Transcripts For CSPAN3 Nixon Impeachment Hearing Evening Session Part 1 20140807

People, acts sign by president gerald ford, congress and the American People said enough is enough. That actually the presidency has gotten too powerful by making use of vague areas in the constitution. So this debate may not have been necessary for the impeachment, but it was a critical element in the changing thinking of americans about what they expected from their president. Tim naftali, who is now with nyu and previously the director of the Richard Nixon library and museum in california, joining us from new york. Thanks for adding your voice and perspective about the debate that were about to show. Well take you back to july 29, 1974. The house judiciary kmet the session began in the morning but up next for the next thee hours the evening debate over article ii of impeachment against Richard Nixon. The committee was weighing the wiggins motion to strike paragraph three and those in opposition to the amendment had consumed eight minutes and those in support of the amendment had consumed five minutes. And i now recognize the gentleman from california, mr. Wiggins for such time he might consume during that time. Mr. Chairman i yield five minutes of my time to the gentleman from maine. You are recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Those of this panel who would impeach the president for setting up the special Investigative Unit would have us believe that there was just no National Security involved in this at all. Well then was it called the plumbers, the plumbers unit . It was called the plumbers because its purpose was to plug leaks of secret information vital to the National Security of the United States. There were many instances where those leaks had occurred. I mentioned several of them just before the recess. There was the secret United States intelligence boards report in which it estimated the soviet unions strategic strength and the russians first strike capacity, a matter of great importance to our defense effort. Well, that was leaked by a Government Official to a reporter who printed it in the press for the russians information. There was the disclosure by one of our senior officials at least the newspaper reporter said of our secret fall back position, our final offer in the salt talks, the negotiations in helsinki in 1971. Our negotiating team was trying to achieve as much security for the United States as possible from nuclear attack. The package we had on the table there in dealing with the russians was to stop the construction of all nuclear missiles, both land and submarine based. But according to another reporter, one of our senior are officials confided in him that we were willing to settle for less, that we didnt really expect to get that much security from the russians and that if they turned us down we would be willing to settle for just a ban on construction of land based missiles and let them go ahead with the submarine based. Well now when that was printed in the newspaper, and the russians read it, you can imagine what that did to our chances of getting the more secure arrangement, the greater protection for our country. That was definitely a security leak, which needed to be plugged. Then there was the release of the pentagon papers by Daniel Ellsberg also in june of 1971. Of course, ellsberg had been identified, so that case is somewhat different because the president s highest National Security and Foreign Policy advisers had warned him that it was extremely important that these officials who were leaking this information be identified and stopped. Well ellsberg had been identified but it was by no means certain that he wouldnt leak more information, only part of the pentagon papers had been published at that time, it wasnt known whether he would go ahead with the rest and there was also reason to believe that he had additional information. John ehrlich in a sworn affidavit in april of this year testified that in the week or ten days after the publication of the first pentagon paper, these papers which related to our decisionmaking processes in a war which was still going on, in which american troops were still in combat, which kissinger was trying to settle sensitive negotiations in paris, ehrlichman said Henry Kissinger met him and the president and told him about ehrlichman about Daniel Ellsberg and told him and i quote, in knowledge of very critical defense secrets of current validity such as Nuclear Deterrent targeting. Im reading from page 621 of book 7, part 2. And i continue the quote. Having never heard of ellsberg before the theft of the papers my impression from kissingers description was that the nation was presented with a very serious potential security problem beyond the theft of the largely historical pentagon papers. I later learned that the papers themselves were believed by defense experts to contain vital secrets. Dr. Kissinger told the president that the theft made very difficult our Foreign Relations with allies with whom we shared classified information. In these meetings both the president and dr. Kissinger were obviously deeply concerned end quote. Gentleman has consumed five minutes. One additional minute, mr. Wiggins. Gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. The president , ladies and gentlemen of the committee, felt on the advice of his closest Foreign Policy and National Defense advisers that he had to act to protect the National Security to stop these leaks. In my judgment and perhaps yours he acted unwisely in setting up this special Investigative Unit headed by a brilliant young man who had no investigative experience. I believe and i think you do that it would have been much better to rely on the fbi which had experience in this field and would have known the legal limits and the practical limits in which to carry out a proper National Security investigation. But is the president of the United States to be impeached because he made an error in judgment, because he was not perfect in his decision to act quickly and necessarily to protect the National Defense . Is it a high crime and misdeamnor not to be letter perfect in 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. Gentleman has consumed another minute. I recognize the gentleman from california, mr. Waldie for three minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 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 liberties of this country were enormously fragile and had been subjected to an assault, the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetime. And i think this particular case, the fielding break in particularly the activity of the plumber indicates the incen insensitivity of the president to protect the people in their liberties. One of the basic stability 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 Central Intelligence Agency Denied taking his problems with security to them for resolution and sought to set up an extra curricular secret police force accountable to know one in this society except for the president individually and as a person, he in my view was in a major way interfering with the constitutional protections that have been set up to protect liberty. Now for the president s defenders to suggest that it was an extraordinary departure from the institutions of Law Enforcement but warranted because of the threat of National Security. The burden is clearly upon them to establish that the activities of the plumbers were, in fact, designed to protect the National Security. I call attention to what i thought was a very important statement of my colleague mr. Conyers from michigan where 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 that result in the erosion of freedom and just to test whether or not National Security really was the purpose of this burglary in california when dr. Fieldings offices were burglared by the plumbers to procure access to the psychiatric files of Daniel Ellsberg allegedly for a National Security purpose but in reality to interfere with the trial that was to begin involving dr. Ellsberg, you only have to examine the language of the president in his conversations with mr. Dean on march 21st and march 17th. Time of