Advanced Search
President's Journey: Asian Nations Welcome LBJ
NO AUDIO President Lyndon B Johnson continues whirlwind six nation,17 day tour taking him to Wellington, New Zealand, Australia (Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane)and the Philippines. New Zealand Aerial shot of New Zealand's harbor. CUS President Lyndon Baines Johnson shaking hands with the eager people of New Zealand whom are restrained by a barbed wire fence. High Angle Shot of massive crowds in the streets gathered to watch the Presidential motorcade pass. CU of photographers with 16mm movie cameras taking pictures. MS President Lyndon B Johnson and the Governor of Wellington, New Zealand, General Sir Bernard Fergusson along with Lady Bird Johnson and Lady Fergusson. A State dinner is held in the honor of President Johnson and people attending that dinner. President Johnson enters a barn. President Johnson watching the sheering of sheep and examines some of its coat. Australia MS Ticker tape and streamers being dropped from the side of a highrise building window. The Presidential motorcade works its way through crowded streets as flowers are thrown across the car. People wave flags and signs. CU Chicken on skewers are flipped on a barbaque grill. President Johnson watches as the bar-b-que is held in his honor. President Johnson accepting a tradditonal Akubra hat from an Auzzie official. He greets people as he passes. ECU of an Austrailan cop or official. Philippines President and Mrs. Johnson disembark from Air Force One in the Philippines to shake hands with President Marcos while his family applauds. The First couple continues greetings President Marcos family. Philippine Army stand at attention in honor of President Lyndon B Johnson. Presidential motorcade proceeds down Philippines streets as people wave signs and american flags.
Welsh Tragedy: Hundreds Killed In Slag Avalanche
NO AUDIO Some 200 persons, mostly children, are killed in an avalanche of coal slag which buries part of the village of Aberfan, in South Wales. The local schoolhouse, a farm and 16 miners cottages were engulfed in the slide. MS Miners digging for their own children. Miners removing rocks and debris. High Angle Shot as two policemen removing a recovered body of a child. MCUS The miners and other people from the village pass empty buckets to dig with and remove slag. CUS of shovels digging into the slag. Prince Philip walking threw and evaluating the heart wrenching disaster. Prince Philip looks on at a building that was dug out of the slag, perhaps is was a school building. High Angle Shot as another body is removed in a body bag. People crowd around working to recover more victims.
Football: Michigan State 41 - Purdue 20
NO AUDIO At Spartan Stadium, the undefeated Michigan State wins over Purdue with a final score 41 to 20. Spartan fullback Bob Apisa scores three while Cornerback Jim Raye's passing arm demolishes the Boilermaker's defense. High Angle shot of Michigan State marching band in formation at center field in a packed Michigan Spartan Stadium. Michigan State s No 18 QB passes the ball and it is caught by No 84, who is taken down at approximately a 24 yard gain. The ball is handed off on first and goal to No 34, who outwits Purdue s team to run the ball over the goal line for a touchdown. LS Football fans jumping and waving streamers. High Angle Shot as Michigan State takes control of the ball. It is handed to No 16 who runs the ball with some quick moves to score a touchdown. The crowd is going wild with happiness. Purdue has the ball that is passed and soon fumbled. No 31 Michigan State comes out of nowhere and picks up the loose football and runs it to the 8 yard line to score first and goal. Michigan State performs a trick play and the ball is caught by No 45 who runs it in for a touchdown. Sports fans stand in exuberant applause. The Spartans with the ball run it to the 35 yard line before being tackled to the ground by Purdue. The Spartans resume the play for a touchdown as the ball is handed off to No 45 and is run into the goal line for a touchdown. The enthusiastic No 45 tosses the ball up in the stands full of excited football fans. MS of the fans applauding. High Angle Shot as Purdue has regained control of the ball; No 12 fakes a hand-off and passes the ball to No 42. He catches the ball and takes it to the goal line and is shacked before scoring a close touchdown. Purdue QB, No 12 has the ball and he runs it in for a touchdown. LS Scoreboard Michigan 28 and Purdue 7 (must be halftime). High Angle Shot Michigan with the ball. No 16 throws a long pass that is caught by No 86 but only a few yards are gained. With the play in progress Michigan State's No 45 runs the ball in for a touchdown. The game ends with Final Score Michigan State 41 and Purdue 20.
