country. that myth that you described it was that everybody is bound by the law and nobody is above it. when you say the president is above it it unraveled. it was basically a breach of faith. you believe you will not abuse it. he will not take his position to interfere with the flow of justice and to use neutral ib strewents of the government like the irs that any way interferes with the due process. i think the country being able to here all the evidence and then come to the conclusion saying we're persuaded that he

has in fact either authorized the bake in or personal the cover up. we were persuaded beyond a convincing case that he should stand trial in the political sense of having to have a trial in the senate but nobody felt great about it. most people get burdened. they didn't want to. we felt there was no alternative. we were the elected officials and had a duty to see whether the highest officer in the country had breached his duty. >> william cohen, 1974, a republican member of the house judiciary committee. thank you for being with us. >> thank you for being with us on cspan's 3 american history tonight. tv 8:00 eastern time sunday

evening we will continue our look at house judiciary committ committee. our coverage of the 40th anniversary of water gate continues including debate over article two which charge nixon of abuse with power. you will also hear from the forrer director of the library and museum and explains how the committee's vote affecting our understanding of presidential power today. american ht, water gate 40 years later. saturday noon, a live call in

program with author and judgist john feral on nixon's life and water gate skapdal that 40 years ago in july the house judiciary committee began hearings to consider articles of impeachment against president nixon. up next a selection of opening statements delivered by committee members, including barbara jordan, william cohen, strength lott, and committee chairman peter rodino. first a brief conversation with william cohen. he was a republican member of the committee in 1974. now he gives a behind-the-scenes account of the proceedings. secretary william cohen, in july 1974, you were a freshman

representative from maine, a republican, a member of the house judiciary committee and after months of closed door meetings the public session and the articles of impeachment were about to introduced before the committee that you served on. what was happening? >> well, republicans were gathering, obviously, and caucusing. i assume the democrats were doing the same thing. there really was very little discussion among the members, i would say i didn't have a discussion until the night before we actually went public. it was the day before. and i met with tom railsback in his office. he had invited a number of people to drop by for coffee, and it was at that meeting that i first saw what group might be willing amongst the republicans and democrats who were at least inclined to vote against impeachment who might come that morning.

i was surprised. i met jim mann and talked to him for the first. robert flowers, i talked to him for first time. ray thornton was there, henry smith. and caldwell butler. we met at that point and said is there anything here that we really all of us could agree on? that would constitute either an abuse of process or abuse of power, i should say or obstruction of justice. we went through all the evidence that we felt that was pretty convincing, and i think at that point i knew who was going to be voting for and who against, at least their inclination. then we went public the next day. >> so, you were a 33-year-old freshman and a republican.

>> it was not a happy moment. frankly i was distressed throughout. i knew that this was going to be the most important decision i would probably ever be called upon to make, and i tribd as well prepared as i possibly could. i had spent the previous six years, three it as a prosecutor, three as a defense attorney and so my focus was on evidence and analyzing the evidence without regard to political affiliation or partisan affiliation. i had very strong blinkers on and just looking at the facts. if the be facts justified impeachment resolution i would support it. >> there were a lot of factions on this committee or was it a black and whitish. did people have an opinion one way or the other? >> i think for the most part it was pretty partisan from the

beginning. die not come from a partisan background. i had served on the bongor city council which was nonpartisan as such and mayor of bangor and never had to deal with hard political issues. when i got to congress i found there were deep resentments on the part of both democrats towards republicans and republicans towards democrats and i found that -- i found myself to kind of being naive in terms of let's find out what facts are and decide on the merits. it was pretty clear that there were very committed democrats to impeaching richard nixon from the beginning and republicans were inclined to oppose it almost across the board. it didn't turn out that way but those were the two balancing forces on the committee. >> what kind of pressure were you under? >> well a lot of psychological pressure making sure we all

stood together and that republicans tended to look at the case as being an objective, a partisan objective of the democrats to reverse the election and without merit it was simply a political ploy on their part to embarrass president nixon. some of the democrats look at it as a way to get at richard nixon because they really didn't like the outcome of the election and didn't particularly care for him. so it was in the middle of that kind of crossfire, as such, that i found myself, and it was not a comfortable position to be in but one that i felt i was committed to trying to decide it on the merits. >> so, you were asked to play any particular role by the leadership or did you serve as a lone member of this committee, a republican who felt that the president should face impeachment questions? >> i was never asked to play any role other than just prior to going public.

