Advanced Search
Dam/ Boulder dam
Unknown
Dam break (flood)
Dams (spillways)
Dam (spillways)
Misc. Reservoirs
Misc. dams (spillways)
Dams (spillways)
Dams (spillways)
Ext. steam generating plant
Power station in desert
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98731 Int. electric power plant
Ext. steam generating plant
Power station in desert
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98731 Int. electric power plant
Aerial (power line)
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98731 Power plant - night
Large building (electric power amp)
Pacific power building
Horned Puffin
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata) perched on cliff. CU head of the puffin, he looks around. The puffin flaps its wings and walks around on the rocky cliff.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.18.42] Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman--- The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maraziti, for 5 minutes. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was amazed to find--to hear the gentleman from Maryland explain why it 'IS not necessary to detail the fact,, and one argument given is that the counsel for the President was present in the room when these, matters were being discussed. That is not a satisfactory disposition of the matter. It reminds me of counsel for a defendant appearing in a magistrates court, presentation made of an hour or two, then the prosecutor of the county--a very general indictment--it is not sufficient for the prosecutor of the county to say I do not have to specify because the counsel for the defendant attended the, preliminary examination. And the President--the knowledge of the counsel is not the knowledge of the President. We do not know whether the, counsel for the, President that appeared here is going to be associate counsel or one of a number of counsel or whether there will be different counsel. Now, he makes a point of once the, resolution or the articles got to the floor they can be, justified, amended, and so on. That may be so. But I think it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, for to, the members here and now, before we vote for or against a particular article, to know the time and place and names, to know all the events. Now, I have done some. legal research during the noon recess because it was represented that the law that pertains to indictments does not necessarily apply to impeachment proceedings. And I found that from the very beginning, when impeachment proceedings were instituted in 1798, right down to the present time, the last, impeachment, of Judge Ritter in 1936, that every respondent charged has been faced with articles of impeachment that alleged specifies, and there, is a reason for it. There is a reason for it. So that he who is charged, and this is fundamental to Anglo-Saxon law, that he who is charged must know on what particular charge or points he must defend himself. It is not necessary for him to go over the tremendous amounts of information that we have here and say, well, maybe they will accuse me on this and maybe on that. And it is very simple, Mr. Chairman, because the, gentleman from Maryland began to specify certain times, places and events, Now, if that is it, if that is what the charge is, simply include it in the articles of impeachment. Just to take an example, on the point one of the--paragraph I Of the article, making false or misleading statements. All right. What statements? When were they made? And where were they made? That, is simple because if we are going to know about it when it goes to the: House of Representatives, we ought to know about it now. To lawfully authorized investigative officers. What officers? One, two, three. When? And where? What is so difficult about that? No. 5, approving, Condoning and acquiescing in payment of substantial sums of money. All right. How much money are we talking about? Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARAZITI. The, amount. The purpose. I will yield as soon as am through. The purpose for which the, money was given. To whom was it given? How many persons are involved? No. 6, endeavoring to misuse, the Central Intelligence Agency. That is a very broad general statement and it may be true. I am not denying it. I am not affirming it either. Endeavoring to misuse CIA. We ought to know how, when, where did this occur. Disseminating information received from officers. What officers the Department of Justice? And that can be characterized throughout the entire part of this article. -No. 8, making false ----- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you. [00.24.08--Rep. MARAZITI's time expires]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.30.44] Mr. SARBANES. No. I am recounting back. over the transcripts of the tapes. pertinent portions of that conversation. Mr.. SANDMAN. Well, if it is not a new document then we are, back to where we started. Why are you resisting the fact that this should be in the articles of impeachment? Is not the Congress entitled to know what they are going to vote on when I it gets to them?? Should they not know when it happened and how it happened? Should this not be In the. articles? Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. A brief answer from the gentleman from Maryland, if he has one. Mr. SARBANES. I responded to that question this morning when the gentleman asked it and---- Mr. SANDMAN. You have not given any answer at all. Mr. SARBANES. And I said at that time If we were to bring into articles all the factual material which underpins them we would have to have articles that run into volumes and volumes. Mr. SANDMAN. Now. that is not so. Mr. SARBANES. It is SO. Mr. RAILSBACK. Will you yield? Mr. SANDMAN. In a moment I will yield, you know that is not SO more than it is an indictment. You do not need the whole brief in indictment and I do not want to be confused again by saying this is an indictment. It is not. But the common criminal in a criminal case has no more rights than the President of the United States in an impeachment case. This is what I have said. RAILSBACK. Would you yield? Mr. SANDMAN. -No, I won't yield. I am not finished Now. the important things here is why isn't the President entitled to this kind of simple explanation? It can be in a single, sentence. We don't have to go through the speech that you made. All you have to say on any one of your articles, a very simple sentence, on such and such a date the President did contrary to the law a simple act. That is all you have to say. Why won't you say it? Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. I want him to answer. Mr. SARBANES, Will the, gentleman yield'? Mr. SANDMAN. Sure, a simple answer. Mr. SARBANES. Behind each of those allegations lies an extensive pattern of conduct. That will be spelled out factually and will be-- Mr. SANDMAN. That is- Mr. SARBANES./ If the gentleman -will let me finish, I am endeavoring as best, I can to respond to his question. Mr. SANDMAN. All right. Go ahead. Mr. SARBANES. And that pattern of conduct will be spelled out in the report that accompanies the articles. But there is not one isolated incident that rests behind each of these allegations. There is a course of conduct extending over a period of time involving a great number of incidents. Mr. SANDMAN. I am not going to yield any further. It is my time you are using up. I am not going to yield any further for that kind of an answer. You are entitled to your proof. No one said that you aren't. You are entitled to as many articles as you can get the Democrats and some Republicans to agree upon. And no one says that you are not entitled to that. But to each of these, my friend, the law from the beginning of this country up to the last impeachment in 1936 says, whether you like it or not, it has to be specific and this is not specific. [00.33.54--cut to LEHRER in studio] LEHRER says that Chairman RODINO will try to break this impasse by referring the issue to counsels. [00.34.06--PBS NETWORK ID] [promos for other PBS programming] [00.37.18--title screen "Impeachment Debate July 26, 1974"]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.23] Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. In a moment I may yield. Likewise, the fact of notice pleadings, which our counsel, Mr. Jenner. has pointed out, is clear here. The President is put on notice as to the specific types of impeachable conduct which we allege against him. This is enough to alert him, to give him notice as to what are the charges. And bear in mind that if and when this matter reaches the Senate, it will be accompanied not only by a committee report, but, of course, by the final articles of impeachment, and he will then, if he desires. have the right to make a motion for a bill of particulars or the idea being to request a greater specificity in the charges against him. Or, if some of those charges appear to be a little bit vague and uncertain as to time, and place, and manner, he can make a motion to make more specific and certain, and aided by the results of those motions, he will have a wealth of information, everything that he could possibly need to make his own defense in this case. In essence, in this case he, is in a better position simply because, and I know this cannot be charged to him at the present time, but as a practical matter, and in the real world in which we are operating, the President does have some 40 volumes of evidentiary and statistical Matter already at his disposal and in his office, and I think that unless we are to stultify commonsense we are going acknowledge that that fact. I would say this, if this committee should decide in order to lessen the concern of our colleagues on the other aisle list any specific item of -factual information in these articles, it must be couched in such language, and the committee report worded in such language that it is imminently clear that proof in the Senate would not be restricted to those specific items. Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. I yield back to my donor. It is not my time. I yield back to Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has time remaining. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 Minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question of friend from Maryland briefly, if he could give me his attention for just a moment. On the theory you advanced of your article this morning as I understood you, and am I correct that before the acts or acts of alleged agents and subordinates could be attributed to the President you would have by some means and some type of evidence to establish the existence of the policy which you allege he had adopted, is that correct? Mr. SARBANES. The acts of the subordinates have to be carrying out the policy of the President. Mr. DENNIS. Yes, and before you could prove them as against the President, you would have to first establish policy, would you not! Mr. SARBANES. Well, there is a possibility of ratification here, which I think the gentleman---- Mr. DENNIS. But before you could attribute their acts to him By your own theory, you would have to have a -policy there which They were carrying Out, isnt that right You would have to have the policy established first? Mr. SARBANES. Not if there was a ratification involved. and there could be a, ratification involved on the part of the President with respect to acts of his subordinates. Mr. DENNIS. You would have to prove a ratification then. Mr. SARBANES. Absent a ratification, there would have to be established policy. Mr. DENNIS. What the gentleman is really doing under another name, is adopting a theory Of conspiracy , isn't he? Mr. SARBANES. I asked that question this morning and while I indicated I did not tie the, article to the proof of a criminal conspiracy, I did say that the article contained elements of a conspiracy theory; Yes. Mr. DENNIS. And first by a Horn Book law you have got to prove that the conspiracy exists, before the acts of the co-conspirators are attributable to the principal. That is just elementary, is A not? Mr. SARBANES. Well the President can intrude into that conspiracy and ratify events. If that happens, then I think the gentleman recognize that those, acts are then part and parcel of' the President's responsibility. Mr. DENNIS. I suggest to the gentleman that proceeding on the. theory he is proceeding on, he better consider , if he ,has not. he may have, just, by what evidence he. is to establish this policy or conspiracy Or whatever you want, to call it, because until he does that/ the acts of these other people are not going to mean a thing, in my opinion. Now shifting to another matter, I just would like to talk about this matter of specificity for a moment. In a criminal charge, I just read the criminal rule, and that is the existing criminal rule. This 'IS least, a