Transcripts For CSPAN3 Nixon Impeachment Hearing Evening Session 20140728

Nixon president ial Library Director, explains why article ii was at the heart. Vote continues to shape our understanding of president ial power. Isjoining us from new york tim naftali who is the director of the library at New York University and former nixon president ial Library Director. Thank you for being with us. We want to go back 40 years ago as the house was beginning to debate article ii of impeachment, the abuse of power. I want to have you set up a what was happening within this congressional meeting. Was a very important of the of the drama constitutional crisis. The second article is all about president ial abuse of power. And that got at the heart of what the framers were actually thinking about when they chose ofput the possibilities impeachment into the constitution. The did they have a broad sense of what should be the reason . Or were they trying to seek a reason . Could you remove a president just for being a bad president . Caucus andrepublican also within the Democratic Caucus, there were three southern democrats in the 21 member Democratic Caucus committee and there were some question as to what will be an abuse of power . And what kind of abuse of power would be impeachable . The debate is all about how first of all, could you prove the president did these things and are they impeachable . Something else one has to keep in mind. All 38 members of the committee were lawyers. A number of them felt, look, we need evidence that we could convict the president of if we were if he were indicted on a felony. Do we have the type of evidence that proves that Richard Nixon knew about these abuses . And that is a whole different standard. What you have are questions about what the framers had in mind and questions of whether the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the senate were indeed impeachable and thirdly, can we prove that Richard Nixon knew about them and even authorized them . Thatave three big issues the committee has been thinking about for months. And as a debate highlights them. It had been more than a century since congress had debated the issue of impeachment. What was the president of that house judiciary meaning to take up the articles . Youve touched on the debate. What was the case against impeachment . Well, there are three articles at issue. Previous to this was article i. That is about the coverup. Could you prove that nixon participated and prevented the investigation of watergate . That was article one. By the time they started debating article ii, article i been passed by a vote of i am sorry. Article one had been passed by a 20 711. 0 you have six republicans who voted for article i. It is clear the committee already had a died a for impeachment. It already happened. Article i has been passed by 27 11 vote. This is the second article. This all about whether nixon had andsed his authority actually use excessive power in a way that would conflict with the constitution and was in many ways criminal. Highlights itself some of these activities. For example, the misuse of the fbi. Toking files from the fbi embarrass, humiliate, or hurt one of the president s political opponents. Daniels name was not mentioned. Dan shore, wass, the object of a request of the fbi to humiliate him. Theres a question of the use of a plumber to break and today youll to break into daniels office. Did the president know about it . Nobody in the committee doubted that the breakin of daniels office was a criminal act. The question there was, did the president know about it and authorizing . Then you have an issue of the irs. There was john dean that testified. Was there was no question that was some kind of list. John and dean was able to provide evidence and then a member of the Treasury Department supplied a list. The question was did what extent do Richard Nixon authorized the listing of the names, to what extent was it designed to go after political opponents . Then there was a question of the head of thean, the Democratic National convention. The committee had some of the case. Some of the tapes had been given to the committee. The president had released a few tapes following a saturday night massacre of 1973. One of the tapes from set timber 1972 did show the president participating in a conversation about misusing the irs. What some wanting to protect the president said was, hey, that was one instance. In the heat of politics, people make mistakes. Rantou really say that one on one day constitutes a pattern of abuse of power . And were the framers wanted us to remove a president which is a dramatic act in democracy on the basis of evidence of one thing of wrongdoing . We cannot even prove that anybody acted on what the president said. Maybe the next day, resident neck so president nixon, say i had a headache, i did not feel well. Those whoon for wanted to protect the president was whether the evidence alone proved one, a pattern of had risen and two, it to the level you expect it to elected democratically president. Let me conclude with this question. 1974to see the debate from then a chance to see the debate from the 1974. Ultimately, had it gone to the senate against the president . Well, part of this debate occurs three days after the Supreme Court ruled in a u. S. Of the nixon that the president would have to turn over some of the tapes. Within a few days, washington would be rocked by transcripts of the june 23, 19 72 tape which would be called the smoking gun. That would prove the president participate in a cover up. A number of the republicans who were both with the president in articles one and two would later say they were going to switch their vote if it came up to the entire house and they will vote for article i. Particular debate is important for a different reason. It was not necessary to impeach nixon. He wouldve been impeached on article one and likely in the house and senate and in and will in the senate. Inevitably in the senate. What this was about was the shift in the United States in the 1970s over Public Opinion of the imperial presidency. A lot of what Richard Nixon thought part of the recent Richard Nixon out he was right assumedat he did, he the president s before him had committed the same kinds of actions. And therefore, he was arguing others have done it. Doingke me to task to what others have done . This debate which is part of a Larger National debate is about what we expect of our president. Even though article ii was not required to impeach Richard Nixon, the fact that article ii 2810be passed by a margin including seven republicans was a signal that we had reached the High Water Mark in the imperial presidency and it was about to go down. Whetherw realized that Richard Nixon wanted to are not, he had acted on impulses that president s should not have in the constitution needed a little bit of help to ensure that in the executive branch did not overstep its bounds. After this, we will see a series of legislation including the surveillance act and ask regarding acts president ial papers. Acts signed by gerald ford. The American People said a note is enough. Actually, the presidency has gotten too powerful by making use of a vague areas in the constitution. This debate may not have been necessary for the impeachment but it was a critical element in the changing thinking of americans about what to expect from their president. Chris tim naftali who is with nyu and was nixon president ial Library Director joining us from new york. Thank you for adding your voice and perspective to the debate we are about to show our audience. Well take you back to july 20 ninth, 1974, the house judiciary meeting. Hours, thet three evening debate over article ii of impeachment of Richard Nixon. Committee was the wiggins motion and those in opposition to the amendment have consumed eight minutes. Gentleman from california. I yield my time to the gentleman from iowa. Thank you. For those of this panel who would impeach the president for setting up the special Investigative Unit would have us believe that there was no National Security involved in this at all. Why was it called the Plumbers Union . 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 had occurred. I mention many of them before the recess. There was the secret United States intelligence boards report in which it estimated the soviet unions strategic striketh and russians capacity, a matter of great importance to our efforts. Well, that was leaked. By a Government Official to a reporter who printed this in the press. Disclosure by one of our senior officials, at least one of the newspaper reporter said, of our secret fallback position, our final author in the strategic arms limitations negotiations in helsinki in 1971. There and team was trying to achieve as much security for the United States as possible from nuclear attacks. Had on the table is there in a dealing with the russians and asking them to stop the construction of all Nuclear Missiles among both land and submarine based. Reporter,to another one of our senior officials, fight it in him that we were willing to settle for less confided in him we were willing to settle for less and we did not expect to get that much security from the russians and if they turned us down, we would be willing to settle for a ban on construction of a land based missiles at letting them go ahead with marine base. When that was printed and the russians read it, you can imagine what it did to our chances of getting more secure arrangement, greater protection for our country. That was definitely a security leak which needed to be plugged. Then there was no release of the pentagon papers by daniel ells burg in 1971. Had been ellsberg identified so the case is different. The president s entire National Security and foreignpolicy advisers had warned him that it was extremely important that these officials who were leaking this information to be identified and stopped. Ellsberg had been identified but it was by no means certain he would not leak war information and part of the pentagon papers had been published and it was not known whether he will go ahead with the rest. And that was reason to believe he had additional information. Affidavit, a sworn affidavit in april of this year, testified in the 10 days after the publication of the first pentagon papers, these papers which related to our decisionmaking processes in a on andt was still going which american troops were still in combat and kissinger were trying to settle with negotiations in paris, ehrlichman said Henry Kissinger met with him and the president and told them about ehrlichman. About Daniel Ellsberg and told quote inhe was and i knowledge of very critical defense secrets of current validity such as a Nuclear Deterrent targeting. I am reading from page 621 of book seven, part 2. I continue the quote. Ellsbergnever heard of before, my impression for kissingers impression was the nation was resent it with a series problem was presented with a serious problem. I later learned that the papers themselves were believed by experts to contain vital secrets. Dr. Kissinger told the president that the theft made very difficult our Foreign Relations with the ilife which we with the allies we shared information and the meetings, both the president and kissinger, were deeply concerned. The gentleman has consumed five minutes. The gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. How the president , ladies and gentlemen of the committee, fell on the advice of his closest toisers that he had to act protect the National Security to stop these leaks. In my judgment am a he acted unwisely and setting up this special investigation headed by a brilliant young man who had no investigative experience. I believe and i believe you do it wouldve been much better to rely on the fbi with that experience in the field and wouldve known the limits and practical limits in which to carry out a proper National Security investigation. If the president of the United States is to be impeached because he made an error in judgment and was not perfect in his decision to act quickly and necessarily to protect the a highl defense, is it crime and misdemeanor not to be letter perfect and the performance of your office . I think not and i think this alleged ground of impeachment simply should not receive serious consideration by the committee. The gentleman has consumed another minute. I recognize the gentleman from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think this particular issue is one of the most serious offenses alleged against the president. It relates back to one of the remarks i made in the opening session of this committee when i suggested that the liberty of this country is enormously fragile and had been subjected the likesult of which we have not seen in our lifetime. I think in this particular case as an activity of the plumber indicates the insensitivity of the president to the constitutional obligation that he had asked the president of this country to protect the people in their liberties. One of the bases, the points of a free society is that the Law Enforcement authority of that society is accountable. And the moment you destroy accountability of Law Enforcement authority, you jeopardize and endanger freedom of individual citizens and when the president denied the opportunity of the legitimate, Law Enforcement institutions of this government, the federal bureau of investigation and cia denied taking his problems with security to them for resolution and thought to set up an extracurricular sacred police force accountable to no one and in this government or society for the president to act individually, he in my view was in a major way interfering with the constitutional protections that have been set up to protect liberty. For the president s defenders to suggest that it was an extraordinary departure from the institution of Law Enforcement because the threat of National Security, the burden is clearly upon them to establish that the activities of the plumbers were in fact resigned to protect the National Security. I call attention to what i thought was a very important whereent of my colleagues he pointed out that we must now once and for all draw a line with the use of National Security as an excuse for all sorts of illegal and illicit activities generally their ofults in the erosion freedom. To test whether National Security was the purpose of this burglary in california in dr. Fieldings office by the plumbers to procure access to the psychiatric files of Daniel Ellsberg allegedly for a National Security purpose of but in reality to interfere with a trial that was to begin you only dr. Ellsberg, have to examine the language of the president in the conversations with mr. Dean on march 21 and march 17. Time of the gentleman has expired. I would be happy to yield. I appreciate that. Hard for me to complete a sentence when i want to analyze the conversation i appreciate that. [laughter] 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 issue. The president is told by dean about the breakin and said the president said, i do not know what the hill we did that for. The president said tom a what in the name of god did that the president said, what in the name of god did that . The president said i do not know what the hell. Know. I do not the president said how do you keep it out . Dean said he might put on a National Security ground bases which are really it was. Dean said he say that the president said, yeah. [laughter] i really did not finish the sentence. [laughter] it is a long sentence. I think you have. Mr. Chairman, how much time . The gentleman from california has eight minutes remaining. 