Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20140806

And my colleagues on this committee know full well that we cannot escape history. That the decision we must jointly make will itself be tested and tried by our fellow citizens, and by history itself. The magnitude of our mission is awesome. Theres no way to understate its importance. Nor to mistake its meaning. We have unsheathed the strongest weapon in the arsenal of congressional power. We personally, members of this committee, have felt its weight, and have perceived its dangers. The framers of the constitution, fearing an executive too strong to be contained, and constrained from injustice or subject to reproof arrayed the congress with the power to bring the executive into account, and into peril of removal for acts of treason, bribery, or other crimes of high and misdemeanors. Now the first responsibility facing members of this committee was to try to define what an Impeachable Offense is. The constitution doesnt define it. The precedents, which are sparse, do not give us any real guidance as to what constitutes an Impeachable Offense. So each of us in our own conscience, in our own mind, in our own heart, after much study, had to decide for ourselves what constitutes an Impeachable Offense. Obviously it must be something so grievous that it warrants the removal of the president of the United States from office. I dont agree with those that say Impeachable Offense is anything that Congress Wants it to be. And i dont agree with those who say that it must be an indictable criminal offense. But somewhere in between is the standard against which we must measure the president s conduct. There are some who say that he should be impeached for the wrongdoing of his aides and associates. I dont concur in that. I think we must find personal wrongdoing on his part if were going to justify his impeachment. The president was elected by an overwhelming mandate from the American People to serve as their president for four years. And we obviously must be very, very cautious as we attempt to overturn this mandate and the historic proportions that this deliberation have. After a member decides what, to his mind, constitutes an Impeachable Offense, he then had to decide what standard of proof he would use in trying to determine whether or not the president of the United States had committed an Impeachable Offense. Now some have said that were analogous to a grand jury. And a grand juror only need find probable cause that a criminal defendant had committed an offense in order to send the matter to trial. But because of the vast ramifications of this impeachment, i think we need to insist on a much higher standard. Our counsel recommended clearly and convincing proof. Thats really the standard for civil liability. That or preponderance of the evidence. And i think we need a higher standard than that when the question is removing the president of the United States from office. So i came down myself to the position that we can have no less a standard of proof than we insist on when a criminal trial is involved. Where to deny an individual of his liberty, we insist that the case against him be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And i say that we can insist on no less when the matter is of such overriding import as this impeachment proceeding. I started out with a presumption of innocence for the president , because every citizen of this country is entitled to a presumption of innocence. And my fight for fairness on this committee is obvious to my 37 friends and colleagues who i think will corroborate that i was as outspoken as every member any member of this committee in calling our very fine staff to task when i thought they were demonstrating bias against the president , when i thought they were leaving from the record parts of the evidence which were exonerating of the president. I fought with the chairman and the majority, with some of my colleagues on this side, insisting that every element of fairness be given to the president , that his counsel should sit in on our deliberations and offer arguments and evidence and call witnesses, and my friend from alabama mentioned that earlier. Mr. Flowers. But he will also have to confess that most of these concessions to fairness were made only after partisan dispute and debate, which is what our whole legislative process is about. In the congress. So i dont concede to anyone on this committee any position of fighting harder and stronger that the president get a fair hearing of the evidence. And while i do have some individual, specific objections to isolated incidents of unfairness, i think on the whole the proceeding has been fair. Now im a republican. Party loyalty and personal affection, and precedents of the past must fall, i think, before the arbiter of mens actions. The law itself. No man, not even the president of the United States, is above the law. For our system of justice, and our system of government to survive, we must pledge our highest allegiance to the strength of the law and not to the common frailties of men. Now a few days ago, after having heard and read all the evidence, and all the witnesses, and the arguments by our own staff and the president s lawyer, i came to a conclusion. And i felt that the debates which we began last night were more or less pro forma and i think theyve so far indicated that. I feel that most of my colleagues before this debate began had made up their minds on the evidence, and i did. So i saw no reason to wait before announcing the way i felt and how i was going to vote. I read and reread and sifted and tested the massive information and then i came to my conclusion. That Richard Nixon has, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed Impeachable Offenses, which in my judgment are of sufficient magnitude that he should be removed from office. Now that announcement was met with a great deal of criticism from friends, from government officials, from colleagues in congress. I was accused of making a political decision. If i had decided to vote against impeachment, i venture to say that i would also have been criticized for making a political decision. One of the unfortunate things about being in politics is that everything you do is given evil or political motives. My friend from alabama, mr. Flowers, said that the decision that we make is one that were going to have to live with the rest of our lives. And for anyone to think that this decision could be made on a political basis, with so much at stake, is something that i personally resent. It isnt easy for me to align myself against the president to whom i gave my enthusiastic support in three president ial campaigns. On whose side ive stood in many a legislative battle. Whose accomplishments, in foreign and Domestic Affairs ive consistently applauded. But its impossible for me to condone or ignore the long train of abuses to which he has subjected the presidency, and the people of this country. The constitution, and my own oath of office, demand that i bear true faith and allegiance to the principles of law and justice upon which this nation was founded. And i cannot, in good conscience, turn away from the evidence of evil that is, to me, so clear and compelling. My friend from iowa, mr. Main, details some of the allegations against prior administrations. And i dont in any way question that. I agree with them, that there was wrongdoing on the part of previous president s. Maybe all president s. But i was not in a position where i had to take a stand, where i approved or disapproved of blatant wrongdoing. And i am in that position now. My friend from new jersey, mr. Sandman, said last night he wants to see direct proof, and some of my other friends on this side of the aisle have said the same thing. But i submit that what theyre looking for is an arrow to the heart. And we do not find in the evidence an arrow to the heart. We find a virus that is that creeps up on you slowly and gradually until its obviousness is so overwhelming to you. Now hes asked for direct proof. I think its a mistake for any of us to begin looking for one sentence or one word or one document which compels us to vote for or against impeachment. Its like looking at a mosaic and going down and focusing in on one single tile in the mosaic and say, i see nothing wrong in that one little piece of this mosaic. We have to step back and we have to look at the whole picture, and when you look at the whole mosaic of the evidence thats come before us, to me, its overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. Lets look at the president s own words. He uses the words coverup and cap on the bottle, and the plan, and containment, and hes concerned about what witnesses have said, and what they will say. Hes concerned about where the investigation is going. Now lets focus in on the thing that everybody talks about, the hunt payment. Lets look at this as reasonable and prudent men. What did mr. Hunt intend . His payments and demands had been relayed through his wife before her death. After his wife, he had to make them directly. So what did he do . He called coulson to make demands. And we have a transcript of what he said and i want to quote. This is a long haul thing and the stakes are very, very high and i thought that youd want to know that this thing must not break apart for foolish reasons. Were protecting the guy s who are really responsible, but at the same time this is a twoway street. And as i said before, we think that now is the time when a move should be made, and surely the cheapest commodity available is money. And then he went and he talked to colesons lawyer, bitman, and to bitman he told him the same thing, that commitments were made, and he would blow the lid off the whole thing unless the money was paid to him. And then he went and saw obrien, the attorney for the committee to reelect the president , and he said to him that he had to have 60,000 for legal fees and 75,000 for family support. He said if he didnt get it, he would reveal a number of seamy things that he had done for the white house and if things didnt happen soon, hed have to review his options. The man that was making those demands had over 200,000 dollars in the bank that he had collected from his wifes insurance. So i ask my colleagues on the committee, what would the reasonable and prudent man assume that he had in mind . Its obvious he intended to blackmail the white house. Well now lets go inside the white house. And lets see what they say. They talk about this, can we raise a Million Dollars . You know, is this the way to go . There will be other demands from him . How were the payments made in the past . These are the president s own words. He says, well can we handle it through the Cuban Committee the way we handled it before . Indicating he already knew about the previous payments made. These are his own words. And then he says, wasnt that handled through the Cuban Committee . And john dean says, well, no, not exactly. Thats not the way it was. And the president say, well thats the way its going to have to be. Is this an urging to conceal the truth or is it not . So the payment was made to hunt and it doesnt matter to me whether the president approved it before it was made. A conspirator is all we lawyers know can get in on a conspiracy