i.t.t. and goes absolutely in the other direction. thank you for hearing my point of view. i hope and pray that god guides this committee to make the right decision for our nation's future. >> i thank the chairman and i thank my colleague from illinois for his discussion and i hope that history will record you received the clearest explanation of this problem on the time of the gentleman from missouri. mr. chairman, it has been my privilege to serve on this committee for ten years and never have i been prouder of this committee and the privilege of serving on it than i am during this period of its most supreme testing. for weeks, even months, we have has come for decisions. further delay is unjustive eyable. the time consuming task of

impeachment must go forward. should richard m. nixon be found guilty of obstruction of justice. yes. should nixon be found guilty of abusing the powers of his office yes and guilty of contempt and defiance of the courts. yes. we hear a great deal today about the presumably grim consequences of impeachment. an endless public trial. people divided. the government paralyzed. the nation disgraced. suppose the house should decide not to impeach. it should have consequences too. refusal to impeach would be a decision as momentous as impeachment himself. it would alter the historic relationship of presidential power in the constitution system of accountability for using that

power. our mess age to posterity, failure to impeach would be a vindication of a new theory of presidential nonaccountability. many would shrink from this trying constitutional responsibility. shrinking from impeachment derives from the difficulty of visualizing oe februariess. perhaps it is more easily conceived if put in more simple terms. number one, suppose your mayor approved a plan by which the chief of police of your city could illegally map your phone, open your mail, burglarize your

office or apartment. suppose your mayor tapped the local reporter covering city hall, directed the fbi to investigate a newscaster. suppose your mayor withhold knowledge of a burglary trying a case with which that knowledge was important or secretly taped conversations in his office between city hall and public officials like yourself. when a confirmed court order required him to turn over nine of these tapes. he disobeyed. suppose your mayor tripled his wealth while serving as mayor in your city. suppose he paid practically no income tax for several years. suppose your mayor certiused up

fun funds. suppose your mayor selected and supervised distrusted top officials of his administration. 10 men and women who pled guilty. should we have a lower standard of action for the president. the founding fathers wisely made impeachment a constitutional remedy. they did not want to make it easy to get rid of presidents but they were determined to make it possible. if we wish to restore the accountability of presidents, the means and nixons are at home

accept once every four years we usher in a imperial policy, we transform the balance and character of constitutional order. impeachment may have grievance consequences, refusal to impeach will have disastrous consequences. the transcripts have diminished him imtooth that of an amoral man who withheld the shocking truth about the mess he and his administration were in. he shows a lack of concern for reality and principal which make the white house a supposed exposure. he is suspicious of his staff. his loyalty is minimal. his greatest concern is to create a record that will safe himself and his administration.

the high dedication that americans have a right from a president is missing from the transcript. i do not know how one of sound mind can read the transcript as think that mr. mixon upheld the principals. the question is not of that of democrat or republican or conspiracy to get the president, in the words of a presidential defender, mr. nixon took a principal role of a disgusting performance. this is a matter of right and wrong.

tra perhaps this old mys issouri. constitutional and parliamentary shows an official may be removed losing his ability to governor activity. the distinguished gentleman mentioned james madison. on may 19th, 1789, in the debates mr. madison said, quote, i think it absolutely necessary that the president have the power of removing his subored naets from office. it will make him in a peculiar manner subject to their conduct and subject him to impeachment himself. if he nuts chooses to check you

components. that risk must be accepted. the ultimate arbiter is the people. public reaction today is clearly revoltion. the evidence against mr. nixon is in his own words made public at his own direction. there can no longer be a charge he was railroaded out of office by vengeful democrat and a hostile press. the fundamental questions have been answered. let's assume you were president of the united states and possessed normal standards of honesty. one of your assist abts comants do you remember the burglary at the water gate we're spending your money on the people caught in the burglary to pay their legal fees. what would you say or do? would you examine at all of their legal fees as mr. mixon

would say they are perfectly legal or would you think that that money was used to re-elect the president of the united states. nobody in this going to use it to support burglars. you know a man who is not a crook is not necessarily an honest man. we do not have too to find out that the money was being used to support burglars. would i have said that would be perfectly legal and kept quiet for 40 days. ask yourself whether you think richard nixon is worthy to occupy the highest office and the gift of the people. it's their office of the it's hard not to appear silly or disconest when you have to speak about the subject from opposing points of view. so with president nixon and water gate, it's evidence for a

man trying to use a government to insist one year gautergait is enough. when administrator and suspect are one, it's hard to say anything without the appearance of self serving dishonesty. as a result mr. nixon is forever saying contradictory things for instance he's cooperating fully with the special prosecutor even though he's denying tapes that the prosecutor needs. there's a way out. he can plead the fachbifth amendment. add to this that he is innocent until proven guilty you have the best strategy he might have. you know the president spoke about law and order in 1968 saying it's time to have a new

attorney general in the united states. he says mr. nixon says i pledge you that our general attorney will launch a war against organized crime in this nation. respect from law can come only from people who take it into their hearts and minds and not into their hands. i believe in a system necessity which the appropriate cabinet officer gets credit for what goes right. i believe any 70 of government providing besful change. mr. mix nixon said the only way attack crime in america is the way crime attacks our people without pity. >> mr. nixon said? final one, you tell you what happens when you go to a police state. you can't talk why your bedroom.

