Advanced Search
Tufted Puffin and Thick-billed Murre
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS several Tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) and 1 Thick-billed Murre (Uria lomvia) perched on cliff side. The birds look around. One of the puffins flies off. The Thick-billed Murre briefly preens (grooming).
Bird Cliff
Master 2110, Tape 1 LS side of a cliff covered with resting birds. (Camera is too far away to properly identify the species).
Tufted Puffin
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS Tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata) standing on cliff and preening (grooming). The puffin looks around.
Murres
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS Thick-billed Murres (Uria lomvia) and Common Murres (Uria aalge) perched on the side of a cliff. Zoom into CU of an egg lost in crevasse.
Northern Fulmar
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS Young northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) sitting in a small opening in the rocky cliff. MS two adults sitting on the cliff ledge in front of the baby fulmar. Zoom out to LS of side of cliff covered with various species of birds. Zoom back into MS of fulmars.
Red-legged Kittiwake Gull
Master 2110, Tape 1 MS Red-legged Kittiwake gull (Rissa brevirostris) standing on cliff ledge. Zoom out to LS of gull on the cliff. Zoom back into MS. The gull preens (grooming).
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.21.36] Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I move an amendment The CHAIRMAN. No the, gentleman is not recognized at this time. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Chairman, I will yield-- CHAIRMAN. . You are recognized for 5 minutes. MEZVINSKY. Thank- you. Will yield 3 minutes of my time to the gentleman from California to continue his presentation. Mr. WALDIE. Well, I do want to make clear about John and Martha The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. WALDIE. The reason I do that is that there is no question and the Public knew that John Mitchell and Mrs. Mitchell were having some difficulties. Mrs. Mitchell in fact told him that if he didn't leave Public office she would leave him. But, that wa the excuse given, and in the conversation when they' discussed this they all agreed that that was the excuse because the public would understand that and as the President said, anybody would dare criticize a man for leaving this office because of his wife demand. Well you know they just wouldn't do that. He put it in More' blunt terms, but what they really wanted to do was to get John Mitchell out of the public eye. That was coverup. Now, I just think, you see, that through June 30 there was just no, question that there was a policy which was to protect the election of the President by concealing the involvement of the White House and'! the Committee for the Re-Election people in the burglary of Watergate because once their involvement had become known they would go back to the Plumbers' activities involving that break-in of the for Dr. Ellsberg, or Dr. Fielding's office and they would go back to the forging of these cables, designed to implicate John F. Kennedy in the assassination of Diem in South Vietnam. They would go back to the investigations of Senator Kennedy, They would go back to all kinds of very ugly things that 'were always describe mind you, as national security. That is the other key phrase you find through the coverup scheme When you want to keep something covered, when you don't want people to inquire, You put a label of national security on it an they always talked about Hunt's activities being national security. Nobody has ever pointed out to one single thing Hunt has ever don that had anything to do with national security. Forging cables surely is not national security. Breaking into a psychiatrist office-, is snot national security, as John Ehrlichman can clearly tell you. None of, the things described by the special investigation unit were really in implementation of national security. What this plan was, right up through June 30, was to coverup, conceal, and to keep it contained. From June 30 on, the plan evolved into much more dramatic terms, where John Dean's efforts relative to the FBI, relative to containment by coaching witnesses, relative to really raising big money to pay off the burglars and---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes. Mr. WALDIE. Let me just leave the last line for the next chapter. We, will go on to at the next meeting the question of picking UP money. with gloves on because you don't want fingerprints when you are going to deliver it for a compassion purpose. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has I minute and 45 seconds remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I Will be very brief I think what is interesting is that we are having now the layout of evidence but when we listened to the debate this afternoon, I think a lot of the public may have wondered actually what is going on here. We are. supposed to be considering an article impeachment concerning whether Richard Nixon has prevented, obstructed and impeded the adminsitration of justice. Somehow it seems that some of colleagues have been more concerned about possibly starting a crusade to make the word "specificity," as common in our conversations as the word Watergate. Mr. MARAZITI. Would the gentleman yield? the Mr. MEZVINSKY. I think it is demeaning really to President to think that he cannot understand the meaning of what is in this Sarbanes substitute, I think it has been spelled out quite well and I think we understand the tactic as really being diversionary. I just want to say to my colleagues, the evidence that the gentleman from California and others have pointed out is overwhelming. And I also want to say that the evidence will not go away. Mr. MARAZITI. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The yenfleman has 10 seconds remaining. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I shall yield back the balance of my time, .Nrr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey seeking recognition? Mr. MARAZITI. Yes Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment in the nature a motion to strike paragraph 1 The CHAIRMAN. Has THE gentleman an amendment at the Clerk's SANDMAN. Yes, sir. There are eight amendments, and mine is The CLERK. There is an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment Has the amendment been distributed? The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the amendment has been distributed, I understand, but it did not contain Mr. Sandman's name. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Sandman. Strike subparagraph I of the Sarbanes substitute. [00.28.07]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.34.38] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback, for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doar, in response to a question put it to you by Congressman Flowers, you indicated that it was the intent of the staff in its report to specifically document, with evidence and with references to the, particular subparagraphs of each article. Is that right? Mr. DOAR. That is correct. Mr. RAILSBACK.. Will that documentary statement be submitted to us for our consideration, to each individual? Mr. DOAR. Well, that is the judgment of the committed, Congressman Mr. RAILSBACK. I take it it is going to go into the report and I take it that we will have a right to either provide separate views or dissenting views or minority views? Mr. DOAR. I am certain there is no question about that. The CHAIRMAN. Might the Chair interject that since this is not a matter for counsel to decide, but this is a question of policy that has been pursued by the House of Representatives, every member has a right to submit additional views. The views would not be the, views of the staff. The views would be the views of the committee. The committee would report and not the counsel. Counsel would not be writing the report. The report would be written by the committee. Mr. RAILSBACK. I hope that didn't come out of my time, but I thank You for the explanation. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for extra time. Mr. RAILSBACK. Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I personally at this point in time think that perhaps it is a good idea to have a motion to strike on each of those counts so that those of us that are Concerned about the various allegations have a right to submit our beliefs and our concerns. And this particular paragraph, which is item one in the Sarbanes substitute and has to do with false and misleading information, happens to be, as everyone knows, one of my major areas of concern. In, drafting your report, it would seem to me that you would want to consider a conversation that took place on March 27, 1973, when the President instructed Ehrlichman to meet with Attorney General Kleindienst and tell him that, Dean was not involved, had no prior knowledge, and that neither Haldeman, Ehrlichman or Colson had prior knowledge, but there was a serious question being raised about Mitchell. It is my belief that this is the time they were going to set Mitchell up. On the following day, Ehrlichman telephoned Kleindienst and executed the President's instructions. He relayed the President's assurance that there -was no White House involvement in the break-in; but that serious questions were being raised with regard to Mitchell. This happened following the famous March 21 conversation, when John Dean -went into some detail to involve Ehrlichman, Haldeman, himself, Magruder and Porter. Then I think I would go to the Series Of events that took place in mid-April, which was after John Dean decided to blow the whistle on April 8, followed by Magruder on April 13, followed by LaRue, on I think the 14th, when he said the jig was up. And then finally, Silbert called Henry Petersen. Petersen in turn got in touch with Attorney General Kleindienst, Kleindienst in turn got in touch with the President and meetings were arranged between Henry Petersen, and the President. The President met with Henry Petersen on April 16,1973, from 1:39 to 3:25. At this meeting, the President promised to treat as confidential any information disclosed by Petersen to the President. This was at a time when Kleindienst had decided to recuse himself. In other words, because of his close association with John Mitchell and others. he decided it was not proper for him to lead the Watergate investigation, and this job was assigned to Henry Petersen. The President emphasized to Petersen that "you are talking only to me and there is not going to be anybody else on the White House staff In other words, I am acting counsel and everything else." The President suggested that the only explanation might be to dig more. When Petersen expressed some reservation about information being disclosed to Moore, the President said "let's just--better it with me." At that meeting, the President, or Petersen supplied the President With a memorandum which he had requested on April 15. the day before, summarizing the existing evidence that implicated Haldeman Ehrlichman and Strachan. Then there was a, telephone conversation later that same day, April 16, and in my opinion, this is even more clear. The President, when talking to Petersenm, asked him if there were any new developments that be should know about, and he reassured Petersen, "Of course, anything you tell me, as I think I told you earlier will not be passed on, because, I know the rules of the grand jury. Petersen then recounted to the, President the developments of that day on the Watergate investigation. The following morning, on April 17, the President met with Haldeman, somebody who had been implicated, both by Dean on March 21, and also implicated