at any point, even after the fact. So its immaterial whether or not the point in time when he said okay, i approve it, you pay it. The fact is, and the thing thats so appalling to me is that the president when this whole idea was suggested to him didnt in righteous indignation rise up and say, get out of here, youre in the office of the president of the United States. How can you talk about blackmail and bribery and keeping witnesses silent . This is the presidency of the United States, and throw them out of his office and pick up the phone and call the department of justice and tell them theres an obstruction of justice going on. Someones trying to buy the sigh lebs of a witness. But my president didnt do that. He sat there and he worked and worked to try to cover this thing up so it wouldnt come to light. And the fbi is conducting an investigation, so he says publicly, i want to cooperate with the investigation and the prosecution. But privately, all his words compel a contrary conclusion. He didnt cooperate with the investigation or the prosecution. And its already been said by some that Henry Peterson called and he said initially in the conversation, well its not going to go any further. I know i have to keep this secret. He had no sooner hung up the phone when he was telling the defendants about whom this damaging information was made. What they could do to counteract the case that the prosecution had against him. Well i could go on and on and on. Im surprised that some of my colleagues, the telephone call from pat gray. Pat gray was a man who did many things wrong. He was loyal to his leader. But at some point his conscience bothered him and he wanted to tell the president of the United States that his aides were destroying the presidency the time of the gentleman has expired. Give the gentleman an opportunity to finish his sentence. I appreciate that, chairman. Pat gray called the president to tell him that his aides were destroying the presidency, and instead of the president saying well give me more information about this, i want to know if my aides are doing anything wrong, i want to know, and pat gray says in his testimony, there was a perceptible pause, and the president said, pat, you just continue to conduct your aggressive and thorough investigation. He didnt have to know because he already knew. And he consistently tried to cover up the evidence and obstruct justice. And as much as it pains me to say it, he should be impeached and removed from office. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Two years ago when i was elected to serve in this capacity as the representative of the people of maine, i had no idea that id be called upon to pass judgment on the president of the United States. Its an assignment that i really did not anticipate, or request. But a responsibility from which i cannot retreat. Whatever that ultimate impact might be upon my own life, and that of my family. Every member last evening, today, has expressed the anxiety with which hes approached this impeachment process. And ive shared in that anxiety and that apprehension. I know that there flowers of alabama has even developed an ulcer over this particular matter. But we take some consolation in the knowledge that throughout the ages, men and women have always approached the impeachment process with same apprehension and sense of awe. Talked about how good a job our staff has done, indeed they have. One of the first quotes that i recall reading was from lord chancellor sommers back in 1691, when he remarked that the impeachment process was like goliaths sword, ought to be kept in the temple and not used but on great occasions. And the question that we have to decide is whether this committee should recommend to the house that that sword be taken from the temple, and handed to the senate, in order to protect and preserve the integrity of the constitution of the United States. Selection of the president occupies a very unique position within our political system. Its the one act of which the entire country participates and the result is binding upon all of the states for four years. The outcome is accepted. The occupant of that office stands as a symbol of our National Unity and commitment. So if the judgment of the people is to be reversed. If the majority of the will is to be undone, if that symbol is to be replaced through the action of the elected representatives, then it must be for substantial and not trivial offenses supported by facts and not by surmise. Weve heard a great deal of debate, and you will hear more, devoted to the question of the construction to be given to that phrase high crimes and misdemeanors. Its been suggested the phrase is limited to violations of statutory crimes. Well thats an interpretation that i cant accept. Because the purpose of that constitutional provision was to prevent the chief executive from engaging in the gross abuse of that tremendous power invested in that office, to protect the people against the diversion of the rule of law, and of fundamental liberty, no matter how silent or how subtle that subversion may be. One constitutional scholar very recently in his book pointed out that if the president of the United States were to refuse to appoint any member of the catholic faith to a governmental position, there would be no violation of our criminal laws. But surely there would be a violation of the constitution with says there shall be no religious test for office. Its an exaggerated example, perhaps. But i think it makes rather clear that the impeachment process involves a determination as to those acts which strike at the very core of our constitutional and political system that must be judged. Its within this framework that i have conducted myself in an attempt to search out in a very dispassionate, objective, and nonpartisan fashion for the past six or seven months. A number of people have written to me over those months, calls, letters, asking that we place the president on trial immediately, based upon what they had read in the newspapers, and what they had watched on television. But the american system of justice demands much more than that. And basic and fundamental fairness to the president demands much more than that. The search for truth has been long and painful but i have not been prepared to put the president or his country through the ordeal of a trial unless the allegations leveled against the president were established by clear and convincing evidence to my satisfaction. An weve had more than 50 allegations leveled against the president , and upon examination, investigation, reflection on my part, i found many of them to be simply without any factual support. Others have been very serious, and theyve been mentioned before. The secret bombing of cambodia, the impoundment of funds appropriated by congress, the expenditure of tax dollars for the personal benefit of the president s home in california. But in each of these cases and areas after giving full consideration to all the factors involved i concluded they would not support the president s removal. There are two major allegations of which i am concerned which have been articulated much more eloquently than i can today by mr. Railsback, mr. Flowers, mr. Mann, mr. Butler, and these involve the area of obstructing of justice and the use and abuse of governmental agencies to harass and intimidate private citizens who are expressing their political preferences and views. But i would like to digress just for a moment, because you have heard and you will continue to hear a great deal about the evidence, that its circumstantial in many instances, and not direct. Well, first let me say, that conspiracies are not born in the sunlight of direct observation. They are hatched in dark recesses, amid whispers and code words and verbal signals. And many times the footprints of guilt must be traced with a search light of probability, of common experience. And secondly i want to point out that circumstantial evidence is just as valid evidence in the life of the law and that of logic as is direct evidence, in fact sometimes i think its much stronger. And the best example that i can give you is the fact that there are 38 members on this committee, theyre all well trained, skilled, competent people who sat here day after day listening to tapes, listening to witnesses, and yet they walked out of these doors into the arms of the press, and you had 38 different versions of what expletive the president used when he talked to dean on march 21, 1973 when he said. So you can see that even direct evidence has its imperfections. But on the other hand let me give you an example of a strong circumstantial evidence that if you went to sleep at night, and the ground was bare outside, and you woke up with fresh snow on the ground, then certainly you would conclude as a reasonable person that snow had fallen, even if you hadnt seen it. So let us not labor under the misapprehension that because some of the evidence available to us is circumstantial, it is therefore inadequate. Id also like to address myself to some of the remarks made last evening, and even this morning. My good friend from new jersey, mr. Sandman directly held up to you a newsmagazine which quoted only half of a statement. I happen to think the other half of the statement was equally as bad but aside from that, i think the point he was making is quite accurate. And that is, that a text torn out of context its a pretext. And i support that principle. I think hes absolutely correct. But i would ask the members of this committee notwithstanding the fact that were under the limit and constraints of time not to engage in the same sort of conduct. Not to pick and choose quotes and passages which will support a particular position. We talk about whether or not the cia was being used for improper purposes. Lets examine what the president did know as of that time. Consider prior to the time that he ever contacted the cia, or had the cia contacted on his behalf, that on june 20, 1972, just a few days after the breakin, he had a phone conversation with mr. Mitchell, his former attorney general. And by a duct aphone, his own dictation that evening he indicated that mr. Mitchell said that he apologized, he was deeply sorry that he failed to keep better control of his employees at crp. So as of june 20 we know that theres a responsibility accepted and known by employees of community to reelect the president. Also consider that on june 20, 1972, a very long conversation between mr. Haldeman and the president , during which watergate was discussed, during which an 18 1 2 minute conversation has been rubbed out by some inexplicable and perhaps even sinister force. These factors must be taken into account when we consider what motive, what object the president may have had in mind in contacting the cia. And let me take it one step further on this particular point. I heard that september 15, 1972, transcript quoted from today and was indicated, and again im not ascribing any malevolent motive or evil intent here because we are under very strict time controls, but the impression was given that all the president said on september 15 was, yeah. Yeah, and yeah. But i look at page 10, and i read from what the president said, i want the most, i want the most comprehensive notes on all of