4 i will be happy to yield minute to my colleague from ohio. The gentleman from ohio. I thank the gentleman from california which is about the longest minute we have had thus far. He say ive mentioned mentioned one conversation we should go to. Reference to the first time the president of the United States found out about it how months after the break in. That is the conversation between the president and john dean on march 17, 1973. Let us read that. Dean, the other potential problem is our look men ehrlichman and the president said in connection with inquires they worked for him . Fellas have to be idiots and we have learned after out and went went office. Ellsbergs dr. s and they were geared up with all of this cia equipment, cameras, and the like. And return to the stuff back into this cia at some point in time unless [indiscernible] the cia has not put this together and they do not know what it all means right now. The president says, what in the ehrlichman and this is unintelligible. This is months after. Were tryingthey to add this was a part of an operation in connection with the pentagon papers. They wanted to get ellsbergs psychiatric records for some reason. I do not know. The president , this is the first i have ever heard of this. I unintelligible and maybe care about ellsberg was not our problem. Dean said, this is right. A gentleman said about the fbi not getting into the case and we better talk about that. The late jcommittee, aderholt for happened to j know aoover happen to relative of ellsberg. To get on investigating the leaks which i shall refer to in considerably would we get on the general debate of the articles themselves. Back theman, i yield balance of my time to mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman the gentleman has 3. 5 minutes remaining. It is recognize. Mr. Chairman, it was my intent is to discuss the houston plan and terrified for the benefits of the members and to demonstrate it was a plan of the top security people in this country recommended by the president of the United States and he acted and pursuant to those advice and approved for a days. Of 4 or 5 a timeintended to take limit because some of my colleagues seem to be concerned about the period by the approval in 1970. Rather in my remaining moments, to put it in its proper focus. The question is not whether the creation of it was justified from is no rule inhibiting. Stablishing a unit not thee is whether or activities of that unit were created. We know that if they do not unless the president approves them had knowledge of them or condoned them, we now know as a result that the president did learn. Rn did not the question is should he be impeached. Should he be impeached because he took an improper act upon learning. Those at the desk no involve aiding a former power. T was not the motive it was the fact of disclosure, whatever his motive. The president actions were prompted by the fact of disclosure rather than any ative of dr. Ellsberg to aid foreign power, a fact which would be very important in a prosecution under the espionage act. Thats the issue, whether or not after the 17th of march when the president learned of an act which happened about a year and a half prior to that, whether he acted prudently given his state of knowledge at the time. I am telling you the overwhelming weight of evidence is that Richard Nixon believes the pentagon papers issued was a National Security issue. His actions after learning in 1973 were971 wholly consistent with his belief on that part. If the majority of his Committee Really believes the president of the United States should be impeached because his honest and good faith believes the security. F this patient is in jeopardy you live with that judgment. History is going to judge you if you make that judgment. This is not a proper grounds to impeach the president of the United States. Balance of myhe time. I recognize the gentleman from maryland for three minutes. Thank you. I think its very important for the members of this committee and the American People to appreciate what the plumbers did in the breakin. Into dr. Ers broke fieldings office. Dr. Filling was not under suspicion. And went into his office ordered to get files on one of his patients. I ask every doctor and lawyer in theurance agent country, what kind of land would you be living and if a group of hired hands have the power to the into your office in dead of night to get one of your files. If the purpose was legitimate, why didnt they obtain those files in a lawful manner. The answer is the purpose was who were thee. Plumbers . They were a band of hired hands. They were not Law Enforcement officials. Why wasnt the fbi brought in . Because the plumbers were doing illegal things the fbi refused to do. That goes to the houston plan of when this feltar like houston had approved a plan that involved surreptitious in a memo that said it involved a legal trespass. The fbi put out a footnote that fbi is opposed to surreptitious entry. That same report provided for. Overt mail coverage the fbi provided a footnote that said the fbi is opposed to providing covert coverage because it is clearly illegal. They could not use the fbi is not prepared to do these illegal things. Get whence did the plumbers their money . Where did the order come from . It came from private sources. In the friend states latter part of august or the first art of september mr. Colson told me the white house had an urgent need for 5,000. Toy send 5,000 and told him give it to the fellow he would find there. That was the head of the plumbers unit. He goes down there with his 5,000 in cash. He takes it in there. They said, did you look to see what it was . I look to see this was money. It was in the form of cash. Did you say anything about how you wanted the funds . I believe there shouldnt be any way to trace the money. Gentlemans time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. , mr. Chairman. This had three names. 18 months later gave it the name of special Investigative Unit. And covert from the beginning. Patrick had the good sense to decline the job to be head of the plumbers. He gave the best description of ellsberg. E of project he wrote this is a project for three months to leaked the pentagon papers. There was no National Security involved. Pat buchanan had an alternative he thought was better. Lets undertake a major public attack on the brookings institution. 10 days after they were released he said 98 of the pentagon papers could have been and should have been declassified. Hysteriawhere was created months after the identity came out. He said the special Investigative Unit was created in an entirely legal manner. I doubt he can support that. This is outside the ordinary way the executive branch operates. Mr. St. Clair concedes there is a shift in the units way of acting, but he said the purpose he failed toe. Tell us why they had sterile phones in this little cubbyhole and why you would need special passes to enter and why in total defiance of the law and the cia they regularly violated that prohibition against Security Matters of the cia. He testified and said there was no area of violation of federal or criminal laws which was not covered by statutes and if there thean additional it goes to department of justice. This was political and unlawful from the beginning. The names came later. If the president says there is an epidemic of leaks, that is not substantiated by the evidence. Let me quote one justification which has come out today and a minority report which demonstrates hysteria is ill going. That foreignt says espionage agents can read english, and they can read the new york times. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from maine for three minutes. I would like to address your attention to the final sentence several daysraph. Ago the gentleman from new jersey made a statement that we must view the totality of evidence. He is correct. Only by viewing the evidence can we trace the pattern of spirit and conduct that is the basis of our investigation. I want to call your attention to september 15 conversation between the president and mr. You were talking about Edward Bennett williams at which time you said you are going after him. Page 10. Ishink this statement relevant because mr. Colson told us on several occasions the president urged colson to disseminate information about mr. Ellsberg and also his attorney. Ellsberg in my opinion should have been prosecuted. The trial should have gone to its full conclusion. What was done to ellsberg was oncee of what said. I will not sue you. I will ruin you. They set out to ruin him. Only contrary to the spirit of our constitution. Its also contrary to the spirit of our law. Attack dogs set loose with general instructions coste stray leaks at any and then say he is not responsible when the Constitutional Rights of citizens are shredded and the in the process. The gentleman has one minute remaining. The craft wiretap it wasno security basis done by the committee to reelect the president , which makes it totally illegal. Under normal procedures the attorney general reviews the propriety of wiretaps for National Security measures every 90 days. This was not followed with respect to any of these taps the president approves. I would like to read this on wiretaps when they were just talking about the Time Magazine story. The president says, sure. He insisted on lake. The president says, incidentally, didnt muskie do re . Thing bad on thei i know that. I know that he asked it hed done. Both bad. This is the president talking. Too. Aps were, all time has expired. Now occurs. All those in favor of the motion to strike lee signify by saying please signify by saying aye. The amendment is not agreed to. I recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. Brooks. Chairman, in this debate we have neglected the most vital part of this article. Pertinent to this activity. I think it is a primary abuse. , alle interest of debate those who have the facts and those opposed to it, i have an amendment at the desk to strike section one. So move. The clerk will read the amendment. The amendment by mr. Brooks. The gentleman is recognized. The gentleman recognizes there are 20 minutes in support and 20 minutes against. I would like to ask the time be subtracted from the time of the opponents so they would not suffer any way and would have a full 20 minutes to utilize, yield to their mr. Nixons personal involvement in efforts to misuse in political purposes violation of civil rights is clearly documented in event that the meeting between the president , mr. Harlem, and mr. Dean. There is no question there was some discussion as to how they were going to get the irs to institute investigations of mr. Enemies. Olitical some of the efforts have not been made available to this committee. The transcripts do not include the last 17 minutes of this meeting. Yet mr. Dean has testified that there was atime specific discussion about the plan to use irs for these purposes. The justice has listened to the entire tape and has announced in they do indeed. He has made those minutes restraint under the put on him by the court of u. S. Appeals he has been unable to provide them. Mr. Nixon has not made this tape available to us despite his protestations that he intends to go are a fully with our investigation. We can only use the evidence we have. , john deans testimony clearly indicates there was a definite concerted lan to misuse the Internal Revenue service for personal gain. Our constitutional safeguards protecting individual rights against arbitrary and unrestrained government power mean very little to a president who would use the irs for such distorted fashion. Reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from