LBJ In Vietnam: Hails Troops In Surprise Visit
NO AUDIO Following the end of the seven nations Manila Conference, President Johnson visits Corregidor, a small rocky island in the Philippines that is strategically located at the entrance of Manila. Then President Lyndon B. Johnson makes a surprise visit to Can Ranh Bay in South Vietnam, to inspect, decorate, and visit informally with the troops. It was the first visit to a war zone by an American President since 1943. Corregidor Island, Philippines. MS A white steel gate with a building in the background, perhaps it s an embassy. Flags at full staff for Vietnam, Manila, United States and two unidentified countries. Low Angle Shot of a beautiful lit chandler hanging from the ceiling as a conference is going on. MS North Vietnamese Heads of State, Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky and President Nguyen Van Thieu along with President Johnson and Secretary of State Dean Rusk are seated and signing a document. They all stand gathering there things to depart. MS A marble monument in honor of the Island of Corregidor. LS the Honor Guard standing at attention around the monument as President Johnson makes a solemn appearance. CU of an Honor Guard. LS the Honor guard surrounding the circular monument with their national flags. MS Entrance to Malinta Tunnel. CU of a Malinta Tunnel placard outside the tunnel. President Lyndon Baines Johnson walking through the Manila Tunnel built by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Can Ranh Bay, South Vietnam Aerial Shot of an airstrip in Can Ranh Bay, South Vietnam. MS President Johnson standing in the back of a moving Jeep with General William Westmoreland. He holds on the bar and talks with General Westmoreland. At the military base, soldiers line up for an Inspection Drill for President Johnson and General William Westmoreland. One soldier salutes and shakes the Presidents hand. The President rides past as the officers stand at attention. MS as the camera pans government officials President Nguyen Van Thieu and Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky, Secretary of State Dean Rusk and finally President Johnson accompanied by General Westmoreland. Soldiers standing behind a rope salute as well as other military personal. The government Leaders and officials in return Salute as President Johnson holds his hand over his heart. None of them smile or look remotely happy... very sober. CU of a smiling Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. CUS President Lyndon Baines Johnson pins Honor medals of achievement or bravery on the collars of US military men.
Notre Dame 38 - Oklahoma 0
NO AUDIO In Norman, Oklahoma the undefeated Sooners go up against the undefeated University of Notre Dame football. Notre Dame Players Terry Hanratty, Jim Seymour and fast footwork by Nick Eddy and Bob Bleir maintain the Irish Number One ranking in a finish of Irish 38 to Sooners 0. High Angle of Notre Dame marching band forming a big ND on the football field. MS Packed stands of football enthusiasts. Notre Dame has the ball; QB No 5 passes the ball that is caught by No 23 to gain some yardage. Notre Dame No #5 hands off the ball to No #47. Notre Dame QB again passes the ball to No 85 who is forced to the side lines. No 5 holds onto the ball and runs for a touchdown. MS Fans cheering in the full stands. Oklahoma with the ball makes a fumble with is quickly recovered by Notre Dame. Notre Dame makes a field goal kick into the other end zone. Football fans wave large signs in the stands. Fighting Irish Quarterback No 5 passes the ball to No 28 who makes the catch but is shacked right away. The QB hands off the ball to No 47 who makes a running touchdown. MS Football fans stand applauding. MS Oklahoma in possession passes the ball and it is intercepted by Notre Dame. Notre Dame makes another touchdown ending the game Notre Dame 38 Oklahoma 0.
