there was damage other than just offending some legalistic congressman who contends that the president lied to me. when you prove damage when you prove damage to this great country, when you prove that we ve lost some freedom, when you prove that part of our country s been taken over, has been given to a foreign power, when you prove some damage, then you ve got a case. but there s no damage that s here that can be proven. now, see, if it were foreign influence, if it were some foreign power being invited in, well, then even earl landgrebe would concede you ve got a case. even that guys. i ll tell you the postscript on earl landgrebe is that he was walloped in his re-election in 1974, sent packing. he was replaced by a democrat who happened to be a history professor from the local university. impeachments take wild turns, and we think we know what s going to happen. we think we know how they will
there, tapes released, and then there s two big fat columns in the middle of the front page, the verbatim copy of nixon s statement about the disclosure of the tapes. then also there above the fold, i mean, you know, next to the picture of the democratic leader tip o neill, there s this back bench california congressman charles wiggins with his incredible head of hair, right? and he gets his own headline on the front page of the new york times that day specifically because he s the epitome of the staunch republican defender of nixon. he gets his own headline on the front page, wiggins for impeachment, others in gop join him. front page of the new york times tuesday august 6th. and indeed, that was the death kne knell, right? frankly so he could have at least the perceived dignity of quitting rather than being forcibly removed from office, which was obviously going to be the next thing that happened. even then, even at that moment
the president issued a statement about the evidence he kept secret saying this was a serious act of omission for which i take full responsibility and which i deeply regret. the reaction at the capitol to the president s disclosure that evidence was held back was one of shock and dismay among some of his most hardworking supporters. it is seen by many as a decisive turning point in the impeachment process. here now is some congressional reaction. the effect of the president s statement on his supporters in the judiciary committee was devastating. republican charles wiggins of california, the president s strongest defender said i have reached the painful conclusion the president of the united states should resign. wiggins said the national interest requires the president to concentrate his efforts on a speedy and orderly transition of power to vice president ford. charles wiggins, republican member of congress from richard nixon s california. he was just an unimaginable defection fro
camp. wiggins was the strongest and most outspoken and most compelling supporter of nixon on the judiciary committee. right? congressman wiggins voted no on all five of the impeachment articles that they considered against nixon. he led the nixon camp in the judiciary committee. he led the republican resistance to the impeachment, but even he when faced with this new incon tree veritable evidence about what nixon had done, he too decided that nixon had to go. it actually made the front page of the new york times the next day. wiggins wasn t in leadership or anything. it wasn t like a you know, it wasn t speaker of the house or something. but i mean, talk about a day in which you want to buy the paper, right? this was august 6th, 1974. you see the banner headline there, nixon admits order to halt inquiry on watergate six days after break-in, expects impeachment. support ebbs. the upper right-hand column
congressman who contends that the president lied to me. when you prove damage to this great country. when you prove that we ve lost some freedom. when you prove that part of our country has been taken over, has been given to a foreign power. when you prove some damage, then you ve got a case. but there s no damage here that can be proven. now, see, if it were foreign influence, if it were some foreign power being invited in, well then even earl landgrebe could see you ve got a case. even that guy. i ll tell you the post script on earl landgrebe he was walloped in his re-election effort in 1974, sent packing. he was replaced by a democrat who happened to be a history professor from the local university. impeachments take wild turns, and we think we know what s going to happen. we think we know how they will proceed, but do not get too cocky. i mean, here s what we think is