the gentleman has expired. [ inaudible ] i appreciate that. Its hard for me to complete a sentence when i want to analyze the conversation but let me just i appreciate that. [ laughter ] i do appreciate that. I refer to march 21st, and the conversation that i will be reading will be a description of how the ellsberg case became a National Security case. The president is told by dean about the break in up there and he says, the president said i dont know what the hell we did that for and dean said i dont either. And the president said, what in the name of god did that. And then move on to page 112 of the march 21st transcript and the president says, properly it has to do with the ellsberg thing and i dont know the held. President says what is the answer on that . How do you keep that out . I dont know. We cant keep i want out at front. You see the point its irrelevant. Dean says you might put it on a National Security ground basis which it was. Ehrlichman says it was. Dean says just say that. The president says yeah. The other minute of the gentleman has expired. I really didnt finish the sentence. [ laughter ] its a long sentence. I think you have. Mr. Chairman how much time do we have remaining . The gentleman from california has eight minutes remaining. Ill be happy to yield four minutes to my colleague from ohio. The gentleman from ohio is recognized. Thank you, mr. Wiggins. I thank the gentleman from california used the longest minute weve had thus far. Let me say he mentioned one conversation that i think that we ought to go back to a prior conversation, his minute didnt permit him to do that. And i have reference to the first time that the president of the United States found out about this. Months after the break in. And thats the conversation between the president and john dean on march the 17th, 1973. Lets read that. Dean, the other potential problem is ehrlichmans and this is the president spoke up, in connection with hunt . Dean says in connection with hunt and liddy both. The president inquired, they worked for him . Dean, they these fellas have to be some idiots and weve learned after the fact. They went out and went into dr. Ellsbergs Doctors Office and they had, they were geared up with all this cia equipment, cameras and the like. Well they turned the stuff back into the cia, at some point in time and left the film in the camera. Good sleuths, i might interject. The cia has not put this together. And they dont know what it all means right now. The president says, what in the world what in the name of blank was ehrlichman having something and this is uninat the liable in the ellsberg. This is the first time he heard of it months after it had taken place. Dean says they were trying to this was a part of an operation that in connection with the pentagon papers. They were, the whole thing, they wanted to get ellsberg psychiatric records for some reason. I dont know. President , well this is the first i ever heard of this. I unintelligible is not our problem and dean says thats right. The gentleman from iowa mentioned something about the fbi not getting into this case and i think we better talk about that. It was brought out before our committee that the late j. Edgar hoover knew the fatherinlaw of ellsberg and the fbi was not responding to the prodding of the administration to get on with investigating these leaks. To which i shall refer considerably once we get on general debate on the articles themselves. Mr. Chairman, i yield back the balance of my time to mr. Wiggins. Mr. Chairman the gentleman has 3 1 2 minutes remaining. Totally. I may be recognized. You are recognized. Mr. Chairman, it was my intention to discuss the houston plan and to clarify for the benefit of our members the origin of that plan and to demonstrate that it was a plan of the top security people in this country recommended to the president of the United States and he acted in pursuant to their advice approve their plan for a period of about four or five days. And thereafter cancelled his prior approval upon the recommendation of the attorney general. I only intended to take the time on this subject because some of my colleagues seemed to be concerned about that four or five day period of approval by the president of the United States in 1970. Rather in my remaining moments, mr. Chairman, i want to try to place this plumbers issue in its proper focus. The question is not whether the creation of the plumbers was justified, there is no law nor regulation nor rule nor act of congress prohibiting a president of the United States from establishing a unit within the executive branch for the purpose of coordinating intelligence activities. Thats not the issue. The issue rather is whether or not the activities of that unit once created constitute an Impeachable Offense with respect to the president. We know that they do not unless the president approved them, have knowledge of them, acquiesced in them, condoned them. Well we now know as a result of the splendid contribution of my friend from ohio that the president did not learn of these activities with respect to dr. Fielding for nearly 18 months after they happened. The first time he learned about it. And now the question is should he be impeached, should he be impeached because he took an improper act upon learning of that activity. The president without question, ladies and gentlemen, without question regarded the pentagon papers matter as a National Security issue. It is idle to talk about whether a conviction is proper under the espionage act. Those acts involve aiding a foreign power. It wasnt the motive of dr. Ellsberg, ladies and gentlemen, it was the fact of disclosure whatever his motive that prejudiced the United States of america. And the president s actions were prompted by reason of the fact of disclosure rather than any subjective motive of dr. Ellsberg to aid a 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 1973, 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 and belief at that time. And im telling you that the weight of the evidence, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Richard Nixon believed the pentagon papers issue was a National Security issue. And his actions after learning in march of 1971 1973 were wholly consistent with his belief on that part. If a majority of this Committee Really believes that a president of the United States should be impeached because of his honest and good faith belief that the security of this nation is in jeopardy, and the decisive and bold action is required on his part, then so be it. But ladies and gentlemen, you live with that judgment. History is going to judge you ill if you make that judgment. This is not a proper ground to impeach the president of the United States. I yield back the balance of my time. Recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. Sarbanes for three minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think its very important for the members of this committee and the American People to appreciate exactly what the plumbers did in the fielding break in. The plumbers broke into dr. Fieldings office. Dr. Fielding was not under suspicion. They went into his office in order to get one of his files on one of his patients. And i ask every doctor and lawyer and Insurance Agent and accountant in the country what kind of land would you be living in if a group of hired hands have the power to come in to your office in the dead of night in order to get one of your files . If the purpose of legitimate, why didnt they obtain those files in a lawful manner . And the answer to that sof course, the purpose was not legitimate. Who were the plumbers . They were a band much hired hands. They were not Law Enforcement officials. Why wasnt the fbi brought into this matter if it was a legitimate matter for governmental action . Because the plumbers were doing absolutely illegal things that the fbi refused to do, and that does go back to the houston plan of the Previous Year when this fellow houston put forward to the president hasnt it approved, a plan that involved surreptitious entry in a memo that says the activity involves illegal entry and trespass and the fbi added a footnote to that report and