Advanced Search
Thompsons Gazelle
22:56:10 Thomson's gazelle trotting
Grants Gazelle
22:56:34 Male Grant's gazelle running
Thompson Gazelle
22:58:09 Thomson's gazelle herd feeding
Hippo with Egrets
Tape 1 Hippos feed on land, cattle and yellow billed egrets
Hippopotamus
Head of hippos in the water ON PART ONE
Male African Elephant
Master 2140, Part 1 MS male (bull) African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) eating grass.
Cheetahs
Master 2140, Part 1 TLS/MS Female cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and 2 grown cubs standing on dead tree searching for prey. Zoom in to MS of cheetah standing on dead tree limb. Zoom out to TLS of cheetahs on tree. MS two grown cheetah cubs perched on dead tree limb. Good MS of cheetah standing tail to tail on tree.
Lion
01:12:51 Male lion yawning
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.09] Mr. FLOWERS. I ask unanimous consent that the time for debate of the article be extended 1 hour. The CHAIRMAN. There is 1 hour and 20 minutes remaining. Mr. FLOWERS. I ask unanimous consent that -we can extend the time to a total of 2 hours, I hour to each side for debate of the article. Mr. WIGGINS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his reservation. Mr. WIGGINS. Can I suggest to my friend from Alabama that we defer consideration of his unanimous consent request until -we see how -we are getting along. I have a feeling that as is the custom in the House, there be a great deal of yielding to members to develop their arguments more fully. But, if at the end of an hour it is clearly apparent that we have not had an adequate discussion, I certainly would not object to any unanimous consent request at that time. Mr. FLOWERS. I cannot argue with that. Mr. WIGGINS. Great. Mr. HOGAN. Reserving the right to object, the difficulty with that is that if the Chair parcels the time out on the basis of the fixed time limitation at this time, members will not have sufficient time to develop the arguments they want to make. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman, I cannot argue with that either. The. CHAIRMAN. The Chair would like to announce that there are 23 members who have sought recognition, 10 members in opposition and 13 members in support, and probably we could compromise by stating that each of those members, if a- unanimous consent request is in order, and it would be in order, that each member be given 5 minutes? would that suit the gentleman? Mr. FLOWERS. It seems like the' other side has got the advantage there, Mr. Chairman. I would kind of like to restrict it down to--there's not as many of us as there are of them this time, and it's kind of lonesome, over here on this article. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. I think once again the gentleman from Alabama has shown his good sense. Why don't we just divide the time equally. Mr. FLOWERS. I thank the gentleman for that comment very much. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. All one has to do is ask a unanimous consent request that that is in order and the Chair will put the unanimous consent request. Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. My parliamentary inquiry is this: If we are going to abandon our unanimous consent request which I made at the outset, and which was opposed. and cut down, it seems to me that we should revert to the rule -which -we adopted when we began these debates and proceed to provide each member with an opportunity to have 5 minutes to discuss it. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent request that each side be given 40 minutes. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I think that the suggestion of Mr. McCLORY. makes sense. We started out with the 5-minute rule. I don't know why we should suddenly switch to some other approach. And I just wonder whether there are any really serious objections to that. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair would like to state that presently, however. the unanimous consent request was adopted without objection and at the present time the Chair finds itself in the -position that there is 1 hour and 20 minutes remaining, and that I hour and 20 minutes would be divided, as the chair stated, between the opponents and the proponents. Now, if that order is to be vacated, then a unanimous consent request to vacate that is in order and we then -will proceed. Mr. FLOWERS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. I would like to withdraw my unanimous consent request and reserving the right to object to my friend from Illinois' Unanimous consent request, the 1 hour and 20 minutes amounts to 80 minutes does it not? The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. FLOWERS, Would that not be 40 minutes per side? Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the. gentleman yield?, Mr. FLOWERS. I realize this is the Judiciary Committee and we do not deal in numbers very often, but---- Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. FLOWERS. I certainly yield to my friend. Mr. RAILSBACK. I think I have decided, to withdraw my unanimous consent request. Mr. FROEHLICH. -Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Froehlich, Mr. FROEHLICH. I ask unanimous consent that each individual on your list be given 4 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman please restate that? Mr. FROEHLICH. I ask unanimous consent that each individual on your list be given 4 minutes. Mr. HOGAN. I object, Mr. Chairman. May I be heard on my objection, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman has objected, there is no unanimous consent request, unless the gentleman reserves his right to object. Mr. HOGAN. I object, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. is heard. We are back to 1 hour and 20 Minutes. The Chair will recognize the gentleman in support of the article, 'I and there are 13 of them listed, and I recognize Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. For how long, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Three minutes. [00.41.29]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.47.30] Mr. FISH. I thank the. gentleman. Mr. Thornton, if I could address a question to you, where in Your amendment to the article offered by Mr. McClory you use the language that you discussed a few minutes ago -with Mr. Butler, " demonstrated by other evidence to be, substantial grounds", are you referring there to the substantiation for the subpenaed materials that we received in each instance when a subpena was before us prepared by counsel showing the direct need that the-the, necessity for the subpenaed material by this committee in the course of its inquiry? Mr. THORNTON. If the gentleman will yield, I am referring to the evidentiary material which had been collected and presented to us in Support of the subpenas which were then issued. Mr. FISH. Finally, Mr. Chairman, Just an observation, and I will be glad to be challenged by anybody about this. The matter of going to the court for determination between the executive and the, legislative branch, it seems to me that the decision was made by the President himself that it was equally irrelevant to him whether to go to the court or to the Congress, but rather, he, made the determination himself as to what was relevant and necessary. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 1/2 minutes. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr., Smith, for 3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, this committee subpenaed tapes, memoranda and other records of the President. I voted to issue most of those subpenas. The President has furnished some of the material and he has furnished transcripts of many of the tapes and he has declined to furnish the balance, asserting his constitutional right of executive privilege, and the constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers among the three coequal branches of this Government as reasons for his declination to furnish. The committee asserts its constitutional right to reach and have this evidentiary material under the sole power of the House to impeach civil officers of the United States. As was set forth by Mr. Froehlich, here we have a constitutional confrontation between two coequal branches of our Government. Mr. McClory said Congress is pitted against the executive. It seems only natural and proper to me that the third coequal branch of our Government ought to be the umpire or arbiter of this confrontation of claimed constitutional rights and duties, particularly when that branch happens to be the one whose formal function it is to declare the meaning and effect of the Constitution. And so it is that I am one of the six members of this Committee who voted to submit the enforcement. of our subpenas to the courts, a position for which there is impressive support from constitutional scholars such as Prof. Alexander Bickel of Yale. However, the majority of our committee felt otherwise. I think this was a mistake, particularly in view of the recent Supreme Court decision -which upheld the subpena of some of the same material from the President by the Special Prosecutor. Most of us on the committee feel that our case is even stronger than that of Mr. Jaworski but I think it is still a case and I am surprised at 38 lawyers who vote not to submit their case to court, even though they are Congressmen and are asserting the alleged superior and supreme power of the Congress.I still think we should have gone to court to enforce our subpenas. We may have, but probably would not have, taken some additional time. However , even so, in a matter as important. as the impeachment of the President, we should have made this effort to obtain the tapes and the other material through the courts. If we bad received them, -we may have achieved some clear and convincing proof to connect the President personally and directly with the things which cannot be condoned that went on in the Committee To Re-Elect the President and in the White House itself. In my judgment, we do not have, that evidence today. Or the President may have refused to obey all order of the Supreme Court to deliver the materials sought, and clearly my judgment, this would be impeachable conduct. One, other aspect of court enforcement of our subpenas ought, to be, mentioned. We have, a long tradition in this country that the accused in a criminal case shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself. In fact, this what amendment 5 of the Constitution says as Part of the, Bill of Rights.