new jersey. I am in an uncanny position. I cannot figure out and couldnt yesterday whether the proponents to strike really want the motion. Arried if he does he asked my assistance. I know a lot of other people will give their assistance. Before i comment i would like to hear from the gentleman from texas. Really want to strike paragraph one . Let me know how i should proceed. Will the gentleman from texas please answer . I thought i made it clear that in the interest of debate getting the facts, how it was used, who told him to do it, what they did, that i thought we thet to have this motion so people of this country and this committee could fully evaluating what happened. I want you to have every advantage of a full 20 minute to discuss why this is concluded. Thats fine. , do you want your motion passed . By for debate purposes you are not necessarily confined to wanting it past. Certainly i do not. Knows what you are up to. I am glad to give you that time. You am not going to give any more of that valuable time. Its obvious this is a game. We have been involved in quite a few games. You are not serious about striking his article. I am mindful of the fact that they tell me we have a 20 audience, which is about 44 youion people it gives exposure to. Maybe you can convince them with some of your generalities. Purpose behind all of this. Peopleit and 44 million know it. Make no mistake about it. I would like to yield some time to other members on this side. I would like to yield to the gentleman from indiana. Thank you. I would like to say if i felt the evidence here substantiated hadInternal Revenue service been misused and abused for improper political or discriminatory purposes i would take a very dim view of that myself. Though sucho even use, misuse, and discrimination is not entirely unknown in past because thatns would not constitute a defense now, even though nobody bothered to fool with it then. Diaries the his late true pearson says the late irs luceruman turn the on him at one time. Loose on him at one time. I think it is good to bear in mind we have a certain amount of hypocrisy in these proceedings from time to time. Thereuth of the matter is really is not any evidence connected with the president , if you please. But the president did anything about the irs at all. As a matter of fact, the president doesnt refer to the and that conversation. He says, we have not used the power in these first four years. We have not used the bureau, and we have not used the justice department. He doesnt talk about the irs as thetter of fact. Interesting thing is all the conversation is talk anyway. Its not good talk. I havent seen anything in this record where the president did follow up on. But the gentleman from new jersey has five minutes. Balance of myhe time. The gentleman from texas is recognized. I would yield two and a half minutes to the congressman from california. Thank you for yielding. Inasmuch as my distinguished friend and others request specificity on many of these items i feel it is appropriate it is provided. There are other items mentioned. For example, along with 1971 and obtained john dean confidential Internal Revenue information about a large number and under his direction efforts were made to have the Internal Revenue Service Conduct audits about certain people low on popularity. 13, was born out on march 1973. The president asked mr. Dean if he needed anything from the irs, and he responded he didnt at that time. He said he had sources in the irs and could get whatever he needed without further trouble. Along with the spring of 1972 the Political Campaign was warming up. They thought it would be good to get information on lawrence obrien, chairman of the democratic committee. They found in an investigation there was some information indicating a financial connection of mr. Obrien. Instructed secretary schultz to investigate and obrien about his tax returns. Thereafter the irs did interview mr. Obrien. They furnished the results of the interview. It didnt indicate anything particularly bad. 29 schultz decided they would do nothing further about obrien. They notified they were dropping the matter. Objected. Hman they wouldnt leave it alone at that point. A couple days later mr. Ehrlichman got in touch with the president s loyal personal him to planttold the story. He fortunately refused to do so. The pattern of misuse of the Internal Revenue service. I would yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Areas i wasof the concerned about in the opening statement. Expressed byoncern the gentleman from iowa. Story is what i ould call good and bad. The story is bad in the sense that top officials in government clearly tried to misuse their respect thatn the in this particular case, contrary to many of the aspects of the watergate affair, there were some good people in the administration that redp jacked it that rejected and fought a blatant misuse of power. I realize other administrations had been guilty of similar activities. Dont think this was attempted. On september 11, john dean gave to the Internal Revenue code mission are and asked him to audit those persons returns. What is an irs audit . To begin with the taxpayer is asked to furnish a full and complete justification for everything used within the tax return itself. The irs has access to prior of cases canaudits go back three years. Go back without limit and check on all returns filed by taxpayers. In a typical case the agent must be provided by the taxpayer access to all records involving deductions, medical bills, information regarding outstanding loans, and other substantial data. He believes it was received and not reported he will enter view friends, neighbors, associate to determine the taxpayers lifestyle. Often the taxpayer will have to hire a lawyer or an accountant at an expense to him. Haveof my constituents complained about irs audits. The direct evidence we have, we dean. Estimony from john names, there591 were a group of mcgovern supporters and contributors. Two and a half minutes. I recognize the gentleman from new jersey. Interesting to note the gentleman from california has given me an opportunity to prove beyond all reasonable doubt what we have been arguing about. The specificity is a real thing and thats the thats going to be remembered here. It can hold up in any court. Each of these periods is three months. You can go right on through the whole bit. Its just a whole conglomeration of generalities. We have valuable time i want to yield to my friend from california mr. Wiggins. I thank my college from yielding. I do want to put in focus what my friend from illinois just said about this egregious act of john dean going to the i. R. S. With 500 names of political opponents of the president. That is absolutely indefensible. No one at this table of Richard Nixon condones that act. You can see the president didnt know that. He didnt know that john dean went to the i. R. S. There isnt a word of testimony that he did know that mr. Dean went opinion its important as well to know what the i. R. S. Told mr. Dean. The person that told mr. Dean was the appointee of the president. Executing the president s instruction i presume. Theres no dispute as to what mr. Dean was told. He was told to go to hell. Thats what happened. The president is not to be impeached. This whole case of i. R. S. Abuse turns on the conversation of september 15 on, on that, well have to submit that. Well study it and review it and decide whether or not at that time the president approve find of this or whether it was simply a discussion in the context of the time three months before an election in this country. I will yield back that time. Mr. Chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana. Determining the situation, i think its worth remembering that commissioner walter said on the occasion that dean came to him, the dean stated that he had not been asked to have this done. He did not know whether the president had any of this activity. Mr. Dean stated here in this committee and answered, i dont know if any audits were accomplished and the joint committee on Internal Revenue taxation found that none of these people were audited. Thats the record on the situation on what actually took place as against political conversation on the 15th day of september. There is no evidence in the record anywhere that the president ever made any request except a hear say statement by clark, who said that president asked for a report on governor wallaces brother. Theres no evidence of that in fact is the truth. Its been denied by two or three other people during the course of the testimony. As mr. Railsback said, there are good people in this. Theres commissioners and wallace. All of them turned his efforts and deans efforts down. Theres no evidence of a president ial efforts. You yield back to the gentleman from new jersey. You neild gulf of two mio the gentleman from iowa. I want to reemphasize whats been said by the gentleman from california, mr. Wiggins. No one at this table condones any such request that mr. John dean put forth. Certainly that the president of the United States had put forth that request, i would think that would be an Impeachable Offense. The question is, did he or did he not authorize john dean to do this . Its already been pointed out when he went to mr. Wallers, he stated that he was not there at the president s request. I think its important to note when this whole matter was submitted to Us Joint Committee on taxation, here in the congress which is controlled by the opposition party, that they made this report. The staff investigation paid particular attention to the cases of those individuals mentioned in the press as victims of politically motivated audits. The joint Committee Staff has difficulty in discussing these cases specifically because of the problems this would present in violating the individuals rite to confidentiality. However in 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. Commissioner walters stated in his of at no times did i fuh names or i requested any i. R. S. Employee to take any action with respect to the list. The gentleman has consumed two minutes. The gentleman from new jersey has six minutes remaining. Like the gentleman from texas take the next time. The gentleman from texas. I mr. Chair i yield five minutes to mr. Mezvinsky. Gentlemen from iowa is recognized. 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. They were worried when they just came out of a revolution whether or not we will find a president that will abuse that power. You found that a gentleman from virginia, mr. Randolph said that he really advocated the impeachment process because he was worried about that abuse of power. Abuse of a president ial power because if the president would abuse that power it could very well lead to insurrections by the people. Really what this particular provision is a committee provision which is saying that to guard against this abuse, we have to take a look. We have to see what the founding father didnt have at that time the Internal Revenue service. I think why the gentleman from illinois, mr. Railsback and gentlemen from ohio mr. Mayne is concerned about this matter and my colleges are defensive is because i think theres a realization that one of the greatest abuses that we have is the abuse of the i. R. S. Because i think it serves the realization that it poisons the system. If you abuse the i. R. S. , really what youre doing youre poisoning the system into a great it becomes probably one of the most hideous of all charges. Why . Because we all pay taxes. We know that the i. R. S. Has personal information. We know that its based on solitary action on the part of all of us. We know its base on honesty and our ability to pay our taxes. We have really what we have is a selfconfession when we file our taxes. We know that and we understand it. I think why the apprehensions sets in it levels a serious blow in the area of the abuse of the i. R. S. You talked about the enemy and the enemy list. I like to say that theres another area. What happened about taking care of your friends . I have submitted before one of the president s best friends is the president himself. Well have an article on that subsequent to the one that were considering tonight. What do we see about the friends and why does the friends matter as significant as the enemy . Because if you impede the two administration of the Internal Revenue act with a violation that someone may have done, you say that in fact, the i. R. S. Is conducting and audit of that particular individual, then you get a directive from the white house saying, look, which we have direct testimony from that says that we have to take care of our friends and turn the i. R. S. Off our friends. What does it mean . It means another kind of coverup. It means another kind of protection. Thats pal whats happened. Let me tell my friends were in a constitutional issue, which i agree, theres groping for criminal violation. If you intend and you are part of helping your friends and stepping into an audit that is done by the i. R. S. , that is an interference with the two administration of the Internal Revenue act. I only cite it as an example. Which is not only a significant violation of our constitution and because of office, its also a clear violation of section 7212 which says if you interfere with the two administrations of the Internal Revenue service, youre sum to a felony and to being put in prison. I would bring that to the attention of the members of this committee. I also say that in all respect, the joint committee on Internal Revenue taxation took a look at this issue. That investigation is going on. They have asked for reaudits of those friends. Those one who had direct contact and have been closest associates of friends of the white house. We have testimony direct that the white house was involved. Now lets point to the one item thats very interesting to me. Thats on september 15th in the testimony from the gentleman from california, mr. Wiggins. We have mr. Dean talking about it. Hes talking about it in the abstract. Its not in the abstract, its right on target. Its refer to march 13, 1973 and what do we see . We see direct involvement direct discussion page 50. Theyre talking about issues. What does the president say directly. Do we need any i. R. S. Stuff . Time for the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from texas has 6. 