said the fbi is opposed to surreptitious entry. That same houston report provided for covert mail coverage and the fbi add ad footnote and said the fbi is opposed to implementing any covert mail coverage because it is clearly illegal. They could not use the fbi because the fbi was not prepared to do these illegal things. Leapt us look at one other thing, from whence did the plumbers get the money. Where did the money come from to do this operation. Ladies and gentlemen, it came from private source. Mr. Barudi a close friend of mr. Colsons states in an affidavit in the latter part of august or first part of september mr. Colson telephoned me and told me the white house had an urgent need for 5,000. So he took 5,000 over to colsons office and told him to go down to an office and give to it the fellow that he would find there. That was eagle crow the head of the plumbers unit. Barudi goes down there with 5,000 in cash and gives it to crow. He takes it in there. Did you look in there to see what it was. I looked in the envelope to see it was money inside of it, it was in the form of cash. Had you stated to mr. Colson anything about the form in which you wanted the funds. Yes, he wanted them in cash. Why . I believe because it was felt that there shouldnt be any way to trace the money that was used. Three minutes of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from massachusetts. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This fiasco called the plumbers had three names. It started out as project ellsburg then named the plumbers and then three months special Investigative Unit. It was political, covert and unlawful from the beginning. Patrick buchanan had the good sense to decline the job that was offered to him to be head of the plumbers and on july 8, 1971, he gave the best description of the purpose of then project ellsberg. He wrote in a memo to mr. Haldeman this is a project for a three month period to leak the pentagon papers with the left wing newspapers and people of america. No National Security involved. Mr. Pat buchanan had an alternative which i thought was better lets undertake a major public attack on the brookings institution. Everyone had hysteria over the pentagon papers. Ten days after they released, laird said 98 of the pentagon papers could have been and should have been declassified. The hysteria i assure you was created months after when tid tip of the plumbers came out. In mr. Sinclairs brief from page 94 he said that the special Investigative Unit was created quote in an entirely legal manner and i doubt if he can support that because this is entirely outside the ordinary way that the executive branch of government operates. Mr. Sinclair concedes that at a moment in time there was a shift in the way of acting but he said the purpose was legitimate. He failed to sell us to tell us why they had sterile phones whatever they are in this cubby hole of the Office Building and why you needed special passes to enter this section of the building and they regularly violated that prohibition against internal Security Matters of the cia. He said theres novi allocation of federal criminal laws which is not covered by existing statute and that if theres any residual jurisdiction it goes to the department of justice. I suggest, therefore, this was political and unlawful from the beginning and the names came later. If the president says that theres an epidemic of leaks that is not substantiated by the evidence and let me quote you one justification that came out today in a minority report from this committee that demonstrates hysteria is still going. With that i close. This statement says in justification of the plumbers that Foreign Espionage agents can read english and they can read the new york times. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from maine, mr. Cohen, for three minutes. I would like to direct my attention to the final sentence of this paragraph. The president attempted to prejudice the Constitutional Rights of the adusd a fair trial. Several days ago the gentleman from new jersey made a statement we must view the totality of the evidence. I have to agree. Hes correct. Only by viewing all of the evidence can we trace the threads of attitude and action that we have a pattern of spirit and conduct thats the very basis of our investigation. I want to call your attention to the september 15, 72, conversation between the president mr. Haldeman, mr. Dean whereby mr. Dean indicated, hes talking about edward been knit williams at which time the president said were going after him. Haldeman this is a guy we got ruin. Im skipping on to page 10, i think well fix and im paraphrasing the s. O. B. , believe me were going to, we got to because hes a bad man. This statement is relevant with respect to the ellsberg matter because mr. Colson told us as well as the court he was told to disseminate information about ellsberg and his attorney and the same act which mr. Colson pled guilty to obstruct the criminal trial by devising and implement the destruction of ellsberg. Mr. Ellsberg should have been prosecuted but his trial should have gone to its full conclusion according to due process law. What was done in ellsberg is what Commodore Vanderbilt said to his adversaries, i wont destroy you, i will ruin you. Thats not only contrary to the spirit of our constitution but contrary to the law as stated in the cases of u. S. Versus colson. A man cannot set attack dogs loose with general instructions to stop and destroy leaks at any cost and then say that hes not responsible when the Constitutional Rights of citizens are shredded in the process. I yield to the gentleman from maryland. Gentleman has one minute remaining. I just would like to return to the wiretap matters that i wasnt able to finish earlier. In addition to the kraft wiretap having no national curt basis it was done by a consult search warrant of the committee to reelect the president which makes it totally illegal. In addition under normal procedures the attorney general reviews the necessity and propry ti of wiretaps on National Security matters every 90 days and this practice was not fold in respect to any of these 17 individual taps that the president authorized and approved. Now i would like to read from a transcript of conversation between the president and dean. The president says, sure and henrys staff he insisted on late after working with muskie. Dean says ahha. The president says didnt muskie do anything bad on there . Unintelligible. He asked it to be done and i assume it was lake. They are both bad. But the taps were too. They never time of the gentleman has expired. All time has expired and the question now occurs on the wiggins amendment to strike paragraph 3. All those in favor of the motion to strike please signify by saying aye. All those opposed. The nos appear to have it. Nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. I recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. Brooks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in this debate we have neglected a most vital part of this article being section 1. I think it is very pertinent to this entire activity. It is a primary area of abuse that has subjected the American People to spying. In the interest of debate, in that all of those members who have an interest in presenting the facts on this matter, section 1 and those who are opposed to it, i have an amendment at the desk to strike section 1. Would so move. The clerk will read the amendment. Amendment by mr. Brooks, strike subparagraph 1 of the hungate substitute. And the gentleman from texas is recognized in accordance with the rule recently adopted by unanimous consent, the gentleman recognizes that theres 20 minutes in opposition to the amendment and 20 minutes in support of the amendment. The gentleman controls the 20 minutes in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, i would ask that the time that i would use be deducted from the time of that of the opponents of this so that the proponents of it would not suffer in any way and would have a full 20 minutes to utilize which i would yield to them as they request. Without objection, so order. Mr. Chairman, mr. Nixons personal involvement