Welsh Village Mourns Mass Memorial for Slide Victims
NO AUDIO Survivors of the Aberfan disaster (a slag landslide that covered a school and two dozen homes) that killed 144 people, 116 of the dead were children, are laid to rest on a hillside cemetery. The mass funeral draws thousands of mourners who have joined bereaved relatives, survivors, rescue workers, coal miners and people of the village in the small Welsh town. A giant cross of flowers overlooks the single, mass trench grave. LS Aerial shot of a village as the camera pans and you see a giant cross in memorial. A giant cross made from white flowers is laid on a hillside about 4 feet wide across. A man lays a flower down in honor of a slag victim. Four gentlemen and a boy somewhere in the age range of 12 to 14 years old walking up the incline of the village street carrying flowers. While others following behind carry floral arrangements. Four ministers walking to the grave site. High Angle shot up at the mountains that caused the massive deaths. Crowds gather at Aberfan cemetery. There s only standing room only as people stand on the hilltop in grief, some holding prayer books. Down the center of the floral cross lay many coffins in a mass grave with people lined on either side of the trench. People stand singing or reading off prayers from the books they hold. MS coffins being laid to rest on the side of the hill. CU of floral arrangements that have been brought to the gravesite. People gathered looking at the arrangements or the coffins laid out before them. Aerial of the Cemetery and flower cross that s been laid.
Football: Dartmouth 28 - Yale 13
No Audio At Yale Bowl in New Haven, Connecticut, Dartmouth wins its 10th Ivy League Victory. Dartmouth s The Big Green tops Yale 28 to 13. Dartmouth Quarterback Mickey Beard throws two touchdown passes to keep their second place Ivy League spot. High Angle shot of throngs that have packed themselves in Yale Bowl stadium to watch their team play Dartmouth. No 15 Dartmouth s QB pretends to run with the football but Yale is not tricked by the play and shacks him. No 14 Yale QB has the ball and finds an open receiver, passes the ball and No 15 runs for a touchdown. Football fans stand in applause. Dartmouth has the ball, the Quarterback passes the ball for a twenty yard gain and the receiver manages to get a few more yards running the ball. Dartmouth No 18 passes the ball to No 85 who catches it and runs into the end zone for a touchdown. MS Sports enthusiasts cheering. Dartmouth quarterback No18 runs with the ball, he is taken down but not before passing it to No 15 who runs it all the way to the end zone for a touchdown. MS the crowds cheer. Yale with the ball, the Quarterback spots an open receiver in the end zone. The Ball is thrown and it s a touchdown for Yale. Dartmouth takes control of the ball. No 18 passes to No 34 who catches and dives in the end zone with the ball for a touchdown and the win. Dartmouth 28 Yale 13.
LBJ Comes Home: Washington Welcome After Asian Tour
NO AUDIO Washington turns out to greet the homecoming President after his whirlwind Asian and Pacific tour. He terms thetrip, "thrilling, rewarding and encouraging." MS In the evening and/or night a good size crowd comes out to Washington's airport to greet the President and Mrs. Johnson. Spectators stand behind a guard rail waiting to welcome the President Johnson and Lady Bird back home. A long banner reads "Well Done Mr. President." CU of smiling excited greeters. Military guards stand at attention waiting for the President's arrival. Low Angle Shot with Air Force One illuminated by the airport's lights, the President and Lady Bird disembarking from the plane. The President and Mrs. Johnson shake the hands of the people who came out to welcome them back home. People in the crowd holding up and wave signs like "Welcome Home LBJ." LS Helicopter begins take off with the President and First Lady Claudia Johnson in route for home.