in some of the private hearings i certainly was as well prepared as any member and perhaps even better prepared than most members with some exception, chuck wiggins of california, terrific lawyer and great backer of president nixon and he was very gifted and knowledgeable. but i tried to immerse myself and i had peopmemorized the sen hearings and so when they came before our committee i would be as well prepared as anyone to debate tissues and ask the right questions. i found from time to time even democrats would yield their time to me which didn't make it really comfortable in those circumstances where they would take two of their five minutes or three and then yield the balance of their time to me. that made it a little bit uncomfortable during that time. but, again, i was acting as an attorney, and as a potential prosecutor or defender, i was

looking at what do the facts show, what does the testimony show, what can i draw from this and then i dedicated days to listening to the tapes. and i worked through the tapes with the transcripts to try and make a determination if something was omitted or there was laughter or swearing, expletives that were deleted to see if they were done in jest, done as a threat, i associated myself with a very important case. >> during this time period, secretary cohen, did you have any contact with the nixon white house? did the president reach out the, his senior staff to say hey, these are the facts? >> i never had -- well i had one contact with president nixon when miss teenage of america was named the winner and i was asked to take her to meet with president nixon and i did.

we obviously, didn't have any conversation about what was going on but it was also fairly uncomfortable, but he was very gracious and confiding to the winner and congratulating her. but that was it. then one other time when we were brought as part of a rally. >> do you remember what the president -- >> he gave a stump winder about what he had accomplished and what he wanted to do and how this, this really was something that we had to stand behind him and i remember him saying, i may be a son of a bitch but i'm your son of a bitch and that's way the meeting closed out. >> we'll hear in a moment some opening statements from the house judiciary committee july

1974. he basically complained to our viewers who will be watching this in a moment the positioning between democrats and republicans on this committee and their opening statements? >> the tone was set by chairman rodi rodino. he tried to be as, appeal to the nonpartisanship as much as important, but clearly there were people on his side that were predisposed from the beginning to find richard nixon guilty of impeachable offenses. i think we pretty much anticipated that. we could see from the way in which the private sessions were held who was doing the questioning, what was the tone in which they asked questions and so you could pretty much tell who was, who was going to go in which direction, at least, with the exception of some of the democrats from the south, who really found themselves in a difficult position because they

came from districts that were -- where president nixon was heavily supported. so for them their careers were on the line as well and they tended to be fairly cautious during the course of the examinations. it was hard to tell. some were hard core for and some who were pretty tentative looking at the facts but understanding that they were in difficult positions as well. so, it was hard to know exactly who was going to vote which way in terms of the totality of the groups but i think the night before, the day before when congressman railsback held that meeting in his office, when i saw the seven people who were there as such knew pretty much how they would vote. >> secretary cohen, thank you for your perspective. from the house judiciary committee the impeachment hearings. you'll hear the opening statements including that of congressman bill cohen, freshman

republican from maine. will allow me a personal reference. throughout all of the painstaking proceedings of this committee, i, as the chairman, have been guided by a simple principle: the principle that the law must deal fairly with every man. for me, this is the oldest principle of democracy. it is this simple but great principle which enables man to live justly and in decency in a free society. it is now almost 15 centuries since the emperor justinian, from whose name the word justice is derived, established this principle for the free citizens of rome. seven centuries have now passed since the english barons

proclaimed the same principle by compelling king john, at the point of a sword, to accept the great doctrine of magna carta. the doctrine that the king, like each of his subjects, was under god and law. almost two centuries ago, the founding fathers of the united states reaffirmed and refined this principle so that he or all men are under the law and it is only the people who are sovereign. so speaks our constitution. and it is under our constitution the supreme law of our land that we proceed through the sole power of impeachment. we have reached the moment when we are ready to debate

resolutions whether or not the committee on the judiciary should recommend that the house of representatives adopt articles calling for the impeachment of richard m. nixon. make no mistake about it. this is a turning point whatever we decide. our judgment is not concerned with an individual but with a system of constitutional government, it has been the history, and the good fortune, of the united states ever since the founding fathers that each generation of citizens and their officials have been, within tolerable limits, faithful custodians of the constitution