those that have tried to do us in, because they didnt have to do it. And dean says thats right. They didnt have to do it. And the president says that in essence, things are going to change, and theyre going to get it. Right . And mr. Dean says, thats an exciting prospect. So i hope that in the future hours of debate that remain, as we come to this final decision, that we will not quote out of context, because mr. Sandman is quite correct. We must consider the totality of circumstances. All of the evidence, all of the tapes, all of the implications, and all that they imply. I dont have time to go through and review all of the articles and the allegations that will be of importance to me. I indicated i share the concern of the area of abuse of power. As well as the coverup aspect. But the aspect involved to the irs is of particular concern to me because the American People are unquestionably the most generous of the world in sharing the fruits of their labor. They work hard, they pay taxes, perhaps not always enthusiastically, but certainly with the hope and the belief that our tax dollars will be used for legitimate purposes and programs. The most serious and dangerous threat to our very society and liberty occurs when those in positions of power undertake to turn neutral instruments of government into agents of vengeance and retribution against private citizens who engage in the exercise of their constitutionally protected freedoms. If were to have competence in the even handed treatment under the law we simply cannot condone this type of conduct. A great many thoughts have passed through my mind during the past six or seven months and ive wondered for many times to myself last night in preparing what i might say to you, i was reading through the federalist papers, and i thought, how in the world did we ever get from the federalist papers to the edited transcripts. Its been said very eloquently by mr. Flowers i think what is at stake is really the very soul of america and i happen to agree with that principle, because we are committed to liberty, to equality, to justice, the sanctity of the right of privacy, the dig knit i of the individual, and the question is whether those principles have been placed in serious jeopardy. Let me say its not a happy occasion for me or for any of us here. Were not without our failings, without our weaknesses, and so were not entirely free to cast stones, as that expression has been used. So i will not pass any judgment upon the president personally. But even though were not without blemishes or human frailties, that must not prevent us from meeting up to our responsibilities to pass judgment upon the conduct of our elected leaders. Ive been faced with the terrible responsibility of assessing the conduct for president that i voted for, believed to be the best man to lead this country, who has made significant and lasting contributions toward securing peace, in this country, throughout the world, but a president who in the process by act or acquiescence, allows the rule of law, and the constitution, to slip under the boots of indifference and arrogance and abuse. Ive been very impressed with the letters that ive received, thousands of letters that ive received, from my constituents, from all over the country, from the people who are outside these halls right now, holding up banners saying support the president. And ive asked myself this question. How many men have fallen victim to this plea of loyalty to the president . Mr. Magruder, mr. Chapin, mr. Porter, mr. Crow, mr. Ehrlichman, mr. Coleson, all indicted and judged guilty of crimes. In remarks committed to this committee mr. Colson i thought spoke rather eloquently to this point. He said and im quoting, if i have come to know one truth out of the morass known as watergate it is in our free society when the rights of one individual are threatened the liberties of all of us are threatened. What is done unto everyone may be done unto everyone. There is one other man i reacted to rather poignantly, that was mr. Magruder when he was sentenced by the judge. He looked up at the judge and said, your honor i am sorry, i lost my moral compass. My ambition obscured my judgment and now i must look into the eyes of my wife, and see her pain, in the eyes of my children and see their confusion, in the eyes of my fellow man and see their contempt. But he said america will survive the jeb magruders and the watergates and i happen to agree with that principle. Mr. Chairman, the future of america is not dependent upon the success, the survival of any one man in Public Office, and if we believe that the president and the office of the president are one, then the president s failings become our undoing. I think that no one mind should be able to bind up our destiny, our perpetuation, our success with a change of his personal destiny. Its also been said to me that even if mr. Nixon did commit these offenses, every other president , every other president has engaged in some of the same conduct, at least to some degree, but the answer i think is that democracy, that solid rock of our system may be eroded away by degree, and its survival will be determined by the degree to which we will tolerate those silent and subtle diversions that absorb it slowly into the rule of a few in the name of what is right. Our laws and our constitution are and they must be more than a pious wish, more than a sanctimonious recital of what we should prefer but will not insist upon. Because we who hold the Public Office are more than simply craftsmen, and draftsmen who hammer out legislation for the benefit of the people of this country. Were the keepers of the flame. The symbol of this nations ideal. And we do the greatest disservice when we allow that flame to be diminished or snuffed out. One of the unfortunate things about this entire process is that there are some who would have you believe that the white house has been under unfair, and unmitigated assault by this congress, aided and abetted by the labor ral press. I happen to think that some of the gravest, the most melancholy of wounds are those that are selfinflicted. And i say that because im thinking of the doctrines of executive privilege, national security, valuable and viable doctrines that have been tainted because theyve been invoked for the wrong reason. And theyve been dealt a serious blow forever more, because you will always have the problem of doubt cast upon the invocation of these doctrines. Almost a cassandra the person who would invoke those doctrines in the future whether people will believe them or not. Just one final point if i may, mr. Chairman. Its been said that an impeachment proceeding will tear this country apart. To say that it will tear the country apart, to abide by the constitution is a proposition that i cannot accept. I think what would tear the country apart would be to turn our backs on the facts and our responsibilities to ascertain them. That in my opinion would do far more to start the unraveling of the fabric of this country and the constitution than would a strong reaffirmation of that great document. Mr. Chairman, ill take this opportunity to say what a privilege it has been for me to serve on this committee under your leadership and under the leadership of the gentleman from michigan mr. Hutchinson because youve been men of great honor and dedication and above all youve been very fair to each and every one of us to allow us this sort of participation to express our views. Thank you very much. Sent William Cohen thanks very much for being with us here on cspan3s American History tv. We had a chance to hear your Opening Statements from july of 1974. You were 33 years old. A former prosecutor from maine. Explain how you were trying to build your case against president nixon, and what you were facing as a republican. Well, its hard to reflect back now to see the kind of turmoil the country was in at that point. This had really never been done before. There was one prior impeachment proceeding, and that was against andrew johnson. And it failed. And so, it was very it was a very emotional issue for most people. Number one, trying to define what an Impeachable Offense was. As the phrase is high crimes and misdemeanors. What did that mean . Did it mean you had to have a criminal act . Did it mean that you could have a political judgment . How to define it and what was the burden of proof . Was it beyond a renal doubt . Preponderance of the evidence . Clear and convincing . We had all of these issues to deal with at a time when the country was really quite split. And it was an emotional time because there were things going on, there was a potential war in the middle east. There were things taking place in the world in which president nixon once regarded as a serious figure in the world, especially in Foreign Affairs, and for us at that point, to be questioning whether he should be removed or recommending that he should be removed from office, there were tensions certainly in this city, where bomb threats. I remember one night there was a bomb threat before our committee started, and i ended up in the longworth building on the lower level with historian white. He and i spent an hour or two together. Just talking about various issues that night while they were clearing out the building to see if there was a bomb there. So there were Death Threats taking place. My own family had received some. And so, it was a tough time. And the country was really in doubt as to whether we should be going through this process. And whether it was really partisan in nature. Whether democrats were out to get president nixon. Whether other president s had acted the same fashion. Whether they had taped individuals. Whether they had gained wealth during their presidencies. Et cetera. So this issues that were hardfought behind closed doors, and they were and they were out in the public. And i certainly was getting a lot of heat from my supporters back home. I had many people write to me. Tens of well id say thousands of people write to me and say theyd never support me again. That i was a traitor for even questioning the president on this issue. So i frankly was not prepared i was preparing to lose my seat. And that was the determination i said well, so be it. Thats not why i came, simply to be reelected. So whatever the facts are, ill go with the facts. And if im convinced that theres not sufficient evidence to propose to the house of representatives that the president be impeached, then thats what ill do. But you thought he was guilty . I did. I did. Why . And i came to that conclusion because i had, again, spent so much time listening to the evidence. Listening to the tape recordings. Measuring them against the transcripts. Examining witnesses. Making my own determination of what was the president doing in terms . Did he suborn perjury and i came to the conclusion that he did. Did he agree to pay hush money to some of the breakin personnel . Howard hunt and others. The answer to me was yes. Did he abuse the power of the office by having the cia interfere with the fbi in terms of their investigation . I went through the litany of issues, and i became persuaded that the president had, in fact, authorized these things. The payment, subornation of perjury, all of the things that were outlined in the first