by Henry Petersen. Early in the meeting President relayed Dean's disclosures -which had been given to him by Henry Petersen, the Special Prosecutor. The President also told Haldeman that the money issue was critical. And I quote. "Another thing, if you could get John and yourself," referring to John Ehrlichman, in my opinion, "to sit down and do some hard thinking about what kind of strategy you are going to have with the money, you know what I mean." The, CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has expired. [00.40.46]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.48.25] Mr, RANGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding because the author of the motion to strike gives me a little problem in that he never directed himself as to whether or not he is saying that the President did not give false and misleading statements. I don't know whehter the motion to strike is merely a parliamentary maneuver but if it is a question that the gentleman has as to which authorized officers, employees, of the United States that the President lied to, then we are prepared to tell you the names and the dates of what Federal officials the President lied to. If you are having a problem with the language as to whether it was a Capitol policeman or whether it was someone that worked in the Printing Office, if it is a language problem you have. then I can understand why you raise the motion to strike. But if you are talking about the Attorney General, the Acting Attorney General, if You are talking about anybody that was involved, Silbert's office, if you are talking about grand jury testimony, if you are talking about anything to prevent his close associates from getting indicted, then the President lied, and we can only refer to the President's statements as to what he Said. What he said to Mr. Haldeman, to tell him that everybody that Dean said was not involved, he said, say they are not involved, I mean, if they were involved. He said lie and tell them something different. So that if the motion to strike is just to take time, then, of course, I can understand the gentleman from New Jersey's dilemma. It is a bad night. If, on the other hand if on the other hand the gentleman really Wants to find the names of the people that the President lied to, counsel can give you the names and then we can move on to your next motion to strike. Mr. SANDMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. RANGEL. It is not my time. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, whose ever time it is. Mr. CONYERS. I have the time. I have the time and I would like to say it is very, very -clear to us that there are two views. They have been thoroughly debated. Some of us would like to keep our pleadings consistent with the 20th century. Others of us would prefer them for reasons real or imagined, to keep them back into the Johnson impeachment. Mr. SANDMAN. Will the, gentleman from Michigan yield so I can answer the gentleman from -New York? Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman. Mr. SANDMAN. It is going to be very short really. I objected because I had to object because I have never been permitted under the procedures that we are following to get Some kind of a ruling as to what the law is here. I submit and it is undisputed to me and I don't care what anybody else says. the thing here is very clear. It should be specific. Now, you have all this information that you can give to people. Why can't you at least give simple sentences that are concise. Mr. CONYERS. Well, I 'IM not--- Mr. SANDMAN. And do it right. Mr. CONYERS. I am not going to yield any further to the gentleman. Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman? Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Don. Mr. DONOHUE. Order Mr. Chairman., The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, and I believe that it is in order at this time to state that the view of one member does not express what is actually the law or the policy of this committee, the House of Representatives Mr. WIGGINS. Including the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I would hope that the members would recognize that the Chair presides and the Chair is attempting to be fair in recognizing each member and at such time as the Chair recognizes those members, I think that those members should speak out. Until then I would hope that. we. could keep order and we would be true to the trust that, we, have and I don't mean to lecture in any way but I think that this is serious enough that indulging in parliamentary maneuvers to delay a decision on this very important question only I think serves to tell the people that, we ,Ire afraid to meet the issue. And I would hope that we, do have as we, said we have the courage of our convictions. And to the gentleman from New Jersey directly, Mr. Sandman. I would state, that while Mr. Doar may not have expressly stated what the policy is in setting" forward specifications I don't believe that the, gentleman at this time is prepared to state that he is, going to say what the Constitution is when the Constitution for so many years has spoken clearly and the, precedents have spoken clearly on the matter of what is established Policy. And I think that if we get on with the business of the day and-- whereas there have been questions raised as to what the facts are, remain on this side and on the side of the minority who are prepared to speak to the facts. And I think that is what we ought to be doing. [00.53.58]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.51] Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in the context of this article that the paragraph 1 is inadequate. This article is in the nature of a criminal indictment. it essence is a criminal conspiracy which is being charged under designation of a "policy." It also, of course, includes the charge obstruction of justice, another criminal offense, and it should specific. From the standpoint of the proposed article II that I expect us to consider later, and relating primarily to the President's obligation, constitutional responsibility to see to the faithful execution of the it seems to me that such an allegation might take on a different postulation and therefore I am going to join in the motion to strike this language in this article, not withstanding that I may find that this language appropriate in another article which we may consider. Now, I would be happy this time to yield the balance of my time" any gentleman an who would like me to yield to him. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I have some time of my own, but I am grateful to my friend from Illinois adding to it. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the distance we are in danger departing from the law and the Constitution and sending into impeachment politics here this evening is -possibly illustrated best by the rather startling propositions I have heard advanced during the course of the debate from people who I really don't think ordinarily would have advanced them. For instance, it has been suggested in effect that statements in a committee report can be used to cure an article of impeachment Which is fatally defective because it is too definite and vague. At one point in the debate the statement was made that you didn't really need to worry much about the rules of evidence because they didn't apply in a trial before the U.S. Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Then We heard several times in effect that due process of law is outmoded. We are now in the 20th century. You have got notice pleading. Now, everybody knows that, or I thought everybody knew, that an impeachment proceeding is at least quasi-criminal. I didn't know that was a matter of dispute. It is condone punishment and as Mr. Jenner I agreed here a while back, rule 7 of the criminal rules still applies and it Says, "The indictment"--or "The information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." Now, that is not notice pleading. There is nothing outmoded about it. You are entitled, anybody is entitled. I know a little about a few things and one of them is criminal law and you are entitled to be notified of the defense charge, and you are entitled to be notified in the charge. You want some 20th century, up-to-date law. Let me give 'You a little more. Whoever commits an action which the law declares to be punishable Or which is deserving of punishment according to the fundamental idea of a penal law and the sound perception of the people shall be punished. If no determinant of penal law is directly applicable to the action it shall be punished according to the law, the basic idea which fits it best. Doesn't that sound a lot like some of the propositions we have heard Advanced around here today and it is good 20th century law. It is part of the Nazi penal code from Hitler's Germany. You know, really, we don't--we didn't have to be arguing this all day and all night. This is a very very simple proposition. All you have to do not plead 12 books of evidence. You just say making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized intelligence or investigative officers in that on such and such a day said the following to so and so. Now, Mr. Railsback 'has given us a long laundry list. He says I think they are disputable. Mr. Wiggins has disputed a couple of them very well. When the time comes that can be done but why don't we list them? And since we aren't going to list them and since obviously for some reason we have made--better just strike that thing out---- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. As the gentleman suggests I support the motion. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 5 more minutes. The gentleman as his own 5 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, you almost seared me to death but I am glad to know that I have still got 5 more minute, and I will take a little more, time. You ought to specify, as I was about to say, since we, obviously are not going to specify in spite of the great knowledge of these gentleman men, and stated readiness to specify. If you were going to leave it the way it is, it say anything, and according to their theory, the operative parts, and up above here, paragraph 2, you do not, need it anyway, so out it ought to go. This is a good motion under the circumstances. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will Yield a, couple of minutes of my time to the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, and reserve the balance for the moment. [01.16.25]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.52] Mr. SARBANES; Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak because the hour is getting late, and I think it is necessary for this committee to move on and begin to consider these amendments. We must not delay inordinately in beginning to reach some resolution of this very grave matter. But some things have been stated that have forced me to try to respond. I agree with the gentleman from Indiana -when he says it is very important not to stray, perhaps in our excitement and concern, from a careful statement of what it is we are trying to express in this matter. I see he has left the room, and I regret that, but I intend to go on and make the points. Now, the gentleman from Indiana stated that earlier this evening it was said that due process of law was outmoded. No one said that here. The gentlelady from Texas made a very eloquent statement not only for the need for due process, but why it has been met. Why the Standards that this committee has followed meet the very highest test of due process. Second, the gentleman said that it had been stated in the course Of the discussion here that a defective article can be cured by a committee report. No one said that. What was said was that the article 'was not defective, that