Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon#Impeachment_hearings
Impeachment hearings
The Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings received intense press attention and live gavel-to-gavel television coverage
The House Judiciary Committee opened its formal impeachment hearings against the President on May 9, 1974. The first twenty minutes were televised on the major U.S. networks, after which the committee switched to closed sessions for the next two months.
Focus was on Article One of the United States Constitution.
At the time of the initial impeachment investigations, it was not known if Nixon had known and approved of the payments to the Watergate defendants earlier than this conversation. Nixon's conversation with Haldeman on August 1, 1972, is one of several that establishes this. Nixon states: "Well ... they have to be paid. That's all there is to that. They have to be paid."[66] During the congressional debate on impeachment, some believed that impeachment required a criminally indictable offense. President Nixon's agreement to make the blackmail payments was regarded as an affirmative act to obstruct justice.[67]
Focus was also on allegations of misuse in a discriminatory manner of the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies.[68]
Impoundment of appropriated funds, related to funds allocated by Congress that Nixon chose not to spend because he did not like the associated goals – in particular, for the Clean Water Act – was also considered by the impeachment inquiry.[57][69] However the staff decided that, even though some courts had ruled such impoundments illegal, it was not an impeachable offense.[70] Consequently, no article along these lines was brought up for a committee vote.[57]
On July 9, the Judiciary Committee released its own version of eight of the White House tapes that Nixon had previously issued his own transcript of. The Committee transcripts were both the beneficiary of superior playback equipment and restored some of the potentially damaging statements that Nixon staffers had removed or heard differently.[71]
This was quickly followed by the July 12 Committee release of its accumulated evidence on the case, which ran to 3,888 pages.[72] For the first time, St. Clair acknowledged publicly that a committee vote in favor of impeachment was likely, but Press Secretary Ziegler said that the president remained confident that the full House would not impeach.[72]
Ray Thornton of Arkansas, William L. Hungate of Missouri, and Jack Brooks of Texas were part of a group of three southern Democrats and four moderate Republicans who drafted the articles of impeachment adopted by the Committee. Nixon later called Brooks his "executioner".[73]
During the hearings, President Nixon attempted to preserve his support in the House by wooing senior figures there, including some conservative Democrats, by inviting them to White House functions or evening cruises on the presidential yacht USS Sequoia.[74]
Representative Barbara Jordan (left) became nationally known for her eloquence during the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings
The televised coverage of committee hearings resumed on July 24.[75] The commercial broadcast networks televised the evening sessions while PBS broadcast the morning and afternoon sessions as well;[76] this was after considerable debate about whether such broadcasts were a good idea.[75] The first broadcast was an evening session of the committee on the evening of the 24th and started two days of televised opening-statements by committee members. In total there were six days of 13 hours-per-day of televised coverage, watched by millions of Americans.[76] On the afternoon of Friday, July 26, television viewers watched live as the first Article of Impeachment was read into the record against the President.