two articles of impeachment. I became convinced during the course of those long months of inquiry that he had, in fact, committed those offenses. So many players, bob haldeman and John Ehrlichman from the white house, and judge sirica, and others from your committee including Barbara Jordan of texas, they became household names. Yes. In the summer of 1974. With representative jordan in particular, did you have any interaction with her on this issue . A democrat from texas, youre a republican from maine . I really didnt have any interaction with barbara. Even though we had attended a session before we were even sworn in at harvard, john f. Kennedy institute of politics, we were both selected as part of four people to attend a several week session at harvard. We met there. But frankly, we had never had a discussion from the time that we met, and i think it was december of 1972, to the time that we conducted these sessions. We never spoke to each other. But you ran into her once. I did. It was following another, for me at least, significant moment. President nixon refused to turn over the tapes originally, and had gone on National Television. We had requested the president submit to the committee the actual tape recordings so that we could listen to them. The president went on National Television and put up a series of stacked a series of documents saying these are the edited transcripts, and i will make these public and never have a conversation so private been made so public. This is all youre going to get. I then asked peter odino the next day what he intended to do . He said im going to send a letter to the president requesting once again that he turn over the tapes. And i said is that it . He said that was it. Well we had a meeting about that. Republicans met. Democrats met. And republicans decided to oppose any letter to the president , the second letter. I disagreed with that decision and i went back to my office and wrote my own letter and i asked congressman and the chairman if he would recognize me as a substitute to his letter to take the partisanship out of it. He said ill recognize you but i cant support you and he explained the reason why because there were democrats on the committee who didnt want to send a letter. Didnt even support him. They wanted to impeach Richard Nixon. So he said he couldnt support me. I offered the amendment. It failed. And then when it came time to vote on his, i decided that he was doing the right thing and so i supported his motion. Well, i left that night, trying to get back into my office and ran into Barbara Jordan on an elevator and she simply said in that great voice, an almost british accent, that she said, bill, history one day will vindicate you. And thats all she ever said. Those are the only words we ever spoke during the entire time. July 1974, these House Judiciary Committee hearings, was it part of the epicenter of the watergate investigation . Was it the epicenter . I think it was. I think the hearings, the public hearings exposed to the public the sentiments of the people who represent this country. Across the entire political spectrum. There were those from conservative rural areas there were those from inner city, urban areas. They each, democrats and liberals, and conservative republicans, and some moderates, as it turned out, who were somewhere in the middle. And some of those Democratic Senators from the south who were really from nixon dominated areas of the south, had a tough time. And i think that came through with the various speeches that were offered, and you could hear and feel the pain, and the, i think the seriousness with which each member had to face up to his or her responsibilities. I think that came through, as i was listening to it. We thank you for your insights into this time period 40 years ago. And here is more from july 1974. The House Judiciary Committee. I recognize the gentle lady from texas, ms. Jordan, for purpose of general debate, not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, i join my colleague, mr. Wrangle in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy. But we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible. Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the preamble to the constitution of the United States. We, the people. Its a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the 17th of september, in 1787, i was not included in that we, the people. I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation and court decision, i have finally been included in we, the people. Did i am an inquisitor. And i probably would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that i feel right now. My faith in the constitution is whole. It is complete. It is total. And i am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the constitution. Who can so properly be the inquisitor for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves . The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, and thats what were talking about. In other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. It is wrong, i suggest, it is a misreading of the constitution, for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the president should be removed from office. The constitution doesnt say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body, the legislature, against and from the encroachments of the executive. The division between the two branches of the legislature, the house and the senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse, and to the other the right to judge. The framers of this constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges and the judges the same person. We know the nature of impeachment. Weve been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the president and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to the executive if he engages in excesses. It is designed as a method of National Inquest into the conduct of public men. The framers confided in the congress the power if need be to remove the president in order to strike a delicate balance between a president swollen with power and grown tyrannical and preservation of the independence of the executive. The nature of impeachment, a narrowly channeled exception, to the separation of powers maxim. The federal convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors. And discounted and opposed the term maladministration. It is to be used only for great mismisdemeanors so it was said in the North Carolina Ratification Convention and in the virginia Ratification Convention, we do not trust our liberty to a particular branch, we need one branch to check the other. No one need be afraid. The North Carolina Ratification Convention. No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity. Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community said hamilton in the federalist papers number 65. We divided the parties, more or less friendly to the accused. I do not mean Political Parties in that sense. The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment. But impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term high crime and misdemeanors. Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow Party Interest may secure a conviction. But nothing else can. Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do. Appropriations, tax reform, health insurance, Campaign Finance reform, housing, environmental protection, energy sufficiency, mass transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today were not being petty. Were trying to be big. Because the task we have before us is a big one. This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we are told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the cia by the president is thin. Were told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the president did know on june the 23rd, 1972. The president did know that it was republican money, that it was money from the committee for the reelection of the president which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on june the 17th. What the president did know on the 23rd of june, was the prior activities of e. Howard hunt, which included his participation in the breakin of daniel l. Berg, psychiatrist, which included howard hunts participation in the itt affair which included howard hunts fabrication of cables designed to discredit the kennedy administration. We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the president of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the president. The Committee Subpoena is outstanding. And if the president wants to supply that material the Committee Sits here. The fact is, that on yesterday, the American People waited with great anxiety for eight hours not knowing whether their president would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States. At this point, i would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the president has engaged in. Impeachment criteria. James madison. From the virginia Ratification Convention. If the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached. We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants, money, the president had knowledge that these funds were being paid, and these were funds collected for the 1972 president ial campaign. We know that the president met with mr. Henry peterson 27 times to discuss matters related to watergate and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information mr. Peterson was receiving, the words are, if the president is connected in any suspicious manner with any person, and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached. Just a story. Impeachment is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power, acting for the whole people, is put into operation to protect their rights, and rescue their liberties from violations. We know about the houston plan. We know about the breakin of the psychiatrists office. We know that there were absolute complete direction on september 3rd, when the president indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in dr. Fieldings office after having met with mr. Ehrlichman and mr. Young. Protect their rights. Rescue their liberties. From violation. The Carolina Ratification Convention impeachment criteria. Those are impeachment who behave amiss or betray their public trust. Beginning shortly after the watergate breakin and continuing to the present time, the president has engaged in a series of public statements, and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover the president has made public announcements and assertions, bearing on the watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave, those who behave amiss, or betray the public trust. James madison again at the Constitutional Convention. A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution. The constitution charges the president with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed. And yet, the president has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the constitution. If the impeachment provision in the constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th century constitution should be abandoned to a 20th century paper shredder. As the president committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced, in a course of conduct which the constitution will not tolerate. Thats the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason and not passion which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision. I yield back the balance of my time, mr. Chairman. I now recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. Sandman, for purposes of debate only, for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Sandman. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im not going to attempt to cover all of the charges that have been made. Im going to isolate my statements to the major charge of the watergate and watergate coverup. If it were not for that i dont think wed be here tonight. I think its altogether proper, too, to commence by making a little bit of a review on what weve done, where we are tonight, and where we hope to go from here. My mind is unchanged as a result of the Supreme Court decision today. I believe that this committee should go on with its work. There are sufficient votes here for an impeachment resolution. This, everyone knows. In fact, there has been that many votes here for a long time. Theres no use kidding anybody about that. So regardless of what is in the new tapes, a majority does exist here to impeach the president for some reason for another. Now, i think that to say that this is the most unusual proceeding that i have ever been a part of would be a tremendous understatement. The thing that amuses me is it is important as it is, and even though its been held in confidence behind closed doors, what i read in the papers from day to day lead me to believe i couldnt have been here. I must have been somewhere else. If we started in closed session, and we swore by everything that was holy that we would uphold the rules of confidentialty. That has been the joke of the century. There has been nothing confidential in this committee. Members of the other side have reported to the media every hour on the hour some every hour on the half hour. We have become the first forum in the history of man to release to the public every shred of information we have before a single decision was ever made. When did that ever happen before . Never. But weve done it. And then when we think about releasing information, im wondering, we have released tens of thousands of pages to the public, and to the media, to the media to destroy if they choose, and some people in the media like to do that. And this involves hundreds of innocent people. Where was the American Civil Liberties union about that . Isnt it strange that they have been remarkably silent . But willynilly we have been willing, through one method or another to give to the media whatever method they want to use it, every shred of evidence that exists. And most of it is not evidence. The interesting thing about this, too, is what happened the other day just for example. One thing that apparently the media hadnt had yet was a large document that had 715 pages in it about miscellaneous documents. I was asked and so were the other members of this committee asked, vote for the this thats hardly the way you conduct a good hearing, is it . But thats the way we have been work i working. Fortunately, that was defeated. And now another thing that happened the other day, i raised a question, which i thought was a good one. I wanted to know whether or not counsel could advise me as to whether or not the articles of impeachment should be specific. Should each article involve a similar subject, i thought it should. And the chairman hit the gavel and under the table that went so theres never been a decision on that point. And from the law, as i understand the law, the articles that we have been handed tonight dont fit what the law requires because of impeachment. Everything including the kitchen sink. And this they say from the best Information Available to me from some of the best legal minds in the world should not be. I wanted to know, but i got no answer. Now i have consistently said from time to time that the chairman has done a good job a fair job, and i think he has. I complimented the staff, i complimented counsel, both majority and minority, but theres never been much difference between those two. And i meant what i said then as i mean it tonight. When things started to change three weeks ago. Three weeks ago it changed from a nan partisan inquiry into a highly partisan prosecution, if ever there was one. Well, lets see what happened. Better than that i suppose i should do away with Current Events and get down to why were here tonight. And i hope that this has some advantage. I dont know as were going to change any votes. I hope we do. One way or another, i hope it serves a purpose. I can be persuade d. It gives me something that is direct. Ill move to impeach and maybe that should be the challenge for my 36 other colleagues tonight, 37 others. Now, i want to say this at the very outset. This is not a case as far as im concerned for or against Richard Nixon. I ran for governor in my state last year and Richard Nixon didnt bother me one blessed bit so i have no way to feel kindly toward him. Now secondly, this is the third time in my life that i have had to vote on whether or not because a coincidence is worth telling you about it. The first vote i cast in my life as a public official was when i was the youngest member, newly elected. The vote had to do with a democrat senator. If there was anything i think i know, its the new jersey election law. I listened to all the experts from around the country testifying. At that time, you only needed 11 republicans to sign a petition and we had 16 includiing me. I was the only republican that voted to e seat that democrat. As a result of a long investigation, it proved i was the only republican right. He was seated. 16 years to the day later, i cast my first vote and that was on the seating of adam clayton powell. What a coincidence. It made no difference what his name was. I voted my conscious as i understood the law without the persuasion of the Washington Post and others. I voted as i understood the law. I was one of only 13 republicans and i did not want adam seated. But under the constitution as i understand it, the congress did not have the right to exclude him for the reason they set forth. I was one of only 13 republicans who voted to seat adam clayton powell. Purely on a constitutional grounds. Only one of 13. I may be one of less than that tonight, who knows. And more than that, who cares. Im doing this the way i think it should be done. This is the way i believe i pledged my oath of office. There were only 13 republicans who voted to seat adam in the United States Supreme Court but only 13 republicans were correct. Because they reversed the congress and seated adam. Now for the first time in my life, i have to judge a republican, a man who holds the most and make no mistake about that. I look back over history and i try to judge what i should do here. This is the most important thing i shall ever do in my whole life, and i know it. Its far more important than whatever happens to me as a result of this vote. And i know history tells me that 107 years ago the country was thrown into a fit of hysteria. In less than three, president johnson was impeached during that fit of hysteria. That has dpoen down in history as one of the darkest moments in the government of this great nation. And i dont propose to be any part of a second blotch on the history of this great nation. How is it all done . The hysteria that was generated, should it be done . Lets not use some words by some great people. Lets use all of them and put them together. James madison, among other things, said that the president should be impeached only for something extremely serious, which affects his capability to conduct the affairs of the nation. And because of james madison, a word was inserted into that part of the constitution having to do with impeachment. He wasnt satisfied that it could be any crime because e he said it had to be a high crime, a serious one. Im not a nitpicker. You can find almost anything that will disturb you. Theres lots of things wrong. There were lots of crimes committed by lots of people. But were they placed at the door of the president . I dont think so. If you do, i will vote to impeach, but not what i have gotten so far. Madison said that the president should be removed only for the most serious offense. That who otherwise would deprive the right to select. To do otherwise would place a mechanism in the hands of a Majority Party that any time they choose they could throw the country in with turmoil to replace the achieve executive and that should never happen. So it shouldnt be kindny kind of a crime. It should be a serious crime. Executives ability to rule the nation. Some people say were here as a grand jury. I think were here as much more than a grand jury. And i do compliment his ability and one of the fairest who up to three weeks ago. But even he said the weight of evidence must be clear, it must be convincing, lets keep to those two words. You cant substitute them for anything else. Clear and convincing. Now prove to me they are clear and convincing and i will vote to impeach. But you cant attempt to remove the highest office in the world for anything less than clear and convincing. This is what i propose to do. No question about it. But were those wrongs directed by the president . Is there direct evidence that said he had anything to do about it . Of course, there is. Articles like this. Reliable news magazine, im told, what does it say . If this isnt trying to insight the people into a frenzy of good judgment, you tell me what is. News week, july 22nd, 1974. Evidence only half of an extremely damaging sentence. It says, quoting the president , i want you all to stone wall it. Let mem plead the fifth amendment. Save the plan. Terrible, isnt it . They left off the other half of the president. As did that very fair Washington Post when they buried on page 20 the other half of the sentence, which quoted the president as saying, but id rather it be done the other way. This is what has happened every day e every hour on the hour so we dont have to do this in fre frenzy. Lets do it the right way. The first tape of march 21, 1973, worried me to death. I made up my mind the president is cooked. He doesnt have a chance. But the following morning, i heard another tape that was made only three hours later on the same day. And that completely did away with what was happening in the first tape. So you cant use one tape as this fair magazine has done. You cant use one part of a tape as the Washington Post did. You have to use it all in context to arrive at the truth. This is what i suggest we do. Now, the purpose of any media to make the news, it is the purpose and the objective of the media to fairly report the news. Now to say as however, many weeks, everything that nixon knew, thats not proof. And i want to pose a point. I wonder what the prosecutor in the United States senator is going to do. I wonder what hes going to do. Is he going to plead his whole case on tapes because he cant use any of the witnesses we have. Any one of them testified no act of wrong doing on the part of the president. If you dont think so, go through the lot. Who is the man who handled the money. Louisiana rue, was there any involvement by the president . To the man who received the money, the attorney, did your client make any threat to get clemency from the president or any of his agents . The answer, no. As to the man who supposedly directed the payment of the money, the answer, no. Now with these kind of witnesses how do you prove that case before the senate . Is there a soul here who honestly believes that 67 out of 100 senators are willing to accept this kind of evidence. I dont think so. And i think this is why were here. This remaining someone, somehow will point out the fact that im only human and im not infallible. Maybe i overlooked something. Maybe there is a tiein with the president. All right, theres 37 of you. Give me that information. Give me the tool, because up to this moment, you havent. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. Ralsback for purposes of debate only not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Railsback . Chairman, thank you, and members of the committee by saying that you, mr. Chairman, i think in a rather difficult assignment with you because you know on many occasions i think you have handled yourself very well. And i think i can say for the most members of the committee that during these six months through the 38 volumes of evidence, the listening to the live witnesses morning, afternoon and night that i can be proud of my judiciary colleagues, most of them. I feel badly as Charlie Sandman did about the leaks, the selective leaks, some of which i think the newspapers made a mistake in playing. Although i know they have a job. I used to like to be on the House Judiciary Committee when we were worried about penal reform and juvenile delinquency, trying to improve some very important things in our country that needed improving, but im about to reconsider my assignment now that we have had amnesty, abortion, impeachment and now a bomb threat. Let me say that im one of those that has agonized over this particular inkwquiry. I think it would be difficult for me impeaching a democratic president i regarded as an awesome responsibility, one that i dont relish at all. That are considering impeaching a man Richard Nixon, who has been in my district twice campaigning for me, that i regard as a friend who only treated me kindly whenever i have had occasion to be with him. Im not one of those that would try to demean his record. In my opinion, Richard Nixon has done many wonderful things for this country, particularly in the field of Foreign Affairs and some day the historians are going to recognize the contributions that hes made. Let me say that i have been asked my members of the press whether my arm has been twisted because im one of the six or seven republicans that have been undecided. And i can answer that with an unequivocal no, that the Republican National chairman, george bush, is one of the most decent, honorable men and one of the Great National chairman of this party. John rhodes has treated me only decently, honestly, sometimes we have had differences of opinion, and i can say the same thing about my colleagues on this committee. The gentleman who sits to my left, who i regard as one of my best friends except on the golf course, who happens to disagree with my views on this particular important matter. Let me say our job as i view it is to try to push aside partisan considerations to try to be fair, to try to be judicious, to try to see that the president is afforded the same opportunities that have been afforded to other respondents in recent impeachment cases. There have been occasions that we have had substantial Party Divisions because some of us on the minority have not plooefed that the president has always been treated fairly procedurally, but ill tell you, with some democrats on the other side has acquiesced and given the right to cross examine, the right to call the witnesses that he wanted to call. I have two serious areas of concern in respect to the allegations of misconduct that have been levelled against the president. The case has been made on the issue of the bribery charges on i. T. T. , the bribery charges from the tapes that i have heard, the evidence that i have heard. I disagree with my good friend henry smith. I dont think cambodia. I dont think this president should be held to account for a bombing in cambodia when those of you who have read the best and the brightest have read probably the greatest indictment of the two previous administrations about untrue distortions, statistics that were not accurate. I want to share with my colleagues, i want to share with my constituents my concerns. They relate to what i would call the abuse of power. I cant think of an area where a conservative or a moderate about the state of our government. On september 11th, john dean called the commissioner of Internal Revenue to his office. Commissioner walders, where he committed a socalled government contributors and government supporters and ordered the commissioner to audit those people. The commissioner didnt want to audit those people. He said he would have to check with secretary shultz. On september, entered into a conversation with john dean that began at 27 minutes after 5 00 and lasted until 17 minutes after 6 00. We have a tape recording of that conversation up until 6 00. 15minute segment has not been produced according to a subpoena. Its been subpoenaed by jaworsky, the special prosecutor to again listen to that 17minute segment to e see if it perhaps might not be relevant. The judge in his reconsideration determined that 13 of the 17 minutes were indeed relevant. According to john deans testimony, which has not yet been released but will be released, you will learn that according to john dean, and i think john dean knows that tape is going to be made public, that the president knew about this ordered audit. It was his impression that he knew about it beforehand. The president made some derogatory remarks about secretary shultz and called him Something Like a candy ass. I didnt send him over there to be a candy ass. If there is anything thats going to affect adversely our democracy, our individual e freedoms, its the misuse of a Sensitive Agency or the cia. Let me just tell you a little bit about watergate. What concerns me about on august 2th, the president held a News Conference where he stated that he had had the department of justice, the fbi, he said he directed his on counsel. John dean to investigate water gate to determine if there was any white house involvement. As far as we know it, the evidence john dean had never reported to him, had never been with the president , the white house logs show that. John deans testimony is to the effect he didnt even know about such a report until the president s press conference. What was john dean june 19th he was meeting with mitchell mcgruder at which meeting jeb mcgruder was told to have a fire, to burn some documents, incriminating evidence. Then on june 23rd, they decided when it was reported to them that there was some money involved that had perhaps been laundered in mexico that money had that had gone to the creep, what did they do . When the president got ahold of the cia to determine if the cia shouldnt influence the fbi, not to pursue that because of covert activities. For awhile the cia agreed. They found there was absolutely nothing to hide. They went back. Dean still persisted and wanted them not to interview witnesses that were relevant. What did they do on june 23rd . They established john dean. Pat gray on july 6th, the director of the so incensed that after a meeting with walders, e he first called mcgruder and then the president called him and pat ray felt compelled to tell the president some of your top staff are mortally wounding you. Then we go into the poerd of the 15th. The president finally did meet john dean. The president after talking to holderman congratulated him for plugging leaks and talking abdomen containment and something about cutting losses or Something Like that. Then you go into the next period, march 21st. Then me say that i dont think the president directed the payment of hush money. I dont think we can make that allegation. But let me tell you what happened. The president on march 20th ordered john dean. Things were beginning to get a little hot. The president on march 20th ordered john dean to conduct a report, another report. This is the second dean report. He says, thats right, this is the president speaking, try just something general like i have checked into this matter. I can categorically based on my investigation the following. Halderman is not involved in this. That and the other thing. Mr. So and so did not do this. Mr. Blank did not do this, right down the line. If there are any further questions, please let me know. The next morning john dean advised, john dean advised the president that ur lick man was implicated, halderman was implicated, that john dean himself was implicated. What did the president do at that point . That afternoon i wont say what he said about the hush money. They talked about the Million Dollars and the 120,000. Its important that we get that right away, isnt it . John dean says its important we send a signal. So the president said, well for christs sake, get it. Then there is another conversation as my friend from new jersey said, which kind of leaves that up in the air. But later on that afternoon, again, the president referred to a report that he wanted dean to write. Only this time the president had knowledge of who was allegedly involved. And he says this it, i dont want to get all that expletive specific. Im thinking now in far more general terms having in mind that the problem with the specific report proves this one and that one and that one and you just proved something, you didnt do it at all. But if you make it general in terms of your investigation indicates that this man did not do it, this man did not do it. And so forth. What happened after march 21st. The president ordered john dean to go to camp david to make a report. John dean could not make that report. On september 5th the president had a press conference. This was after everything had kind of blown up. The president in his press conference went back to the john dean report and said when it became apparent to me that john dean couldnt make a report, i assigned it to john urlicman. Now what was the status of john at that point . John had already been implicated in the watergate coverup himself by john dean on the morning of march 21st. John ur lickman denied he had made any investigation a the that point. Then we have john dean blow iin the whistle by going to the the u. S. Attorneys on june 8th followed by mcgruder on june 13th. Then finally said, he said on june 14th the jig is up. The u. S. Attorney called Henry Peterson, the head of the criminal division, and he said a, henry, we have broken the watergate case. Henry peterson contacted, finally this began the midapril meetings with Henry Peterson. What happened at this midapril meetings with Henry Peterson . On april 16th, from 1 39 to 3 25, the president met with Henry Peterson. The president promised to treat confidential any the president emphasized that it peterson, youre talking only to me and theres not going to be anybody else on the white house staff. In other words, im acting counsel. The president suggested that only exception might be dick moore. When peterson expressed reservation, the president said, lets just better keep it with me then. In an afternoon conversation in that same day, a telephone conversation when the president called peter son, he said, henry, feel free to confide in me. Im going to keep it confidential. I know the rules of the grand jury. What did he do with the information that Henry Peterson gave to him . Henry peterson, who was taking the place as really the chief investigator in the watergate case, the president on april 17th met with halderman who had been implicated again by information that was given to Henry Peterson and Henry Peterson had revealed it to the president and the president advised at that point halderman that he better get together with john and map out some kind of a strategy on the money. Then theres the big deletion. I dont know what the material deleted is. Then he comes back and says what about calmback . Whats he going to say about the money . He says, you better get ahold of calmback and tell him that larue is speaking freely. I just wonder myself, im concerned about the president s actions not so much not about the breakin or what happened earlier. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from missouri for purposes of general debate any. I yield two minutes to my distinguished colleague. Hes recognized for two minutes. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just try to finish very briefly. It was shortly thereafter that on april 24th and april 25th, and i believe on april 26th that the president ordered halderman that the president ordered halderman to listen to certain tapes that i think only he and halderman knew had been made in the white house. Halderman listened to tapes that were made in february and march. He reported to the president on april 26th and he spent, i think, it was five hours with the president. We have subpoenaed that tape. Baz we think its relevant and had support from both republicans and democrats and thats one of the tapes where halderman was reporting to the president after spending two days listening it these tapes chrks we dont have. I just kept help but wonder when you put all this together and n that kind of perspective, i am concerned. And im seriously concerned. I wish the president would do something, i wish he would come forward with the information we have subpoenaed. Some of my people say that the country cannot afford, that we cannot afford to impeach a president. Let me say to many of these are good supporters and friends. Let me say to them i have spoken to countless others including many, many young people. And if the young people in this country think that were going to not handle this thing fairly, if were not going to try to get to the truth, youre going to see the most frustrated people, the most turned off people, the most disallusioned people and its going to make the period of lbj in 1968 look tame. I hope we keep our eye on trying to e get to the truth. Thank you. Recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, father drinan, for purposes of general debate only for a period of 15 minutes. Father drinan. Members of the committee, in the long summer of 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in philadelphia, the delegates from my own state of massachusetts consistently opposed including impeachment in the constitution. Massachusetts argued on july 20th of that year that american law unlike that of england would provide for a genuine separation of powers, judicial review and the regular elections by the people. Hence it was argued the remedy of impeachment, which had been frequently abused in england would not be necessary in america. The delegates reasoned on that day that impeachment would impose a penalty in the absence of any specific statute, which would make known to those to all citizens the punishment that they would expect for their offenses. Massachusetts in that year wanted america to aspire to the idea already stated in the constitution of massachusetts a government of laws and not of men. Only South Carolina voted with massachusetts to omit impeachment from the constitution. Massachusetts then as so often stood almost alone. During this summer, mr. Chairman, i have wondered countless times whether or not the delegates from massachusetts from 1787 were, after all, correct in their judgment. That impeachment was unnecessary, unwise and indeed dangerous. My concern over this question has deepened as i have witnessed the process of selecting articles of impeachment on the basis of whether they will fly. I have been deeply troubled because the process of choosing articles of impeachment is not necessarily done in the order of their gravity, but to some extent on their capacity to play in peoria. Theres been no shortage of facts on which to focus in this inquiry. But only history will discover why the greatest deception and probably the most impeachment offense of Richard Nixon may not become a charge against him. I speak of the concealment of the clan decent war in cambodia. I do not reach the claim merits of the bombing. I speak only of its concealment. We see in this series of events the same abuse of power and the same techniques of coverup employed by the president and his associates in the aftermath of watergate. Like the gentleman from new york, i am profoundly disturbed at the massive coverup of the facts during and after the secret bombing raids where b52s went over cambodia during a period of 14 months from march 69 to may 1970. I remember well my absolute con city nation on july 16, 1973, when the cambodian bombings were revealed for the first time. I learned on that day that president nixon had misled me and the entire nation when he had said three years prior to that time on april 30, 1970, that quote, for the past five years we have provided no military assistance whatsoever and no economic assistance to cambodia, unquote. The calculated coverup, like watergate, unravelled by dent. We heard about it because a Foreign Correspondent happened to report on his discovery of the thousands of craters made by american b52s. There was no justification for maintaining secrecy about that war. The cambodians knew, everyone knew except the people of america, and this information was withheld from them until is happened to come out. The only reason for the deception of congress and the country was the president s political objective of deceiving and quieting the antiwar movement. The president orchestrated a conspiracy to keep the lid on cambodia until after the election of 1972. The facts of this president iallyelected conspiracy do not come from taped conversations or mere infrances. They come from a testimony of general earl wheeler, head of the joint chiefs of staff. He testified in july 1973 that the president told him not once, but at least a half dozen times that the bombing of cambodia must never be revealed. He also acknowledged that the pentagon was following the president s command of secrecy when the pentagon invented the deceptive system of dual reporting by which airstrikes in cambodia were recorded as having vietnam. James madison stated that the power to declare war in Congress Must include everything to make that power effective in the congress. Congress and congress alone had the right and the duty to judge whether the United States was justified in making or not making war in cambodia. President nixon usurped that right. Can we be silent about this violation of the constitution . Can we impeach a president for unlawful wiretapping but not impeach a president for unlawful war making . Can we impeach a president for concealing a burglary, but for not for concealing a massive bombing . Many deceptions were carried out on the congress itself. In april 1970 the secretary of the army told a Senate Subcommittee that no military aid had been given to cambodia. In may 1970 general wheeler gave misle misleading testimony to a committee of this house. In 1971 the secretary of the air force reported to the senate that no bombing strikes had occurred in cambodia prior to may 1, 1970. Those who assert that the president has the power to bomb cambodia and keep it secret for years has the burden of justifying the deception of congress to the falsification of documents, and three, the statement of the then secretary of defense to the effect that the air raids over cambodia should have been revealed in 1970. To these persons who would justify the nature and the secrecy and the conspiracy, do they have an answer to the statement made by senator stewart simonington . Senator simonington asked the question, the congress authorized 130 million for warfare in vietnam, but they never appropriated that sum of money for war in cambodia. In and around my Congressional District in eastern massachusetts, there lived the descendents of those who fought at lexington. Those american revolutionaries two centuries ago took up arms in a desperate and determined effort to gain the precious right of knowing and participating in the processes of their own government. The men who fought in the revolution gathered in philadelphia from may to september 1987. They came together to create a government where no one ever again would have to enter into an armed rebellion to vindicate his right to be free of tyranny. And for the framers of the constitution, the other tyranny was war. Carried on illegally by the executive without the knowledge or consent of the congress. Mr. Randolph of virginia stated in the Constitutional Convention that the president under the constitution that they were writing would have great opportunities of abusing his power particularly in the time of war. Against that other tyranny, the authors of the constitution adopted impeachment as the ultimate remedy. Within a thousand days, we as americans will commemorate the 200th anniversary of that fight for freedom that began on the rude bridge at concorde. We will be worthy of those who fought on our behalf in 1776. If we fight for the rule of law as they set it forth in what is now the oldest written constitution, still in use in the entire world. Finally, mr. Chairman, we will be worthy of those who brought freedom to america only if we continue to remember as we have that is impeachment is designed as the one way by which a president can vindicate himself. Colonel george mason reminded the framers of the constitution that the impeachment proceeding is e designed to vindicate the rights of the people against a tyrant, but it is also provided so that there will be honorable acquitable for a public official should he be unjustly accused. Whatever the outcome the American Government would be purified and strengthened and in that process, all of us would become, as never before, free men in a free society. Purposes of general debate for period not to exceed 15 minutes. I wish to join my other colleagues in commending you for the matter in which you have presided over these hearings. I u believe that you have been fair to the republican minority in recognizing and calling upon them when their turn has come to speak. I believe on some issues we have been successful in improving the quality of these hearings in resolutions, which the minority has supported and has been adopted by the full committee. I do wish, however, to express