and of the rule of law. for almost 200 years, every generation of americans has taken care to preserve our system and the integrity of our institutions against the particular pressures and emergencies to which every time is subject. this committee must now decide a question of the highest constitutional importance. for more than two years there have been serious allegations by people of good faith and sound intelligence that the president, richard m. nixon, has committed grave and systematic violations of the constitution. last october, in the belief that such violations had in fact occurred, a number of

impeachment resolutions were introduced by members of the house and referred to our committee by the speaker. on february 6th, the house of representatives by a vote of 410-4 authorized and directed the committee on the judiciary to investigate whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach richard m. nixon, president of the united states. the constitution specifies that the grounds for impeachment shall be, not partisan consideration, but evidence of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. since the constitution vests the sole power of impeachment in the house of representatives, it falls to the judiciary committee

to understand even more precisely what high crimes and misdemeanors might mean in terms of the constitution and the facts before us in our time. the founding fathers clearly did not mean that a president might be impeached for mistakes -- even serious mistakes - which he might commit in the faithful execution of his office. by high crimes and misdemeanors they meant offenses more definitely incompatible with the constitution. the founding fathers with their recent experience of monarchy and their determination that government be accountable and lawful wrote into the constitution a special oath that the president and only the president must take at his

inauguration, and in that oath the president swears that he will take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the judiciary committee has for seven months investigated whether or not the president has seriously abused his power in violation of that oath and the public trust embodied in it. we have investigated fully and completely what within our constitution and traditions would be grounds for impeachment. for the past 10 weeks we have listened to the presentation of evidence in documentary form, to tape recordings of 19 presidential conversations and to the testimony of nine witnesses called before the entire committee.

we have provided a fair opportunity for the president's counsel to present the views of the president to this committee. we have taken care to preserve the integrity of the process in which we are now engaged. we have deliberated, we have been patient, we have been fair. now the american people, the house of representatives and the constitution and the whole history of our republic demand that we make up our minds. as the english statesman edmund burke said, during an impeachment trial in 1788, it is by this tribunal that statesmen who abuse their power are accused by statesmen and tried

by statesmen. not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence, but upon the enlarged and solid principles of state morality. under the constitution and under our authorization from the house of representatives, this inquiry is neither a court of law nor a partisan proceeding. it is an inquiry which must result in a decision, a judgment based on facts which must stand for all time. in his statement of april 30th, the 1972, president nixon told the american people that he had been deceived by subordinates into believing that none of the members of his administration or his personal campaign committee

were implicated in the watergate break-in and that none had participated in efforts to cover up that illegal activity. a critical question this committee must now decide is whether the president was deceived by his closest political associates or whether they were, in fact, carrying out his policies and decisions. this question must be decided one way or the other. it must be decided whether the president was deceived by his subordinates into believing that his personal agents and key political associates had not been engaged in a systematic cover-up of the illegal political intelligence operation

of the identities of those responsible and of the existence and scope of other related activities affecting the rights of citizens of these united states. or whether, in fact, richard m. nixon in violation of the sacred obligation of his constitutional oath has used the power of his high office for two years to cover up and conceal responsibility for the watergate burglary and other activities of a similar nature. in short, the committee has to decide whether in his statement of april 30th and other public statements the president was telling the truth to the american people, or whether that

statement and other statements were part of a pattern of conduct designed not to take care that the laws were faithfully executed, but to impede their faithful execution for his political interests and on his behalf. there are other critical questions that must be decided. we must decide whether the president abused his power in the execution of his office. the great wisdom of our founders entrusted this process to the collective wisdom of many men. each of those chosen to toil for the people at the great forge of democracy, the house of representatives, has a responsibility to exercise independent judgment. i pray that we will each act with the wisdom that compels us

in the end to be but decent men who seek only the truth. let us be clear about this: no official, no concerned citizen, no representative, no member of this committee welcomes an impeachment proceeding. no one welcomes the day when there has been such a crisis of concern that he must decide whether high crimes and misdemeanors, serious abuses of official power or violations of public trust have, in fact, occurred. let us also be clear. our own public trust, our own commitments to the constitution is being put to the test. such tests historically have come to the awareness of most peoples too late, when their rights and freedoms under law

were already so far in jeopardy and eroded that it was no longer in the people's power to restore constitutional government by democratic means. so let us go forward. let us go forward into this debate with good will, with honor and decency, and with respect for the views of one another. whatever we now decide we must have the integrity and the decency, the will and the courage, to decide right. let us leave the constitution as unimpaired for our children as our predecessors left it for us. i now recognize the gentleman from michigan.