On July 25, 1974, Texas Democrat Barbara Jordan delivered a fifteen-minute televised speech before the House Judiciary Committee supporting the impeachment process.[77][78] Jordan's statement on the articles of impeachment is thought to be one of the best speeches of the 20th century and earned Jordan national praise for her rhetoric, morals, and wisdom.[79][77]
Democratic Representative Walter Flowers of Alabama, a conservative Democrat, was considered to be leaning against impeachment. After a long struggle, which caused an ulcer to recur, Flowers indicated he would vote for impeachment. The congressman said "I felt that if we didn't impeach, we'd just ingrain and stamp in our highest office a standard of conduct that's just unacceptable."[80] Coming from a state which had supported Nixon in 1972, he was seen as influential even with some Republicans. He told the undecided Republicans on the committee, "This is something we just cannot walk away from. It happened, and now we've got to deal with it.[80]
Republican Representative M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia explained his vote in favor of impeachment by saying, "For years we Republicans have campaigned against corruption and misconduct. ... But Watergate is our shame."[22] Representative Lawrence Hogan of Maryland, another Republican, said, "After reading the transcripts, it was sobering: the number of untruths, the deception and the immoral attitudes. By any standard of proof demanded, we had to bind him over for trial and removal by the Senate."[22] After much internal and external anguish, Representative Tom Railsback also decided to vote in that direction.[81]
Representative Elizabeth Holtzman of New York, a young Democrat, also drew national media attention as a member of the committee.[82] Another representative from New York, Charles Rangel, became a force in the House in subsequent years. Rangel had a more positive take on what transpired: "Some say this is a sad day in America's history. I think it could perhaps be one of our brightest days. It could be really a test of the strength of our Constitution, because what I think it means to most Americans is that when this or any other President violates his sacred oath of office, the people are not left helpless."[22]
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Drinan, who had introduced the earlier resolutions, also played a role in the Congressional investigation of Nixon administration misdeeds and crimes and gained national visibility as a consequence.[5]
One of the arguments that Nixon supporters on the committee often made was that the charges and the questions being asked about them needed more "specificity".[83] In that respect they challenged those who would impeach to come up with more details in purposeful conversations to be linked together as part of a concerted plan of action.[84]
Republican Charles E. Wiggins of California was Nixon's fiercest and ablest defender on the committee.[85] Wiggins consistently argued that no specific piece of evidence directly linked Nixon to any criminal act.[86] Other prominent defenders included David W. Dennis of Indiana[87] and Delbert L. Latta of Ohio.[86]
Republican Charles W. Sandman, Jr. of New Jersey defended Nixon throughout the proceedings, often to the point of caustic stridency,[86] and gained brief national visibility as a result. The New York Times described him as: "a heavyset man with glasses on the end of his nose, a pencil grasped between his hands, heaping sarcasm and scorn upon the arguments of those who would impeach the President".[87] He was one of those most vocally demanding "specificity".[84] At one point during the hearings, Sandman angrily told his New Jersey colleague on the committee, Chairman Rodino, "Please, let us not bore the American public ... you have your 27 votes", referring to the 27 affirmative votes for the first article of impeachment against Nixon. Sandman denied that emotion was the key behind his defense, saying "My role is not one of defending the President – that's for sure. I believe in a strict construction of the Constitution. If somebody, for the first time in seven months, gives me something that is direct, I will vote to impeach."[87]
Attorney James D. St. Clair, having been named a special counsel to the president in January 1974, represented Nixon before the House Judiciary Committee as they considered the impeachment charges against him. He said in explanation of his role, "I don't represent Mr. Nixon personally. I represent him in his capacity as president."[88] This dovetailed with Nixon's argument that he was motivated by a desire to protect the presidency and not by any urge for self-preservation.[88] St. Clair's defense was centered around the notion that while Nixon had made a number of statements that looked bad, he had committed no crimes.[88]
There was tension between the two minority counsels, Jenner and Garrison, as Garrison had firmer ties to the conservative Republicans on the committee.[57] Once Jenner came out in favor of impeachment, saying the evidence for it was persuasive, he was removed from his role as the minority's chief special counsel.[89] Garrison was chosen to replace him on July 22,[90] and had to put together on a last-minute basis his own defense of the president.[30][91] Garrison later said that the stress of his position caused him to collapse from anxiety at one point.[91]
Law professor Raoul Berger was a popular academic critic of the doctrine of "executive privilege" and was viewed as playing a significant role in undermining Nixon's constitutional arguments during the impeachment process.[92]
Shortly before the committee undertook its impeachment votes, a Harris Poll showed that 53 percent of Americans supported an impeachment of Nixon by the House. The same poll showed that 47 percent thought he should be convicted in a Senate trial, 34 percent thought he should be acquitted, and the rest were unsure.[80] A Gallup Poll taken around the same time revealed that Nixon's favorability rating had fallen to 24 percent.[80]
These hearings culminated in votes on proposed articles of impeachment.[93] As the Judiciary Committee prepared for the votes, Rodino said: "We have deliberated. We have been patient. We have been fair. Now the American people, the House of Representatives and the Constitution and the whole history of our republic demand that we make up our minds."
Impeachment hearings
The Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings received intense press attention and live gavel-to-gavel television coverage
The House Judiciary Committee opened its formal impeachment hearings against the President on May 9, 1974. The first twenty minutes were televised on the major U.S. networks, after which the committee switched to closed sessions for the next two months.
