this particular aspect of the whole watergate incident that i would just prefer your attention to those conversations i thought oh that's a counsel well if this is the kind of evidence that the council would have we're on the way to the kind of a fall in the point in the article this is the proof yes we would not be having a provider but congressman wally mentioned about the president
sacked following statement by john mitchell on the twentieth june as beakman well there is i believe that this would fall under the next paragraph because this relates to date information to the president with respect to a statement that one of his subordinates made to top officials of the department of justice maybe it was
here are the fall over the words of the prayer and i would also say you i'm with the congressman that the statements made by gordon strong to lead the fbi the department of justice and i think they're in the investigation and further inside the plan the straw also that the us would be out approval disparities by lifeboat recognize the gentleman from michigan i rise in opposition to this motion to strike and i think we've had a good number of hours here on
the debate about whether these meetings aren't detailed enough i think we examine certainly we've exchanged our views i'm going to call for the previous question i think the time to do unless there are other members that feel very strongly about this the previous question that its estimate that it's about time for us to consider the first vote of these proceedings i don't know how many hours are going to have to spend to determine whether or not we're going to observe the notice pleading of the federal rules that have been in existence throughout the country since nineteen hundred and thirty eight dollars if we're going to insist upon trying an impeachment proceeding based on the last one eighteen sixty eight i think that after
we examine other council we've established the fact review we've made it very very definite now that there are two views here and i presume there's nothing left to do but us but for us to vote yes i know that might i inquire mr chairman is it possible for us to begin to consider setting some kind of trying to close debate to vote and understand there are a number of these motions to strike reaching to some nine of the sections within that sarbanes substitute and i'm very anxious that we resolve that sapped the roof examine that we've been examining a for several hours because of the motion to strike here is a real problem and that he never directed himself as to whether or not it is is saying that the president not your false and misleading statements i don't know whether
the motion to strike is merely a parliamentary maneuver but if it is a question that the gentleman has as to which authorized offices employees of the united states that the president lied to and we had to tell you the names and the dates federal officials the president lied to if you're having trouble with the language as to where that was a capitol policeman aware that was summoned to work in a printing office if it's a language you have and i can understand why you raise the motion to strike but if you're talking about the tiny generally acting attorney general if you're talking about pass any by that was and bob was sold its office tv drama grand jury testimony if you're talking about anything to get them here as close associates from getting indicted and a president right and we can only refer to the president's statements as to what he said when he said that mr haldeman that fell and that everybody that
being said was not bobby's at say they're not involve them in if they were in bodies alliance alum something different so that if the motion to strike is just to take time then then of course i can understand the victim of new jersey's lemmer is a bad night if on the other hand and then really wants to find the names of the people at the president lied so council can give you the names and we can move on to your next motion to strike my mind it is it is some of us would like to keep our plate and consistent with the twentieth century others of us would prefer them for reasons of real or imagined i think you've been back into the johnson yields a like an
absolute gentleman from now i'd be happy for you live on monday where a shock really i objected because i had because i've never been permitted under the procedure where falling to get some kind of a ruling as to walk a lot is there i submit and it's undisputed that may i don't care what anybody else that's the thing is very clear it should be specific and you have all this information and union people why can't you at least give simple sentences that are insights on the right way on the table they believe it is supporter at this time state the
view of one member does not express was actually the law that the policy of this committee the house of representatives i would hope that is the members would recognize that the chair presiding shares a tenth of the fair and recognizing each member and had such time as the chair recognizes those members and i think that those members should speak up until then i would hope that we would keep order we would be true to the trust that we have and i don't mean the lecture in any way but i think that this is serious enough that indulging in parliamentary maneuvers to delay a decision on the very important question only i think serves to tell the people that we're afraid to make the usual
and i would hope that we do have as we said we have the courage of our convictions and of the gentleman from new jersey directly mr salmon i would think that wound is the door may not have expressly stated what the icu is in setting for its specifications i don't believe that the gentlemen at this time and prepared a state that he is going to say what the constitution is when the constitution for so many years has spoken clearly and the presidents have spoken clearly on the matter of what is the established policy and i think that if we get on with the business of the day and whereas there been questions raised at the white house to what the facts are snyder the minority who are prepared to speak the facts and we think that's what we ought to be filled with