the article was valid, that this was good article. In fact it was stated in response to a question from the gentleman from Maine, that the Article went further than was necessary in providing additional notices material for the President, and that the report would then supplementing the article. Then it was asserted. it was asserted that, someone in the course, of this discussion said that the, rules of evidence do not apply in the Senate That was not asserted. What was stated was that in the previous proceedings. the Chief Justice ruled on questions of evidence, that the Senate has the authority to overrule him, and that the Senate does not necessarily have to follow the same, strict rules of evidence that would apply in a court of law. The Senate is sitting in all impeachment trials and is seeking the truth seeking to determine what is best for the country. So. I suggest that none of these sweeping statements were made. And while a debate is important, I think it is critical not to misstate what has come earlier. We can differ, but I think we, ought to recognize what has previously been said. Now, let me address myself to one other point that was made with respect to the President's statement on June 22. In that statement, the President said that he endorsed what John Mitchell had earlier stated, and John Mitchell had earlier stated that there was no involvement, either 'At the Committee To Re-Elect or of anyone else involved. That was Mitchell statement. The President endorsed the truth of that statement, and that, was read, of course, by, the gentleman from California. Now. the gentleman from California also referred to Mr. Hunt and said that Mr. Hunt had no connection with the White House, although it has been so asserted. The fact of the matter is that a very good case can be made that Mr. Hunt, indeed still had a continuing connection With the White House. That is in dispute. but look at what happened subsequent to June 17. Hunt's employment records at the White Rouse were falsified in order to indicate, through a memo. that Hunt had left such employment on March 31 and was not still a consultant to the White House on June 17. Telephone books used in the White House and the Executive Office Building as of immediately after June 17, which contained in them Howard Hunt's name and his telephone number were immediately recalled, brought back from all offices and that page with Hunt's name and number on it was removed from that book and another page substituted. Hunt's safe in his office in the Executive Office Building. of which he had made use, was drilled into, and the contents of that safe Were removed. And finally, Hunt was given instructions to leave, the country, which were subsequently countermanded, but Hunt -was given instruction to leave the country. Now, all four of these things happened immediately afterward, Now, the gentleman from California can contend that Hunt had no connection, but I suggest to him that there are facts to the contrary which indicate that Hunt may well have had a connection. And in any event, it seems to me important in that instance, and in the earlier matters, that these things be stated precisely, so that the differences between us are accurately perceived by the people. Mr. DONOHUE [presiding]. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. [01.26.22]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
[01.26.22] Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that while we were on our good behavior yesterday, we are back to the normal procedures that we have been engaged in behind closed doors for the last several weeks which are to effectively explode the myth that there has been a totally nonpartisan air to all of these hearings. I think that that is unfortunate. I was not aware when we started the televising of these proceedings that we were intending to duplicate the 10 weeks of evidentiary hearings that we had. I do think that we have in many ways done a disservice to ourselves and the American people today. We have members relating narrative that are embellished and filtered through the prism of their own partisan bias, and we have them and others call it evidence. It is not evidence. Mr. Waldie's narrative, while it might be suitable for a scandal magazine or a speech to his constituents, I think it is totally inappropriate here. His statements have had inaccuracies, embellishments, frivolities, irrelevancies, and allegations that have not been substantiated by the evidence. We should address ourselves in these proceedings, it seems to me, to the factual evidence which is supportive of the articles of impeachment which we are debating. We do not need humor. Our role is not here to entertain the American people, but to address ourselves to the constitutional responsibilities we were so awed with. Now, I oppose the motion to strike, and we have been belaboring the same point so many times over and over where ,Nf r. Wiggins Continues to call what we are about an indictment. It is not an indictment. We are not involved in a criminal procedure, and we should recognize that and stop deluding ourselves. I am disappointed in some of my colleagues. When Mr. Waldie talks about Mitchell lied, and Krogh, and -Magruder, and Porter perjured themselves, they are not the subjects of this impeachment. When he says the President knew full well that White House people were involved before a certain point in time is not supported in the record. When Congressman Drinan says that Stans was interviewed in his office and not before the grand jury, and he called this a compromising procedure, that is not the case. And the Justice Department and Mr. Stans are not the subject of this impeachment. It is not even unique or unusual for people of prominence to be interviewed outside the grand jury, and I remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that another distinguished gentleman whom I revere, from his home