LBJ's Journey: President Welcomed In Far East
NO AUDIO President and Mrs. Johnson make a two-day visit to Bangkok, Thailand. King Bhumipol Adulyadej and Queen Sirikit greet them as thousands line the streets offering a traditionally dignified and formal welcome. Mrs. Johnson visits a floating market and a traditional fingernail dance is performed for the First couple. MS In the metropolitan area of Bangkok, there is a large portrait of President Lyndon Baines Johnson hanging. Several of Bangkok s ornately decorated buildings are shown. United States Air Force One helicopter lands. CU Bangkok's military standing at attention holding their rifles in their hands. President Johnson shaking hands with King Bhumipol Adulyadej and Queen Sinikit followed by Lady Bird Johnson who stands off to the right beside her husband. Low Angle Shot as Thailand s Air Force take to the sky's to pay tribute to President and Mrs. Johnson. Bangkok's teenage girls exhibit a native dance to honor President and Mrs. Johnson's State Visit. POV shots taken from a moving vehicle of the exterior detail and design of Thailand's architecture. WS US presidential motorcade in parade. MS Thailand s people crowd the streets waving flags from America and Thailand as the motorcade passes by. The motorcade drives under bannered streets as the people rejoice in welcoming applause and tribute. CU of thousands of fast waving flags. MS Lady Bird Johnson sits in an open style boat as she visits a floating market. She accepts gifts from the people as she passes. One woman presents Mrs. Johnson with a bouquet of flowers and fruit. Evening shot of one of Thailand's buildings all lit up for the evening. President Johnson and Lady Bird Johnson get out of a coffered limousine. King Bhumipol Adulyadej, Queen Sinikit, President Johnson and Lady Bird pose for pictures in their formal attire.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.56.55] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 2 more minutes; 10 minutes now are remaining for those in support of the amendment amendment, and 10 minutes remaining in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from California, Mr. WIGGINS. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti, is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you. I support the motion of the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. There was clear legal authority for the warrantless national security wiretaps at the time that the 17 taps were conducted. Now former Attorney General Richardson, referring to case law, has stated that the. Department of Justice is justified in relying on lower court decisions permitting national security wiretaps. And let me say that I certainly agree with what has been said here today that we must look at the circumstances to justify wiretaps On the, basis of national security. But, I believe that the circumstances surrounding these wiretaps demonstrate clearly that they involved national security. Now, as has been discussed, we know that the Government at that time, or we must look back, -we cannot look as of today, the Government was faced with massive leaks of sensitive foreign policy information When the President was just beginning to establish policies of future relationships with other nations, these leaks began in the spring of 1969, when President Nixon was exploring the solutions to the Vietnam -war. These leaks were damaging to the diplomatic efforts being made to end the war at that time. And I disagree with the gentleman from California, Mr. Edwards, that these wiretaps had nothing , to do with the Vietnam war. Let us listen to Henry Kissinger and see what Henry Kissinger thought. And here, is what Mr. Kissinger thought. "Each of the above disclosures were extremely damaging with respect to this Government's relationship and credibility with its allies. With the South Vietnam Government to hear publicly of our apparent willingness to consider unilateral withdrawals, without first discussing such an approach with them, raised a serious question as to our reliability and credibility as an ally." And they had a great deal to do with the Vietnam war, quoting Mr. Kissinger. And I think be is an authority in this area. Some of the most damaging leaks occurred with regard to the SALT negotiations, And despite what the gentleman from California states, the SALT negotiations were involved. On January 20, 1969, when the President first took office, be immediately directed that, in overall study be Undertaken regarding the U.S. strategic force posture for the internal USE! Of the Government and for the Use in the SALT negotiations. Now, notwithstanding the need for secrecy of the study, and it is obvious, the May 2, 1969, edition of a large newspaper reported five strategic options under study. These options were published in the press, in advance before they Were considered by the National Security Council of the U.S. Government. The damaging nature of these disclosures was summed up by Henry Kissinger again. He said, "-Each of these disclosures -was of, the most extreme gravity, as presentations of the, Government's thinking on these key issues provided the Soviet Union with extensive insight as to our approach to the SALT negotiations. I say, I say again, they, had reference, these wiretaps had reference to the SALT negotiations. Mr. EILBERG. . Mr. Chairman ? Mr. MARAZITI. Now, let, me say that the results of the wiretaps in several instances were fruitful. Now, we must realize that when wiretaps are placed, they certainly will pick up certain personal items that were not needed, but, in this Particular case the results -were, successful in a number of instances. The, FBI reported that several of the National Security Council staff members had extensive contacts with members of the press. In particular, two employees, X and L, discussed many aspects of the internal workings of the National Security Council with a newsman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. MARAZITI. I ask for 1 more moment, to finish. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time is expired, the 5 minutes-'. Mr. WIGGINS. Well, I cannot yield at the moment, but I will see, you get more time. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the motion to strike. We are told that national security is involved, but I would like to suggest that the mere assertion of national security not enough, The gentleman from Wisconsin has given the Criteria, and I think the members can read for themselves and see that the criteria have not been met. More importantly, they have seen the excerpts for themselves and I am sure that the memory of these excerpts is present in the minds of all of the members. Certainly I recall them very vividly, and perhaps have reason to. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Nixon himself on February 28, stated that the taps were a joke, that these taps were a Joke and that they never had proved anything. It, seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this was all adventure into the private rights of individual citizens, and I would like to discuss for a moment just -what- the use of wiretaps and secret listening devices means in a free society. I am sure we all remember the stories on television and the movies and books about Spying, which has gone into Nazi Germany and into the Soviet Union, and we have learned how in Russia you must never have a serious conversation without turning on the. water or the radio so that your conversation cannot be heard by the, secret listening devices. And it is also an axiom that the telephone is tapped in Russia so that everyone takes long walks in the park so that they can communicate. This has become an article of faith that in Russia Big Brother has arrived, that the secret police are always listening. Now we learn that in the late 1960's and early 1970's and possibly right up to this date, the secret police have been listening in------ [01.04.18---TAPE OUT]
Moose 1
Huge bull moose in brush - antlers peeled 15:16:08 Huge bull moose walks towards camera 15:19:27 Huge bull moose - aggressive walk 15:20:11 Huge bull moose walks through forest 15:20:36 Huge bull moose - aggressive walk 15:21:08 Huge bull moose walks through forest-zoom 15:22:40 Huge bull moose browsing 15:23:23 zoom into sapling rubbed by moose's antlers 15:24:38 Huge bull moose browsing 15:24:52 Huge bull moose browsing 15:28:11 Cow moose walking through brush 15:28:27 Huge bull walks
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.04.08] Mr. EILBERG.....This has become an article of faith that in Russia Big Brother has arrived, that the secret police are always listening. Now we learn that in the late 1960's and early 1970's and possibly right up to this date, the secret police have been listening in on Americans, only now they have special equipment to eliminate the noise of the running water or the loud radio. In Washington it has become a sardonic joke to say that the phone is tapped whenever there is a strong noise on the line. We have become a suspicions people afraid to talk freely . not because what we say might prove we have committed a crime or endangered the national security but because our political enemies might use this information against us. Mr. Chairman, the Nixon White House made the secret police a reality in the United States. The President and his men knew that what they -were doing was so morally repugnant that they could not even trust the FBI to keep records of their activities. Finally, they could not even trust their own subordinates, so the files were taken to the Oval Office of the White House and then locked in the safe of the second most trusted advisor. Mr. Chairman, in addition to everything else, it seems to me that various crimes have been committed, and that what we are discussing now, it seems to me, is not one of the least important but one of the Most important of the impeachable offenses. And when it comes time for debate on paragraph 2, I intend to point out some of the criminal violations that are involved. and I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes. The gentleman from California Mr. WIGGINS. I yield 1 minute only to the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. MARAZITI. I thank you for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. MARAZITI. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the records of the FBI show that the information that was obtained by these wiretaps -was Put to good use to prevent further leaks. And certainly I concur with what has been said here today, that the President committed no illegal act in instituting these wiretaps. And indeed, he -would have failed in his constitutional responsibility if he did not attempt to prevent further disclosure of national security information. And I for one, Mr. Chairman, would say that the fact that the President did not, in fact, try to stop these leaks in the interest of national security, I would vote to impeach him for his failure to do so. The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for 3 minutes. Ms. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there is no question about the right of the President to institute warrantless wiretaps, even in the interests of national security. We do not quarrel about that. Date back to 1940, President Roosevelt in a memo to his Attorney General, Attorney General Jackson stating that it is in the interest of national security to prevent subversive activities, to instigate these warrantless wiretaps, but that is not what we are concerned about. We concede the right to issue, instigate, authorize wiretaps in the interest of national security. The question is whether President Nixon -used his authority in conformity -with and comporting with what the law is and what the law -was at the time those, wiretaps -were instituted? The fact was uncontroverted that Mr. Nixon authorized the -wiretaps. The threshold question is whether or not the law and the Constitution were complied with. We have the, 1967 Katz decision which said that wiretaps do come under