me and i thought i'd prepared that's what members would like to be recognized i'm the amendment offered by a gentleman from new jersey it's bad that everyone on the
earth for twenty odd members who seek recognition and the velvet chair with state that we can and i think that we are forty minutes of damage would give two minute speech member i think if the share our sheriffs feel that and i thought there be sufficient time and less some members ready to object objection to tears begin to recognize the other members are five minutes each of that basic ago and that's kind of the rule
a recognized her those members who has spoken of course on a motion the strike will not be recognized there that i recognized the way i think it's not inappropriate the chairman of the committee to once again put them back in focus we started the many hours ago with agreement that the indicted in the case the articles must be sufficiently certain group of the respondents the president of the united states on notice of the charges against him so that he didn't have an opportunity to repair inadequate this is not a novel notion that mr chairman the constitution of the united states require that all members surely agreement that as a correct statement of constitutional
law so faced with that mr chairman we started a long time ago to try to decide the question of this matter of policy he recalled that the operative language and one said that the president made it a matter of his policy the question actually occurred when did that policy come into effect we debated it perhaps we're still debating it for several hour and i submit mr chairman that there is no consensus in this committee now that there is clear and convincing evidence to land in the world that policy came in view of that it is still an ambiguous confused situation and yet we have passed that we now have moved to someone
that some paragraphs take the fall making false or misleading statements from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states the person allegedly making those statements is the president of the united states we cannot be you know but everybody here knows that if we adopt such imprecise language that there will come a time when a bill of particulars of the mandate and we're going to have a flesh out this allegation with such rather simple questions as what statements are we talking about in what form where the statements may who are the investigating officers and where they are acting in their capacity as investigating officers when they received the statements in whatever reform we're talking about
that's a rather important consideration the history chairman view of a recent decision by judge gonzalo rather famous trial judge in the city the covenant or reading a section of the penal code involving the making of alternate laden's reading statements they're lawfully authorized investigative officers he said they have to be under all they had been the transfer i i think to be the room with respect to everybody else that we know that investing there are no such friends ride on girl played by the president of the united states to any official who was then and they're acting in an investigative capacity many of these victims are allegedly made a mr peterson and that appears and told us and this is his work and when he talked to the president he was not acting as an investigative official was reporting to the president of the united states in due course if anyone doubts that i'll refer you to the transcript but it's possible
love the chairman that some false think that may have been made my friend mr railsback is concern that the president did not accurately state is knowledge when he reported that state of being that involvement and coleman's involvement and ehrlichman his involvement on the twenty seven mark well i want you to listen to a few words in terms of whether or not that conclusion by my friend here is justified on the twenty first day of march mr dean said this to the president and you'll remember these were i honestly believe that no one over here new meaning about watergate i know that as god as my maker he said i had no knowledge that they were going to do this and on the twenty seventh day of market this is what the president said as representative of his knowledge
about time i have not really had for mitchell but i have had from all and then i have had for america and i have had from colson called the nile i have ask each of you to tell me and also the now the president therefore has not lived on this play the question is did he do so notwithstanding that statement made in confidence by the president on the twenty seventh day of march and they were disturbed my for him confidence at a time when he had no notion that all that those remarks would never see the light of day i'm also concerned with your parents about this almost furloughs charge that the president of the united states why the american people are not going to that lead to an investigator life of the american people as a result of a press conference this has been characterized by my friend mr wally and
his continuing table in this case and i don't mean that the derogatory jerry i think you'd rather exaggerated as to the facts but this is what happened on the twenty second of june and is the basis of the allegation that the president then in their entered into a corrupt conspiracy to obstruct justice it was a very hard question mr o'brien has said that the people who bombed his headquarters have a direct link to the white house at you any sort of investigation may determine whether this is true the president said mr vigor and also mr mitchell speaking for the campaign committee member janet yellen argued california has expired idea recognize the
gentleman from california mostly alone the german it you know thirty seconds to my my good friend and my label calling mr wiggins to complete the statement of the president at the press conference a pickup with the president and also mr mitchell speaking for the campaign committee have responded to questions on this leading the watergate break in and white house involvement on this in great detail they have stated my position and have also stated the facts accurate that's what bothers my friends this kind of activity as mr ziglar as in victory as no place whatever in our electoral process or in our governmental process and as mr gibler has stated the white house has had no involvement whatsoever in this particular incident well i think it is