>> i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waldie. >> mr. chairman, i join, i think, with every member of this committee and the recognition of perhaps the unworthiness of almost everyone confronting this enormous decision in their ability to make a decision that will be perfect in all respects. but i also want to make it as clear as i possibly can that i accept that responsibility and that i think it is part of the genius of this system that fallible human beings are called upon to exercise a judgment of this enormity.

after having sat through these hearings through the long hours and days and weeks that we each participated in, i think there's no one on the committee that's not aware of how enormously fragile the liberties of this country are, and how deeply subject to abuse they are by those who exercised great power indiscriminately and it is with that recognition that i find myself quite willing to accept this responsibility and, indeed, anxious to perform this responsibility in the manner that i deem it must be performed in that manner is to state my conclusion prior to my case by the impeachment of the president of the united states and by his removal from office. the last time this nation had an opportunity to be exposed to the

condition of the presidency was last summer during the urban committee hearings in the senate and at that time i think the general perception of the country was that the executive branch of this country and the president in particular was in deep, deep trouble. that there was something seriously wrong with the highest levels of our government, and that there was something seriously lacking in the moral make up of those who occupied those positions, and the question that plagued post of the people in the country was posed constantly, persistently and eloquentally when senator baker asked what does the president know and when did he know it. that question was still left unresolved although the to cut and anxieties and frustration

for not resolving that question persisted. the reason it was left unresolved because of the failure of the president of the united states to provide the answer to those basic questions, what does the president know and when did he know it? well, we now know what the president knew and when he knew it. because of events that have occurred subsequent to the urban committee hearings which the nation had great familiarity and those events were contrary to the president's desire he was forced by law and by the anger and wrath of the american people to relinquish the most vital evidence that had been withheld, the tapes of his conversations, the best evidence of what the president knew and when he knew it. but in the process of obtaining

that evidence, there was almost a constitutional crisis, you'll recall, because the president in his consistent and persistent efforts to obstruct the pursuit of truth in the answering of those questions fired archibald cox and the deputy attorney general of the united states because they persistented to follow the remedies available them under the constitution to find the answers to that question. the country rejected that attitude on the president's part and he conceded and he did relinquish tapes. but did he? he relinquished some of the tapes. we learned the vital information on the tapes, most vital, most instructive as to tans as to what did the president know and when did he know it, the june 20th conversation, two days after the june 17th break in of the democratic national committee, the conversation between the president and

haldeman, his top adviser was non-existent. that tape was in the president's custody and that 18 1/2 minutes was erased by human erasures and the inferences is inescapable. i introduces a relugs of impeachment by the president's dismissal of cox and his refusal to turn over the tapes to the proper authorities. thereafter, this committee convened to examine the question what does the president know and when did he know it? the next great avalanche of evidence involving that question was forthcoming when we pursuant to our subpoenas had a response, inadequate though it might be of

the edited transcripts of the president to indicate what he knew and when he knew it in terms of watergate. that avalanche of evidence as it was altered as later to be determined to have been by the elimination of vital portions those of tapes and transcripts still was notoriously helpful in answering that question that start it baker had posed, what did the president know and when did he know it. now we're at we're we're at today. has there been one shred of evidence exoonorrating ae ining exculpatory introduced by the president or anyone else since those senate hearings when senator baker asked that question? there has not been an iota of

evidence. the president had it within his power if such evidence exists to bring it forth and to exonorrate him from these charges and exonerate the anxious that he pushed this nation into. in response to my friend on the other side of this committee, who suggest the evidence does not show that the president has done anything, that simply is not so. there is a mountain of evidence showing that the president has acted to obstruct justice. hush money alone would be sufficient to demonstrate that thesis but before we analyze that what my friends failed to argue is that there's another duty on every individual in this country and particularly a president and that is to respond when there is placed before you information that duty compels

