Nixon president ial Library Director, explains why article ii was at the heart. Vote continues to shape our understanding of president ial power. Isjoining us from new york tim naftali who is the director of the library at New York University and former nixon president ial Library Director. Thank you for being with us. We want to go back 40 years ago as the house was beginning to debate article ii of impeachment, the abuse of power. I want to have you set up a what was happening within this congressional meeting. Was a very important of the of the drama constitutional crisis. The second article is all about president ial abuse of power. And that got at the heart of what the framers were actually thinking about when they chose ofput the possibilities impeachment into the constitution. The did they have a broad sense of what should be the reason . Or were they trying to seek a reason . Could you remove a president just for being a bad president . Caucus andrepublican also within the Democratic Caucus, there were three southern democrats in the 21 member Democratic Caucus committee and there were some question as to what will be an abuse of power . And what kind of abuse of power would be impeachable . The debate is all about how first of all, could you prove the president did these things and are they impeachable . Something else one has to keep in mind. All 38 members of the committee were lawyers. A number of them felt, look, we need evidence that we could convict the president of if we were if he were indicted on a felony. Do we have the type of evidence that proves that Richard Nixon knew about these abuses . And that is a whole different standard. What you have are questions about what the framers had in mind and questions of whether the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the senate were indeed impeachable and thirdly, can we prove that Richard Nixon knew about them and even authorized them . Thatave three big issues the committee has been thinking about for months. And as a debate highlights them. It had been more than a century since congress had debated the issue of impeachment. What was the president of that house judiciary meaning to take up the articles . Youve touched on the debate. What was the case against impeachment . Well, there are three articles at issue. Previous to this was article i. That is about the coverup. Could you prove that nixon participated and prevented the investigation of watergate . That was article one. By the time they started debating article ii, article i been passed by a vote of i am sorry. Article one had been passed by a 20 711. 0 you have six republicans who voted for article i. It is clear the committee already had a died a for impeachment. It already happened. Article i has been passed by 27 11 vote. This is the second article. This all about whether nixon had andsed his authority actually use excessive power in a way that would conflict with the constitution and was in many ways criminal. Highlights itself some of these activities. For example, the misuse of the fbi. Toking files from the fbi embarrass, humiliate, or hurt one of the president s political opponents. Daniels name was not mentioned. Dan shore, wass, the object of a request of the fbi to humiliate him. Theres a question of the use of a plumber to break and today youll to break into daniels office. Did the president know about it . Nobody in the committee doubted that the breakin of daniels office was a criminal act. The question there was, did the president know about it and authorizing . Then you have an issue of the irs. There was john dean that testified. Was there was no question that was some kind of list. John and dean was able to provide evidence and then a member of the Treasury Department supplied a list. The question was did what extent do Richard Nixon authorized the listing of the names, to what extent was it designed to go after political opponents . Then there was a question of the head of thean, the Democratic National convention. The committee had some of the case. Some of the tapes had been given to the committee. The president had released a few tapes following a saturday night massacre of 1973. One of the tapes from set timber 1972 did show the president participating in a conversation about misusing the irs. What some wanting to protect the president said was, hey, that was one instance. In the heat of politics, people make mistakes. Rantou really say that one on one day constitutes a pattern of abuse of power . And were the framers wanted us to remove a president which is a dramatic act in democracy on the basis of evidence of one thing of wrongdoing . We cannot even prove that anybody acted on what the president said. Maybe the next day, resident neck so president nixon, say i had a headache, i did not feel well. Those whoon for wanted to protect the president was whether the evidence alone proved one, a pattern of had risen and two, it to the level you expect it to elected democratically president. Let me conclude with this question. 