the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and Seizures. We have a 1969 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. Now, what I want to hear the opposition address themselves to is whether the Omnibus Crime and Safe Streets Act, which was signed Into law in 1968 was in fact the law, even in the absence of clarifying regulations or a clarifying decision issued by the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no such thing as a law awaiting some clarification by the court. The 1968 decision was law, and the President did not abide by the law -which was in effect at the time I time these wiretaps in 1969 to 1971 were instituted. I want to hear the opposition address themselves not simply to those wiretaps which relate to perhaps National Security Council employees, what about, those which relate to the newsmen who certainly know a lot, but, know nothing about. state secrets. What, about those instances where wiretaps were instigated on the employees who had left the Government and long since had nothing to do with national security matters? We read the summaries of those, wiretaps and you have heard Us state that there was gossip and personal matters involved in some of the information educed. I want the opposition to address themselves to all of the, taps, not just those, which may under some stretch of the imagination have had something to do with national security. A climate of leaks do not necessarily justify, and in my judgment do not in this instance justify a violation of fourth amendment freedoms. [01.09.40]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[00.14.26] The CHAIRMAN. The time Of the gentleman has expired. All those--time in support of the amendment has all expired. There are remaining 4 minutes -for those in opposition to the amendment. I recognize Mr. Hogan for 4 minutes. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As our extremely articulate colleague from Texas, Ms. Jordan indicated, we are, not here debating the President's authority to tap phones, in national security matters nor are -we debating those areas where in criminal cases on a warrant phones may be tapped. My good friends on this side of the aisle are, if they will forgive me, engaged in a shell game. They are trying to put the emphasis on whether or not there is wiretap authority. What the issue is here is illegal wiretaps. Now, when the Time magazine story was about, to break, the President was involved in the--about the wiretaps program at the White House, the President was involved in the creation of a fabrication that there was no such program. Subsequently, he publicly acknowledged it and as late as July 12, 1974, in a letter to -the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee he states- "I personally directed the surveillance including the wiretapping of certain specific individuals." Now, my friends are talking about the Ellsberg leaks. I share their concern about that. I think it was reprehensible. One of the greatest tragedies in all of this is that because. of the misconduct of employees at the White House and the President, Ellsberg escaped prosecution for leaking, that, confidential information, and I abhor that as much as anyone on this side of the aisle. But there is absolutely no justification for some of the pure, the pure and simple illegalities involved this area of the law. The Secret Service has no authority, statutorily, to tap phones. They did at the direction of the White House, and obviously at the direction of the President tap the phone of his brother, with no statutory authority. The CIA was asked and sometimes they refused, sometimes they cooperated, in activities inside the United States. Their statutory authority specifically forbids them to be involved in any domestic activities. Directing the FBI to investigate Daniel Schorr because they did not like the kinds of things he was saying about the administration--another misuse of the President's power. When it was discovered they said he was being considered for a job. We had testimony here that that was a story which the President helped to fabricate. He at no, time was under any consideration for a job. NOW, let's look to some of the specific wiretaps. The Joseph Kraft wiretap. If it was a criminal case they needed a warrant. They had no -warrant. If it was a national security case, they needed the approval of the Attorney General. They had no approval from the Attorney General. He was not involved in publishing leaked materials. That pure and simple an effort, to get, information On a so-called White House enemy. It has been said many times about the former National Security Council employees who left their jobs and the wiretaps continued for a long time. There is only one thing I want to add to that. Indicative of what they had in mind here was that Henry Kissinger no longer got, those wiretap reports for the 8 additional months while they were working for Senator Muskie, They then went to Haldeman who was not concerned directly with the National Security Council. Now, another thing that disturbs me about this is that Alexander Haig directed the FBI on the highest authority not to maintain regular records of the wiretaps and not to treat them in the same fashion that other national security taps were treated by the FBI, and the Joseph Kraft's tap went into that category. So there were no records of the FBI so that when the Department of Justice was asked in the Ellsberg case if they had ever overheard him in any conversations the Justice Department directed the FBI- to check their files, they came back. and said no, there is no evidence of any indication of wiretaps because the records were all at the White House. As I indicated this morning, they were personally delivered to the Oval Office by Mardian, direct Presidential involvement. I wish I had another hour,. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. All time, has expired. And the question now occurs on the amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying Aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed. [chorus of "noes."] The CHAIRMAN. The noes appear to have it. The gentleman from New Jersey ? Mr. SANDMAN. I demand the yeas and nays The CHAIRMAN.. The gentleman demands a call of the roll and the yeas and nays are ordered. All those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. All those opposed, no. The clerk will call the roll. The CLERK. Mr. Donohue. Mr. DONOHUE NO. The CLERK. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Kastenmeier. MR. KASTENMEIER. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. No. The, CLERK. Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Conyers. Mr. CONYERS. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Eilberg. Mr. EILBERG. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mann. Mr. MANN. NO. The CLERK. 'Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. SARBANES. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. No. The CLERK. Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. No. THE CLERK. Mr. Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. NO. The CLERK. Ms. Jordan. Ms. JORDAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. -NO. The CLERK. Ms. Holtzman. MS. HOLTZMAN. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. No. AL The CLERK. Mr. Mezvinsky. MEZVINSKY. -NO. The CLERK. Mr. Hutchinson. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Aye The CLERK. Mr. McCLORY. . Mr. McCLORY. -No. The CLERK. Mr. Smith. Mr. SMITH. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. NO. The CLERK. Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. No. The CLERK. Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. No. The, CLERK. Butler. Mr. Mr. BUTLER. No. The CLERK. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. No. The CLERK. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Froehlich. Mr. FROEHLICH. No. The CLERK. MR. Moorhead. Mr. MOORHEAD. Ave. The CLERK. Maraziti. Mr. MARAZITI. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Aye. The CLERK. Mr. Rodino. The CHAIRMAN. NO. [01.21.44]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.26.27] Mr. MAYNE. Now, this was a highly dangerous situation. The President who was responsible for the national security, had a clear duty to act. He had to do something. He elected to set up this special investigations unit in the White House. Now, I do not happen to agree with the way which he acted. think it would have been much wiser for him to rely upon the, Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was the established agency with the experience and knowledge in national defense security investigations, but it is very easy for me and it is very easy for critics of the President, with the benefit of hindsight, to say that he should have gone the other way. But who is to say -when a man charged with that awesome responsibility has to make, a decision to protect the security of the United States if he does not make precisely the correct decision? Act he must and act he did. Now, another very current instance Of national security leak occurred shortly thereafter while the special investigations unit was still being implemented, and that occurred on July 23, 1971, in connection with the SALT talks, the Strategic Arms Limitation Agreement discussions in Helsinki. Here we were trying to negotiate the numbers of ground-based and submarine-based missiles and antiballistic missiles which were to be constructed by us and the Soviet Union. There could be nothing more, vital to the defense of the, United States and to the interests of the United States than our ability to defend ourselves against nuclear attack. Yet, in advance of-we had leaked by some official or officials in our Government our fallback position. Now, everyone knows that in negotiations you do not reveal -your final position. You try to get the best agreement for your side that you can, and this is certainly true more in the national defense than anything else. But in this article which appeared in the Times, they did clearly reveal that the Americans were prepared to ask something less if their full American bargaining package was not offered. Now, this--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 5 minutes. The Chair will recess, since there is a rollcall vote. and recess until the vote has been cast, and return immediately after the vote has been cast. [01.32.04-- cut to Chairman RODINO after recess]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
[00.02.00] Mr. FISH. .....is an issue that is particularly abhorrent to a democratic people. The illegal activities of the Plumbers is the subject of the third provision which we have before us a motion to strike. I know there are several who want to talk on this paragraph, and I will attempt to be brief. As we know, on June 13, the New York Times published the first installment of the Pentagon Papers. The President, through Haldeman, directed Mr. Colson to prepare a memorandum stating his recommendations on the Pentagon Papers issue. The memorandum of Mr. Colson, dated June 25, recommended that the investigation and successful prosecution of Ellsberg was an opportunity for or political gain for the President by publicly discrediting Mr. Ellsberg. As we know also, Mr. Ellsberg was indicted on June 28. The genesis, I suggest to you, of the Plumbers was the Pentagon Papers and in a meeting between the President, Mr. Ehrlichman, and Mr. Mitchell on July 6, We have the discussion on forming a "nonlegal group in connection with the Pentagon Papers affair." So there is no question here, of Presidential knowledge. The question has been raised, and will be raised again, however, that the issue was national security from the start, that, this legitimized the formation of the Plumbers and the effort to publicly discredit Mr. Daniel Ellsberg. Mr. Jenner, I have asked you during this break a few minutes ago to find for, me certain citations I recall of conversations between the principals in this matter that showed to me clearly that it was a public relations effort they had in mind and that national