you to act upon. and this president had that opportunity countless times pursuant to the transcripts that we have obtained edited or not, where he was told of perjury on behalf of his subordinates where he did nothing of that. where he was told about efforts to conceal evidence where he did nothing about that. where he was told of obstruction of justice on behalf of his highest subordinates, where he did nothing about that. to this day there is not one single instance where this president has come before any authority with evidence or with his understanding of evidence to ask for clarification. the saddest part, the saddest part of all these transcripts was the president's own bewilderment in the march 22nd tape when he was talking about

president eisenhower. and he said this. this involved his failure to understand how this thing was falling apart so rapidly and what he could do about it. he said that about president eisenhower, quote, that's eisenhower. that's all he cared about. he only cared about christ. be sure he was clean. both in the fun thing and the other thing. i don't look at it that way. we're going to protect our people if we can. unquote. that is the saddest standard of conduct set forth in that entire page after page of transcripts that the president denigrates a standard of conduct that eisenhower set for his subordinates, we don't look at it that way and he doesn't look at it that way. he looks at it as necessary to

cover up. when the president said in that same conversation i want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the fifth amendment, cover up or anything else if it will save the plan that's the whole point. and then he said, as my friends on the other side pointed out, on the other hand i prefer you do it the other way. leaving aside for the moment the argument as if, as to the fact that he probably was referring to "it" as being a plan for mitchell to come forth and take all the blame and there by get the president and his men off the hook. leave that aside. examine his words to determine what they did do and what he did do from march 22nd. did they come forth? did they describe? did they tell all or did they stonewall it? did they cover up or did they do anything to save the plan from march 22nd to this very day they

are doing anything to save the plan including the last day of evidence that was submitted to this committee when mr. sinclair had gone through all the tapes that were still not provided us pursuant to our subpoena and came up with one shred of exculpatory evidence, tapes that the president had heretofore said borno evidence to watergate, one shred evidence that was not exculpaer to at all in examination it dealt with hush money. now the president made a big point of determining what use the defendants would put the money to which he was paying them. to determine its legality or illeg illegality. that isn't the question. the question is for what purpose was it paid not to what purpose it was put. common sense tells you that a

president of the united states does not condone the payment of over $400,000 to seven people occupying a d.c. jail cell because they have committed a burglary unless he wants something from them. that isn't compassion. that isn't a charitable institution, particularly when it's done surreptitiously. it bought their silence. you can't look at this case without feeling a deep sadness, but a deeper anger, a deeper anger that this country was jeopardized to the extent it has been in the past two years and you can't look at the evidence in this case and the totality of what confronts us in this case without understanding that

unless we fulfill our obligations as these fallible human beings in this genius of a governmental structure, our obligation and our duty is to impeach this president that this country might get about doing its business the way it should do and pursuant to standards that have been set for this country since its beginning. thank you. i recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. lott for general debate. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> for a period not to exceed 15 minutes. >> thank you. this has truly been an awesome, time consuming and exhaustive task and i wonder if any of us can really appreciate what this moment in history can mean to the future of our country. while at various points along the way i've been somewhat disgusted with this committee proceedings such as when we spend an hour earlier this week trying to decide not whether or

not we should have television cramps but whether or not to have lights for the television cameras i must admit in alcan didness it has been very fair and i must thank the chairman for his consideration of this particular member. also, mr. chairman, i was particularly impressed with several of the comments that you made in your opening statement last night. i would like to refer to those. make no mistake about it, this is a turning point whatever we decide. our judgment is not concerned with an individual but with a system of constitutional government. i believe that. further quoting, for almost 200 years every generation of americans has taken care to preserve our system and the inat the griffith our institutions against the particular pressures and emergencies to which every time is subject. i subscribe to that. quoting further, the founding fathers clearly did not mean that a president might be impeached for mistakes, even

serious mistakes. these quotes i would like to direct some of my attention to. but first let me go back and put our present situation into the proper perspective. we're now in the final stages of review of some 15 months of the most intensive investigation of any president of the united states. perhaps of any man. the senate select committee or watergate committee spent some 18 months and over $2 million in its investigation. the grand jury is in washington, d.c. spent over $225,000 in their proceedings since june of 1972. the special prosecutors have been at their task since may 1973 at a cost of over $2.8 million and the house judiciary committee staff of some 100 have been working since january at a cost of over $1.17 million. there are reams of paper, grand