California Inferno: Forest Fires Kill Fourteen
NO AUDIO Fourteen are killed in raging brush and forest fires which sweep across a 100 mile area of Southern California. Ten veteran U.S. Forest Service firefighters and four Marines at Camp Pendleton perish in the battle against the fires Burning brush in the hills of Southern California. Firemen fight the blaze with fire hoses. A hill side is completely engulfed in fierce flames. CU of a couple of L.A. firemen in protective goggles fighting back the blaze. The fire spreads up the hills as the wind blows. Firemen pulling more fire hose from their fire engine. A firemen fight the blaze with fire hoses. Nurses and ambulances line the streets ready to triage patients. Two men carry someone on a stretcher and load them into the waiting ambulance. The ambulance leaves. A posted sign "Closed to Entry becasue of fire danger." The California hills continue burning as fire fighters do their best to contain the situation. Men watch the smoke rise up the hills from their trucks. Over rooftops smoke rises from the mountain regions.
Arkansas 34 - Texas A & M 0
NO AUDIO In a nighttime Southwestern Conference game, the Arkansas Razorbacks defeat the Texas Aggies in a one-sided match. Sophomore David Dickey scores four touchdowns for Arkansas. A 59 yard punt return notches another. Final: Arkansas -- 34, A&M -- 0. High Angle shot of football players out on the field. Football enthusisats clap in the stands.. Razorback's Quarterback No #15 throws the football and completes his pass to No #14 whose quickly taken down by Texas No #50. Razorback No #15 hands off the ball to No #44 and gets sacked rather quickly. Referrees raise their hands in goal making the crowds applaud and waze in the stands. Razorback's #15 hand's off the ball to No #23, who gains around 19-yards in the new play.Razorback 15 hands off the ball to No #44 who runs the ball in for a touchdown. Razorback Cheerleaders do a little dance. Texas, punter, No #18 kicks the ball and it lands mid field. Razorback 17, returns the football running near the sidelines all the way home for a touchdown. The Arkansas Razorbacks win 34 to 0.
Florida 30 - Auburn 27
NO AUDIO The University of Florida Quarterback Stephen Orr "Steve" Spurrier pulls out a win against Auburn in the last two minutes. His 40 yard field goal breaks a 27-All tie giving Florida the victory 30 to 27. He clinches the 1966 Heisman Trophy with the victory. High Angle Shot of the football field during Florida s kick's off. The ball is fumbled by Auburn and Florida retains possession of the ball. Florida's QB passes the ball and his receiver No #44 catches it scoring a touchdown. A packed stadium of football fans applaud. Florida kicks the football to Auburn's punt returner, who makes the catch at the 10-yard line and he runs it down field into the end zone for a touchdown. Football spectators are brought to their feet cheering. The two competeing teams face off. Florida's QB hands off the ball to No 31. He fumbles the ball during the play and it is picked up by Auburn. The Interceptor runs it from center field to the end zone. Touchdown! Crowds cheering. Florida has the ball. Number 11 passes the ball to number 41 who gets sacked upon the catch. Florida is at the 1st and goal line. A touchdown in made as the sports fans cheer. Various shots of the football game in play. MS Scoreboard tied at 20 points. Florida QB No #11 passes the ball to his receiver No #83 and Auburn players waste no time taking him down at the 23-yard line. Florida's punter come's out and kicks the football. It's Good. Florida wins 30 to Auburn 27.
Giant Dam Project; New Dam For Columbia River
NO AUDIO A gigantic triple-sided project along the U.S/Canadian border is building three dams for control of the powerful Columbia River and the harnessing of its power. The project will prevent the destructive floods of the past in this area. This is either the Mica Dam, Revelstoke Dam or the Keemleyside Dam. These dams ensured the optimum conditions for producing hydroelectricity along the Columbia River downstream in the US and for flood control along the entire river. At this time the construction of the dam, was one of the largest earth-filled dams in the world. (Mica Dam) Aerial shot of the Columbia River and a dam under construction. CU of a large earth mover moving rock and dirt from the river bed that was once covered with water. An engineer giving hand directions to the driver in the large earth mover. MLS The earth mover takes the dirt and rock that it's carrying and dumps it into a barge. The barge filled with dirt and rock moves its cargo down the river. MS Man welding a metal scaffold. CU of welder at work. Back of a man wearing a hard hat watching the workers. High Angle Shot of the dam under construction. There's a large crane off to the right. CU Crane operator unloading a bucket full of dirt and rock. Evening shot of the construction site. Men hose down cement. Another panning shot of the construction site being worked on well into the night. Aerial Shot of Dam construction, large trucks and cranes.