Focus was on Article One of the United States Constitution.
At the time of the initial impeachment investigations, it was not known if Nixon had known and approved of the payments to the Watergate defendants earlier than this conversation. Nixon's conversation with Haldeman on August 1, 1972, is one of several that establishes this. Nixon states: "Well ... they have to be paid. That's all there is to that. They have to be paid."[66] During the congressional debate on impeachment, some believed that impeachment required a criminally indictable offense. President Nixon's agreement to make the blackmail payments was regarded as an affirmative act to obstruct justice.[67]
Focus was also on allegations of misuse in a discriminatory manner of the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies.[68]
Impoundment of appropriated funds, related to funds allocated by Congress that Nixon chose not to spend because he did not like the associated goals – in particular, for the Clean Water Act – was also considered by the impeachment inquiry.[57][69] However the staff decided that, even though some courts had ruled such impoundments illegal, it was not an impeachable offense.[70] Consequently, no article along these lines was brought up for a committee vote.[57]
On July 9, the Judiciary Committee released its own version of eight of the White House tapes that Nixon had previously issued his own transcript of. The Committee transcripts were both the beneficiary of superior playback equipment and restored some of the potentially damaging statements that Nixon staffers had removed or heard differently.[71]
This was quickly followed by the July 12 Committee release of its accumulated evidence on the case, which ran to 3,888 pages.[72] For the first time, St. Clair acknowledged publicly that a committee vote in favor of impeachment was likely, but Press Secretary Ziegler said that the president remained confident that the full House would not impeach.[72]
Ray Thornton of Arkansas, William L. Hungate of Missouri, and Jack Brooks of Texas were part of a group of three southern Democrats and four moderate Republicans who drafted the articles of impeachment adopted by the Committee. Nixon later called Brooks his "executioner".[73]
During the hearings, President Nixon attempted to preserve his support in the House by wooing senior figures there, including some conservative Democrats, by inviting them to White House functions or evening cruises on the presidential yacht USS Sequoia.[74]
Representative Barbara Jordan (left) became nationally known for her eloquence during the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings
The televised coverage of committee hearings resumed on July 24.[75] The commercial broadcast networks televised the evening sessions while PBS broadcast the morning and afternoon sessions as well;[76] this was after considerable debate about whether such broadcasts were a good idea.[75] The first broadcast was an evening session of the committee on the evening of the 24th and started two days of televised opening-statements by committee members. In total there were six days of 13 hours-per-day of televised coverage, watched by millions of Americans.[76] On the afternoon of Friday, July 26, television viewers watched live as the first Article of Impeachment was read into the record against the President.
On July 25, 1974, Texas Democrat Barbara Jordan delivered a fifteen-minute televised speech before the House Judiciary Committee supporting the impeachment process.[77][78] Jordan's statement on the articles of impeachment is thought to be one of the best speeches of the 20th century and earned Jordan national praise for her rhetoric, morals, and wisdom.[79][77]
Democratic Representative Walter Flowers of Alabama, a conservative Democrat, was considered to be leaning against impeachment. After a long struggle, which caused an ulcer to recur, Flowers indicated he would vote for impeachment. The congressman said "I felt that if we didn't impeach, we'd just ingrain and stamp in our highest office a standard of conduct that's just unacceptable."[80] Coming from a state which had supported Nixon in 1972, he was seen as influential even with some Republicans. He told the undecided Republicans on the committee, "This is something we just cannot walk away from. It happened, and now we've got to deal with it.[80]
Republican Representative M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia explained his vote in favor of impeachment by saying, "For years we Republicans have campaigned against corruption and misconduct. ... But Watergate is our shame."[22] Representative Lawrence Hogan of Maryland, another Republican, said, "After reading the transcripts, it was sobering: the number of untruths, the deception and the immoral attitudes. By any standard of proof demanded, we had to bind him over for trial and removal by the Senate."[22] After much internal and external anguish, Representative Tom Railsback also decided to vote in that direction.[81]