a service i know what i want to this german continue with my interactive narrative not because it because i think the point i'd make an unnecessarily the most important points of this case but i think an understanding of the skeleton outlying of the cases nurses hover june seventeenth the day the date of the burglary from june thirtieth the resignation of john mitchell now i want to cover july first on september fifteenth which is summer and early fall that year the next phase of the cover up are in that period of time of these events occurred which there up on the conclusion as to what did the president know and when did you know it and what did you do on july
fifth or days five days after the attorney former attorney general campaign manager the president mr mitchell had resigned his chairmanship he was interviewed by the federal bureau of investigation and he denied knowledge of any information on the break here well a few things we know that isn't so he knew a great deal and he misrepresented his information to the federal bureau of investigation on july nineteenth and twentieth mr porter and mr magruder falsely told fbi agents these are gentlemen the committee to reelect president that funds that had been paid living one of the indicted watergate burglars who was employed as general counsel by the committee for election president and had been formerly employed by the white house involved in the
palmer's group that said the funds paid mr liddy were for legal political intelligence gathering and not for illicit electronic surveillance or surreptitious entry hugh laurie when he told the fbi agents on august tenth mr porter perjured himself by line before the grand jury and the same story on august at <unk> magruder testified falsely that the grand jury on august twenty eight mr crowe who was the head of the plumbers this ooh that was so involved in surreptitious and pete rock the nixon administration testified falsely as to the activities mr levy and mr hock when they were employees of the white house before walk and on august twenty nine the president made a another ms statement to the nation when
he said that he had had a dream report which had been a complete investigation of watergate and there was no white house personnel involved in fact there was no dream report and there clearly was no investigation because beans obligation an assignment was to contain not to investigate up to cover not to disclose the president knew that he had never met d on august twenty nine when he told the nation to loll them into complacency that he was attempting to get to the bottom of this problem he never told them that he had never met this gentleman that it conduct of the sokol report and that in fact he had never received the report says there was no report never has been and to this day there is not a dean report that on september twelfth mr magruder testified falsely about the purpose of the meeting with mitchell magruder being and living in which the genesis of the group that broke
into the watergate was first prescribed and political intelligence with surreptitious and three and bugging was discussed and then finally on september fifteen the first phase was successfully accomplished a containment they have all the rights and the exposure two of the five workers that were arrested on the premises and a hunt and liddy the risk and the exposure was contained and the president on september fifteenth that very day matt mr dean for the first time and was complimentary who complemented him and doing such a good job in containing this risk to just those seven people did not get beyond those five burglars and mr hunt and liddy and that was an enormous accomplishment the provincial language
you don't want to be on the way i recognize a gentlemen from illinois and we're back to german i think in the context of the third article of the year that one is inadequate the article is in the nature of a criminal indictment as the year that in essence is a criminal case conspiracy which is being charged under the resignation of a policy it is a bill also in court includes a chart of obstruction of justice and a criminal offense and it seems to me that in that respect it should be more specific from the standpoint of jewelry expected to consider later and relating primarily to the president's obligation is constitutional
responsibility to see that the effect what if a lot of it seems to me that such an allegation like i think i'm a different author therefore i'm going to join in those units are not withstanding and they find that this language is appropriate in a rather article which we may consider not be happy this time to tell you about my kindly gentleman don't like the ultimatum i'm from indiana mr chairman i had some time on my own i think i'm grateful to my friend from illinois get a ding dilly mr chairman i would i would suggest that the distance where in danger of departing from the law and the constitution and descending into
impeachment politics here this evening is possibly illustrated best buy some of the rather startling proposition viper advanced marine corps the debate from people whom i really don't think ordinarily levin pressed for instance that's been suggested in effect that statement senate committee report can be used to cure article of impeachment which is frankly defective because it's too and that they at one point in the debate this statement was made that im ready to worry much about the rules of evidence because at an appliance from forty nine states senate with the chief justice presiding then we've heard several times in effect that you process of juarez el monte we are now in the twentieth century and he had got a notice we now everybody knows that there i thought everybody knew that