Fancy Steppers: Teen Dancers Show Style
No Audio In West Berlin, youngsters aged 8 to 14 compete in the first International Dance Contest for children. The Quick Step and Cha Cha are featured as the kids show some very fancy steps. Two London children are declared winners. LS young men dressed in tuxedos with numbers on their backs dance with young girls in formal dresses. They dance the Quick Step. On the side lines are judges holding scoring tablets in their hands. CU Female judges score their favorite dancers. MS Couples Quickstep around the ballroom. One unfortunate couple dances across the floor and loses their balance and takes a fall. MS pair in the audience take note with amused facial expressions. The young dancers graciously pick themselves up and continue on. The audience applause in appreciation. CU of fast fancy footwork. MCU of dancing couple No #21 showing off their Cha Cha abilities. LS Everyone is dancing the Cha Cha. MS Audience applauding the talented children. A solo young couple come onto the dance floor to take their bows and make curtsy s. They are the Ballroom Dance Champions from London.
Prison Rodeo Thriller
NO AUDIO At Texas State Prison in Huntsville convicts ride broncos and bulls in the 35th Annual Prison Rodeo. The proceeds help to build up their educational and recreation funds. Each inmate takes pride in his ride....win, lose, or fall! MS Exterior shot of Texas State Prison in Huntsville. A large crowd of people walking around. The sidewalks are packed with people and streets are filled with car traffic. Inside the arena, which sits next to the prison building. The horses are ridden by the prisoners. CU as one cowboy checks his saddle. The stands are packed with rodeo enthusiasts sitting in the hot afternoon sun. MS Rodeo clowns walk with a banners reading "Take A Convict Home With You", "Anyone Got A Ladder" and "Would You Believe We Like Girls." MS Prisoners sit watching the festivities behind a fenced in area. The first cowboy is released from the stall and his horse promptly bucks him off after a well-intentioned ride. Another horse and another rodeo causality. A horse tosses his rider sideways for a ride before dropping him on the ground. Perhaps a boot was stuck in the reins. The packed crowds applaud. Riders now take to brahma bulls as one prisoner after another is taken for a brief twisting and turning ride. A bull nearly tramples his rider as he hops right over him. One rider lands on his feet as many others land on their backs or butts. Some start on their stomachs as they grab hold on the reins and pull themselves up on the steers and back into the pins. (The film seems to be in reverse.) MS as 10 stalls are opened at once and most manage to stay on as a few bite the dust.