State, former Speaker John' McCormack, was not required to go before the grand jury when the investigation and prosecution of his own staff aides was involved. He testified- Mr. DRINAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HOGAN. Re testified before the Department of Justice, ass Stans did. Mr. DRINAN. Would the. gentleman yield 2 Mr. HOGAN. I will not, yield at this point. And my good friend and colleague from Maryland, while he is generally very calm and dispassionate, and logical, I think has done an outstanding job today in defending his substitute. even he has fallen into this trap. We all feel so strongly about these things that we have a hard time keeping our natural propensities in check. He was reading from the transcript where he made a, parenthetical remark where he got to the point where the President says to Dean, "Well, you had quite a, day, didn't you, you got Watergate on the way, huh?" And then he says, then Dean says. "Quite a 3 months." Then he made a parenthetical remark and said that, incidentally, that was not in the White House transcript. And the implication of that, is that there was deception on the part of the White House in leaving that part of the statement out. During the interim of the recess, I had checked what Mr. Jaworski's transcript. Special Prosecutor said, and for Dean's statement there, they have "[Inaudible] 3 months." which is not, what we have in ours. we have "How did it all end up?" and The next sentence, Mr. Jaworski's transcript says "How did this all end up?" Now, these are all inconsequential, but when you give the implications that the White House, without any substantiated proof, has tried to fabricate the transcripts, when -we ourselves have transcripts that are, not the same, as Mr. Jaworski's or the White House, I think we are Just confusing the issue for ourselves and the American people. I hope that When we return tomorrow we will all try to rediscipline ourselves and focus in on the articles themselves which are under debate and not try to propagandize this, because I think by doing so we are doing a disservice to these proceedings. And now I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. [01.31.39]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi whom I overlooked, Mr. Lott. Trent Lott (R Mississippi). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the hour is late and I ll be brief. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Mayne and also speak briefly in support of the motion to strike by Mr. Sandman. I think that he probably did not intend necessarily to offer motions to strike on each amendment, but I think it has been clearly demonstrated here by what has been said that we do have a need to see what the specifics are so that we can debate and agree, if possible, on what will be included in the Articles. Now we ve already pointed out earlier that there was a mistake the first allegation in support of this section. And I have another that I could speak to with regard to the President giving false and misleading statements to Petersen on March 21, but I think enough has been said about this. I think now that the point has been made very clearly by the last few speakers, on both sides of the aisle that we do need to find some way to come up with the particulars. And I urge the committee to go ahead and get on with this vote on the motion to strike and make some determination as to what we can do or some way that we can find to be more particular so that we can debate the real issues, the real facts that have been asking for an opportunity to discuss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
News in Brief: Toy Soldier Fair
News in Brief: Toy Soldier Fair "West Germany's Toy Soldier Fair brings out tiny figures of all nations and all periods of history. Worldwide collectors show the best product of a serious adult hobby and art." CU miniature military battalions arraying on a table. CU models of General Ulysses Grant and Kaiser Wilhelm. MS man looking at toy soldiers. CU models of fife and drum regiment. CU hand moving a soldier on a horse around the table. CU man comparing model soldier to larger drawing for accuracy. CU cavalry soldiers. CU Roman legions arranged in a tableau.
News in Brief: French Fashions
News in Brief: French Fashions "Dramatic couturier Jacques Esterel shows his fall and winter line with heavy emphasis on Gaucho-looking outfits, with pants, capes and matador hats. A "cage-handbag" comes compete with a bird...or even a little white mouse!" MS model on catwalk at a fashion show. She wears a short black dress with long shorts underneath and thigh high black boots. MS model on catwalk wearing thigh high black boots, black gaucho style pants, a mid-length striped jacket with short black cape, and traditional matador hat. MS model wearing an ankle length striped, sleeveless evening dress. MS fashion designer Jacques Esterel removes a model's black jacket to reveal a "gaucho jumpsuit" (only the low cut beaded bodice with an open back is shown). MS model on catwalk wearing black gaucho pants and white jacket. CU of the model's handbag; it is a purse with a wire cage underneath it that contains a small bird. MS model walking down catwalk with purse.
Sports: Tokyo Swim Meet
Sports: Tokyo Swim Meet "U.S. Swimmers sweep all aquatic events for 13 gold medals at the World University Games in Tokyo. Charles Hickcox of Phoenix sets two world marks in the 100 and 200 meter backstroke." LS swimming pool at the World University Games. MS fans seated in stands. MS men's 100 meter backstroke. CU Japanese man waving a fan seated in the stands. CU Americans Charles Hickcox and Douglas Russell swimming in the backstroke event. CU smiling Japanese woman with glasses and clapping. MS end of race. CU Hickcox wins the race and sets a new world record. MS judges applauding. CU score board with final times. MS Hickcox on podium receiving his gold medal.
