House and tried and found guilty by the senate. And he only needed to be found guilty on one article of impeachment to be thrown out of office. Richmond nixon, seeing the writing on the wall, he was a very gifted, in many ways, a gifted odds maker in political games. He saw the writing on the wall and he decides to resign before he is actually thrown out of office. He announcing resignation on august 8th one 1974 and leaves office at noon on august 9th, 1974, 40 years ago this august. Timothy who served as the director in your california, now the director of library at new york university. Thank you for your perspective on the events of 40 years ago. And up next, more from the debate before the House Judiciary Committee on july 29th, 1974, including the vote on article ii, the abuse of power against Richard Nixon on cspan 3, american tv. The gentleman from california. Recognized for five minutes. I would like to speak about article ii which i suggest is an expression of our deep devotion to the constitution, and above all, to the first ten amendments, known as the bill of rights. Article ii is our rededication to and our reaffirmation of the bill of rights and the principal that no officer of our government from the most lowly to the highest can violate with impunity, though fundamental Constitutional Rights guaranteed every american citizen. In 1787 when the 14 colonies were considering the ratification. Three states voted to ratify only on condition if the ratification contains a recommendation that the bill of rights be added. These men remembered well that they are their parents had planned from the kingdoms of europe to seek individual freedom in the new world. They had just finished winning a war to ensure this independence and freedom, and they were not about to substitute a new federal government for the hold tyranny without safeguards designed to protect their individual rights as human beings from the encroachment of the new government. So it was that the First Congress of 1789 enacted the bill of rights to the first ten amendments of the constitution. Jefferson urged the adoption and said, let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against any government on earth. Why do i review this history this late at night in the consideration of article ii . It is, of course, because article ii charges president nixon with intentional violations of the constitution. Chiefly amendments 1, 4, 5, and 6. Freedom of speech and of the press. In direct president nixon authorized or permitted illegal wiretapping and other surveillance of individuals. Including reporters and the use of this information so gained for political reprisals and defamation. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to the people to be secure in their homes. Their houses, their papers. Against unreasonable searches and seizures, president nixon established a special Investigative Unit within the white house to engage in searches and seizures without legal warrants and the unit committed a burglary in the state of california. The fifth amendment guaranteed to all equal protection of the laws. In direct contra vengs of this amendment, president nixon indebts you for tax harassment of political opponents. The fifth and sixth amendments guarantee a fair trial. In all criminal prosecutions. In direct of these amendments, president nixon and his subed or nants leaked information unfavor to believe a criminal defendant with withheld information necessary for his defense and during the trial, even offered the judge a high government position. No proposition could be more profoundly subversive of the constitution that the notion that any public official, the president or a policeman possessing a possesses a kind of honor to think the Public Interest or to use the more popular term, given such easy currency, the National Security warrants it. That notion is the essential postulate of every tyranny it is indeed the very definition of dictatorship. For it is simply a system under which one man is empowered to do whatever he deems needful for the whole community. We look now beyond the walls of this Committee Room to every citizen, rich or poor, white or black, brown, oriel low. This article ii is the only meaningful way to protect your Constitutional Rights. Your right to speak what is in your mind without fear of reprisal or other harassment and your right to hear and read what others would say to you. Your right to be secure in your home and your office against government wiretappings and burglaries, your right to equal treatment under law without fear or favor from the government. Your right, if legal difficult distance should immesh you to a fair trial. Your right to be let alone to pursue life, liberty, and happiness of all levels of government from the president down. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i thank, thank you for yielding. It had been my intention, mr. Chairman to be use my five minutes to discuss the historical meaning because i think frankly this committee has not shown the degree of scholarship that the house has the right to expect from us with respect to that clause. And its probable misapplication to article ii. But ill reserve that to a later time and probably will include it in the report when we go to the house. I want to take this moment to just lay out a few facts, becau becausen even though they are really without substance. Its been said that the president nixon attempted to subearth but in somehow improperly interfering with a federal judge. Now we know were talking about the matt burn incident and the ellisburg trial out in california. Its relatively a short story. Everybody knows that the nomination of pat grey was in trouble and the president was going to have to nominate a new director for the fbi. The president thought the advice of his attorney general as to whom that nominee ought to be and the attorney general suggested two names. He suggested matt burns, a judge in california, and he suggested Henry Peterson. Given that, mr. Earlington