in efforts to misuse irs for political purposes in violation of individual civil rights is clearly documented in events that occurred on september the 15th, 1972. In the tape of a meeting between the president , mr. Haldeman and mr. Dean, there is no question that there was some discussion as to how efforts were going to get the irs to institute audits, investigations of mr. Nixons political enemies. Some of the evidence involving mr. Nixons efforts to misuse the irs has not been made available to this committee. Transcripts submitted to us do not include the last 17 minutes of this meeting, with haldeman and dean on september the 15th. And yet, mr. Dean has testified that during that time there was a specific discussion about the plan to use irs for these purposes. Judge sirica has listened to the entire case and has announced in open court that those 17 minutes do, indeed involve conversations relating to the abuse of the irs. He has since made those 17 minutes available to mr. Jaworski but under the restraint put on him by the u. S. Court of appeals has been unable to provide them to the judiciary kmet. Needless to say mr. Mix on has not made this portion of the tape available to us despite his continuing protestation he plans to cooperate fully with our investigation. We can only use the evidence that we have. And that evidence, the september 15th tape, judge siricas announcement, john deans testimony, Johnny Walters testimony clearly indicates that there was a definite concerted plan to misuse the Internal Revenue service for personal and political gain. Now, mr. Chairman, our constitutional safeguards protecting individual rights against arbitrary and unrestrained government power means very little to a president who would use the irs for such distorted factions. I would reserve the balance of my time for those who propose are in favor of this proposition. Mr. Chairman . Gentleman from new jersey, mr. Sandman. Im in an uncanny position, mr. Chairman, because i cant figure out as i couldnt yesterday whether or not the proponent of the motion to strike really wants that motion carried. Now if he does, he has my assistance. And i know of a lot of other people will give him their assistance now. Before i comment, i would like to hear from the gentleman from texas. Do you really want to strike paragraph 1 . Let me know how i should proceed. Will the gentleman from texas please answer . I would be pleased to answer. I thought i had made clear to my distinguished friend from new jersey that in the interest of debate are getting the facts about just what happened to the irs. How it was used, who told them to do it, what they did, that i thought that we ought to have this motion so that the people of this country and so this committee can fully evaluate just what happened and i want you to have every advantage of a full 20 minutes to discuss why it should be inincluded. Thats fine. But im still motion passed . If you want you offer a motion for debate purchases, youre not necessarily confined to wanting it pass, and certainly, i do not. Stop using my valuable time. The public now knows what youre up to. I get you that time. Im not going to yield you any more of that viable time because it is obvious this is a game. In fact, we have been involved in quite a few games here. And you arent any more serious about striking this article than my friend from alabama was yesterday in striking any of the articles that he tried to strike. Im mindful of the fact they tell me we have about a 20 audience, which is about 44 Million People, gives you exposure to, and maybe you can convince them with some of your generalities. Thats the purpose behind all of this. I know it, you know it, and 44 Million People know it, make no mistake about it. I would like to yield some time to some other members of this side. And i would like to yield to the gentleman from indiana. Thank you, mr. Sandman. I would like to say, mr. Chairman, that if i felt that the evidence here substantiated that the Internal Revenue service had been misused and abused for improper political or discriminatory purposes, i would take a very dim view of that myself. I would do so even though such use, misabuse, and discrimination has not been entirely unknown in past administrations. That would not constitute a defense, now even though nobody bothered to fool with it then. I believe, for instance, that in his diaries, the late drew pearson says the late harry s. Truman turned the irs loose on him at one time. And that doesnt make it any better if it was done now, but i think its a good thing to bear in mind, that we have a certain amount of pious hypocrisy in these proceedings from time to time. Now, the truth of the matter is that there really isnt any evidence connected with the president again if you please, which were always sort of sloughing over here. The president did anything out of the way about the irs at all. The only thing anybody even attempts to cite is the conversation of september 15th. And as a matter of fact, the president doesnt refer to the irs in that conversation. He says, we have not used the power in its first four years, as you know, we have never used it. We have never used the bureau, thats the fbi, and we have never used the justice department. He doesnt talk about the irs, as a matter of fact. But the interesting thing is that all that conversation is is talk anyway. Now, its not good talk. It would be damaging talk if there was something to be shown that the president ever followed up on it. But i havent seen anything in this record where the president did follow up on it. The gentleman from new jersey has used five minutes. The gentleman from texas is recognized. Mr. Chairman, i would yield two and a half minutes to congressman mr. Daniels from california. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you for yielding. In as much as my distinguished friend mr. Sandman and others request specificity on many of these items, i feel its appropriate that it be provided. Within this field of the u. S. Se the Internal Revenue service, there are others than those mentioned by mr. Brooks, for example, in 1971 and 1972, mr. John dean, who had authority to work as liaison between the white house and Internal Revenue service, obtained confidential Internal Revenue information about a rather large number of people. And under his direction, efforts were made to have the Internal Revenue Service Conduct audits on certain persons who were low on popularity within the white house. This is born out on march 13th, 1973, for example, in a conversation within the old oval office, the president asked mr. Dean if he needed anything from the irs. And dean responded that he didnt at that time. He said he now had sources in the irs who could get whatever he needed without any further trouble. Alone in the spring of 1972, the Political Campaign was warming up, and they thought lickman and others in the white house thought it would be good to get some information on lawrence obrien, who was chairman of the democratic president ial committee. They found in an investigation of howard hughes, there was some information connecting him to mr. Obrien. So mr. Airlicman instructed secretary schultz to investigate and interview obrien about his tax returns because the president was interested. Thereafter, because of the inquiry, the irs did interview mr. Obrien and they finished schultz with the interview. It didnt indicate anything particularly bad so on august 29, schultz, together with the Internal Revenue service, decided that they would do nothing further about obrien. They notified him they were dropping the matter and of course, mr. Erlicman strenuously objected. But they wouldnt leave it alone at that point. A couple days later in early september, mr. Erluqman got in touch with the president s loyal personal attorney and fundraiser and told him to go up to las vegas, nevada, and plant the story with hank gre greenspun of the las vegas sun, i believe it was. Two and a half minutes. He refused to do so, but this is a part of the pattern of misuse of the Internal Revenue service. Gentleman from texas. Mr. Chairman, i would yield two and a half minutes to the gentleman from