5 minutes remain and gentleman from new jerseys a 6 minute. I recognize gentleman from mississippi, mr. Latta for three minutes. This is certainly an area that can be used to inflame the moaces of the American People. There are out there who feel they are harassed by the i. R. S. I think there are some key issues and points that we must stress and keep in mind. There is no evidence of any such misuse in the final analysis on a part of the president. The joint committee on Internal Revenue taxation report should be noted in this conclusion. I will cite some sections from that report in a minute. Also almost all of the examples of alleged attempts to misuse i. R. S. Come from the person that used the most influence supposedly within the i. R. S. John dean is a person that made these points with john walters and others. Lot has been made of this missing 17 minutes of tape. The fact is, we dont have that 17 minutes. Theres been some contradictions whats included. I dont think we can base this decision on something we dont yet have. Maybe we will later on. Its been claimed that several individuals in the white house attempted to misuse the i. R. S. For a partisan political purposes. Its clear that such an alleged misuse can only succeed if it were supported by the power and authority of the president. Looking at all the evidence available, its clear that the president did not take that action. One point incident to emphasize. These people have been praised so highly. These people were appointed by the president just as his aids were like dean. Let me quoth to you some of the sections in the report from the Internal Revenue committee. However in n. Of these cases have the staff found any evidence that the taxpayer was unfairly treated by the Internal Revenue service. The staff believe there are substantial questions about Government Agencies and friends of the white house. The staff does not have evidence that there was any pressure involved. The staff believes that a number of enemies either were not audited when the staff believes they should have been or were audited too leniently. In mr. Deans response, he says, i dont know if the president got it back in it or not. Or i dont know if any audits that were accomplished. In conclusions, i think the record shows while some personnel at the white house may used improper intentions against the i. R. S. , the fact is, the final analysis, no i. R. S. Abuse resulted. Thank you. Gentleman from new jersey has three minutes. I reserve and yield to the gentleman from texas to use some of his time. Gentleman has 6. 5 minutes remaining. Mr. Chairman, i yield six yields and reserving 30 seconds to myself. I yield to gentleman from alabama i thank the gentleman from illinois mr. Railsback. Thanks mr. Flowers. Lets dont dilute ourselves here. There was a conversation. The president was involved. The president knew exactly what john dean had done on september 11th not only did he not turn it off. According to john deans direct testimony, he told him to go back again. Some people argue that because nothing was done that theres no serious offense. Why wasnt there anything done . Was it because the president of the United States decided to turn it you have and register his outrage . Its because these investigations did not occur because there happen to be two rather dedicated public servants. One by the name of George Schultz and a good i. R. S. Commissioner who didnt have anything to do with it. Commissioner walter gave good advice to mr. Dean. He testified that he told dean that compliance for such a request will be disastrous for the i. R. S. And for the administration and will make the watergate affair look like a sunday school picnic. You know, my friends fundamental principle of our government is equal justice under law is a guaranteed to every citizen. Put it another way, we are a government of laws and not of men. This commitment to equal justice was written down in a few places like in our constitution and in our laws and in some course decisions. I think just as important as a commitments to this principle that must be assumed in our society. For instance, the assumption that the agencies of government with power over our citizens like the police pore and the power to tax will not be abused or misused for political purposes. This is a fundamental source of the peoples confidence in their government. We the people are confident in our government. That the president and his men should have trifled with this source seems to grave to qualify as an component of article of impeachment. Can you imagine circumstances ever the president of the United States saying to an aid, do you need any i. R. S. Stuff . That happened on march 13, 1973 in the white house. Can you imagine the president s lawyer, his council and saying with impunity and apparent approval of the president we have a couple of sources over there that i can go to. I dont have to fool around with johnny walters. We can get right in and get what we need. That also happened in the white house. Let me turn to something specific which may be just a tip of the iceberg. There was a two prong on attack on a well known political figure. Who is now governor of my state. A belief shared equally by those who agree or disagree with him. John wallace was not governor of alabama but engaged in a heated contest with governor brewer. The decision was made by whom i dont know but i think you can be certain it was in the highest councils of the white house. That this success of governor wallace in a democratic primary in the state of alabama would somehow incompatible with the interest of the nixon administration. What did they do . Mr. Higby, chief of staff to the president , 400,000 in funds left over from the 1968 campaign was funneled into alabama with a devious and under cover man tore defeat governor wallace. Theres direct evidence to this before this committee and this room. Then in early 1970, h. R. Alder directed a special council to obtain a report to the i. R. S. About investigation about George Wallace and his brother. The report from i. R. S. Commissioner thrower was requested on this basis received and given to halderman. Material contained that report was there after transmitted to Jack Anderson a syndicated columnist. Portions of the material was potentially dangerous to wallace, several weeks before the primary election. Both of these actions were a gross abuse of the i. R. S. As an agency of government and incidentally a violation of federal law. Now i ask you, who was it that maintained political enemies left in an effort to get back at them . It was the administration of Richard Nixon. Who was it that released damaging Tax Information about the governor of alabama, the aids of Richard Nixon. On another subject of gross abuse, who was it that frustrated that awaited daniel elseberg and anthony russo. Was it some left wing radical liberal plot, no my friends it was the administration of richard m. Nixon. However you describe yourself, you ought to be concerned here because this president with whom you perhaps agree politically can get by with the abuses described in this article. Thus imprinting in the standard of our highest office, a standard of conduct that is unacceptable to me. Time of the gentleman expired. New jersey has three minutes remaining. I think now we have the whole case. If we could rest all of this on this one, this lawyer would ask for direct verdict. These are the facts. Now you know why they went be specific. All they have is generalities and group of dates. All they have over here some time in 71, 72, all they have is in the spring of 1972. Only thing left, september 1972. Why dont you say thats all you have . Heres why it wont hold up. All you have is a conversation with anybody that listens to that tape. Mr. Railsback has brought something new and that is a majestic case to say the least. Modern times has done away with the fifth amendment. What did mr. Railsback said, you know what he said, nothing happened. Not one of the 591 people audited. You can impeach the president of the United States for a thought and not a deed. Thats what hes saying. When dead that did that happen before . This can be a stage show from now on for any Majority Party to manipulate against any man that becomes president of the United States that is not a member of his party. Such action of that cannot be in the best interest of the government and the country we all love so well. This is the thought we have to prove. The 220 million people. This shows beyond all reasonable doubt, you cannot prove this count, you know it, the people know it. Why dont you pass this motion to strike. Gentleman from texas has 30 seconds remaining. Mr. Chairman. With 30 seconds remaining. I will yield 15 of that to my distinguishedman from new york mr. Fish. I like to say that, i think most people listening to us know really what is the facts here. To faithfully execute the laws of our country does involve policing your lieutenant and it does an obligation to stop them when you see the course of which they are following. For those who are looking for the smoking pistol, im afraid theyre not going to find it because the room is too full of smoke. Mr. Chairman. Im impressed by the debate and colleague. I think weve all benefited from it. I will withdraw the motion to strike. [laughter] under the rules of the house, the gentleman right to withdraw the motion to strike. Thank you mr. Chairman. On a point of parliamentary decision, does he need unanimous decision to do that . I would be pleased to answer that. The chair will respond. If the gentleman wants the chair to decide to rule and rule 19 is the rule of the house. The gentleman was operated under the house as a committee of the whole and is entitled to withdraw the motion as a substitute of amendment out asking for unanimous consent. The gentleman is perfectly in order. There being no further amendment. The gentleman are now recognized those who so wish to speak under the five minute rule to the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri mr. Gentleman from illinois is recognized for five minutes. If nobody wants to take the time, i will prove the previous question. The gentleman from the chair like to state under the rule, every member has a right to the five minutes unless he declines to use it. Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from missouri, mr. Hungate. Thank you chair. Mr. Chairman, i believe president truman mentioned along with pierson, mr. Truman doesnt need any defense from me. Hes been known to handle people who made attacks on him. Its not appropriate, i think, to be critical of those who are deceased. We do know that mr. Truman opposed passing the buck almost he was almost opposed to passing the buck as nixon is good at. On mr. Trumans death, there was a sign in the oval office that said the buck stops here. Now weve had other criticism of other president s were who deceased. President johnson, weve had discussion of the fifth amendment. Im not going to tell you i can tell you all about the fifth amendment. Due process, i think its awfully hard to give due process to a dead man. I would hope that when the final record is written, we would strike any attempt to make attacks of that kind. I would certainly say that i would resist any that might be made with regard to president eisenhower. We were in the army together. [laughter] i would only quote the words of our distinguished former colleague, brooks hayes of arkansas, mr. Thornton states, recounted the story of boys playing cards and one says, come on boys. Play the cards fair. I know what i dealt you. Mr. Chairman, i yield to my distinguished colleague from indiana. Good friend from missouri. I really didnt intend any criticism to president truman who happens to be a gentleman i admire myself. I thank the gentleman for his comment. Weve talked about people and agents and employees. Like to in this brief time talk about mr. He said that in some of his testimony after qualifying how much time he was sworn in, he goes through some of this. Mr. Halderman was in charge of everything other than domestic trade. He was in charge of everything that had a personal connotation, speech writing, travel schedule, liaisons, political matters, communications of the media. I can go on. This is a staff i knew best. If a crunch matter came up, hearing higby was the halderman and halderman was to president. Then he says, he was responsible for keeping tune to political happenings around the country and had a close liaisons. Continuing in our testimony on page 29, the president first of all is well organized always and highly disciplined as an individual. The staff is a very well organized firmly run staff. Mr. Door, could you give the committee indication with respect to detail. Mr. Butterfield, why from my observations, maybe using the figures loosely. I know him to be a detailed man. Then he goes on and says the president was concerned with whether or