an impeachment proceeding is at least a quasar i'd crumble i didn't know that was america's youth if i'm died in iceland and as mr jeremiah great year while back rule seven other criminal rules still apply and an insanely indictment or the information juno be a plaintiff and size and definite written statement the essential fact constituting the offense jr has not notice playing daley out more in about a year and many bodies and five i i know a little bit about a few things you want and criminal you're entitled to be notified of the defense jar a nearby will be notified in the jar you want some twentieth century up to date lala me you little more whoever commits an action with the law declares to be punishable
or which is deserving of punishment or car into the fundamental idea of a penal law and the sound perception of the people down the public you know the permanent the laws directly applicable the reaction it should be priced according to the law the basic idea which fits in that sound a lot like apple's at a very advanced around here and then as the twentieth century laws are the nazi penal code from hitler's germany diana really we know this weekend have to be arguing this all day and all night this is a very very simple proposition audie i happened to not played twelve books of evidence you just say making false and misleading statements they're lawfully authorized and value for investigative author the analysis and such they said the following is so and so a master give a long laundry list the sales i think they are
disputable mr wiggins has disputed a couple of very well when the time comes that can be done well why don't we left them and since we are going to list them as is obviously for some reason we bear just like this may now and again on the us general as five one of the jailer as long five minutes well in effect caseload mr chairman that you almost hear it made it yet but i'm glad to know that i still got five more minutes now take a little more tank that you talked to your specified here but as i was about to say since we obviously are not going to specify in spite of the great nigerian gentleman in their state or anus to specify at only that the way they have their guns say anything
and according to their theory of the operative parts up above your burger opinion only that anyway so out i go this is a good emotion under the circumstances now said mr chairman mao lived you know my family in california mr reagan's and reserve the bathroom all really really poor management as big a problem a statement by the president of the united states' lying to the american people because he said there was no white house involvement now the only involvement at that time no the president possibly attributable to the white house was mr hunt we all understand that
mr libby did not work at the white house and the facts are that mr hunt did not work for the white house either i know that there has been some dispute in the evidence to that but the weight of the evidence if we're going to go by the americans in pretty in fact work for the committee to reelect i won a pastor matt do one final observation which serves of my friend from illinois who originated not here but he contended that mr erlichman lied to the attorney general about the lack of involvement dean mr haldeman and himself when he reported to the attorney general in a telephone conversation on the twenty eight i have before me exactly what he said to the attorney general and he said it in the presence of the president of the united states this is what mr
erlichman say ok now the president said for me to say this to you the best information the hair and it is that neither gene nora haldeman your calls them nor i nor anybody in the white house had any prior knowledge of the burglary he said that he's counting on you to provide him with any information to the contrary if that ever turns out and you just can't have contact him direct now as part of the committee to reelect his concern he said that's serious questions are being raised with regard to mitchell and he would likewise want you to communicate to him any evidence or in france or from evidence on that subject now the question is did the life and you're finding when he said that you recall what i do testify to just a few moments ago when the president said that he had whole lap in iowa from these people that they were not a bar
and they're being told him as god as his wit that he was not involved that's precisely the information the president relayed this declining the attorney general and i ask did the president lied about it it even a fleet of that at the answer is knowing that the audio the eyes not my time you know mr chairman i reserve my time of the gentleman really uses time now cannot raise their standing as one minute remaining well you have mr cohen head of my mom and address the question of california about the presidents statement through the assistant attorney general peterson after the opinion as to whether or not after having read all the transcripts and all the information given by the committee whether or not the president was correctly stating the facts so much for peace and to stay away from the
alberta matter the brake and because that was a matter of national security without equivocation that the writer the overwhelming evidence is that this entire operation americans who went to the polls in the us are fast rahm emanuel final act that kind of a gentleman for many as six by the gentleman from maryland driving five mr tran i had not intended to speak because the er is giving away and i think it's a necessary for this committee to move on and begin to consider these amendments and that we not delay inordinately and beginning to reach resolution of this very grave matter what some things haven't stated that really unjust almost forced me to try to respond it with it down from indiana when he says it's
very important not to perhaps in our excitement and concern for stray from a careful statement of what it is you're trying to express in this matter when it left the room and i regret that but i tend to go on and make a point and the gentleman from indiana state of the earlier this evening it was said the due process of law was outmoded no one's here the gentle lady from texas made a very eloquent statement not only for the need for due process for why it had been met why the standards that this committee have followed had met the very highest cost of due process secondly the gentleman said that it had been stated in the course of the discussion here that a the fact that a particle can be cured by a committee report and that was for the article
