Advanced Search
Aerial (power line)
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98731 Power plant - night
Large building (electric power amp)
Pacific power building
Horned Puffin
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS Horned puffin (Fratercula corniculata) perched on cliff. CU head of the puffin, he looks around. The puffin flaps its wings and walks around on the rocky cliff.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.18.42] Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman--- The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maraziti, for 5 minutes. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was amazed to find--to hear the gentleman from Maryland explain why it 'IS not necessary to detail the fact,, and one argument given is that the counsel for the President was present in the room when these, matters were being discussed. That is not a satisfactory disposition of the matter. It reminds me of counsel for a defendant appearing in a magistrates court, presentation made of an hour or two, then the prosecutor of the county--a very general indictment--it is not sufficient for the prosecutor of the county to say I do not have to specify because the counsel for the defendant attended the, preliminary examination. And the President--the knowledge of the counsel is not the knowledge of the President. We do not know whether the, counsel for the, President that appeared here is going to be associate counsel or one of a number of counsel or whether there will be different counsel. Now, he makes a point of once the, resolution or the articles got to the floor they can be, justified, amended, and so on. That may be so. But I think it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, for to, the members here and now, before we vote for or against a particular article, to know the time and place and names, to know all the events. Now, I have done some. legal research during the noon recess because it was represented that the law that pertains to indictments does not necessarily apply to impeachment proceedings. And I found that from the very beginning, when impeachment proceedings were instituted in 1798, right down to the present time, the last, impeachment, of Judge Ritter in 1936, that every respondent charged has been faced with articles of impeachment that alleged specifies, and there, is a reason for it. There is a reason for it. So that he who is charged, and this is fundamental to Anglo-Saxon law, that he who is charged must know on what particular charge or points he must defend himself. It is not necessary for him to go over the tremendous amounts of information that we have here and say, well, maybe they will accuse me on this and maybe on that. And it is very simple, Mr. Chairman, because the, gentleman from Maryland began to specify certain times, places and events, Now, if that is it, if that is what the charge is, simply include it in the articles of impeachment. Just to take an example, on the point one of the--paragraph I Of the article, making false or misleading statements. All right. What statements? When were they made? And where were they made? That, is simple because if we are going to know about it when it goes to the: House of Representatives, we ought to know about it now. To lawfully authorized investigative officers. What officers? One, two, three. When? And where? What is so difficult about that? No. 5, approving, Condoning and acquiescing in payment of substantial sums of money. All right. How much money are we talking about? Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARAZITI. The, amount. The purpose. I will yield as soon as am through. The purpose for which the, money was given. To whom was it given? How many persons are involved? No. 6, endeavoring to misuse, the Central Intelligence Agency. That is a very broad general statement and it may be true. I am not denying it. I am not affirming it either. Endeavoring to misuse CIA. We ought to know how, when, where did this occur. Disseminating information received from officers. What officers the Department of Justice? And that can be characterized throughout the entire part of this article. -No. 8, making false ----- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you. [00.24.08--Rep. MARAZITI's time expires]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.30.44] Mr. SARBANES. No. I am recounting back. over the transcripts of the tapes. pertinent portions of that conversation. Mr.. SANDMAN. Well, if it is not a new document then we are, back to where we started. Why are you resisting the fact that this should be in the articles of impeachment? Is not the Congress entitled to know what they are going to vote on when I it gets to them?? Should they not know when it happened and how it happened? Should this not be In the. articles? Mr. SEIBERLING. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. A brief answer from the gentleman from Maryland, if he has one. Mr. SARBANES. I responded to that question this morning when the gentleman asked it and---- Mr. SANDMAN. You have not given any answer at all. Mr. SARBANES. And I said at that time If we were to bring into articles all the factual material which underpins them we would have to have articles that run into volumes and volumes. Mr. SANDMAN. Now. that is not so. Mr. SARBANES. It is SO. Mr. RAILSBACK. Will you yield? Mr. SANDMAN. In a moment I will yield, you know that is not SO more than it is an indictment. You do not need the whole brief in indictment and I do not want to be confused again by saying this is an indictment. It is not. But the common criminal in a criminal case has no more rights than the President of the United States in an impeachment case. This is what I have said. RAILSBACK. Would you yield? Mr. SANDMAN. -No, I won't yield. I am not finished Now. the important things here is why isn't the President entitled to this kind of simple explanation? It can be in a single, sentence. We don't have to go through the speech that you made. All you have to say on any one of your articles, a very simple sentence, on such and such a date the President did contrary to the law a simple act. That is all you have to say. Why won't you say it? Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. I want him to answer. Mr. SARBANES, Will the, gentleman yield'? Mr. SANDMAN. Sure, a simple answer. Mr. SARBANES. Behind each of those allegations lies an extensive pattern of conduct. That will be spelled out factually and will be-- Mr. SANDMAN. That is- Mr. SARBANES./ If the gentleman -will let me finish, I am endeavoring as best, I can to respond to his question. Mr. SANDMAN. All right. Go ahead. Mr. SARBANES. And that pattern of conduct will be spelled out in the report that accompanies the articles. But there is not one isolated incident that rests behind each of these allegations. There is a course of conduct extending over a period of time involving a great number of incidents. Mr. SANDMAN. I am not going to yield any further. It is my time you are using up. I am not going to yield any further for that kind of an answer. You are entitled to your proof. No one said that you aren't. You are entitled to as many articles as you can get the Democrats and some Republicans to agree upon. And no one says that you are not entitled to that. But to each of these, my friend, the law from the beginning of this country up to the last impeachment in 1936 says, whether you like it or not, it has to be specific and this is not specific. [00.33.54--cut to LEHRER in studio] LEHRER says that Chairman RODINO will try to break this impasse by referring the issue to counsels. [00.34.06--PBS NETWORK ID] [promos for other PBS programming] [00.37.18--title screen "Impeachment Debate July 26, 1974"]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.23] Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. In a moment I may yield. Likewise, the fact of notice pleadings, which our counsel, Mr. Jenner. has pointed out, is clear here. The President is put on notice as to the specific types of impeachable conduct which we allege against him. This is enough to alert him, to give him notice as to what are the charges. And bear in mind that if and when this matter reaches the Senate, it will be accompanied not only by a committee report, but, of course, by the final articles of impeachment, and he will then, if he desires. have the right to make a motion for a bill of particulars or the idea being to request a greater specificity in the charges against him. Or, if some of those charges appear to be a little bit vague and uncertain as to time, and place, and manner, he can make a motion to make more specific and certain, and aided by the results of those motions, he will have a wealth of information, everything that he could possibly need to make his own defense in this case. In essence, in this case he, is in a better position simply because, and I know this cannot be charged to him at the present time, but as a practical matter, and in the real world in which we are operating, the President does have some 40 volumes of evidentiary and statistical Matter already at his disposal and in his office, and I think that unless we are to stultify commonsense we are going acknowledge that that fact. I would say this, if this committee should decide in order to lessen the concern of our colleagues on the other aisle list any specific item of -factual information in these articles, it must be couched in such language, and the committee report worded in such language that it is imminently clear that proof in the Senate would not be restricted to those specific items. Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. I yield back to my donor. It is not my time. I yield back to Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has time remaining. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 Minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question of friend from Maryland briefly, if he could give me his attention for just a moment. On the theory you advanced of your article this morning as I understood you, and am I correct that before the acts or acts of alleged agents and subordinates could be attributed to the President you would have by some means and some type of evidence to establish the existence of the policy which you allege he had adopted, is that correct? Mr. SARBANES. The acts of the subordinates have to be carrying out the policy of the President. Mr. DENNIS. Yes, and before you could prove them as against the President, you would have to first establish policy, would you not! Mr. SARBANES. Well, there is a possibility of ratification here, which I think the gentleman---- Mr. DENNIS. But before you could attribute their acts to him By your own theory, you would have to have a -policy there which They were carrying Out, isnt that right You would have to have the policy established first? Mr. SARBANES. Not if there was a ratification involved. and there could be a, ratification involved on the part of the President with respect to acts of his subordinates. Mr. DENNIS. You would have to prove a ratification then. Mr. SARBANES. Absent a ratification, there would have to be established policy. Mr. DENNIS. What the gentleman is really doing under another name, is adopting a theory Of conspiracy , isn't he? Mr. SARBANES. I asked that question this morning and while I indicated I did not tie the, article to the proof of a criminal conspiracy, I