1974to see the debate from then a chance to see the debate from the 1974. Ultimately, had it gone to the senate against the president . Well, part of this debate occurs three days after the Supreme Court ruled in a u. S. Of the nixon that the president would have to turn over some of the tapes. Within a few days, washington would be rocked by transcripts of the june 23, 19 72 tape which would be called the smoking gun. That would prove the president participate in a cover up. A number of the republicans who were both with the president in articles one and two would later say they were going to switch their vote if it came up to the entire house and they will vote for article i. Particular debate is important for a different reason. It was not necessary to impeach nixon. He wouldve been impeached on article one and likely in the house and senate and in and will in the senate. Inevitably in the senate. What this was about was the shift in the United States in the 1970s over Public Opinion of the imperial presidency. A lot of what Richard Nixon thought part of the recent Richard Nixon out he was right assumedat he did, he the president s before him had committed the same kinds of actions. And therefore, he was arguing others have done it. Doingke me to task to what others have done . This debate which is part of a Larger National debate is about what we expect of our president. Even though article ii was not required to impeach Richard Nixon, the fact that article ii 2810be passed by a margin including seven republicans was a signal that we had reached the High Water Mark in the imperial presidency and it was about to go down. Whetherw realized that Richard Nixon wanted to are not, he had acted on impulses that president s should not have in the constitution needed a little bit of help to ensure that in the executive branch did not overstep its bounds. After this, we will see a series of legislation including the surveillance act and ask regarding acts president ial papers. Acts signed by gerald ford. The American People said a note is enough. Actually, the presidency has gotten too powerful by making use of a vague areas in the constitution. This debate may not have been necessary for the impeachment but it was a critical element in the changing thinking of americans about what to expect from their president. Chris tim naftali who is with nyu and was nixon president ial Library Director joining us from new york. Thank you for adding your voice and perspective to the debate we are about to show our audience. Well take you back to july 20 ninth, 1974, the house judiciary meeting. Hours, thet three evening debate over article ii of impeachment of Richard Nixon. Committee was the wiggins motion and those in opposition to the amendment have consumed eight minutes. Gentleman from california. I yield my time to the gentleman from iowa. Thank you. For those of this panel who would impeach the president for setting up the special Investigative Unit would have us believe that there was no National Security involved in this at all. Why was it called the Plumbers Union . It was called the plumbers because its purpose was to plug leaks of secret information vital to the National Security of the United States. There were many instances where those leaks had occurred. I mention many of them before the recess. There was the secret United States intelligence boards report in which it estimated the soviet unions strategic striketh and russians capacity, a matter of great importance to our efforts. Well, that was leaked. By a Government Official to a reporter who printed this in the press. Disclosure by one of our senior officials, at least one of the newspaper reporter said, of our secret fallback position, our final author in the strategic arms limitations negotiations in helsinki in 1971. There and team was trying to achieve as much security for the United States as possible from nuclear attacks. Had on the table is there in a dealing with the russians and asking them to stop the construction of all Nuclear Missiles among both land and submarine based. Reporter,to another one of our senior officials, fight it in him that we were willing to settle for less confided in him we were willing to settle for less and we did not expect to get that much security from the russians and if they turned us down, we would be willing to settle for a ban on construction of a land based missiles at letting them go ahead with marine base. When that was printed and the russians read it, you can imagine what it did to our chances of getting more secure arrangement, greater protection for our country. That was definitely a security leak which needed to be plugged. Then there was no release of the pentagon papers by daniel ells burg in 1971. Had been ellsberg identified so the case is different. The president s entire National Security and foreignpolicy advisers had warned him that it was extremely important that these officials who were leaking this information to be identified and stopped. Ellsberg had been identified but it was by no means certain he would not leak war information and part of the pentagon papers had been published and it was not known whether he will go ahead with the rest. And that was reason to believe he had additional information. Affidavit, a sworn affidavit in april of this year, testified in the 10 days after the publication of the first pentagon papers, these papers which related to our decisionmaking processes in a on andt was still going which american troops were still in combat and kissinger were trying to settle with negotiations in paris, ehrlichman said Henry Kissinger met with him and the president and told them about ehrlichman. About Daniel Ellsberg and told quote inhe was and i knowledge of very critical defense secrets of current validity such as a Nuclear Deterrent targeting. I am reading from page 621 of book seven, part 2. I continue the quote. Ellsbergnever heard of before, my impression for kissingers impression was the nation was resent it with a series problem was presented with a serious problem. I later learned that the papers themselves were believed by experts to contain vital secrets. Dr. Kissinger told the president that the theft made very difficult