security in the Pentagon Papers was not the issue. Could you refer to those citations please? Mr. JENNER. May I, Mr. Chairman ? the CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenner. Mr. JENNER. The following items appearing in the Ehrlichman notes which, by the way, will be delivered to all of you tomorrow with a covering memorandum, I -will read without comment. I think they speak for- themselves. On July 1, 1971, a meeting of the plaintiff, Mr. Ehrlichman, at 10:15 in the morning and Mr. Colson. Did I say the President ? If I didn't, I should have. Item No. 8 reads, "Leak stuff out." "This is the way we win." The next is -also July 1 at 1 p.m. a meeting with the President. It bears the following entry labeled item No. 1. "Espionage not involved in Ellsberg Case," Did I say 21-29. His case, Breach of security, Willful disclosure with intent to commit espionage. The same meeting later, note No. 30. Timing-do not react to Ellsberg Case. Don't think in terms of spies." July 6, 1971. The President, the Attorney General, Haldeman, Ehrlichman. Note No. 11. The President is saying this, "Put a non-legal team on the conspiracy." That is--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's 4 minutes has expired, I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 4 minutes. s[00.06.21]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. FROEHLICH......constitutional duties, each branch of the Government must initially interpret the constitution and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due respect from the other. It further stated that in the last analysis it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Thus, the Court said, in essence, that the President was absolutely correct in defending his interpretation of the Constitution but that the Supreme Court's decision with respect to claim of executive privilege was dispositive in the last analysis. It then held that although the courts will afford the utmost deference in the Presidential need for confidentiality when the. claim of privilege is based merely on generalized interest in confidentiality the assertion of the privilege must yield to a demonstrated specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial, that is, the tapes must be given to the district court for in camera inspection. I The decision of Supreme Court did not say that executive privilege was not a viable doctrine,. On the contrary, it said that certain powers and privileges flow from the nature of enumerated powers, the protection of confidentiality of Presidential communication has similar constitutional underpinnings. It also said the privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and rooted in the separation of powers under the Constitution Thus, the Supreme Court-, has stated emphatically that executive privilege is a constitutional privilege available to the President. Now, whenever a situation where ere' members of this committee, like Mr. Jaworski, are asserting the right to have certain information because under article I the House shall have the sole power of impeachment, but that clause says nothing about a President being powerless to assert what he understands to be his constitutional responsibility to protect his office. Therefore, at best -we have two great branches of government involved in a stalemate both arguing the Constitution. As the Supreme Court, said it is emphatically the province and duty of the Supreme Court to say what the law is. So if the members of this committee believe their position, they should have gone to court and asked the court to say what the law is. The committee has every right to assert its understanding of the Constitution but it is not the final arbitrator. It is not the judge and jury. Our Constitution gives the courts the responsibility to interpret the law and I would remind the committee that the President has,, responded to have judicial subpena served upon him and has recently stated he intends to fully comply with the Supreme Court rulings. So there is a remedy available to test these theories of constitutional authority to get information and that is to use the courts, not to attempt to impeach a President for defending what he believes to be his duty under the Constitution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the Thornton substitute. I also support the McClory original article, though I think the substitute is an improvement- And the reason it is an improvement is because it makes it even more clear that we are not stating a broad power to obtain Presidential documents in any type of congressional proceeding but we are limiting it to an impeachment proceeding which is what we have before, us". Now, it seems to me that no one can dispute that 'without the power to investigate, the impeachment power is meaningless. It is inconceivable that the Founding Fathers believed that a subject of an impeachment inquiry should be able to withhold relevant evidence from impeachment proceedings. Certain privileges founded in our concept of due process I believe are applicable even in impeachment proceedings, but certainly so-called executive privilege is not one of them. Impeachment is the express exception in the Constitution to the so-called separation of powers doctrine. The very purpose of the impeachment power is to discover and remove those civil officers who committed certain serious offenses against the state. Stonewalling tactics have no legitimate place in procedures which are designed to find the truth as rapidly and as completely as possible. Now, if this were a court case the question of privilege would be one for the judge of the court to decide but here, in the first instance, at the committee is the judge, acting for the full House, and the House thereafter, and if the House votes articles of impeachment, then the Senate, is the ultimate court of appeal in this matter. And it Is the Senate that can decide what the issues of law and fact are. [00.06.59]
Movie Trailers
ON PREVIEW TAPE 992069 A collection of film trailers from the 1950's.