you ha hear about going out and talk in front of the garden. you can't even talk in front of a shrub. i'm simply saying there are police states and we don't want that to happen in america. adds long as i'm in office make sure no one engages in that activity. to become congressman and woman we took the same oath to uphold the constitution that richard nixon took. if we have to be careful, we must sign this. >> secretary william cohen you were a member of congress in the

1973. explain what happened? >> republicans demanded of our chief counsel and minority counsel at that point was bert jenner, a terrific trial lawyer from chicago. i believe it was congressman wig inns who really took the case. they said quote iryou're allegi abuse of power and obstruction of justice. where are the specifics so he went point by point. they had a point. i think it rocked the committee back a bit. there was very broad gauged language that doesn't have a lot of specifics. i think the chit ee thought they were on their heels. we went back to our offices and

i did receive a call with the meeting with tom railsback and others. they said why don't you like to write, bill, so why don't you see if you can put these things -- these facts together in a way that can be persuasive so i was charged with organizing arguments for the articles of impeachment and then had to that case the next day. i would answer specifically why this charge is included specifically, specifically, specifically. so that was a legitimate for those supporting the president. >> who were some of the key players in the committee? who did you work with? >> well, i didn't work with anyone until that moment that i met with tom railsback and the

seven who met in his office. i didn't work with anyone until they came back and said you have to argue these issues and that was the only interaction i had with any of my colleagues at this point. >> at what point did you think that president nixon was going to be impeached and forced out. >> i could tell by the oepening statement where it was going to go. i was surprised by some. for examplexample, the congress from wisconsin and congressman maryland also voted for impeachment because they were

prap perhaps two of the more critical questioners behind closed doors. i wasn't surprised by any of the other kill r about as i had been telli telling x about a. did all of that work in the summer of 1974. >> you have to remember what the country was going through. in a ten year period of time, basically a decade we had the assassination of president kennedy, the assassination of bobby kennedy. at sa

asse aassassination and water gate. it was a heavy load that the american people are being asked to show. it showed in the expressions of the members. tom railsback was under enormous stretch because he was a strong supporter of president nixon. he lost his voice and never regained it. congressman flowers was suffering from bleeding ulsers. >> those who would come to public sessions, he would come with an individual named rabbi korve and made it known they were opposed to where the committee was going. >> were there a lot of personal

things that were going on in the lives of individuals that perhaps were never known to the public but in the committee. >> did you have a sense of how riveting the events were and how much americans were watching. >> before we opened it up to the public, no. we had been meeting day after day after day, of course the press is trying to get information. it was pretty closed. i know i would brief members of the press from time to time on context or removing in the right direction in terms of getting evident. there were never any breaches of confidentiality in materials of what was going on in the committee. series of sessions. i don't think any of us had the -- any notion of what the impact was going to be that way.

>> a month later richard nixon resigns. did you have a sense it was going to happen that quickly? >> no. i thought it would go to the house. the house would vote to recommend articles of impeachment and the senate would have a trial. looking at the clock, looked like it was a way for the president to run out the clock because it was summer time. congress is out in the summer timelected, looking at it from a gaming perspective, the president may have tried to run the clock out on the impeachment process.

a very key missing tape was disclosed. that shifted opinion on the part of the republicans who were his staunchest defenders. i will never forget the book that theodore white had written, breach of faith. it was had white had a beautiful way of describing how you can take a french man, take him out of the context, his dna is french or dna is chinese but every country having its myth, they said the myth that binds america together is that we're all equal under the law. if you take that maj lou, you basically unravel the knitting together of so many different ethnic secular groups in this

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 >> test. test. 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

that's no longer the question. it's what can we do with africa, not what we can do for africa. what can we do together. what can we do together? and i mean that. the president means if. i believe there's a significant opportunity for the united states and africa to do more that benefit both our people. this is america's economic self-interest. $50 billion in u.s. exports to africa already support a quarter of a million american jobs right here in the united states. africa, african consumers are spending