who was agenting as the president s agent sought to inquire whether or not judge burns of interested. And this is what he said to judge burns, judge, he said, i have been asked by the president to call you. I have been asked to discuss with you a federal appointment which is not judicial in character. I do not know whether this is an appropriate time to have a conversation like this because i do not know what the present situation in your trial is. Given that, judge burns said, i see no reason why we couldnt talk right away. Therefore they thereafter they met. They walked out on the bluff, away from the Office Complex in said the judge as follows. I am sensitive to the fact that youre not trying an important lawsuit. I propose that we walk out towards the bluff, if at any point a subject arises that you feel in any way impinges upon your ability to fairly try the case, you turn around and walk away from me, and i said before, this is not something that needs to be discussed right now. We can talk about it later. And the judge said, fine. Lets proceed on that bases. Then they walked out on the bluff, offer was made to be director of the fbi. Judge burns saw no inpropriety, he didnt report it to the judiciary committee. As a result of that conversation, the president came out during the conversation and he said as follows. That i have not been following your case very closely, it appears that it may take as long to get the case tried as it took me to end the war in vietnam. Now thats all he said. These sweeping statements that the president was trying to prejudice the trial are unsupported by that sort of record, and we ought to be more careful in our language. That allegation, at least, ladies and gentlemen, has no substance to it whatsoever. U. S. Attorney . Whatever i got. Ill yield to my friend from a minute and 15. I may just say in this short time remaining that i think we ought to keep in mind, i could go over the surveillance again, the plumbers again, is it suggested that theres a law broken because of the creation of the plumbers . No ones told me what the law was. Is it suggested that because a unit is created and said it would take legal action to do certain things that you are there shall automatically responsible, if it takes illegal action. Perfectly obvious that the president knew nothing about the break in out in california because of his remarks when it came to his attention. Its perfectly obvious he knew nothing about it and he said again in the record, i told all of these fellas to obey the law and theres no evidence to the contrary. Weve talked before about impeding the investigation. That came under article i, and i said then and i say now its a debatable question whether he legitimately felt that there might be a cia involvement, or didnt legitimately feel it, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution. And finally, what we need to remember is, were not accusing the president because of his general model character or moral or immoral or what our personal opinion of him may be. We got to find evidence or proof of a high crime or misdemeanor. And if we try to impeach him for anythingless, then were not anything less, then were not doing our duty and violating our oath. Time for the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, i am not seeking recognition at this time. Gentleman from new jersey, mr. Sandman. I dont seek recognition at this the time. Id like to at another time, mr. Chairman, but not at this time. Gentleman from, gentleman from pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, id like to say a few words concern iing two, i think the subject has not been completely covered. I think all the members of the committee agree now that the president did authorize the taps in addition to that, i refer to the letter which the president wrote on july 12th to senator fullbright, chairman of Foreign Relations which he says the ordered the use of the investigative procedures possible, including wiretaps. The surveillance including wiretapping of certain specific individuals. Theres no question that the president assumes that responsibility. Yet it wasnt always that way. Little over a year ago, february 73. The white house learned of the forthcoming Time Magazine story disclosing the existence of wiretaps and white house employees. John dean learned of the files investigated the time story by contacting the fbi director. Each confirmed the existence of the wiretaps and he said he delivered the files. He told dean he had the files, but the right to have press secretary ronald denied a stayed. At the time on february 26th stated to the white house, spokesman denied that anyone at the white house that authorized or approved any taps on white house employees or newsmen. On february 28th, dean reported to the president on a times story and his meeting about the wiretaps. Dean told the president that the white house was stone walling totally. From the wiretap story and the president said oh absolutely. To which i say how interesting. Now mr. Chairman, i am one of those who believes that the standard involved for impeachment does not involve criminalalty. Nevertheless, i finded in this paragraph many evidences of criminality on the part of the president and his men. And i just like to refer to a few of them. 1969, general alexander higg ordered the fbi on the highest authority not to maintain records initiated under the president s 19d 69 authorization. Not to maintain records. This information is contained in a memo from William Sullivan, assistant director of the fbi. Yet are the general recordkeeping statues set recordkeeping. Which must be maintained and provide rules for the disposal. Section 3105 specifically requires all Government Employees to be familiar with the fact that records can not be alienated except for the manner described in title 44 of the u. S. Code. Additionally there are other provisions. Special provision was 1998 directing the fbi to preserve its records. Except where authorized by law. Also a fell