jury evidence, other congressional investigation paper, transcripts, tapes, lotion, handwritten people months and on and on. the sheer weight in pounds is overwhelming. could any man with stand such scrutiny, could any maniago through all of this without some evidence of a questionable statement under pressure or while frustrated or even without revealing some mistakes? i submit no. and where was a similar counter balancing presentation of the other side of the story? was the whole picture picture r properly? was it in the senate watergate committee? no. was it in the grand jury or even in this committee? in this committee the staff was nonpartisan, and i must give credit where credit is due for a fair presentation until, of course, very recently and that's

understandable. but except for a last minute shift in the minority counsel the arguments against impeachment, the crimes the other side of the story would not have been presented. yes, the president's counsel james sinclair was properly allowed to sit in this presentation of evidence and eventually to participate on a limited basis. his was the only argument on behalf of the president until the last presentation by mr. garrison. however he was the president's counsel not the committee's counsel, not my counsel. there was not a staff structure for a balanced presentation, in my opinion, and perhaps i share the blame for that. interesting aside is the fact in a get into procedures is that last night at 7:30 we received a proposed articles of impeachment the night the debate began. quite often we've been faced with being hit at the last minute with what we were fixing to vote on. regardless of that we're preparing to vote on articles of impeachment. i tried to maintain a restrained

position because i think it's been incumbents on every member to listen and keep his mouth shut until he had enough to make his decision. but i must also be frank in saying i've approached this task from the standpoint that the president was innocent, like any man, under such proceedings should be presumed innocent until there was clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. you can't impeach a president because you don't like his prove or contradicted evidence. in my opinion, you cannot impeach a president for half a case or on the basis of parts of several cases put together. we're not faced with impeaching john dane or john mitchell or any of the others we're faced with impeaching the president. the line must be drawn directly to the president, clearly to the president. this has not been done. the president had several aides

that served him and this country poorly. the legal processes are now dealing with them. but for every bit of evidence implicating the president there's evidence to the contrary. what is at stake here is the presidency and this is what has worried me all along. in my part of the country we do worry about these institutions. we do still hold institutions that made this country great dear and important. we have to consider the best interest of this country now and in the long run. we cannot allow political considerations or circumstantial evidence to be the basis for impeaching the first president of the united states in over 100 years and in so many ways the best president in that period of time. i think this is classic example here of how perhaps all of us in this committee have gotten so deep in the forest that we lost sight of the forest we're now analyzing every diseased tree

and i think we got to look beyond that. let's take at that look at a couple of specifics. there's not one iota of evidence that the president had any prior knowledge whatsoever of the watergate break in. and i don't want to get into quoting half of passages. i guess we can do that on and on. that's my point. so much contradicting evidence. the president himself in transcript of march 13, referred to the watergate break in like this. what a stupid thing. pointless. that was the stupid thing. the president did not participate in watergate cover up. true, he did not immediately throw all possibly involved immediately to the wolves. would you? without knowing all the facts dismissed your principal aide? upon learning from dean on march

21st the real seriousness what happened he took a serious of actions to find out truth, the whole story. the president on march 22nd said hunt could not demand blackmail money. he instructed dean to prepare a report for him of what had really gone on. he never got that report. the attorney general was advised to report directly to the president. members of the white house were instructed to go the grand jury and to tell the truth. i think it is important you got to look at what eventually happened. you must consider the fact that the president waived executive privilege for his closest aide including his counsel. that's what happened. we can go on and on. with regard to the psychiatrist break in, charles colson testified that the president did not know in advance of the break in. i make no comment on the part of the article that deals with contempt of congress charge because i think it's so ludicrous that it deserves no

comment. now what is really the genesis of all this? what was the beginning of the whole thing? i'm not saying other things weren't important and i had my difficult moments, particularly the conversation of march 21, which i satisfied myself the president didn't order that. but the beginning really was with the bombing of cambodia and impoundment of funds. look at that, the bombing of cambodia toledo the eventual end of the longest war in this country. an impoundment, presidents have been impounding funds since president jefferson. i think it's interesting that in recent article in "the washington post" august 2nd, 1971, it came out that under the kennedy administration through assistant attorney general there was a plan called stick to it mississippi.