our Foreign Relations with the ilife which we with the allies we shared information and the meetings, both the president and kissinger, were deeply concerned. The gentleman has consumed five minutes. The gentleman is recognized for one additional minute. How the president , ladies and gentlemen of the committee, fell on the advice of his closest toisers that he had to act protect the National Security to stop these leaks. In my judgment am a he acted unwisely and setting up this special investigation headed by a brilliant young man who had no investigative experience. I believe and i believe you do it wouldve been much better to rely on the fbi with that experience in the field and wouldve known the limits and practical limits in which to carry out a proper National Security investigation. If the president of the United States is to be impeached because he made an error in judgment and was not perfect in his decision to act quickly and necessarily to protect the a highl defense, is it crime and misdemeanor not to be letter perfect and the performance of your office . I think not and i think this alleged ground of impeachment simply should not receive serious consideration by the committee. The gentleman has consumed another minute. I recognize the gentleman from california. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think this particular issue is one of the most serious offenses alleged against the president. It relates back to one of the remarks i made in the opening session of this committee when i suggested that the liberty of this country is enormously fragile and had been subjected the likesult of which we have not seen in our lifetime. I think in this particular case as an activity of the plumber indicates the insensitivity of the president to the constitutional obligation that he had asked the president of this country to protect the people in their liberties. One of the bases, the points of a free society is that the Law Enforcement authority of that society is accountable. And the moment you destroy accountability of Law Enforcement authority, you jeopardize and endanger freedom of individual citizens and when the president denied the opportunity of the legitimate, Law Enforcement institutions of this government, the federal bureau of investigation and cia denied taking his problems with security to them for resolution and thought to set up an extracurricular sacred police force accountable to no one and in this government or society for the president to act individually, he in my view was in a major way interfering with the constitutional protections that have been set up to protect liberty. For the president s defenders to suggest that it was an extraordinary departure from the institution of Law Enforcement because the threat of National Security, the burden is clearly upon them to establish that the activities of the plumbers were in fact resigned to protect the National Security. I call attention to what i thought was a very important whereent of my colleagues he pointed out that we must now once and for all draw a line with the use of National Security as an excuse for all sorts of illegal and illicit activities generally their ofults in the erosion freedom. To test whether National Security was the purpose of this burglary in california in dr. Fieldings office by the plumbers to procure access to the psychiatric files of Daniel Ellsberg allegedly for a National Security purpose of but in reality to interfere with a trial that was to begin you only dr. Ellsberg, have to examine the language of the president in the conversations with mr. Dean on march 21 and march 17. Time of the gentleman has expired. I would be happy to yield. I appreciate that. Hard for me to complete a sentence when i want to analyze the conversation i appreciate that. [laughter] i do appreciate that. I referred to march 21 and the conversation that i will be reading will be a description of how the ellsberg case became a National Security issue. The president is told by dean about the breakin and said the president said, i do not know what the hill we did that for. The president said tom a what in the name of god did that the president said, what in the name of god did that . The president said i do not know what the hell. Know. I do not the president said how do you keep it out . Dean said he might put on a National Security ground bases which are really it was. Dean said he say that the president said, yeah. [laughter] i really did not finish the sentence. [laughter] it is a long sentence. I think you have. Mr. Chairman, how much time . The gentleman from california has eight minutes remaining. 4 i will be happy to yield minute to my colleague from ohio. The gentleman from ohio. I thank the gentleman from california which is about the longest minute we have had thus far. He say ive mentioned mentioned one conversation we should go to. Reference to the first time the president of the United States found out about it how months after the break in. That is the conversation between the president and john dean on march 17, 1973. Let us read that. Dean, the other potential problem is our look men ehrlichman and the president said in connection with inquires they worked for him . Fellas have to be idiots and we have learned after out and went went office. Ellsbergs dr. s and they were geared up with all of this cia equipment, cameras, and the like. And return to the stuff back into this cia at some point in time unless [indiscernible] the cia has not put this together and they do not know what it all means right now. The president says, what in the ehrlichman and this is unintellig