quasi- criminal -case, and my friend from California, Mr. Danielson, I am sure is aware of the due process clause and the very reason why we, require specificity is the exact reason why my friend from California seeks to be against it. It is for the exact purpose that a man may know what he is charged with, and that the proof may be held down indeed, to that with which he is charged. And I suggest that ordinary due process of law absolutely requires that,. Now I am not going to yield for a minute, No one contends and I do not contend certainly that you have got to plead in an indictment of the evidence by which you intend to support your specific, charge. But, you do have to say, if you are charging the man with making false and misleading statements, you do have to say in that on April 14, 1973, he did say to Henry Petersen, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, the so that he will know. He cannot be, required under the Constitution to look back over everything he may have said Sometime that somebody is now ...... [01.03.56--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.44.00] Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important to continue to present proof of the charges in the bill of impeachment. I am sure that there are going to be many byroads, and many other issues that will be brought -up, but I think it is vital that in these proceedings that the evidence be spelled out so that -we all can understand it better. In support of the first portion of the bill of impeachment, Mr. Sarbanes presented some very clear evidence of the President's knowledge almost immediately after the June 17, 1972, burglary at the Watergate. I think that anybody here can understand the reluctance of the White House and the President to have the public find out about this, and find out. of the connection with his Committee To Re-Elect of Mr. Hunt and the other people who -were arrested for the burglary. Well. one of the choices would have been just to let them go to jail, and call it a bizarre incident. I think it is fairly clear that this was the, choice, and every effort was made to have it appear to be just a bizarre incident. Yes, perhaps there could have been some connection with the White House with Mr. Hunt and so forth. Or another choice would have been just to admit Mr. Hunt 'worked at the, White I-louse, yes, had an office there, was in the White house phone book, and then down the road let Liddy. chief counsel, I believe for- the Committee To Re-Elect, surface. He was bound to surface, Well, why not take that choice? That could be ridden out perhaps by the White House, even as Watergate itself was ridden out. But, why do you imagine the President had to or felt he. had to encourage such a massive coverup after June 17, shortly after the burglary? Why not let it hang out', This was discussed quite a lot. We all remember that in the transcripts. Why not direct the FBI to go ahead and do a darn good job, and really complete the investigation as they started out trying to do? Why involve the CIA in this Unfortunate behavior? Why encourage almost demand, that the CIA to the FBI and say, stop, don't continue your investigation stop where you are. By all means, don't act into that money &at was found on one of the burglars. Well, incidentally, the efforts by Mr. Dean and the efforts to direct the CIA to influence the FBI not to continue the investigation -were successful. They were successful until Julie 5 when Pat Gray finally said no, I am not going to do it any more and went to the CIA. The CIA said of course we don't have anything to do with anything in Mexico where your investigation might disclose some unfortunate things that are going on down there or something clandestine by the CIA. Well, here is the key to it. Immediately the next day actually the White House, knew that Hunt was involved. His name was in the book. He had an office in the Executive Office Building, And Liddy had to be exposed somewhere down the line. The, money on the burglars could immediately be traced to Liddy, the Mexican banks, and then back to the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Sloan had given the money to Liddy to launder. That was all sure to come out. But, what would the exposure of Hunt and Liddy reveal In addition to their participation in the Watergate burglary and their connection with the Committee To Re-Elect the President and the White House? Hunt, just about the original plumber, came aboard the White House in July 1971. Suppose--and this probably would have happened if it. had all come out right there with a hard-hitting FBI investigation that after Mr. Hunt went to work as a plumber at the White House in late 1971 he composed the fake Diem cables, attempting to link former President Kennedy with the Diem assassination. He tried very hard to. sell those cables, not to sell them but to get Life magazine to write them up as real. It is very much to the credit of the magazine that they did not do it. On July 22, just a few weeks after Mr. Hunt became a plumber at the White House he went to the CIA, and obtained a red wig, a voice changer, and fake identification papers and so forth. He Put on this disguise shortly after that and went to Massachusetts to interview a Clifton DeMott in hopes of digging up some dirt on Senator Edward Kennedy. What else was Mr. Hunt doing during this period shortly before Watergate that would have been exposed? He had taken the famous trip to Denver, Colo., in the same red wig, with the voice changer to interview Dita Beard, who was in a hospital bed there, in connection with the ITT case. We all remember the famous Dita Beard-ITT memorandum. And then for all we. know, another project of the plumbers that John Dean testified to but did not come Off, might have been exposed-- The planned bombing, allegedly ordered by Charles Colson, of the Brookings- Institution so that in the confusion people could rush in and take out, a report that -was being written. But, more importantly, what would have been exposed. the burglary, the burglary in Los Angeles in September 2, 1972, of Dr. Fielding office in Los Angeles. Who was involved in that burglary that was also involved, participated, and was arrested at the Democratic National Committee? Mr. Barker, Mr. Martinez, Mr. DeDiego The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman I has as expired Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Butler. [00.50.45]