illinois. Gentleman from illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is one of the areas that i mentioned i was concerned about in my opening statement. I want to express that i the feeling that i share the concern that was expressed by the gentleman from iowa, mr. Maine. Let me just say that this story is what i would call both bad and good or good and bad. The story is bad in the respect that top officials of government clearly tried to misuse their pow power. Good in the respect that in this particular case, contrary to many of the other aspects of the watergate affair, there were some good people in the administration that rejected and fought what i think was a blatant misuse of power. The facts are these that trouble me so much, and i realize other administration s have been guily of similar activities, but certainly not on the massive scale this was attempted. On acceseptember 11th, john dea gave 591 names to the Internal Revenue commissioner and asked him to audit those persons returns. What is an irs audit . What is an audit . To begin with, the taxpayers have to furnish a full and complete justification for everything used within the tax return itself. The i ars agent has access to previous returns and they can go back three years and in a criminal case, if criminate fraud is suspected, they can go back without limit and check all returns filed by the taxpayers. In a typical civil case, the agent must be provided by the taxpayer access to all records involving deductions, medical bills, information regarding outstanding loans and other significant financial data. If the irs agent suspects theres income received, he will do an analysis and interview friends, associated, neighbors, to determine a taxpayers lifestyle. Oftentimes, theyll have to hire a lawyer or an accountant at an expense to him. Many of my constituents have complained about irs audits. Now, the direct evidence we have, we have testimony by john dean, along these lines. This was conducted by mr. Dohr of john dean in secret session. This list of 591 names were a group of mcgovern supporters. Two and half minutes have expired. I recognize the gentleman from new jersey. Its interesting to note that the gentleman from california, mr. Danielson, has given me an opportunity to prove beyond all reasonable doubt what we have been arguing about. The specificity, its a real word. And thats the thing thats going to be remembered here because those who have that solid 27 seek to violate it so badly. Now, here is the whole case. Let me make an illustration of what this gentleman has said. Theyre willing to be specific, sure they are. Look how specific he just was. He started out by saying on a number of occasions in 1971 and 1972, john caufield, a member of john deans staff, obtained some irs confidential information. In any court in this land, would that kind of indefinite thing hold up . Of course, it wouldnt. Lets go down to the next one. In the spring of 1972, the spring is three months. What part of the spring . He doesnt dare tell you because he doesnt know. Thats why they dont want to get specific. In that one, john erlicman rsked some information and passed it on to someone else. The next thing he told you, during the summer of 1972, a span of three more months. Now, the 38 members here have tried more criminal cases than i ever want to remember. And there isnt one can tell you that this can hold up in any court in the land. Each of these periods is three months. When in three months . And you can go right on through the whole bit. Its just a whole conglomeration of generalities. Thats why they dont want to get specific. They dont want to do this thing the right way. Never did. And we have valuable time and i want to yield to my friend from california, mr. Wiggins. I thank my colleague for yielding. I want to take a moment, but i do want to put in focus what my friend from illinois has just said about this egregious act of john dean in going to the irs with some 500 names of political opponents of the president. That is absolutely indefensible, ladies and gentlemen, and no one at this table, the public nor democrat, friend or foe of nixon condemns that act, but you see, the president didnt know that. He didnt know that john dean went to the irs, and there isnt a word of testimony that he did know when mr. Dean went. And its important as well to know what the irs told mr. Dean. The person that told mr. Dean was the appointee of the president , executing the president s instructions, i presume. And theres no dispute as to what mr. Dean was told, and in so many words, and if youll pardon the expression, he was told to go to hell. Now, thats what happened. Will the president yield back . For that, the president is not to be impeached. This whole case of irs abuse turns on the investigate of september 15, and on that, well just have to submit that. And well study it, review it, and decide whether or not at that time the president approved of this or whether it was simply a discussion in the context of the time three months before an election in this country. I yield back that time to my friend from new jersey. For your information, mr. Chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana. The gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Mr. Chairman, continuing the situation, i think its worth remembering that commissioner walters said on the occasion that dean came to him that dean stated he had not been asked by the president to have this done and he did not know whether the president asked that any of this activity be undertaken, and mr. Dean stated here in this committee and answered i dont know of any audits that were accomplished, and the joint committee on Internal Revenue taxation found that in fact none of these people were audited. So thats the record on the situation. As to what actually took place as against a political conversation on the 15th day of september. And there is no evidence in the record anywhere that the president ever made any request except a heresy statement by clark mullanoff who said haulderman told him that the president asked for a report on governor wallaces brother, which wouldnt stand up in any court in the land, and there is no evidence that that in fact is the truth, and its been denied by two or three other people during the course of the testimony. And as he said, there are good people in this. There was secretary schultz, theres secretary commissioner fuller, commissioner walters. All of them turned erlicmans efforts and deans efforts down theres no evidence of a president ial effort and the thing that there is evidence of is that secretary schultz and commissioner walters and commissioner thrower were president ial appointments of richard m. Nixon, i yield back. I yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio. Thank you for yielding. I want to reemphasize, underscore in capital letters what has been said by the gentleman from california, mr. Wiggins. No one at this table condonees any such request that mr. John dean put forth. And certainly if the president of the United States had put forth that request, i would think that would be an impeachable request. The question is did he or did he not authorize john dean to do this . It had already been pointed out when he went to mr. Walters, he specifically stated he was not there at the president s request. I think its important to note when this whole matter was submitted to a joint committee on taxation here in the congress which is controlled by the opposition part y, that they mae this report. The staffs 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 rights of confidentiality. This is the place i want to emphasize. 