Representative Elizabeth Holtzman of New York, a young Democrat, also drew national media attention as a member of the committee.[82] Another representative from New York, Charles Rangel, became a force in the House in subsequent years. Rangel had a more positive take on what transpired: "Some say this is a sad day in America's history. I think it could perhaps be one of our brightest days. It could be really a test of the strength of our Constitution, because what I think it means to most Americans is that when this or any other President violates his sacred oath of office, the people are not left helpless."[22]
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Drinan, who had introduced the earlier resolutions, also played a role in the Congressional investigation of Nixon administration misdeeds and crimes and gained national visibility as a consequence.[5]
One of the arguments that Nixon supporters on the committee often made was that the charges and the questions being asked about them needed more "specificity".[83] In that respect they challenged those who would impeach to come up with more details in purposeful conversations to be linked together as part of a concerted plan of action.[84]
Republican Charles E. Wiggins of California was Nixon's fiercest and ablest defender on the committee.[85] Wiggins consistently argued that no specific piece of evidence directly linked Nixon to any criminal act.[86] Other prominent defenders included David W. Dennis of Indiana[87] and Delbert L. Latta of Ohio.[86]
Republican Charles W. Sandman, Jr. of New Jersey defended Nixon throughout the proceedings, often to the point of caustic stridency,[86] and gained brief national visibility as a result. The New York Times described him as: "a heavyset man with glasses on the end of his nose, a pencil grasped between his hands, heaping sarcasm and scorn upon the arguments of those who would impeach the President".[87] He was one of those most vocally demanding "specificity".[84] At one point during the hearings, Sandman angrily told his New Jersey colleague on the committee, Chairman Rodino, "Please, let us not bore the American public ... you have your 27 votes", referring to the 27 affirmative votes for the first article of impeachment against Nixon. Sandman denied that emotion was the key behind his defense, saying "My role is not one of defending the President – that's for sure. I believe in a strict construction of the Constitution. If somebody, for the first time in seven months, gives me something that is direct, I will vote to impeach."[87]
Attorney James D. St. Clair, having been named a special counsel to the president in January 1974, represented Nixon before the House Judiciary Committee as they considered the impeachment charges against him. He said in explanation of his role, "I don't represent Mr. Nixon personally. I represent him in his capacity as president."[88] This dovetailed with Nixon's argument that he was motivated by a desire to protect the presidency and not by any urge for self-preservation.[88] St. Clair's defense was centered around the notion that while Nixon had made a number of statements that looked bad, he had committed no crimes.[88]
There was tension between the two minority counsels, Jenner and Garrison, as Garrison had firmer ties to the conservative Republicans on the committee.[57] Once Jenner came out in favor of impeachment, saying the evidence for it was persuasive, he was removed from his role as the minority's chief special counsel.[89] Garrison was chosen to replace him on July 22,[90] and had to put together on a last-minute basis his own defense of the president.[30][91] Garrison later said that the stress of his position caused him to collapse from anxiety at one point.[91]
Law professor Raoul Berger was a popular academic critic of the doctrine of "executive privilege" and was viewed as playing a significant role in undermining Nixon's constitutional arguments during the impeachment process.[92]
Shortly before the committee undertook its impeachment votes, a Harris Poll showed that 53 percent of Americans supported an impeachment of Nixon by the House. The same poll showed that 47 percent thought he should be convicted in a Senate trial, 34 percent thought he should be acquitted, and the rest were unsure.[80] A Gallup Poll taken around the same time revealed that Nixon's favorability rating had fallen to 24 percent.[80]
These hearings culminated in votes on proposed articles of impeachment.[93] As the Judiciary Committee prepared for the votes, Rodino said: "We have deliberated. We have been patient. We have been fair. Now the American people, the House of Representatives and the Constitution and the whole history of our republic demand that we make up our minds."
Once the tapes were located and turned over a few weeks later, Nixon's goose was cooked.
Even the Repukes knew it.
As I recall, the really damning ones (with the erasures) were the last tapes he turned over. And yes, it was by court order. But other tapes were released earlier, and I remember that people were shocked by all the swearing etc. The stenographer kept putting in "expletive deleted" all over the transcripts.