strong exception in the manner in which the staff on some occasions have handled these hearings. For one thing, i believe that the decision was made early. That instead of calling witnesses in a subpoena to take their depositions, the staff determined that instead they could call only those people who wanted to volunteer to be called and to have an affidavit presented to the committee. Now i understand the reason for this because they didnt want to get the president s counsel having the right of crossexamination, which i believe was absolutely necessary in order that the committee get a well rounded version of what had happened. Any witness that has not subjected to crossexamination certainly is able to supply selfserving testimony. I believe also that the staff was incorrect in the decision they made not to call a larger number of witnesses before this committee for the committees interrogation. I read most of the material in the 39 volumes that had been presented to us, im not going to say i read every single word. I read 95 of it. It could take you days just to get through it. But most of the materials that were contained in those volumes were testimony from other hearings, opinions, memorandums that had been secured from one place or another. Hearsay evidence, materials that would not be admissible in a court of law. And i want the testimony and the affidavit and the materials that we consider to be such that it would be admissible in a court of law and something that we and the American People could count on for its validity and i just dont believe that the contents of those 39 volumes can be judged in that manner. We had nine people that aperiod before this committee. We had some very important witnesses, although there were some very important ones that we didnt have. I thought two or three of those witnesses were exceptionally candid and valuable to these hearings. I thought mr. Kohlson did an excellent job in presenting his point of view and covering a great deal of ground we needed to know about before we made a decision. And in the end his testimony was almost all excullexcu pi toir oe president. The only area there was question about president ial responsibility was that the president had ordered him to release materials pertaining to mr. Elsburg. Its true that mr. Coalson later pled guilty to obstruction of justice on the grounds he released such materials. But he testified to this e committee that every single word that he released was true and that the reason for releasing that material was that dr. Elseburg was engaging in a bat toll deceive the American People and that it was necessary for the administration to bring out their sides so the people who have a full picture of what was going on. The trial didnt take place until 20 months later. And he in giving the reasons for his plea told us that he was so concerned with the rights of a defendant to have a free trial that he wanted to be able to come to this committee and tell us everything he knew without jeopardizing his trial and by making an example for anyone who in the public print would hurt any defendant who had been indicted and prior to trial. Half the press were be in jail if that were a criminal offense in which a person could be guilty. I was also impressed by the testimony that was given by mr. Butterfield. He talked to our committee about his job in great detail about where his particular office was in connection with the oval offi office. It happened to be right outside the door. His job was to carry all the materials that the president was to see that day into the president s office. Act more like an inbox and to get all the materials that the president was sending back out with his notes and comments that he had made during his peruse l of materials. Mr. Butterfield, when interrogated, testified that he had that total access and e he also testified that he knew by the president in the watergate before it happened and on questioning or was involved in any coverup and he said, oh, no, absolutely not. You are correct. We have other testimony that exonerates the president so far as culpability. Mr. Mitchell was testifying before the committee as a live witness. He was asked by mr. Doran did you have any discussion with him in respect to this payment for Attorney Fees . Mr. Mitchell, absolutely not. Attorney fees, absolutely not. Did the president say anything to you about that . No, sir. Will h you my previous occasions discussed with the fact that money was being paid . No, sir. Now mr. Mitchell was the man to whom larue turned for permission to pay the last money. Apparently from the testimony and whether it was on the 20th or 21st of april is not march, im sorry, is not totally clear, but mr. Larue had come to the office where he had talked to mr. Hunt to mr. Dean and asked his authorization to pay the 75,000. Mr. Dean told him he wasnt dealing with Money Matters and that he would have to talk to mitchell. In the conversation with mitchell, larue told mitchell that more money was needed for Attorney Fees, 75,000, and another sum for the maintenance of the family of mr. Hunt while he was in prison. Well, the total amount was rejected and a figure of 75,000 was approved by mitchell. But the insurance it looks for attorney e fees. The president didnt know and then going to deans conversation with the president immediately following which was the first time that the president of the United States has been thoroughly briefed on what had been going on, supposedly, dean failed to tell the president this very most important fact. I would submit u to you its the most damaging evidence against the president and yet dean has failed to tell the truth so many times during these proceedings not just to us but in other hearings that you almost lose count. For instance, we were told before this committee, his testimony was very good, that on december 22nd, 1972, he interrogated mr. Dean for three solid hours as to what had happened to the contents of the safe. Dean told him about the things that had been turn ed over to m. Gray, told about the things that had been turned over to the Attorney Generals Office but denied any knowledge of anything further including these note pooks that were missing and discussed in the press. Then mr. Dean apparently between that time and the time he app r appeared before the Senate Watergate hearing, although the exact time is not clear to e me, he got these two notebooks out of his safe and destroyed them. He appeared before the watergate committee, told them absolutely not one single word about this most important fact of his personal involvement. When he came to our committee, he told our committee that he had destroyed those documents and when asked why he hadnt told the Senate Watergate committee, he said it wasnt in his consciousness at the time. How could a man forget something so very important of his own personal involvement when he remembered Everything Else under the sun. And how can we believe him in the testimony that hes given against the president of the United States when he as the president s personal counsel didnt bring him up to date fully about deans personal involvement and about the most important fact that the steps were motions to pay the 75,000. I know we all are seeking the truth. And im most concerned that we do Everything Possible to make this government the most honest government on earth. I believe in a high moral standard for our government, for our president , for our congressmen. It is a matter of highest concern to me. When i make the decision on the matter of the impeachment of the president i want to make the decision that i can live for for the rest of my life. I fully believe that this decision is far more important than my political career. As all of us have, i have had many threats from people who want impeachment saying they will walk the streets against me if i dont vote for it. But when i consider how im going to vote on this matter, no how important it is to me and the country that we make the right decision, i have to kind of look to see what kind of a man i think Richard Nixon is and to see who i believe in this proceedings. I have to be sure that the testimony thats going to be offered has a Strong Enough value to convince me that he has been guilty of a major crime against this country. In each instance as we get right down to the final point, theres a big mote that you have to jump across to get the president involved, and i cannot jump over that mote. I know it would be easy to vote for impeachment here tonight. Everyone here practically saying, hard to be against something so many people are for. When the press is united before us, when the magazines are, the media of all kinds when a majority of American People go in that direction. But i could not vote for impeachment and give up what is so important to e me, my own conscience of what i believe is right and wrong, and i believe this thing is wrong. And i believe that to come to the conclusion that the staff has come to, they have had to be guilty of coming to a false conclusion in so many of these individual instances. I dont agree with our chairman when e he says theres only one side to this case. There are two sides. The most important virtue of our country, of our constitution is the right to take a different point of view. The right to stand up for the thing that you believe in. I dont criticize any of my friends to come to another conclusion. But i think that the president of the United States has in most instances although i deplore any elements that we see in the tapes of moral knowledge or feeling in some instances, but i believe that the president of the United States have tried to come to the best conclusions that he could for our people. I dont stand for any coverup. I think that coverup is wrong. The men that could be convicted should be kwibted. I dont think we should ever keep things from our people. Its perhaps all of us have said the most important and most tough moment of our lives as we go over all of these matters and i listen to the arguments on both sides. But i have heard these tapes and i have watched to see whats happened later and in so many instances in listening it to the tapes, youre dead sure something is going to happen and exactly the opposite takes place. The president orders findings to fire the man thats in charge of the i. T. T. Case. What happened . Two or three days later, appeal is taken as the vegs will be fired, they go forward and a decision is made by agreement with i. T. T. Thats absolutely contrary to the interest of i. T. T. And goes absolutely in the other direction. Thank you for hearing my point of view. I hope and pray that god guides this committee to make the right decision for our nations future. I thank the chairman and i thank my colleague from illinois for his discussion and i hope that history will record you received the clearest explanation of this problem on the time of the gentleman from missouri. Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege to serve on this committee for ten years and never have i been prouder of this committee and the privilege of serving on it than i am during this period of its most supreme testing. For weeks, even months, we have has come for decisions. Further delay is unjustive eyable. The time consuming task of