was not the fact that the article acknowledge that this was a good article in fact that was stated in response to a question from the gentleman from maine that the article went further than was necessary and providing additional know this material and that the report would be ordered so that was not in the discussion that it was a sort of it was a sordid that someone in the course of this discussion said that the rules of evidence not apply in the sun that was not assertive what was made it was that in the previous proceedings of chief justices ruled oh question of evidence and the senate has the authority to overrule him and if the senate does not necessarily have to follow the same strict rules of evidence that would apply in a sort of war the senate is sitting in an impeachment trial and is seeking the truth seeking to determine what is best for the country so i
suggest that one of those sweeping statements were made and while the debate is important i think it's the it's critical and not the mistake what it's come earlier we can differ but i think we ought to recognize what has previously been sent only address myself to one other point that was made with respect to the president's statement on the twenty second in that statement the president said that he endorsed what john mitchell at earlier stages and john mitchell heard earlier stated that there was no involvement either the committee to realize or anyone else involved that was michel statement the president endorsed the truth of that statement and that was read of course by the gentleman from california have a gentleman from california also referred to mr hahn and said that mr khan had no connection although it had been assured the fact of the matter is they're very
good case can be made that mr hahn indeed still have a continuing connection with the white house that is in dispute a look at what happened subsequently that day hunts employment records at the white house were falsified in order to indicate to a crew of marine mammal remember how in order to indicate that heim had left the employment on the thirty first of march it was not still a consultant for the white house on the seventeen of june powell phone books used in the white house and the executive office building as of immediately after the seventeenth of june which contained in them howard hunt name and each telephone number were immediately recall brought back from offices and that made with plants name and number on it was removed from the pope and another page substitute i'm faith on sight at an office in the executive office building
of which he had made news was drilled into and the contents of that state were removed and finely ponte was given instructions to leave the country which were subsequently countermand it subsequently countermand yvonne hunt was given instructions the lead the country not all for these things happened immediately afterwards knowledge on one from california can can can but you have no connection but it suggests that there are factions of the country ari which indicates that he may well about a connection and in any event it seems to me important in that instance and in the earlier matters that these things be stated precisely and accurately so that the differences that are between us are accurately perceive other people on the phone by the chairman
i think that while we were our gay behavior yesterday the we are back to the normal procedures that we've been caged in behind closed doors for lesser wait which ought to effectively explode the myth that has been a totally non partisan we're going to hear it i think thats unfortunate i was not aware and we started the television of these proceedings that we were intending to duplicate the ten weeks of evidence rehearing i do think that we have in many ways done of this earth or south american people in a week i have members that are relating narratives that or embellished and filtered through the prism of their own partisan bias we have them and others call it evidence it's not evidence mr wallace narrative while it might be suitable for a scandal i mean our speech show to his constituents i think it's
totally inappropriate hear his statements have had an actor steve bell which means for every audience irrelevancy and allegations that are not substantiated by the evidence we should address ourselves in these proceedings it seems to me to the factual evidence which is supportive of the articles of impeachment which we are debating we don't need you are our role is not here to entertain the american people but to address themselves to the constitutional responsibility that we told everyone last night we were so on now i oppose the motion to strike and we've been laboring the same point so many times over over where most awakens continues to color or about an indictment is not an indictment we are not involved in a criminal procedure and we should recognize that and stop the looting ourselves and disappointment and some of my colleagues are when mr wolpe talks about mitchell live and probe into the
router and poor purged themselves they are not the subject of this impeachment when he says the president knew full well that white house people were involved before certain point in time this is not supported in the record when mr orr when congressman ryan says that stands was interviewed in his office and not before the grand jury he called this a compromising procedure that's not the case and the justice department as the stands are not the subject of this impeachment it is not even unique unusual for people of prominence to be interviewed outside the grand jury and i reminded jennifer massachusetts and another distinguished gentleman who i revere from his home state former speaker john mccormack did not was not required to go before the grand jury when the investigation and prosecution of his own staff aides was involved he testified he testified before the