did say that the article contained elements of a conspiracy theory; Yes. Mr. DENNIS. And first by a Horn Book law you have got to prove that the conspiracy exists, before the acts of the co-conspirators are attributable to the principal. That is just elementary, is A not? Mr. SARBANES. Well the President can intrude into that conspiracy and ratify events. If that happens, then I think the gentleman recognize that those, acts are then part and parcel of' the President's responsibility. Mr. DENNIS. I suggest to the gentleman that proceeding on the. theory he is proceeding on, he better consider , if he ,has not. he may have, just, by what evidence he. is to establish this policy or conspiracy Or whatever you want, to call it, because until he does that/ the acts of these other people are not going to mean a thing, in my opinion. Now shifting to another matter, I just would like to talk about this matter of specificity for a moment. In a criminal charge, I just read the criminal rule, and that is the existing criminal rule. This 'IS least, a quasi- criminal -case, and my friend from California, Mr. Danielson, I am sure is aware of the due process clause and the very reason why we, require specificity is the exact reason why my friend from California seeks to be against it. It is for the exact purpose that a man may know what he is charged with, and that the proof may be held down indeed, to that with which he is charged. And I suggest that ordinary due process of law absolutely requires that,. Now I am not going to yield for a minute, No one contends and I do not contend certainly that you have got to plead in an indictment of the evidence by which you intend to support your specific, charge. But, you do have to say, if you are charging the man with making false and misleading statements, you do have to say in that on April 14, 1973, he did say to Henry Petersen, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, the so that he will know. He cannot be, required under the Constitution to look back over everything he may have said Sometime that somebody is now ...... [01.03.56--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.44.00] Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important to continue to present proof of the charges in the bill of impeachment. I am sure that there are going to be many byroads, and many other issues that will be brought -up, but I think it is vital that in these proceedings that the evidence be spelled out so that -we all can understand it better. In support of the first portion of the bill of impeachment, Mr. Sarbanes presented some very clear evidence of the President's knowledge almost immediately after the June 17, 1972, burglary at the Watergate. I think that anybody here can understand the reluctance of the White House and the President to have the public find out about this, and find out. of the connection with his Committee To Re-Elect of Mr. Hunt and the other people who -were arrested for the burglary. Well. one of the choices would have been just to let them go to jail, and call it a bizarre incident. I think it is fairly clear that this was the, choice, and every effort was made to have it appear to be just a bizarre incident. Yes, perhaps there could have been some connection with the White House with Mr. Hunt and so forth. Or another choice would have been just to admit Mr. Hunt 'worked at the, White I-louse, yes, had an office there, was in the White house phone book, and then down the road let Liddy. chief counsel, I believe for- the Committee To Re-Elect, surface. He was bound to surface, Well, why not take that choice? That could be ridden out perhaps by the White House, even as Watergate itself was ridden out. But, why do you imagine the President had to or felt he. had to encourage such a massive coverup after June 17, shortly after the burglary? Why not let it hang out', This was discussed quite a lot. We all remember that in the transcripts. Why not direct the FBI to go ahead and do a darn good job, and really complete the investigation as they started out trying to do? Why involve the CIA in this Unfortunate behavior? Why encourage almost demand, that the CIA to the FBI and say, stop, don't continue your investigation stop where you are. By all means, don't act into that money &at was found on one of the burglars. Well, incidentally, the efforts by Mr. Dean and the efforts to direct the CIA to influence the FBI not to continue the investigation -were successful. They were successful until Julie 5 when Pat Gray finally said no, I am not going to do it any more and went to the CIA. The CIA said of course we don't have anything to do with anything in Mexico where your investigation might disclose some unfortunate things that are going on down there or something clandestine by the CIA. Well, here is the key to it. Immediately the next day actually the White House, knew that Hunt was involved. His name was in the book. He had an office in the Executive Office Building, And Liddy had to be exposed somewhere down the line. The, money on the burglars could immediately be traced to Liddy, the Mexican banks, and then back to the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Sloan had given the money to Liddy to launder. That was all sure to come out. But, what would the exposure of Hunt and Liddy reveal In addition to their participation in the Watergate burglary and their connection with the Committee To Re-Elect the President and the White House? Hunt, just about the original plumber, came aboard the White House in July 1971. Suppose--and this probably would have happened if it. had all come out right there with a hard-hitting FBI investigation that after Mr. Hunt went to work as a plumber at the White