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 or political activities. This conclusion is further supported by the house judiciary committees materials, this committees materials. Commissioner walters stated in his affidavit of may 6, 1974, with respect to the list furnished to him by mr. Dean, at no time did i furnish any names or names from the list to anyone. Or did i request any irs employee or official to take any action with respect to the list. Gentleman has consumed two minutes. The gentleman from jew nurnew j has six minutes remaining. I would like the gentleman from texas to take the remaining time. I yield five minutes to the gentleman from iowa. Okay. Gentleman from iowa is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 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 in fact would find a president who would abuse that power. You found that a gentleman from virginia, mr. Randolph, said that he really advocated the impeachment process, specifically 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, quote, insurrections by the people. And really, what this particular provision is a committee provision which is saying that the guard against this abuse, we have to take a look. We have to see with what the Founding Fathers didnt have at that time, the Internal Revenue service, whether or not thats been abused. I think why the gentleman from illinois and also the gentleman from iowa are so concerned about this matter and why some of my colleagues in all due respect are defensive, is because i think theres a realization that one of ingratest abuses that we have is the abuse of the irs. Because i think the realization that it poisons the system if you abuse the irs, really what youre doing, youre poisoning the system and to a great extent, it becomes probably one of the most hideous of all the charges. And why . Because we all pay taxes. We know that the irs has personal information. We know that its based on solitary action on the part of all of us. We know that its based on honesty and our conscientious ability to pay our taxes. And we have really what we have is a selfconfession when we all file our taxes. We know that and we understand it. And i think why the apprehension sets in is because theres a realization that Richard Nixons presidency has really leveled a serious blow in the area of abuse of irs. Youve had talk about the enemy and the enemy list. And id like to say that theres another area. What happens about taking care of your friends . And i have submitted before that one of the president s best friends is the president himself, and well have an article on that subsequent to the one were considering tonight. Now, what do we see about the friends and why is the friends matter as significant as the enemies . Because if you impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue act with a violation that someone may have done and you say that in fact the irs is conducting an audit of that particular individual, and then you get a directive from the white house saying, look, which we have direct testimony from that says we have to take care of our friends and turn the irs off of our friends, what does it mean . It means another kind of cover coverup. It means another kind of protection. And thats exactly whats happened. And let me tell my friends, though were in a constitutional issue, which i agree, and theyre roping for criminal violations, that if you intend and you are part of helping your friends and stepping into an audit that is done by the irs, that is an interference with the duestration of the Internal Revenue act and i only cite it as an example, which is not only a significant violation of our constitution and abuse of office, but its also a clear violation of section 7212 that says in fact if you interfere with the due administration of the Internal Revenue service, youre subject to a felony and to being put in prison. I would bring that to the attention of the members of this committee. I would also say in all respects, the joint committee on Internal Revenue taxation that took a look at this issue, what are they doing . That investigation is going on, and they in fact have asked for reaudits of those friends, those ones that have had direct contact and have been the closest associated and friends of the white house, and we have testimony direct that in fact the white house was involved. Now, lets point to the one item thats very interesting to me. Thats the whole focus on september 15th and the testimony by the gentleman from california, who i respect, mr. Wiggins. No direct testimony. We have mr. Dean just talking about it. Hes talking about it supposedly in the abstract. Well, let me say this. That its not in the abstract. Its right on target. Lets 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 irs stuff . The gentleman from texas has six and a half minutes remaining, and the gentleman from new jersey has six minutes remaining. And the gentleman from new jersey wish to be recognized . I recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. Lott, for three minutes. Gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Sandman. This is an area that can be used to inflame the emotions of the American People because there are many out there that i know of personally who feel they are harassed by irs and dont feel theyre necessarily on anybodys list, but there are some key issues and point we must keep in mind. There is no evidence of any such misuse in the final analysis on the part of the president. The joint committee on Internal Revenue taxations report should be noted in this conclusion. Im going to cite some sections from that report in a minute. Also, almost all of the examples of alleged attempts to misuse the irs come from the person that used the most influence, supposedly, within irs to get these audits, john dean is the person who made these points with john walters and others. Now, a lot has been made of this missing 17 minutes of tape. Well, the fact is we dont have that 17 minutes, and theres already been some contradictions about whats included in the 17 minutes, so i dont think we can base the decision on something we dont have. Maybe we will later on and we should consider it then, but its been claimed that several individuals in the white house attempted to misuse the irs for a partisan political purchapose. Its clear such an alleged misuse could only succeed if it was supported by the power and authority of the president in the final analysis. On looking at all of the evidence available, its clear the president didnt take that action. One point i want to emphasize. These people who have been praised so highly, mr. Shoes and walters and thrower, they were appointed by the president just like the aides were like dean. Let me quote to you some of the sections in the report from the Internal Revenue committee. 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 or activities. The staff believes that in three cases there are substantial questions about decisions made by governmental agencies about friends of the white house, but the staff does not have evidence that there was any pressure involved. The staff also believes that a number of enemies either were not audited when the staff believes they should have been or were audited too leniently. And then in mr. Deans response before after questioning, he says, so i dont know if the president got it back in it or not, or i dont know of any audits that were accomplished. In conclusion, i think the record clearly shows while some personnel at the white house may have indeed used improper intentions against the irs, the fact is in the final analysis, no irs abuse resulted. Thank you. Gentleman from new jersey has three minutes remaining. I reserve and yield to the gentleman from texas to use some of his time. The gentleman has six and a half minutes remaining. Mr. Chairman, i yield six minutes reserving 30 seconds to myself, six minutes i yeld to the gentleman from alabama. Thank you, and i thank the gentleman from illinois. Thanks, mr. Flowers. Let me just say, 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, in my opinion and according to john deans direct testimony, he told them to go back again. Now, 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 off and register his outrage . Its because these investigations did not occur because there happened to be two rather dedicated public servants, one by the name of George Schultz and a rather good irs commissioner who wouldnt have anything to do with it, and i think commissioner walters gave very good advice to mr. Dean when he presented this list, he testified he told dean compliance with such a request, and i quote, would be disastrous for the irs, and