Election Day 1966: Voters' Decisions Climax Campaigns
Audio Fades In and Out It's Election Day as registered voters flood their local polling places to elect the newest city, state and federal government officials. Republicans gain 47 House seats, 3 Senate seats and 8 New Governors. Among the Key Victories are Romney in Michigan, Percy in Illinois, Reagan in California, and Rockefeller in New York.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.00] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California, Mr. Edwards, is recognized for 3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suppose that many times during the past few weeks all 38 of us had looked with envy upon parliamentarians in our sister countries where, by a majority vote members of parliament can just call a new election and indeed right now there are several of these propositions to amend the Constitution before the House Judiciary Committee but obviously will not receive attention this year. But a new election where a President gets into trouble is not provided in the Constitution. Our Founders talked about it but they rejected it for the stability that is inherent in a 4-year term. And they rejected it for the power that a 4-year term gives to a President. This 4-year term that can only be interrupted by death or impeachment. So, this power of impeachment that we have in article II, section 4, is all we have to protect the country from a President who gravely abuses his office. We can't have a nice, convenient election down the road by a majority vote of Congress. We can't, like our country to the north, Canada, or England or most European countries, call an election in a couple of months. We just have impeachment. We do have, of course, the power of the purse but that is limited. We do have to enact appropriation bills and the President does have the right to spend the money. So I suggest that we would be irresponsible if we don't enact this article III, that if we don't, we will diminish or destroy this only safety valve in our Constitution. And for this power of impeachment to operate, if it is to have any meaning at all, any vitality at all, we simply must be able to get the evidence. That seems very clear. The inquiry must be complete if it is going to be fair and we can* be fair and complete without the facts. Our subpenas all were carefully drawn, narrowly drawn. We weren't seeking information about national defense or any state secrets or personal information. So, in voting for this very important article III, I suggest that we can't destroy the only safeguard that we have to protect ourselves from a President who. misbehaves so badly that he becomes a threat to the country and should be removed either now or in the future. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, is recognized for 4 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I would like to yield 30 seconds of my time to my friend from New York, Mr. Smith, to finish his statement. Mr. SMITH. I thank the gentleman. We -were talking about whether in the background there were implications of the fifth amendment--that an accused shall not be required to be a witness against himself--and I think the question which should be asked here is whether it is fair and according to our traditions to say to the President, in effect, "We don't yet have the clear and convincing proof we need to impeach you, so -we are requiring you to hand over -what we hope will be your confession, and if you don't, in fact, hand over the materials which we hope will be a confession, we shall peremptorily impeach you for failing to turn them over on the order of the Congress, even though the Supreme Court might have found that you have -good Constitutional reasons for not handing, them over." I thank- the gentleman. an. Mr. SANDMAN. Thank you. I think the outstanding point that is being raised here by my friend from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, who uses his time, and I want to yield to him in a moment, one of the things that I bear him musing about here which I think is so awfully appropriate is that this really is overkill tit its worst and I know he can talk about that -well. And that is about what this amounts to, a little Item of overkill. There are enough votes here to pass anything and you know it and I know it. But, -when you reflect the correction that the Thornton amendment tries to make, it rapidly brings back those two Wiggins' amendments, and then also it rapidly brings to your mind, too, a word that has been brushed under the counter here for so long, that word "direct," "direct evidence," It says there that these papers were needed to produce direct evidence. This is -what -we have, been complaining about. There isn't enough direct evidence. There isn't any, Then, of course, the Wiggins' amendments corrected in there, too' because he said it will provide the necessary factual questions relating to Presidential direction. Remember that in the Wiggins' amendments? These are the same people who voted against the Wiggins' amendments. The other thing in the, Wiggins' amendments, that it -would provide the knowledge on the part of the President. Those words should haunt people who now have a reverse in their opinion. And, you know, I don't think that-it seems to be the objective of some people here, unless we impeach, -we are not carrying out our constitutional duty. Impeachment is that course of last resort. It is not the course of first resort. And I think -we should start thinking about that once. in a while. I would like to yield to my friend from Illinois, Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have my own time and use it in connection with the time yielded to me and I wonder how much time I have. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 4 minutes of his own and 1 minute if the gentleman from New Jersey yields him that minute. Five minutes in toto. And the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, let me say at the outset that I don't attribute any evil motives to my friend from Illinois for offering this resolution. Let me say, though, that I think this is a case where we, this committee has developed a rather fragile bipartisan support of two rather substantial and serious articles of impeachment, and is now about to engage in what I call political overkill. There are many Republicans, I can tell you, on the House floor that have been impressed with the evidence that has been adduced in respect to the, very serious obstruction of justice charge, and also the abuse of power charge. Now, what is this committee about to do? We are about ------ [01.04.09--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974