Shorts: B Roll
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #216990 This is a series of quick information spots aimed for children, trying to get them interested in science. Of course, that means being extremely visual and going for the "cool" jugular. And they succeed. There are some fantastic shots here, very colorful and of unusual subject matter, everything ranging from robots to space exploration. The following are just a few of the shots within: Opens with an animtaed spot of Archie and the gang, all playing instruments in between "trippy" and "hip" edit patterns and designs before giving way to live action material: First Spot: ROBOTS- MS's and CU's of a creepy sci-fi robot moving along a spot of rubble-heavy desolation. CU's of it picking up and removing a "radioactive" can (the can displays a yellow and black nuclear symbol) from the site. Good MS of two monitors relaying what the robot sees through its camera eye during its removal mission. Good CU of the camera eye, perched where the head of the creature would be--- very sci-fi. Second Spot: MARS ROVER-- CU's and MS's of a centipede-like vehicle (a robot) in action, climbing rocks and uneven terrain with much ease. Third Spot: THE MOON AND VOLCANOS-- Stills of the moon as taken during one of the Apollo missions; zoom in to craters and such; wide shots and CU's. Cut to great MS's of volcanos on earth erupting, spewing lava and magma into the air; cut to excellent tight LS's and MS's of lava flowing, during day and night (night shots are amazing, great color saturation). Fourth Spot: MECHANICAL HANDS-- Great series of MS's and CU's and tight LS's of various types of mechanical hands performing hi-tech jobs (automation, science, research, etc.). Interesting mechanical gadgetry. Ends with LS and MS of a mechanical dummy, in construction worker wear, waving a warning flag to passing motorists near a construction site (!).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.52] Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out I voted against article I which involved a conspiracy charge--obstruction of justice--against the President because of the fact that there was insufficient evidence in the record and the amendment which is offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, which I propose to accept would make reference to the kind of evidence that was lacking with respect to the first article. I did not say that there, was sufficient evidence to impeach the President on article I. I said there was insufficient evidence. Mr. WIGGINS. Well. I cannot yield further. And I-- Mr. McCLORY. That is what our need is. Mr. WIGGINS. Unless my memory failed me the gentleman found by clear and convincing evidence just on yesterday that the President should be, impeached and removed from office. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WALDIE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I think what we are doing in this article as in every article of impeachment is attempting to define by the legislative process. by the impeachment process if you will, the extent of powers that we will permit Presidents to exercise in the future. It is if you will accept it, a constitutional redefinition of those powers and I think what the author of the resolution and the author of the amendment is saying in this instance, is that future Presidents, if subjected to an impeachment inquiry, will not be permitted to 'Make the determination that this President has sought to make, that he will determine what is relevant to that inquiry. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate the point the gentleman is making It is a good point. The way to do it is by legislation, not by a bill of attainment. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the. other gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the article offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory, and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that it is essential that we resolve this issue of the subpenas. The issue has been joined. This committee has issued a number of subpenas. The President has directly stated that he refused to obey them and reserves the right to decide what evidence will be presented before ore us from his office. The question we have here is very delicate and very finely drawn, but it is critical to the separation and allocation of powers under the' Constitution. The Thornton amendment brings into this article the type of responsible restraint that we need. It limits the impact of this article solely to the function of the Congress under the impeachment Clause, our sole power to impeach. This is a basic issue of constitutional separation and allocation Of powers. I submit that, in resolving this question this committee and the Congress must remember that we have no more right to refuse a jurisdiction which is ours than we have to assume a jurisdiction which is not ours. Nor does the Judicial Department nor does the executive department. It is for us to make a judgment here and on the floor of the House as to whether we are going to exercise our responsibility and our jurisdiction under the sole power of impeachment. Mr. McCLORY. In the Thornton amendment and the resolution, I submit that we will have met that issue, and I urge that both the amendment and the a article be adopted. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. I would yield to the lady from New York. MS. HOLTZMAN-. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I would just like to add a few points to his very eloquent statement. There has been some talk that the failure, of the President to comply -with the subpenas wrought no harm, and I would just like to point to the, area of the milk inquiry in which we did seek a number of subpenas and in which the committee in general has come to the conclusion that the evidence has not been sufficient even though there have been any number of indictments handed down, and some of the conversations that we subpenaed had to do with these indicted persons, Second, the argument is the same as was raised yesterday -with respect to IRS: That is, an illegal act which does not succeed is somehow less illegal. That remind me of attempted murder. Do we allow somebody to go free, because the victim survives? That is really a doctrine I think we cannot countenance. And I would like to add one other point, and that has to do with seeking the ruling of the courts. You know, the Founding Fathers placed the impeachment power solely in the hands of the Congress, and they explicitly rejected having the Supreme Court sit as the trier on a Conviction. If we were to allow the Supreme Court to decide on that relevance of the evidence in an impeachment inquiry, and if we were to allow the Supreme Court to decide basically what evidence an impeachment inquiry could have, I feel we would be violating the decisions of the Founding Fathers to place the right to inquire for the purposes of impeachment solely in the hands of the Congress. I very strongly support this article and yield back. [00.19.39]
Misc. European hotels
Scenics
Scenics
Scenics
Dubsovnik ?????
Dubrovnik ??
Sheep in ?? ship
?????/ sleep???or sheep??