not the curtains were closed or open. Social functions were abuse to him after it came to me from mr. Nixon. He was deeply involved in entertainment business. Soon we should get for what kind of group, small band, big band, black band white band. He debated receiving lanes whether or not he should have receiving line prior to entertainment. Time of the gentleman has expired. Did mr. Dennis speak . Dennis . Mr. Chairman and my colleagues on the committee, i think perhaps this article if the proof were here, would be more important in many respects in article one, we dealt with earlier. But the difficulty is, i see it is, whereas on article one, how a difficult matter of balancing proof and deciding where the weight lay and whether a case has been made beyond a reasonable type of doubt. I decided that it had not been. While you had that kind of problem there. Here where you might have the serious case if you had the evidence, you dont dont really have the evidence. I cant believe that were going to impeach the president of the United States without the facts. Its difficult to go over the same ground. Lets just look quickly in what were talking about. First its the i. R. S. I was just talking about a moment ago. The japanese had called dangerous thinking. Made along the base of conversation september 15th, you can convict something of that. I dont think it is. Bunch of politicians get around after election or before an election talking about the opposition, what theyre going to do to them. I dont know its a very high class conversation but i do suggest that conversation in itself is not an Impeachable Offense. You got to show that something was done as a result of it. Done by the president or by his instructions. There isnt any evidence. Weve got to hear say statement about the wallace matter. Thats all. We have the enemies list and dean himself said that wasnt done at the president s request. He agreed nobody followed up on it. The joint Committee Said nobody was ever audited as a result. My friend from iowa mr. Mezvinsky talks about over friendliness to someone, he didnt specify anybody. One case was the case of john wayne, that was checked too and nothing was found to exist at all. It was treated just like everybody else. The joint committee has looked into this thing. N. Of none of these cases was taxpayer improperly treated because of political consideration. My friend from alabama, mr. Flowers maybe its not the kind of statement you like to hear considering all of the circumstances and what not. Is that an Impeachable Offense . That is what were talking about here. Nobody shows that anybody went and got any i. R. S. Stuff and used it more any improper situation. Gentleman yield for a question . I hate to yield because the length of my time. Otherwise i would be happy to ill yield to my friend from illinois. Since he will talk anyway. I will be glad to yield to him. Thank you very much. I want to say, dont you think its genuinely fortunate we have had commissioner walter, the secretary of the treasury show who decided wouldnt tolerate such businesses even though some close to the president wanted to misuse the first i. I. R. S. I completely agree with my friend. As i said before, they were appointee to the president. He appointed them and none of them said anything in the evidence before us in this record do indicate this they feel that the president ever missed them, the president himself as far as im aware. Going to the second matter, the matter of surveying. We talked about that already too. You have to consider the climate. The leaks about cambodiaian bombing about troop withdrawal. I think personally time of the gentleman from indiana has expired. Mr. Chairman, would it be an order at this time since one from each side has spoken, for a member to move that all the debates on this article terminate within one hour is so that the time can be equaled divided under the rule, the members who wish to speak have that time reserved to them unless there were unanimous consent. I do not believe such a motion would be in order. Could i ask for unanimous consent that all debates on article two and that ten minutes after ten which is one hour is there an objection . [indiscernible]. We have how many members intend to speak so we have some idea how much time will be allocated 21 members seeking recognition. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is a matter of importance. The members should have an adequate amount of time, i dont want to prolong this, i dont think we should cut off debate on a matter of this serious and therefore i must register my objection to the request. From july 29, 1974, youve been watching some of the debate on members of the House Judiciary Committee with the abuse of power aimed at the impeachment aimed at president nixon. Joining us is timothy naftali, and before that director of museum. Thanks for being with us. My pleasure, steve. We talked earlier about the issue of abuse of power. Give our audience a sense of the constitutional debate that were swirling within this committee and the time line of this in late july about a week in a half before Richard Nixon resigned his presidency. Whats going on is that two branches of government are passing judgment on a third branch. The Supreme Court after listening to hearing oral arguments in early july. On july 24th, handed down its decision. To everyone surprise, the decision was unanimous. It was unanimously against the president of the United States. That meant that president nixons appointees on the court voted against him which astounded Richard Nixon. That decision said that there is a limit to president s executive privilege. Is said there are moments when the president has to turn over information particularly in that information would affect a criminal trial. If president has relevant information under his control and is not willing to give it up. You got the judiciary that is in judgment of the president and now, as we listen to the debate, we know that the legislative branch is in judgment of the president. The legislative branch, however, is thinking about impeachment without receiving the information from the tape that the Supreme Court has just said should be supplied to the prosecutors. Theres a whole world of information that the public is going to learn in about two weeks that the members of the Judiciary Committee dont know as they are thinking about how to vote on article two. Thats something thats forgotten as we telescope the past. Theres a lot of very Important Information most significant of which would be the smoking gun conversation of june 23, 1972. When the president said yes, lets use the cia to stop the fbis investigation. The president understands that if the fbi figures out that the money that the burglars had on them when they broke into the watergate, came from the committee to reelect the president , that will connect directly to the watergate breakin. The president said lets stop the fbi. The president and the congressman men and women do not know this. They are voting on the basis of statements of information put together by the Judiciary Committee led by john door. These volumes have been read to them. He wanted to be certain that all the evidence that no one could say that they didnt read something or didnt know something. For hours, he reads these monotonous tone. He doesnt want to be dramatic. He reads all find these statements of information. What we know now is that there was a lot more information about president nixons abuse of power. But that information wasnt available to the committee. What was the debate about . The debate was did Richard Nixon know about these abuses . Did these abuses constitute Impeachable Offenses. Some of them would not come to light until the 1990s when the bulk of so called abuse of government power recordings within the nixon tape were released by the national archives. The public and the Congress Really didnt know as much as they would know about Richard Nixons cup operable when these particular debate was occurring at the end of july 1974. What we kept hearing from the nixon what this idea of executive privilege which gets to the core argument that youve been talking about which is just how much authority does the president have. Something else i think for many people today would resonate. By the way, this resonated to people on the left and the right at the time. The president had authorized warrantless wiretapping of members of his staff and some journalists as a result of some leaks to the press starting in the 1969. The wiretaps had gone from 1969 to 1971. There was a constitutional debate over whether wiretap used for domestic security purposes required a warrant for most of our history. President s could assume that if you said im doing this for National Security reasons, you are allowed to wiretap anyone, any time, anywhere. But the courts were changing their point of view through the 1960s and congress was beginning it think twice about domestic wiretaps. The issue was was Richard Nixon ordering these wiretaps really for National Security purses or was he ordering them because he wanted information about his political opponent. Nobody doubted that he was seeking information about political opponents, it was not legal. The members of congress from the republican members of congress on the committee had some concern about these wiretap. In fact, theyre own minority counsel, sam garrison in his report to the committee, had indicated that there was a problem with these wiretaps. There was evidence that was coming in. The question was whether there was enough of it to constitute a reason to throw out a republican president. What happens is a Fragile Coalition form, a coalition of three democrats from the south and four republicans. These are people that Richard Nixon and the white house assumed would vote with the president. But the coalition begins to turn against the president as the evidence comes to them and in the weeks before the vote. These people are slowly but surely moving against the president. We have evidence that the white house tried to put pressure on some of these individual congressmen to vote the right way. If the president lost southern democrats and republicans will be finished. His whole strategy for surviving impeachment was to build a coalition of those two groups. But the abuse of power information troubled a number of republicans as did the evidence of the coverup. Thats why by vote of 2711, article one had been passed by a group including republicans. The abuse of power article is very relevant today. The coverup story, well thats a very much watergate centered story, but the abuse of power debate is as relevant today as it was back then. Indeed, people of a certain generation found this whole debate over warrantless wiretapping in the first term of the Bush Administration to be quite nostalgic. That was the issue that divided americans in the 1970s. There was a National Consensus and it comes out of this debate. The consequence of this debate, even though this will be some people who vote with the president in july of 1974, by the end of that year, the total picture of president nixons abuse of power is so startling and disturbing that congress as a unit begins to rethink how much leeway to give the president in the use of the Intelligence Community to buy on american spy on americans. Its not just about the future of president nixons career or his legacy today. Its about how we think a president and how the constitutional system given to us by framers was updated at the end of the 20th century to deal with, well, in the case of one man to deal with Richard Nixon but also to deal with the role of technology and the appetite of our Intelligence Community. Were going to have more in a of the final vote from july 29th 1974. Members of the House Judiciary Committee as they voted on article two. Let me ask you to put this into perspective. The hearing wrapped. On july 30th. Richard nixon is out of office on august 9th. What happens is Richard Nixon is thinking about resigning at the end of july. He tells his family and his family says dont resign. He doesnt really know if he can survive the release of the tape. So, he has a transcript made of the conversation, the june 23, 1972 smoking gun conversation. He given it to trent lott a man who will vote with the president. He votes with the president against the article. They gave it to him. He looks at it and said oh my god, its over. He say, i will change my vote. When article one comes before the entire house, i will vote for the impeachment of the president. The most dramatic switch though, comes from charles wiggins. He represents Richard Nixons old congressional district. Charles wiggins represents the president birthplace in california. He is perhaps the most eloquent, the smartest defender of president nixon in Judiciary Committee. Wiggins himself will go before the cameras in a few days once he reads the smoking gun transcript to say he changedis mind. Sadly and there are tears forming, i have to agree that the president must leave office. Wiggins was devastated by the evidence presented in the smoking gun conversation because it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Richard Nixon had participated in a coverup. We should understand that it only takes one article of impeachment to impeach a president. The house creates and indictment, and this it would go to the senate. Andrew johnson survived the trial of the president in the 19th century. So too did bill clinton. Richard nixon probably would not have survived the senate. We know that because the leaders, the Republican Leaders of the senate would in the first week of august, in reaction to