my home state. stick to it mississippi. remember that. what was involved was the impoundment of funds on some three dozen projects to force mississippi to comply with certain justice department decrees and court decrease. it's impoundment. it's impoundment whatever way you look at it. when it's impoundment in a different area then it's a different horse. now many of those here have talked about the youth of america and although identify gone i'm still the youngest member of this committee. i'm concerned what impact watergate would have on the young people of america. but i think maybe in the final analysis they see this more clearly than we do and i really think that young people i've talked to and i talked to a lot of them have dedicated themselves to making this system better by working within the system. and no matter what we finally do in congress, the presidency will be treated more carefully by

future presidents. so i think we must take care to see that we don't do irreparable damage to the longest, single existing form government in the history of man. my question in be the final analysis will be this. as strongly as i disapprove of the policies of presidents kennedy and johnson, would i have voted to impeach them based on the evidence before this committee? thank you, mr. chairman. committee will come to order. i recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. hogan for purposes of general debate not to exceed a period of 15 minutes. mr. hogan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. more than a century ago in a time of great national trial, abraham lincoln told a troubled and bitterly divided nation we

cannot escape history. we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. no personal significance or insignificance can spare one or. the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the last generation. today we're again faced with a national trial. the american people are troubled and divided again. 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. there's 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 doesn't 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 don't agree with those that say impeachable offense is anything that congress wants it to be. and i don't 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 don't concur in that. i think we must find personal wrongdoing on his part if we're

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 we're 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. that's 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 don't 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 i'm a republican. party loyalty and personal

affection, and precedents of the past must fall, i think, before the arbiter of men's 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 they've 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 we're 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 isn't easy for me to align myself against the president to whom i gave my enthusiastic support in three presidential campaigns. on whose side i've stood in many

a legislative battle. whose accomplishments, in foreign and domestic affairs i've consistently applauded. but it's 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 don't in any way question

that. i agree with them, that there was wrongdoing on the part of previous presidents. maybe all presidents. 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 they're 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 he's asked for direct proof. i think it's 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. it's 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 that's come before us, to me, it's overwhelming beyond a reasonable doubt. let's look at the president's own words. he uses the words cover-up and cap on the bottle, and the plan, and containment, and he's concerned about what witnesses have said, and what they will say. he's concerned about where the investigation is going. now let's focus in on the thing that everybody talks about, the hunt payment. let's 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 you'd want to know that this thing must not break apart for foolish reasons. we're protecting the guy s who are really responsible, but at the same time this is a two-way 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 coleson's 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 o'brien, the attorney for the committee to re-elect 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 didn't get it, he would reveal a number of seamy things that he had done for the white house and if things didn't happen soon, he'd 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 wife's insurance. so i ask my colleagues on the committee, what would the reasonable and prudent man assume that he had in mind? it's obvious he intended to blackmail the white house. well now let's go inside the white house. and let's 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, wasn't that handled through the cuban

committee? and john dean says, well, no, not exactly. that's not the way it was. and the president say, well that's the way it's 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 doesn't 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 it's immaterial whether or not the point in time when he said okay, i approve it, you pay it. the fact is, and the thing that's so appalling to me is that the president when this whole idea was suggested to him didn't in righteous indignation rise up and say, get out of here, you're 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 there's an obstruction of justice going on. someone's trying to buy the sigh lebs of a witness.