for the administration, and would make the watergate affair look like a sunday school picnic. I thank the gentleman for his comments. You know my friends, a fundamental principle of our government is equal justice under law is a guarantee to every citizen. Put it another way, were a government of laws and not of men. This commitment to equal justice is written down in a few places like in our constitution and in our laws and in some court decisions. But i think just as important as the commitments to this principal that must be assumed in our society, for instance, the assump someone that the agencies of government would procure power over our citizens like police power and the power to tax would not be abused or misused for governmental purposes. This is a fundamental source of the peoples confidence in their government. We the peoples confidence in our government, that the president and his men should have trifled with this source seems to me sufficiently gray to qualify as a component of an article of impeachment. Could you imagine, could you imagine under any circumstances ever, the president of the United States saying to an aide, do you need any irs stuff . Well, that happened on march 13th, 1973, in the white house. Can you imagine the president s lawyer, his counsel, his close subordinate saying with impunity and apparent approval of the president , we have a couple sources over there i can go to. I dont have to fool around with Johnny Walters who was irs commissioner. We can get right in and get what we need. That also happened in the white house. Let me turn to some specifics which may be just the tip of the iceberg. That was a twopronged attack on a well known political figure who is now the governor of my state. And a great and courageous american which i believe has shared equally a belief i believe is shared equally by those who agree or disagree with him. In the spring of 1970, George Wallace was not governor of alabama, but engaged in a heated contest with thengovernor brewer who had succeeded governor wallace on her death in 1968. The decision was made by whom i dont know, but i think you can be certain it was in the highest counsels of the white house, that this success of governor wallace in a democratic primary in the state of alabama would somehow incompatible with the interests of the nixon administration. So what did they do . Well, its a specific instance of mr. Higbee, primary assistant to mr. Haulderman, chief of staff to the president , 400,000 in funds left over from the 1968 president ial campaign was funneled into alabama in a devious and undercover manner in an unsuccessful effort to defeat governor wallace. Theres direct evidence to this from mr. Krommback before this committee in this room. Then in early 1970, hr haulderman directed a special counsel from the president to obtain a report from the irs about the investigation of George Wallace and his brothers. Haulderman gave assurances the report was for the president. A report from commissioner thrower was requested on this basis, received and given to haulderman. Material contained in the report was thereafter transmitted to jack anderson, a syndicated columnist by a white house aide and personal confidiante of the president. Portions of the material, potentially dangerous to wallace were published several weeks before the primary election. Both of these were a gross abuse of the irs as an agency of government and incidentally, a violation of law. Now i ask you, my friends, who was it that maintained a political enemies list in an effort to get back of them . The administration of Richard Nixon. Who it was who released potentially damaging Tax Information about the governor of alabama . The aides of nixon. And who was it who frustrated the ultimate date with justice that awaited Daniel Ellsberg and russo that i trusted would come to them at the hands of the jury . Was it some left wing liberal radical plot . No, it was the administration of richard n. Nixon. However you describe yourself and wherever you may be, you ought to be vitally concern here because at this president , with whom you perhaps agree politically, can get by with the abuses described in this article, than so can succeeding chief executives, including those with whom you do not agree, thus imprinted in the standards of our highest office a standard of conduct which is certainly unacceptable to me. Time of the gentleman has expeered. The gentleman from new jersey has three minutes remaining. I think now we have the whole case. If we can rest all of it on this one, this lawyer would ask for a directed verdict because these are the facts. And now you know why they wont be specific. All they have are generalities, groups of dates and each one include about three months. All they have is in 1970, haulderman told him, all they have over here, some time in 71 and 72, caufield did something dean told him to do. All they have is in the spring of 72, erlicman told someone else something. The only thing left is that magic date, september 15th, 1972. Why dont you say thats all you have . Why dont you let this count rest on that date . Because you know it cant hold up. Thats why you dont do it. And heres why it wont hold up. All you have is a conversation, which anybody who listens to that tape can tell why and how it was arrived at. Hes brought something new and this is a majestic case to say the least. Modern times has done away with the fifth amendment. We heard that a day or so ago. What diz mr. Railsback just said . You know what he said . Nothing happened. Not one of the 591 people were audited, not one, but you have to look past that. You can impeach the president of the United States for a thought, not a deed. Thats what hes saying. When did that happen before . And what kind of law is this going to make for every man who sits in the white house from now on . This is what im concerned about. This can be a stage show from now on, for any Majority Party to manipulate against any man who becomes president of the United States who is not a member of his party and that could not 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. And why dont you pass this motion to strike . Time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from texas has 30 seconds remaining. Mr. Chairman, with 30 seconds remaining, i would yield 15 of that, half of what i have, to my distinguished man from new york, mr. Fish. I thank the gentleman. I would like to say that i think most people listening to this know really what is the facts here. That to faithfully execute the laws of our country does involve policing your lieutenant and it does involve an obligation to stop them when you see the course of which theyre 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. I have been much impressed by the debate and comments by my colleagues on this committee. I think we have all benefitted from it, and i withdraw the motion to strike. Under the rules of the house, the gentleman has the right to withdraw the emotion to strike. Thank you, mr. Chairman. On a point of parliamentary procedure, doesnt he need unanimous consent to do that . I would be pleased do answer that. The chair will respond. The chair will respond if the gentleman wants the chair to cite the rule, under rule 19 of the rules of the house, the gentleman was operated under the house and the committee as a whole is entitled to withdraw the motion as a substitute amendment without even asking for unanimous consent. So the gentleman is perfectly in order. There will be no further amendment before the desk. The gentlemen are now recognized, those who so wish, to speak under the fiveminute rule to the substitute amendment that is offered by the gentleman from missouri. Mr. Chairman, if nobody wants to take the time for the general debate, i withdraw the previous question. Thats what im asking. The gentleman ill withdraw my the chair would like to state that under the rule adopted that every member has a right to the five minutes unless he declines to use it. Mr. Chairman. Yes . The gentleman from missouri. Thank you, chair. Mr. Chairman, the late president truman was mentioned along with the late drew pearson. Of course, mr. Truman doesnt