the smoking gun transcript, will go to the president and say his time is up. That the party could not rally behind him. Richard nixon is likely, almost probable, Richard Nixon would have been indicted by the house and tried and found guilty by the senate. He only needed to be found guilty of one article of impeachment. He saw the writing on the wall and he decides to resign before he is actually thrown out of office. He announced his resignation august 8, 1974. Timothy naftali who served as at director of the Richard Nixon Library Museum in california. Now the director of the library at New York University. Thank you for your perspective on the events 40 years ago. More from the debate before the House Judiciary Committee including the vote on article two the abuse of power against Richard Nixon. Here on cspan 3 and American History tv. The gentleman from california recognized for five minutes. Article two. Which i suggest is an expression of our deep devotion to the constitution and to the first ten amendments. Article two is our rededication and reaffirmation of the bill of rights and no officer of our government from the most lowlily to the highest can violate with impunity those fundamental Constitutional Rights. In 1787 when the 13 colonies were considering the ratification of the constitution, three states voted to ratify only on condition that the ratification contain a recommendations that the bill of rights be added. These men remembered well that have fled to seek individual freedom in the new world. They just finished winning the war to ensure independence and freedom. They were not about to substitute a new federal government without safeguards designed to protect their rights as individual human beings from the arbitrary encroachment of the new government. Jefferson in the letter to madison urged the adoption said, let me add that bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against any government on earth. Why do i review this history this late at night in the consideration of our article two . It is because article two charges president nixon will intentional violations of the constitution. Chiefly amendments one, four, five and six. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the press. President nixon authorize order permitted illegal wiretapping and other surveillance of individuals including reporters and the use of this information so gained for political defamations. Again, unreasonable searches and seizures. President nixon established special investigation unites within the white house without legal warrant and special white house unit committed burglary in the state of california. The fifth amendment guarantees to all equal protection of the law and direct of this amendment, president nixon endeavor to use the Internal Revenue service for tax harassment of political opponent. President nixon and his subordinates leaked information and during the trial, even offered the judge a high government position. No proposition could be more profoundly to the constitution and the notion that any public official, the president or a policeman possesses a kind of inherent power to set the constitution asiden aside whenever he thinks the Public Interest and now given such easy currency, the National Security warranted. That notion is the essential postulate of every tyranny that is indeed a dictatorship. Under which one man is in power to do whatever he deems for the community. We look beyond the wall to every citizen, rich or poor, white or black, brown or yellow. This article two is the only meaningful way to protect your Constitutional Rights. Your right to speak what is in your mind without fear of reprisal or other harassment and your right to hear and read what others would say to you. Meaning of the take care clause. Because i think frankly this committee has not shown the of scholarship that the house has the right to expect rom us with respect to that clause. And its a probable misapplication to article ii. But i reel serve that to a later time and probably will include the report when we go to the house. I want to take this moment to facts. Ay out a few because charges are easily made. And now we have to take the time though them down even they are really without substance. Its been said that president attempted to sub verted the processes of justice by in interfering perly with federal judge. We know were talking about the and the incident elseburg pride out in california. Let me tell you what happened. Relatively a short story. The nomination of pat gray was in trouble and the president was a new o have to nominate director for the fbi. Fbi sought the opinion of the attorney general. Names, matt two burns and henry periodson. Given that, mr. Ehrlichman whether judge re burns was interested. This is what he said to judge ive beenge, he said, asked by the president to call you. Ive been asked to discuss with appointment that is not judicial in character. Combron if this is an ppropriate time to have a conversation like this because i do not know what the present situation in your trial is. I n that, judge burns said see no reason not to talk right away. Clemente and n ehrlichman said to the judge as follows. The fact that o youre now trying an important lawsuit. Propose we walk out from the bluff from this office. If at any point a subject arises hat you feel in any way impinges on your ability to try the case, you turn around and walk away from me. Said before, this is not something that needs to be discussed right now. Later. Talk about it and the judge said, fine. Lets proceed on that basis. No reason not to reply. The president came out in the conversation and said as follows. Following your case very closely. It may take as long to get the me to ied as it may take end the war in vietnam. Thats all he said. Thats all he said. Statements that the president was trying to are dice the trial unsupported with the government. Allegation at least, ladies and gentlemen, has no substance to it whatsoever. Whatever i got, i yield with my friend. The gentleman has a minute 15. I yield to my friend from indiana. The short just say in time remaining, that i think we keep in mind i can go over the surveillance again, the plumbers again, is it suggestive that theres a law broken because of the creation of the plumbers . What the law was. Is it suggested that because a is created and said to take legal action to do certain things you are responsible if it action . Legal perfectly obvious that the president knew nothing about the breakin in california because of his remarks when it came to his attention. Perfectly obvious he knew nothing about it. He said in the record, i told obey the fellows to law and there isnt any evidence to the contrary. Impeding before about the investigation. That came under article i. Nd i said then and i say now that its a debatable question felt there might be a cia involvement or didnt feel that way. Were not accusing the president because of the general moral character or whether hes moral our personal hat opinion of him may be, we got to evidence or proof of a high crime or misdemeanor. Him fore try to impeach anything less, then were were our duty and violating our oath and our conscious. The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from wisconsin . Im not seeking recognition at this time. The gentleman from new jersey . I dont seek recognition at this time. Would like to at another time, mr. Chairman, but not at this time. The gentleman from pennsylvania. A words d like to say regarding paragraph 2, the subject is not covered. The members of the committee agree now that the did authorize the task. In addition to that, i refer to letter which the president wrote on july 12 to senator ullbright, senator of the committee on Foreign Relations which he says, i ordered the use of the most effective procedures possible including wiretaps. I directed the surveillance indeluding wiretapping of specific individuals. Theres no question that the president assumes that responsibility. It wasnt always that way. A little over a year ago, 73, the white house learned of the forthcoming Time Magazine story disclosing wiretaps on of wire house employees and news men. Dean would learn from the files investigated the times contacting mark fell up, sullivan, and martian. Confirmed the existence of the wiretaps. Hrlichman told dean he had the files but press secretary ronald seay lor denied the story. Time article published said the white house spokesman denied at the white house authorized or proved any taps of white house employees or news men. Dean reported to the president on the times story and the meeting was had about the wiretaps. Dean told the president that the white house was stone walling totally on the wiretaps story replied, oh, dent absolutely. To which i say, oh, how interest now, mr. Chairman, im one of those who believes that the standard involvement for impeachment that does not involve criminality. Many heless, i find instances of criminality on the part of the president and his men. To a few ke to refer of them. 1969 general Alexander Haig on the highest authority not to maintain iretaps initiated under the president s 1969 authorization. This information is contained in memo from william sullivan, assistant director of the fbi. Yet, the general records keeping 44 u. S. Codes set standards for recordkeeping, identifying what records must be provide rules for the orderly disposal of these records. 3105 requires all governmental employees be clear that the alien ated andbe detroited except in the method 44 of the u. S. Code. The special edition of the fbi 28. Made in section the right of the fbi for the records. Law. Authorized by so also a felony punishable by imprisonment to unlawfully conceal or remove so takete or attempt do and carry way any record, roceeding, map, book, documents, or any other thing filed and deposited with any public officer of the United States. Assumed that haig knew it was illegal for the fbi not to maintain records of the wiretaps and must be assumed the only two men who could order him to give such henry ons to the fbi dr. Kissinger, head of the National Security council and the president of the United States illegal. This was in july of 1971, william the rland the head of justice departments internal ivision of wiretaps and he was afraid that j. Edgar hoover would use them as blackmail against the president in order from removing him from the top job at the fbi. After conversations with then general John Mitchell and white house officials, marty discussed the existence of the records personally with the president and john ehrlichman. The conversations president ordered marty to get the files from sullivan to get them to the white house. A violation of the recordkeeping statutes entitled 44. The files involved and delivered them to the oval office in the white house. About was interviewed the episode by the fbi, he was asked, did you give the bag to the president of the United States . He replied, i cannot answer that question. Assumed he was protecting the president at this point. A he in fact gave them to third party, he would be shielding that person, leaving the inference that the president received them. Ehrlichman testified following he delivery, president ehrlichman picked up the papers in his own office until april removed when they were and placed in the files. He effect in this matter was a violation of the pertinent sections of title 44. Mr. Chairman, i submit this is a strong paragraph, important charge in the impeachment of the United States. The time of the gentleman has expired. Gentleman from illinois. Yes. Ill be happy to yield, mr. Minutes to my colleague from illinois. Colleague yields 2 1 2 minutes. Thank you. To agree with the views expressed by my colleagues that original intent of the special unit or the plumbers was to try to seal up leaks but i attention to call the fact that in july, 1971, ust a few weeks after the plumbers were set up, the dr. Fieldings office was recognized by the president and mr. Ehrlichman in his personal notes. Made while in conference with the president. That there was no espionage or National Security question involved at all. Draw is the effort to in the cia and the fbi were of course, by the head of the cia and the head of the fbi. Know, some years later, as a matter of fact, in april of Henry Peterson in charge of criminal investigation or the department of justice was investigating, the whole ubject to watergate in the coverup brought to the president s attention dr. Ieldings office breakin, the president in the taped conversation we had here before the Committee Said to henry about that. Know all thats National Security. The real facts are while the started out asve organization,valid it was soon converted by hunt ehrlichman and the whole group there. Into something quite different. And something the president knew about and was wrong. And i want seeps to me thats belongs in this part of proceeding. In article ii as to whether or not the president did care of the laws. Thats why its appropriately there as well as some of the we have, graphs that the president s obligation, whether he was obligation. Is its something we should send to the house of representatives to there. Onsidered in my opinion, theres clear and convincing evidence with respect paragraphs that they were wrong. And im hopeful that this rticle would be supportive of that. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Wiggins airman, mr. Asked for 30 seconds. He thinks there was an error made. I dont think the record remain. Im sure it was an unintentional error. Fielding breakin occurred in september of 1971, it did not occur prior to that. A word in the ehrlichman notes in july of 1971 of cating prior knowledge any breakin in any elseburg office. Elseburg ot the breakin. In july of 1971, the elseburg as not being rded a question involving National Security advisor. Yeah the pentagon papers with regard to mr. Chairman, if i can have the remaining time. Like to yield it to the maine, mr. Cole. The gentleman has 1 50 remaining. Can i ask if that time could be yielded to me with my own minutes. The gentleman as 1 50 and he time if he both desires, five minutes. Consecutively . It thank you, mr. Chairman. The gentleman has 6 50. Thank you. Used here in ord the past few days. To call upon ed myself to repeat it. Isnt it amazing. Amazing that the fine lawyers on this committee have somehow overlooked the an attempted wrongful act. The irse heard about in is what happened . T wasnt accomplished, it failed. It reminds me of something weve transcripts. A dry hole. I would like to direct a couple of questions to the staff now criminal u about the penalties involved under this section. I assume its a crime for any employee of the United States to breach the ncome tax returns of any citizen. I assume under title 18 that the resident and his subordinates fall within the definition of the employee of the United States government. Genre . Correct, mr. Congressman called section 7212 of the criminal code attempts to nterfere attempts to obtain information with respect to irs materials shall not more than 5,000 and imprisoned not more than supplemented by section 7213 which makes it for any officer employ in the United States to divulge contents of an income tax return and be fined 5,000 and yiern. E than if the offense of an employee of the United States, he shall be dismissed from office or discharged of employment. Dismissed from office and unemployment. And people who attempt to use for improper on purposes. It serves to attempt, does it not . Correct, mr. Jenner, its act ecessary to have an carried out . The accomplishment of the act . Would it be specific if the resident were to direct or act or inquire of john dean to obtain certain information. Would not the act itself or the come in the direction to law. Dean as a matter of the direction would be an attempt. It would not be necessary to completed or mpt it would be a violation, right . Thats correct. Like to direct some comments to the statements made from gentleman california. I found those statements also rather amazing. Gentlemannd where the from california pointed out that enry peterson recommended matt burn as fbi director in response to a question i asked mr. Questioning of witnesses, i asked him whether or not he felt that the fbi burns be if matt should be contacted while hes sitting on the judge in the case in the elseburg matter. To which he replied no. E made a personal recommendation, he specifically recommended that matt burns hould not be contacted in the course of that trial. And the answer is quite clear as to why not. I asked him why not. And he said in response to my question, would this be a mistrial . Us felt he of would. I happen to think its matter of law that there would be a declared on such a disclosure. I think that the act and on acting a presiding judge the case of that magnitude. It amazing once again for to know he didnt know what it was in the elseburg matter. Case of our decade. But he didnt happen to know time. As going on at that no impropriety of the conversation. I happen to feel that the is one of a judge the most delicate in our entire system because he has to remain scrupulous and neutrality. And that neutrality is destroyed opinionter of law in my when the chief executive through or sub board e nance through the case. If they offer a deciding judge r juror, a job of this firm upon the completion of the case, that man would be held in jail. Mpt or in when i finish. I simply want to conclude my own this regard. I know what the gentleman from california would say, this might preclude any federal judge from a higher position. But i call the gentlemans attention to the manner in which out. Was carried never publication of it. Never any nomination of worldly were considering the judge. As a matter of fact, it was covertly carried out in a second in a park near san clemente. It seems to me, a all of the weve been dealing with, the Internal Revenue service, the fbi, the of daniel shore. The fabricated statement of what would happen if we hire mr. The fbi a consultant to of the white house, seems to me what were saying here is all of these activities, they raise the specter of an american gulog in instance. And i think that when the chief executive of the country starts private citizens who criticize his policies or authorizes his subordinates to and i think the rattle of the chains that would ind up our constitutional freedoms can be heard and its against this rattle that we and say no. Ill yield to the gentleman from california. Comment with to respect to your theory that a mistrial is appropriate by contact to judge burns. Judge burns was a participant in that contact. He doesnt agree with you. He didnt declare a mistrial. He should know, it was his case. Quite the contrary, he didnt think anything was improper about it at all. Youre entitled to your opinion, but the judge disagreed with you. Time of the gentleman has expired. From texas, mr. Brooks, is recognized. Mr. Chairman, there can be no satisfaction in impeaching the president of the United States. But its a essential to remove ny president whose actions destroy our system. The checks and balances in our system pledges this on the bility congress in the future strength of our democratic form us to rnment requires exercise this power at this time. Nixon, the constitution is a law of the United States have been so distorted, so ignored, and so converted to continued e that respect and support for our system of law and equality that law demands that he process o abused this be removed from office. E must demonstrate to future demonstrations of america that president can he put himself above the law. Any people voted for Richard Nixon in the last election. Most republicans and a lot of democrats. Not. D but those who did had no way of knowing that the man in whom placed their trust would so abuse it. Who voted for Richard Nixon need to be ashamed of that vote for no one could have known what was happening or what was acure. Weve been disappointed in him. The vast majority of people who did not condone the way he abused that power. Mr. Chairman, to permit such ehavior, to go unanswered, can only have the effect of destroying the American Peoples form f the constitutional of government. I yield the balance of my time. Of new york, an mr. Fish was recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Chairman, the in the way obstruction cerned of justice, article ii, as i based on it, is abusive power or expressed in the negative the constitutional the laws ke care of that are faithfully executed. Heard some quite a lot of i course on this subject and found it to be quite legalistic. Now, obviously, you take care of laws are faithfully executed president e to the doesnt mean he personally executes all of the laws. What does it mean . But believe that this constitutional requirement and understandable. Would like to pose some jenner ons to you, mr. To work out in everyday language hat this constitutional responsibility on which this article means. Would you say that include in responsibility is a duty not to the president subordinates . Not to push in motion a course by loose language such as to order something to be done meaning you dont care how sit to be done . Yes, sir. Is there a duty incumbent on he president to police his lieutena lieutenants, to see that they are operating within proper bounds . That is inherent in the clause. Would it be fair to say that president would have a duty to be alert to what is going on, uch a duty as president nixon manifests in his daily careful news g of summary of the that was brought to him . I think thats the clearer cause. Of the maybe not finally if you care to add more. This is the fourth that the would have a duty to ind out what is going on in those agencies of government set up by the congress and the people such as the department of fbi, and the cia . Nd further more, a duty to disclose to them any information of their s knowing interest in that information . Mr. Fish quite clear and inherent in the duty to take care. The first that you mentioned is included in the to learn s obligation what is happening with respect with at least in the agencies and the executive institutions. Theres a good deal of testimony and respect the president is it skimming the news summaries at he desk every morning when was in washington and delivered to him when he was in san clemente and key biscayne according to the testimony and those and wrote notes on them. Those news reports necessarily covered tv, the Media Magazines would dispilled by experts that he had there would bring to them what was occurring daytoday throughout the country and alert to him, alert things about which you should inquire about the executive agencies and his staff as well. Can you think of anything else these four that would constitute the responsibility to take care of laws are faithfully executed. Too main one i think is the of the on on the part president and on an expectation of the people with respect to president is that he would immediate subordinates, not only with respect to direct the directions to him. Iven but as chief of staff and others as to whether the directions had been carried out. I thank you. Yield to me . Yield. Be glad to i thank my friend from new york for yielding. Simply want to comment very briefly first that i dont understand that a piece of onversation to the effect that things are going to change which is what happened on september sense of the word john dean is oncerned, there would be serious danger about the attempt. I dont think the president would. The time of the gentleman from new york has expired. The gentleman from california is recognized. Be he past few days will enormously with the constitution of the United States. Whatever the ultimate result of proceedings, whether the president be impeached or impeached, theot constitution has been it has ened and peculiarly been strengthened by bringing in to check the abused his o constitutionally limited powers to an extraordinary degree. Proposed of the articles of impeachment is in my view the heart of the process. By passage and adoption of this rticle, we not only tell this president we will no longer personal excesses of power. But indeed, we tell any future president that the constitution limiting document and that it particularly must limit power concentrated most heavily in the executive branch, the presidency. And too few idents members of congress, i fear, have understood this lesson. Personally believe that few president s have misunderstood it as grossly as this president , president s have sought to grasp and accumulate power at the expense of the other government. Of i suppose it was inevitable that a time would come that the power t accumulation of would have to be checked and manner nd done so in a clearly understood, not only by the president in the office at hat particular moment in history, but by president s yet to come. That duty falls first on this committee. We have begun to draw on it. We have begun the long overdue and painful process of cushing power in the f executive branch. We will forward that process, significantly by adopting article ii tonight. I yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman from iowa, mr. Recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Agree with the gentleman from maine, mr. Cohen, the approach to judge burn possible employment as the ew head of the fbi was certainly highly improper. Any judge ins with the progress of a trial, a trial of major mportance such as this, possible promotion, if it was a promotion, just seems to me so i iously inappropriate that am surprised and disappointed this was done by a representative of the president , the versation which president himself participated very briefly, not dealing with subject of the appointment. Disappointed that such burn would entertain an approach in any degree. A did not, of course, declare mistrial on that ground. When the d a mistrial government disclosed that there been this invasion of doctor fieldings rights by the breakin. Was his information urnished voluntarily albeit reluctantly by the president after it became known to him the advice of council, i the assistant attorney general and the solicitor that l, dean griswold, although it was not technically equired, they felt that it was to reveal this and reported in a mistrial. Now i want to emphasize in the time remaining to me that theres absolutely no question the evidence in this case, some of the argument were serious National Security problems in connection with these leaks which the carrying out his duty that the the defense was determined to stop. The leaks affected the war in where they affected our troops. Hey affected our attempts to end of the war. Russians. Cted the emphasize this was a concern of the president , i wanted to quotations from dr. Kissinger referring to the in s in these appeared the president ial presentation book for tab 23b. Quote, dr. Kissinger referring o the damaging nature of these and i quote Henry Kissinger. Was of these disclosures the most extreme gravity. As presentations of the on the key hinking issue, they provided the soviet extensive insight as the approach to our negotiations compromised the soviet missiles testing and our to assess their exact capabilities. He disclosures of the assessment of the first strike