but my president didn't do that. he sat there and he worked and worked to try to cover this thing up so it wouldn't 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 didn't cooperate with the investigation or the prosecution. and it's already been said by some that henry peterson called and he said initially in the conversation, well it's 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. i'm 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 didn't 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 i'd be called upon to pass judgment on the president of the united states. it's 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 he's approached this impeachment process. and i've 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 goliath's 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. it's 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. we've 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. it's been suggested the phrase is limited to violations of statutory crimes. well that's an interpretation that i can't 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. it's 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. it's 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 we've 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 they've 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 giviuleratn to all s 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 it's 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 it's much stronger. and the best example that i can give you is the fact that there are 38 members on this committee, they're 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 hadn't 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. i'd 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 it's a pretext. and i support that principle. i think he's absolutely correct. but i would ask the members of this committee notwithstanding the fact that we're 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. let's 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 break-in, 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 there's a responsibility accepted and known by employees of community to re-elect 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 i'm 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 didn't have to do it. and dean says that's right. they didn't have to do it. and the president says that in essence, things are going to change, and they're going to get it. right? and mr. dean says, that's 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 don't 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 cover-up 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 we're 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 i've 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. it's 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 it's not a happy occasion for me or for any of us here. we're not without our failings, without our weaknesses, and so we're 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 we're 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. i've 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. i've been very impressed with the letters that i've received, thousands of letters that i've 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 i've 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 i'm 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. it's 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. we're the keepers of the flame.

the symbol of this nation's 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 self-inflicted. and i say that because i'm thinking of the doctrines of executive privilege, national security, valuable and viable doctrines that have been tainted because they've been invoked for the wrong reason. and they've 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. it's 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, i'll 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 you've been men of great honor and dedication and above all you've 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 c-span3's 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, it's 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 presidents 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 hard-fought 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 i'd say thousands of people write to me and say they'd 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. that's not why i came, simply to be re-elected. so whatever the facts are, i'll go with the facts. and if i'm convinced that there's not sufficient evidence to propose to the house of representatives that the president be impeached, then that's what i'll 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 break-in 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, you're a republican from maine? >> i really didn't 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 you're going to get. i then asked peter odino the next day what he intended to do? he said i'm 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 i'll recognize you but i can't support you and he explained the reason why because there were democrats on the committee who didn't want to send a letter. didn't even support him. they wanted to impeach richard nixon. so he said he couldn't 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 that's 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. it's 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 that's what we're 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 doesn't 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. we've 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 we're not being petty. we're 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. we're 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 re-election 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 break-in of daniel l. berg, psychiatrist, which included howard hunt's participation in the itt affair which included howard hunt's 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 presidential 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 break-in of the psychiatrist's 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. fielding's 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 break-in 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. that's 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. i'm not going to attempt to cover all of the charges that have been made. i'm going to isolate my statements to the major charge of the watergate and watergate

cover-up. if it were not for that i don't think we'd be here tonight. i think it's altogether proper, too, to commence by making a little bit of a review on what we've 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. there's 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 it's been held in confidence behind closed doors, what i read in the papers from day to day lead me to believe i couldn't 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 we've done it.

and then when we think about releasing information, i'm 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? isn't it strange that they have been remarkably silent? but willy-nilly 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 hadn't 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 that's hardly the way you conduct a good hearing, is it? but that's 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 there's never been a decision on

that point. and from the law, as i understand the law, the articles that we have been handed tonight don't 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 there's 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, let's see what happened. better than that i suppose i should do away with current events and get down to why we're here tonight. and i hope that this has some advantage. i don't know as we're 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. i'll 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 i'm concerned for or against richard nixon. i ran for governor in my state last year and richard nixon didn't 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, it's 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. i'm 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. it's 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 don't 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? let's not use some words by some great people. let's 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 wasn't satisfied that it could be any crime because e he said it had to be a high crime, a serious one. i'm not a nitpicker. you can find almost anything that will disturb you. there's 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 don't 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 shouldn't be kindny kind of a crime. it should be a serious crime. executives ability to rule the nation. some people say we're here as a grand jury. i think we're 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, let's keep to

those two words. you can't 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 can't 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, i'm told, what does it say? if this isn't 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, isn't 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 i'd rather it be done the other way. this is what has happened every day e every hour on the hour so we don't have to do this in fre frenzy. let's 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 doesn't 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 can't use one tape as this fair magazine has done. you can't 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, that's 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 he's going to do. . is he going to plead his whole case on tapes because he can't 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 don't 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 don't think so. and i think this is why we're here. this remaining someone, somehow will point out the fact that i'm only human and i'm not infallible. maybe i overlooked something. maybe there is a tie-in with the president. all right, there's 37 of you. give me that information. give me the tool, because up to this moment, you haven't. thank you. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois, mr. ralsback for purposes of debate only not to exceed 15 minutes.