House in late 1971 he composed the fake Diem cables, attempting to link former President Kennedy with the Diem assassination. He tried very hard to. sell those cables, not to sell them but to get Life magazine to write them up as real. It is very much to the credit of the magazine that they did not do it. On July 22, just a few weeks after Mr. Hunt became a plumber at the White House he went to the CIA, and obtained a red wig, a voice changer, and fake identification papers and so forth. He Put on this disguise shortly after that and went to Massachusetts to interview a Clifton DeMott in hopes of digging up some dirt on Senator Edward Kennedy. What else was Mr. Hunt doing during this period shortly before Watergate that would have been exposed? He had taken the famous trip to Denver, Colo., in the same red wig, with the voice changer to interview Dita Beard, who was in a hospital bed there, in connection with the ITT case. We all remember the famous Dita Beard-ITT memorandum. And then for all we. know, another project of the plumbers that John Dean testified to but did not come Off, might have been exposed-- The planned bombing, allegedly ordered by Charles Colson, of the Brookings- Institution so that in the confusion people could rush in and take out, a report that -was being written. But, more importantly, what would have been exposed. the burglary, the burglary in Los Angeles in September 2, 1972, of Dr. Fielding office in Los Angeles. Who was involved in that burglary that was also involved, participated, and was arrested at the Democratic National Committee? Mr. Barker, Mr. Martinez, Mr. DeDiego The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman I has as expired Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Butler. [00.50.45]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.23] Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. I wonder as we try to talk about specifics so that the President would be in a better position to defend himself whether we really take into consideration that the mandate of this Committee is to report, to the. House of Representatives and it seems to me that if we got bogged down with specifics before the House of Representatives has worked its will, that perhaps we would not give the, general recommendation to the House that it. rightfully deserves. It is not our constitutional responsibility to impeach the President but merely to report to the House. So that it seems to me that we should not be talking about specifics but give the maximum amount of information to !he House of -Representatives so that they can deal with the problem constitutionally. Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Doar, I wonder if I could direct a question to you, I wonder if in past impeachment cages it has not been the procedure that the Judiciary Committee has recommended and then on some occasions the I-louse of Representatives itself has formally drafted and prepared articles of impeachment which were then submitted to the Senate. In other words, it is my recollection that there may have been cases -where the House judiciary Committee simply made a recommendation that the House itself had the responsibility of drafting and adopting the articles of impeachment based on the recommendation. and I wonder if we couldn't do it that way. What is your feeling about that? Mr. DOAR. My understanding is that has been the past practice. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thought that was the--- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maine has expired. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Before we proceed, the Chair would like to state some propositions. First of all, we do know that we are proceeding under a very unique proceeding. Impeachment has offered us except for the case of Andrew Johnson no guidelines, no precedents. It is a fact, however, that the rules of evidence do not apply as such. The rules that will be the rules that will apply should this impeachment proceeding move on into the, House and then to trial in the Senate will be the rules that the Senate will adopt. We do know as a matter of fact from impeachment proceedings and the research that has been extensive, and I-all I need do is recall to the Members of the House that the House of Representatives has indeed impeached without any articles of impeachment except merely to impeach, and that at on a mere motion, a privileged motion of any member of the House, that the House could move to impeach. So that therefore this discussion and this issue requiring specificity in order to lay the groundwork for articles of impeachment seems to me to be begging of a question which I think has long been settled. What we do here is to proceed with deliberations concerning the Proposition that certain articles of impeachment be recommended by this committee to the House of Representatives, Mr. RAILSBACK. Will the chairman yield? The CHAIRMAN. In the, report I hat the. committee will then furnish the, House of Representatives that Information will be specifically included together with that--counsel for the President as has, been properly pointed out by the gentleman from Maine would be Provided with all of the information which is contained in the summary of information which details all of the specifics and that prior to trial in' the Senate, upon proper request by counsel for the President, should it reach that stage, discover and other proceedings, that these material would be then provided. And I believe that this affords all of the opportunity for fairness in this to insure that the House of Representatives not act as a trial body under the exacting rules of evidence as we know them because this as a. matter Of fact, and all of US are aware, I think, who; have been long wrestling- with this question, that the House of Representatives is indeed not the trial body but the. body merely recommending articles of impeachment, even if they may be in the broadest sense. [01.14.51]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.32] Mr. HUNGATE. [continuing] In the March. 