U.S. Representative Tom Railsback (R-IL) speaking at House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings against U.S. President Richard Nixon, says many Republicans on the House floor have been impressed by the obstruction of justice and abuse of power charge against President Nixon. Railsback discusses the job of the Committee to impeach the President for refusing to comply with subpoenas when he has produced substantial quantities of evidence. Railsback discusses how Committee’s counsel has argued that first if Nixon should refuse to reply, stopping to say he does not like being stonewalled by Nixon, continues saying the Committee’s Counsel has said not to try to cite Nixon for contempt. Railsback says the Committee has been asked to make negative inferences based on Nixon’s failure to produce evidence, that the Committee has been asked to go one step further and impeach Nixon based upon his failure to comply. Railsback argues the impeachment hearings should be carried out differently. Railsback says the witness (Nixon) should be given the opportunity to appear before the full House or Senate and give reasons why he should not be held in contemp, adding that the Supreme Court has held that this kind of notice is required under the 5th and 14th amendments. Railsback says we are bypassing Constitutional procedure because we do not think we have time to follow it and refuse to go to court when there are many of us who think a President has the right to assert executive privilege. Railsback says there are two separate coequal branches, adds that it should be natural to ask the third branch (Judicial Branch), the traditional arbitrator, to arbitrate this dispute and determine whether the President’s assertion of executive privilege would fail. Railsback says he has no doubt the Court would have ruled in the Committee’s favor, that it probably would have been the only way we could have obtained the evidence to determine truth or falsity of the allegations against Nixon. Railsback discusses what the Committee will be examining under the articles of impeachment, mentions Cambodia, calls the proceedings “political overkill.”
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.14.43] Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DENNIS. I reserve my time, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot reserve his time. Mr. DENNIS. I do not yield. I The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman refuses to yield. The Chair notes that there is a rollcall vote in process on the floor and the Chair will recess the committee and continue the debate on this question and the recognition of members at 2 o'clock. AFTERNOON SESSION [01.15.29--dissolve to committee room after the recess] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. At the time the committee recessed we were still considering the McClory article, III, as amended, and at the time there were eight members to speak in opposition of the article with 31/2 minutes for each member, and six members to speak in support. So, I will recognize now Mr. Eilberg for 31/2 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I think there is no justifiable defense for the President's refusal to comply with subpenas, I respectfully submit that if members now considering voting against approving this article of impeachment did not think the President should be disciplined or punished for refusing to comply with the subpenas, why did they vote for them in the first place? Is it not true that subpenas are, demands backed up by the threat of punishment for noncompliance? If not by impeachment, how can the President, as a practical matter, and I emphasize practical matter, be disciplined or punished for noncompliance? At no time has any reasonable argument been advanced for the President's refusal. His lawyer argued that the President has executive privilege in this matter. He said disclosure of these conversations could endanger the principle of confidentiality and threaten the ability of the President to conduct his business of his office. But, during, the impeachment of Andrew, Johnson there was a far-reaching inquiry into the conversations between that President and his aides. No information was withheld from the committee making that investigation and it could not' be argued that this resulted in any way in limiting any subsequent President's ability to communicate with his aides. No argument has been made which justifies any right of executive, privilege in an impeachment inquiry. No legal scholar of which I am aware, past or present, has argued that the President has the right to limit an impeachment inquiry into his conduct in any way except possibly by pleading the fifth amendment. However, the President's lawyer, James St. Clair said at his press conference. last week that the President would not claim the fifth amendment. By failure to adopt article III, we shall be unleashing a Presidency which has no limitations. The Framers of the Constitution put the power of impeachment into the Constitution to provide a check on the President. They knew that a President who could not be called to account for his actions might become a dictator-, and if we do not impeach Richard Nixon for - not cooperating with this investigation. we shall be giving up at least some of Congress' right to question the President's actions. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. [01.18.49]
US Navy: Away Borders
A Non-Classified Film from the United States Navy. World War Two: The USS Guadalcanal's seizure of a German U-Boat.