department of justice as miss the stands that i when i feel at this point and my good friend and colleague from alan weil is generally very calm and dispassionate logical and i think has done an outstanding job today in defending his substitute even he has fallen into this trap we all feel so strongly about these things we have a hard time keeping our natural propensity even check it was reading from mia the transcript where he yeah he made apparent that every mark oregon to the point though where the president says to bean well you had pointed a very good and you you've got are working on the way and then he says and then dean says quite three months les apparent that every martin sit back and said that we want him in the white house transcript and the implication of that is that there was a perception on the part of the white house and leaving that statement out during the interim of the recess i had checked to see what mr joe worst these transcripts peshawar be a prosecutor
and for the state and there they have inaudible three months which is not what we have on our next sentence we have how do you all and not amnesty jaworski transcripts says how did this all end all of these are not consequential but we give the implication that the white house without any substantiated group has tried to fabricate the transcripts when we ourselves have transcripts there are not the same as mr jaworski for the white house i think we're just just confusing issue for ourselves and the american people i hope that we'll return tomorrow we will all try to rebuild support ourselves and focus in on the articles themselves which are on the debate and not try to propagandize this because i think by doing so we're doing a disservice to these proceedings now you really in early august nineteen seventy two the president himself asked mr erlichman to arrange them is
this and not be compelled to go before the grand jury what the ice evidence to stan's is totally relevant to this inquiry because it was the president of the united states and south this discount be given this unusual situation i yield back to make the point that i'm trying to make an hour again reminded over massachusetts yet there is nothing unique or unusual about that is totally proper for amanda mr stan getz is their prominence in the position he played at that time to testify under oath as he did before that the office of the department of justice he was put under oath and there is not anything more on proper about that and there was for exactly the same procedure that was done for former speaker much more of a gentleman today and it out of a jar of mississippi since we are going to talk about the fact that like make this one point before going further adding that the flowers brought about and confess over all of the bins of speaking to this press conference of the
twenty second thought about the president's public statement of girl so far bank i think the important point is the best part sections of making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigated officers and employees of the united states i think the door said that this particular day and they would not be applicable to that section of that great so the point is the very first apartment made in support of the section in fact has not happened the gentleman from california's ban we've been re arguing evidence in fact all day any evidence vote on wednesday of last week i forgot that we get back to that in the pleading number two
i wish to make it clear i'm a record that i do not and her with the opinion of my colleague from california mr wiggins on constitutional law to apply for impeachment proceeding i yield to my colleague from california mr ebert take long this is a very simple infection one making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the united states the gentleman from illinois mr railsback have provided us a definite information chapter and verse and it is yeah very definite testimony about where the president made a false statements to a lawfully authorized investigative officer the head of the criminal division of the department of justice mr henry pearson and in addition to that allstate was made by the president to attorney general findings that this
doesn't how because judges so maybe some sort of a rule in the other day in a criminal proceeding i'm sure mr wiggins it really didn't mean that to apply to this case we're starting not dealing in a criminal proceeding i go i don't know what more german the worst most to do with this modest section it seems to me that we've provided the information the evidence to comply with that and i think we'll move along which is cut out for you article of impeachment i think that we should put setting up straw men and knocking him down and i yield back of the chair of the balance of my time recognized a gentleman named how to follow up on a point in california
1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings
Reel 5 of 6
Producing Organization
National Public Affairs Center for Television
Contributing Organization
Library of Congress (Washington, District of Columbia)
Live and videotaped coverage of the debate of the House Committee on the Judiciary, chaired by Peter Rodino, Jr., on the articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon. Includes approval of the second article charging abuse of power. This is day 6 of the Nixon impeachment hearings.
Asset type
Event Coverage
Politics and Government
Nixon, Richard M.; Watergate Affair, 1972-1974
Media type
Moving Image
Embed Code
Producing Organization: National Public Affairs Center for Television
Producing Organization: WETA-TV
Reporter: Lehrer, James
Reporter: Duke, Paul
Speaker: Rodino, Peter W.
AAPB Contributor Holdings
Library of Congress
Identifier: 2402944-1-1 (MAVIS Item ID)
Format: 2 inch videotape
Generation: Preservation
Color: Color
Chicago: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 5 of 6,” 1974-07-26, Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed August 21, 2019,
MLA: “1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 5 of 6.” 1974-07-26. Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. August 21, 2019. <>.
APA: 1974 Nixon Impeachment Hearings; 1974-07-26; Reel 5 of 6. Boston, MA: Library of Congress, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (WGBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from