21, 1973, transcript, relating to the, conversation from 10:12 to 11:55 a.m. Appendix 6 of the GPO conversations: *QUOTED SECTION* Mr. DEAN. There is no doubt I was totally aware what the Bureau was doing at all times. I was totally aware of what the grand jury was doing. I knew that witnesses were going to be called. I knew what they were going to be asked, and I had to. NIXON. [I infer that is the President.] Why did Petersen play the. game so straight with us? DEAN. Because Petersen is a soldier. He kept me informed. He told Me when we had problems, where we had problems, He believes in you and he believes in this administration. This administration has made him. I don't think he has done anything improper but he did make sure the investigation was narrowed down to the very, very fine criminal thing which was a break for us. There is no doubt about it. [Mr. HUNGATE. There would be another break if you narrowed this thing down to the head of a, pin.] NIXON. He honestly feels that he did an adequate job? DEAN. They ran that investigation out to the fullest extent they could follow a lead and that was it, -NIXON. But the point is, where I suppose he could be criticized for not doing an adequate job. Why did he call Haldeman? Why didn't he get a statement from Colson? Oh, they did get, Colson. DEAN. That is right. But see, the thing is, is based on their FBI interviews There. was no reason to follow up. There were no leads there. Colson said, "I have no knowledge of this" to the FBI. Strachan said "I have no knowledge of--you know, they didn't ask Strachan any Watergate questions. They asked him about* Segretti and the-" *END QUOTED SECTION* The CHAIRMAN. Vie time of the gentleman--- Mr. HUNGATE. [reading] AS a result of sonic coaching, he could be the dumbest pap paper usher in the bowels of the White House. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman and Mr. Railsback correctly observed Andrew Johnson impeachment, the committee brought to the general recommendation of impeachment. The House, approved then and only then was a committee appointed to draw Up charges to go to the Senate. Over there as someone observed there not only some added but there -were some ignored. I think one traps that we are falling into here is that we are drawing this grand jury analogy much further than it warrants. A number of US in our remarks in genera debate tried to indicate What an impeachable offense is, Now, if you subscribe to the idea, that an impeachable. offense must, be an indictable offense then perhaps you have some. justification for arguing that we are really here drawing an indictment. But such is really not the case. We are not a grand jury . [We are operating here under a constitutionally authorized extra-legal power. We are not involved in a criminal proceeding. So that when we go to the floor, we can go with as broad and nebulous an impeachment resolution as -we possibly desire to draw. It is amendable on the floor depending on what rules we operate under. It is even by the precedents amendable in the, Senate. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, could we have order? the CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, The gentleman will suspend until the committee is in order. Mr. HOGAN. But even beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I think -we are ally straining here as we talk about precedents. There are not really that many precedents. There have not been that many impeachments and there have been far fewer, there have been only about a. dozen impeachments and if my memory serves me, there were only three convictions and those impeachments are contradictory one with the other. So I think we are really not, looking at--the responsibility that we have here is to go forward with a recommendation to the House. That really all that we are about. Now, I personally think it -would be preferable to have specific charges naming places and dates and times and names but it is not essential and to argue that that is our responsibility under the Constitution is just ignoring what the Constitution gives us for the impeachment power. [01.25.00]
Formosa - harbor - freight being loaded (some animation) (ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98969-13:13:52)
Navy ships with supplies unloading, also good push cart, bicycles, people
Formosa - ships and harbors, loading and unloading freight
Formosa - agriculture - excavating earth by machine for irrigation
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #991966 A Formosa - rice fields, sugar cane, street scenes, aerial, scenics, bridges, train loaded up with workers, washing clothes by stream, people loading wood in cart, old Chinese cemetery, building railroad
PREVIEW CASSETTE # 218816 Supply depot or warehouse in Formosa, trucks, loading pipes, rice fields, beating rice stalks with sticks, caraboo, machine cutting bamboo, loading bamboo into cart, caraboo plowing
House construction, village, mud fishing, Chinese firls, boy playing basketball, pan shot villages, girl pumping water, manual irrigation
Harvested fields, drought, sugar can field, warter well construction, irrigation canals, ditches, pipes, thrashing oats and wheat seeds. (TRANSFERRED TO PREVIEW CASSETTE #97485)
Formosa - "Coolies workers"
Farming
Formosa - misc.
Formosa - misc
Opium Den
Preview cassette #97789 Part 1 Opium den and Chinese smoking.