capability would prove a useful tonal to the soviet union as the efficacy of our intelligence system. Prematurely reveal the basis in which were having our the impending strategic arms talks. Nd with regard to the negotiations on guam on page 86, i kissinger stated, and quote, the consequences of this disclosure attributed to well in terms of ants compromising negotiating tactics, prejudicing the governments interest, and complicating our relations with obvious and clearly preempted any opportunity we ight have had for obtaining a more favorable outcome with our negotiations with the japanese, end quote. Now the president of the united had a duty to act and he did act. Done the most effective thing. Plumbers unit went astray. Lawmakers. E miserable aught in a crime down there in california. But theres no evidence that the president knew anything about in advance. Of that i respectfully submit that the his t did try according to his best judgment, to protect the National Security of this country. And the mere fact that he didnt perfectly and got a Inexperienced Group in there would certainly botch the job to were a great discredit our country in every respect, hat does not mean that he was guilty of a high crime or a isdemeanor for which he should be impeached and thats the only me, under thems to under which we find impeachable. I yield the remaining time if i may. From ohio an the time from the gentleman from expired. The gentleman from new jersey, sandman. Mr. Chairman, i dont propose to take up to five minutes. Would hope that we can wind this thing up as quickly as and as gracefully as possible. Theres nothing that i can do, thats going to change the outcome of the vote. Ut i would like to use these closing moments of long and what historicle refer to as exchange to capsule where we i nd in my judgment and what think we should be thinking about. Now at the outset, i dont think the most nigh evidence person in the world. I believe that he had to be a reat man or we wouldnt have voted for him to be president of this country. The president im fond of and i the good fortune to know as everybody in the room did was republican, it was lyndon johnson. I thought it was a horrible baker talks bobby that some people thought well lbj. We ought to impeach that was wrong and i hope started it didnt. Everybody feels this way. I think the country would feel this way, they would like to believe the president is a good man. And to do otherwise or prove to a m otherwise, it would take tremendous amount of proof to do should. D it tremendous. You cant do this loosely. And this is important. The whole world is watching this proceeding. Right. Do, we better do the effect of it will make an impression for 1,000 years. Me use of this, it disturbs when i think about the elseburg breakins and whatnot. Up. E mixed we should sit down for a moment and review where we are. Was on a program one time in long island. Room with famous room, a good democrat. Hand, im sure no one knew me. Itt it was they say they did because of him. And behind senator muskey, by minutes ee or four walked in daniel elseburg, one on the program. Believe it or not, the stadium shook. I wondered why, why did that happen . Ere is a man who confiscated secret documents against the law nation, he disbursed these documents. I thought this was wrong. Understand why this fellow came in here like a hero. But he is. This is a strange thing this country. Now as a result of that, a was declared in that surelyd a man who was as as guilty as guilty can be was never declared guilty, never and instead we now talk about impeaching the president of the United States. I think that our thinking is a fuzzy here. Maybe we ought to sit down and look over that once again and make sure were doing the right thing. To give away ular secret documents than it is to rotect the security of a great nation . I dont think so. I would like to believe the hedy proof xtremely that what the chief executive did for a good purpose. Thats why ive argued the way i have in this proceeding. Take my obligation here any more lightly than any other person. And i believe that what were a ng here, were acting as judiciary in a sense. Were judging whether or not the president of the United States be replaced. Were judging the rights he has as an individual and a president. Its not in line with at least what i learned in the 20 years hat i went to school, that he has any less rights than any other american. Can ever make me believe that due process still isnt the law of this land and law always going to be the of this land. Nd for these reasons, i think we have to not make an inference against the president of the we ed states if anything ave to make an innocent an inference what he did he did in the best interest of the country. Rather what i would believe. For this reason, even though its not going be a popular take, i know that, im convinced its the right thing or at least i hope it is. And only time will tell. Time of the gentleman has expired. From ntleman massachusetts, mr. Donahoe . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Know the debate on this and article i of last vening, seems to have been developed into the proposition unless the president individually authorized the activities set in articles i and ii, the charge is set forth therein have not been sustained. Federal s look at the papers for a little guidance and statement made by james madison. Main architects and of our constitution he think it say i that the necessary resident should have the power of removing from office. Will make him in a peculiar manner responsible for their conduct. To if he suffers them perpetrate with impunity, crimes the isdemeanors against will be ates, he to impeachment. And if he goes on to say or if neglects to superintendent their conduct, so as to check excesses, he shall ikewise be subject to impeachment. To say on went on the constitutionality of that nowaration, i have no doubt president n is, did nixon, a recognized, astute public who has been described his assistant mr. Butterfield detail, and a for erson who made all decision s know of the decisions being made by his trusted and loyal officials of his official white house family. This member believes that he did. In 1789 when the constitution was adopted, franklin was asked by lady, what kind of government have you given us . Franklin replied, a can keep madam, if you i it. Keep our that we will republic. Thate we he process re engaged in during these proceedings will help us. Recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. Hogan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. To return to the thought that my esteemed ranking minority member offered to us this morning. A few years s that being t the country was torn apart by groups of people were going bombing College Campuses and the burglarizing rotc facilities and destroying the work of cholars and engaging in all orts of lawless activity because they disagreed with the vietnam war, they disagreed with disagreed with the positions of the nixon administration. That because their they could st, commit the crimes. They felt above the law. Dressed long hair and as nonconformists and desecrated the flag. Inside the white house, as at time, there was a group men who wore close tailored close cropped hair and flags on the lapel. They dais greeed. Just. Hought the cause was they believed the vietnam war was justified. They supported this administration. They felt that because their they, too, were above the law. And for several months, weve chronicle of all of the illegalities and crimes theyve committed under that assumption. Now, obviously both of those groups of people were wrong. Both should be held accountable for the violations of law. Whether e debating is or not the pot of the United States lived up to the responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and the duties office. We talked about this all day. Id like to read for you the oath that every president of the United States is required to take under article ii of the constitution. The president must state and solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of the United States my will to the best of ability preserve, protect, and of the he constitution United States. Debating today is whether or not hes lived up oath. T 600 years ago, the british house f common sense im350e67ed the earl of suffolk for high crimes misdemeanors and this is the term which has become so familiar if not fully of us on ible to all this committee. The wrongdoings against which high crimes and misdemeanors that time made at involved some form of a corruption of office or misuse offenses which inflicted some great injury on the state. Founding t was, our fathers established this country used this same term, high crimes misdemeanors, clearly ntending not as a catchall phrase with which to threaten president s and confound lawyers members of the Judiciary Committees, but as a widely recognized standard of impeachable conduct. Abuse of power by those in office then constituted essentially the first impeachable defense and what it the touch stone of our debate. As the consistent abuse of power greater danger to the act, its a much more serious offense and far more serious charge than the one this committee has already approved. Faithfully sident executed the laws . Whoever having knowledge of the of a felony byon a quarter of the United States not as soon ases possible make known the same to some judge or other person in Legal Authority in the United States shall be fined not not than 500 or imprisoned more than three years or both. Unmisprison of felony. Our submit our record is replete litany of repeated offenses of this particular statute. Gentleman from maryland has expired. I recognize the gentleman from mr. Flowers. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i brief. Be very i listened with much interest to he is my iend and dear friend from new jersey, mr. Sandman. With find that i agree almost everything he said except the way he put some of the things together. Wayi cant quite do it that for myself. And i do not differ with him that he has the right to look at i respect he does and him and he knows i respect him. And well be together on later this se maybe week or next week. But this article of impeachment is more important than article i others have said. Article i could be included as a ubparagraph or sub heading under article ii. Some things in this article that i do not feel as strongly about others. In but overall, i believe it to be a strong case thats made out by this article ii. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. Failed to president assert that affirmative duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, if he has failed to resist even the laws ressions of these before his eyes and ears, if he the socalled sensitive agencies of our government, and i believe he has, and these sensitive agencies are both necessary and in ul but also precarious our system. Then this president abused the be impeached t to with the same reluck tax and sorrow that was mine on chairman, i find i must also support this article impeachment. Gentleman, mr. Butler . No recognition at this time. Recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. Man. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Charlie sandman. We appreciate him. The him too. Refore refer to him too. I got the feeling that except for certain mistake, mr. Been at should not have hat place at that time, but he was evidence of our system, because our system looks out for the underdog. System looks out for the right of individuals, the little man. History of america is the right of the individual citizen. Look at every decision of the we like ourt, whether it or not, whether theyre rapist or murderer, they are interpreting the constitution of the united to protect ts law, individual to the power of his government. You heard a lot about the system. Synonymous with the phrase the rule of law. Nd in this article ii, we find this language, in disregard of the rule of law. You know there was one man in this government that i have to mention. Hes been mentioned by others and its been tough for me to back on him. Johnny walters practiced law upstairs above my office in the building where he and i practiced law back in the middle 60s. Congress came to the and left him in greenville, he wasnt far behind me as he came to wa to erve in the department of justice and then as the commissioner of the Internal Revenue service. Walters respected the rule of law. You know, americans reveal their president and rightly they should. Know that by his oath, he is supposed to protect, and defend he constitution to enforce the bill of rights, which is their heritage. Your rights and mine. Or a t a democrat republican, rich or poor. That the laws are faithfully executed. Individual liberties of each of us is protected whether president or pauper. Committee has spent 10 weeks reviewing the evidence. You to in t fair to these session pull the tidbits on one side or the other. Theres no way that you can bring yourself in the position with the knowledge of the facts that we have, i wish you could. We are representatives, charged with determining that and although weve laid something on the table in these three or four days, and sat here during the three or four days, i had people the uestions about what evidence was, ive been wondering whether they were here with and as we seek a way to escape escapecision, we cant that still, small voice. And so as thomas paine wrote, those who expect to reap the likeings of freedom must men undergo the fatigue of supporting it. As we look at how the office of the presidency has been served by an individua