noi willingly and remove or intend to do so or with intent to do so taking and carry away any record receiving the other things. With any Public Officer denied of states. Must be assumed that higg knew it was illegal not to maintain records of the wiretaps and must be assumed that the only two men who could order him to give such directions to the fbi. Head of the National Security council and the president of the United States also knew that this was illegal. July 1971, William Sullivan informed robert, head of the Security Division and he was afraid that hoover would use them as blackmail in order to keep knicksen from removing him from the top job at the fbi. To discuss the existence of the records. These conversations, the president ordered him to get the files from sullivan to bring him to the white house. This order is a violation of the recordkeeping statutes in title 44. He got the files involved and delivered them to the oval office and the white house. When he was interviewed about this episode by the fbi, he was asked did you give the bag to mr. Nixon, and he replied i cannot answer that question. And must be assumed that he was protecting the president at this point because if he in fact gave them to a third party he would be shielding that person, leading the entrance that the president had received them. He has testified that following delivery by him the president ordered him to pick up the documents and he kept them in his own office. When they were removed and placed in the files with other president ial papers. The affect of the president s orders in this matter was again a violation of the sections of title 44. The chairman says that this is a very strong photograph. A very important charge in the impeachment of the president of the United States. Time has expired. Recognize the gentleman from illinois. Yes, ill be happy to yield two and a half minutesen to my colleague minutes to my colleague from illinois. Thank you mr. Chairman, thank you mr. Millsback. I certainly want to agree with the views expressed by some of my colleagues that the original intent of the special unit or the plumbers was to try to seal up leaks, but i also would like to call attention to the fact that in july, 1971, just a few weeks after the plumbers were set up, the break in of dr. Fieldings office was recognized by the president in his personal notes. Made while in conference with the president. There wasnt any eps nauj or National Security questions involved at all. And this, this, the effort to draw in the cia and the fbi were resisted of course by the head of the cia and the head of the fbi. You know some years later, as a matter of fact, in april, 1973 when Henry Peterson, in charge of criminal investigation for the department of justice, was investigating the whole subject of water gate and the coverup. Brought to the president s attention, this dr. Fieldings office breakin, the president in the taped conversation that we had here before the Committee Said to Henry Peterson, i know all about that. Thats National Security. You see the real facts are that while the plumbers may have started out as a legitimate valid organization. It was assumed the converted by hunt and lidie and the whole group there. Into something quite different. And something that the president knew about. It was wrong. And it seems to me that thats why this belongs in this part of our impeachment proceedings, why its appropriately put in article ii which relates to the question as to whether or not the president was indeed taking care to see the faithful execution of the laws. And thats why i think its appropriate, appropriately there as well as some of the other photographs that we have. Which question the president s obligation. Whether he was fulfilling his obligation. And its something that we should send to the house of representatives to have considered there. In my opinion, theres clear and convincing evidence with respect to each of these photographs that they were photographers that paragraphs that they were wrong. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, mr. Wiigens has asked for 30 second because he thinks there was an error made. Im sure it was unintentional err error. The fielding breakin occurred in september 1971. Yes. It didnt occur prior to that. Theres not a word in the notes in july 1971 indicating prior knowledge of any breakin. No, its not ellisburg breakin, in july 1971, the theft was regarded as not being a question involving National Security. If i said breakin, i didnt mean that. Of the pentagon papers with regard mr. Chairman, if i have any remaining time, id like to yield it to the gentleman from maine, mr. Cone. Gentleman has a minute and 50 seconds remaining. Mr. Chairman, could i inquire as to whether that time is yielded to me when i speak my own five minutes. He has a 1 50 second remaining and time if he desires. Five minutes . Can i take it consecutively . Without objection. Thank you mr. Chairman. The gentleman has 6 50. Theres a word thats been used here for the past few days, and im con trained to call upon myself to repeat it. Amazing. Isnt it amazing . And i find it amazing that the fine lawyers on this committee have somehow overlooked the concept of an attempted wrongful act. All weve heard about the irss well what happens . It wasnt accomplished. It failed. Remind me something of the words weve seen in the transcripts. A dry hole. Id like to direct ab couple of questions to the staff now and ask you about the criminal penalties involved under this section. I assume its a crime for anyone, any officer or employee of the United States to breach the confidentiality of the income tax returns of the citizens of this country and i further assume that under title xviii, the president and subordnances fall underneath the definition of the employee of the United States. Is that correct . Congressman cone, section 7112 of the criminal code provides expressly that attempts to interfere, attempts to obtain information with respect to income and irs material