need any defense from me. Hes been known to handle people who have made attacks on him by saying some of them were pr prismatic pervarkarcaters, liar however you looked at them, but its not appropriate, i think, to be critical of those who are deceas deceased, and we do know that mr. Truman opposed passing the buck almost he was almost as opposed to passing the buck as dick nixon is good at it. On mr. Trumans desk there was a sign, in the oval office, that said the buck stops here. Now weve had other criticisms. Of other president s who were deceased. President johnson. Weve had discussion of the fiveict amendment. Im not going to tell you i can tell you all about the fifth amendment, and due process, but i think its awfully hard to give due process to a dead man. So i would hope that when the final record is written, we would strike any attempt to make attacks of that kind. And i would certainly say that i would resist any that might be made with regard to president eisenhower. We were in the army together. And i would only quote the words of our distinguished former colleague, brooks hayes of arkansas, who recounted the story of some boys in the ozarks playing cards and one looked at the others and said, come on, boys, play the cards fair. I know what i dealt you. So mr. Chairman, i yield to my distinguished, learned colleague from indiana. Friend from missouri, i really didnt intend criticism, as far as truman, who happens to be a gentleman i admire myself, and if he did check into drew pearson, i would come close to thinking that might almost be justified. I thank the gentleman for his comment and i know as a distinguished trial attorney, he would do nothing but what was proper. We have talked about people and agents and servants and employees, and i would like to in this brief time talk about mr. Butterfields testimony. I thought he was good. He was one of our better witnesses. Hes not been indicted. Now, he said that in some of his testimony, after qualifying as to how much time he sworn in the first day in the east room, and hes right up there next to the oval office, and he goes through some of this, mr. Haulderman in addition to being chief of the white house staff, was in charge of everything, he was in charge of everything that had a personal conotashz, speech writing, appointments, political matters, person matters, communications with the media. I could go on. This is the staff i knew best. If a crunch matter came up, it was haulderman. Higbee was his alter ego. He was to haulderman what haulderman was to the president. Working along with higbee, but not in the major role. Then he says, he was responsible for keeping attuned to the political happens around the country and had a close leace onto the committee to reelect, and continuing in our testimony on page 29, the president first of all is well organized, always, and highly disciplined as an individual. The whole staff reflected that. The staff was a well organized firmly run staff. Could you give an indication to the president s work habits with attention to work habits as you knew it . From my observations having seen thousands of memorandum, maybe hundreds and hundreds of memoranda, working with the president , i know him to be a detail man. And then he goes on to say the president often enforces concern with whether or not the curtains were closed or open, arranging of state gifts, whether theyre on this side of the room or that side of the room, displayed on a weekly or monthly basis. A scenario that came to me was in the table of arrangements, he debated whether to have a ushaped table or a round table. He debated who to get for what group, he was very interested in meals and how they were served and the times of the waiters and if it wasnt takenp care of in an hours time. He debated receiving lines, whether or not to have it prior to entertainment. Time of the gentleman is expired. Mr. 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 than article i that we dealt with earlier, but the difficulty as i see it is whereas on article one you had a difficult matter of balancing proof and deciding whether the weight lay and whether a case had been made beyond a reasonable type of a dou doubt, i decided it had not been, but while you had that kind of a problem there, here where you might have the serious case if you had the evidence, you just dont really have the evidence. And i cant believe that were going to impeach the president of the United States without the facts. Now, its difficult to go over the same ground, but lets just look quickly at what were talking about. First is the irs. I was just talking about that a moment ago. The japanese had a sense in the old days they called dangerous thinking. And maybe on the basis of the conversation of september 15th you could convict somebody of that if it were an offense in this country. I dont think it is. Once the politicians get around after election or before an election talking about the opposition, what theyre going to do to them. I dont think its a very highclass conversation but i do suggest that that conversation itself is not an Impeachable Offense. Youve got to show that something was done as a result of it. And done by the president or by his instruction. Now, there isnt any evidence. Youve got a heresy statement about the wallace matter. Thats all. We have the enemies list, and dean himself said that wasnt done at the president s request. And he agrees that he never followed up on it and as far as he knows, nobody followed up on it, and the joint Committee Says nobody was audited as a result. My friend from iowa talks about over cleanliness to someone, he didnt specify somebody, but one case i remember, it was alleged that way, was a case of john wayne. That was checked into, and nothing was found to exist at all. It was treated just like everybody else. And the joint committee has looked into this thing, and said in none of these cases was the taxpayer improperly treated because of political considerations. Now, my friend from alabama, mr. Flowers, says a terrible thing to have a statement in the white house, do you need any irs stuff . Again, maybe its not the kind of statement you would like to hear considering all the circumstances and whatnot, but is that an Impeachable Offense . Thats what were talking about here. Nobody shows anybody went and got any irs stuff and used it for any improper situation. Will the gentleman yield for a question . I i hate to yield because of length of my time and otherwise i would be happy to. I would just like ill yield to my friend from illinois since hes going to talk anybody. Thank you very much. I just want to say, dont you think that its really genuinely fortunate that we had commissioner walters . And we had secretary of the treasury schultz, who decided that they wouldnt tolerate such business as that, even though some close to the president wanted to misuse the irs. I completely agree with my friend. And as i said before, they were appointees of the president , and i think hes entitled to great praise for having those people as his main appointees. He appointed them and none of them have said something in the evidence before us in this record to indicate they feel that the president ever misput them, the president himself, so far as i am aware. Now, going to the second matter, the matter of surveillance, we talked about that already, too. You have to consider the climate. The leaks about cambodian bombing, about troop withdraw withdrawals. I think personally the time of the gentleman from indiana has expired. May i make a parliamentary inquiry . The gentleman from new jersey mr. Chairman, would it be in order at this time since one from each side has spoken, for a member to move that all debate on this article terminate within one hour so the time could be equally divided . Under the rule, the members who wish to speak have that time reserved to them, and unless there were unanimous consent, then i then i believe such a motion would be in order. Could i ask for unanimous consent that all debate on article ii end at ten minutes after 10 00, which is one hour . Is there objection . A question as to how many members intend to speak so we have some idea of