News in Brief: Hong Kong Police Fight Terrorism
News in Brief: Hong Kong Police Fight Terrorism "Police in Hong Kong raid waterfront buildings searching for explosives and weapons used in recent terror attacks in the Colony. Two children were killed by a homemade bomb thrown into a playground." Hong Kong MS Hong Kong Police Officers, pan up to Chinese sign above doorway. MS police searching building for weapons. CU seized contraband. MS Police leading handcuffed suspects out of building and into van.
News in Brief: Paris Fashions
News in Brief: Paris Fashions "Fall fashions by Ted Lapidus includes jacket-suits with matching or reversible coats and prominent tartan plaids. One outfit displays a featherweight aluminum collar, which looks like ones "Grandad" used to wear." MS men walking outside Ted Lapidus's Paris store. MS fashion show. MS three models on the catwalk; they wear jacket suits with newsboy caps and Scottish tartan shirts. MS middle-aged women in the audience. MS model wearing a short tartan dress with a large fur collar and fur hat. She carries a lined coat in a matching tartan print. MS female model in a short white gabardine dress and male model in a suit carrying an umbrella. MS audience. MS model wearing a short black dress which features a large featherweight aluminum collar. MS African American model wearing a caban (a leotard with a small belt and matching jacket). Typical 1960s fashions.
News in Brief: Fire at Montreal Oil Refinery
News in Brief: Fire at Montreal Oil Refinery "Fire at a Montreal oil refinery sends flames as high as 350 feet in the air. Experts say it may take a week to burn itself out, feeding on one million gallons of gasoline." LS Oil Refinery fire at night. VS large flames and billowing smoke. LS firefighters spraying the fire with water hoses.
Controversy: Dissent Marks Picasso Unveiling
Controversy: Dissent Marks Picasso Unveiling Chicago, Illinois, United States of America. "Chicago unveils its controversial Picasso sculpture, five stories high, weighing 163 tons. Comments range from praise to sarcasm. From 'sophisticated' to 'just a big homely thing!' " WS crowds gathered in the Civic Center Plaza (renamed the Daley Plaza) for the unveiling of the new Picasso sculpture. MS protest banner reading "The Colossal Booboo, A creative evacuation of emotional debris, Fright, Chicago is not afraid neither is the United States." MS women with protest signs reading "Let's Give It Back Now!!" and "It's a Monsterment." MS sculpture covered prior to its unveiling. MS crowd. MS man pulling cord and unveiling Picasso sculpture. CU woman with her face painted (hippie). MS Chicago Picasso, pan down to the crowd some spectators throw things in protest.
Embassy Sacked. British Beated by Peking Mob
Embassy Sacked. British Beated by Peking Mob Hong Kong and Peking, China "The closing of three Communist newspapers in Hong Kong with the arrest of employees, triggers a demonstration which ends in violence at the British diplomatic compound in Peking. The building is sacked and diplomats beaten by Red Guards." LS British Colonial Police outside Hong Evening News Building, pan up the building. MS back view police talking to employees. MS man working at typesetting machine. CU piece of Chinese typeface. MS policeman looking around print shop. Police taking down banner with Chinese Lettering on it. MS Police van driving away. MS of Chinese protesters outside the British embassy in Peking. MS of anti-British protestors marching in a nightime parade. They carry signs denouncing British Imperialism and pictures of Mao.
News in Brief: Volcano Eruption
News in Brief: Volcano Eruption "Minor eruptions from the Taal Volcano, south of Manila, put authorities and residents on the alert. Two years ago, 190 were killed in a major eruption of the usually sleepy volcano." LS of erupting volcano. MS of group of people watching eruptions. MS plumes of steam and smoke rising from the volcano.
News in Brief: Arms Raid
News in Brief: Arms Raid "Four New York men are arrested and charged with a bomb attempt on the life of Secretary of the U.S. Communist Party. An incredible arsenal of arms and ammunition is also seized in a series of raids." MS court building. CU sign "Criminal Court of the City of New York." MS men leaving police van and walking into courthouse. Two of the men cover their faces. District Attorney Isadore Dollinger (sp?) and assistant district attorney Burton Roberts examining weapons seized in raid. CU rifles, ammunition, machine guns, shot guns displayed on desk.
News in Brief: Bombing Raids in Vietnam
News in Brief: Bombing Raids in Vietnam Vietnam "U.S. Air Force fighter-bombers hit harbor and river installations and bomb Hanoi's surburbs for four consecutive days. On the ground, U.S. paratroops fight their way out of an ambush near a small village, while taking several casualities." VS aerial gun camera footage of bombs hitting harbors and other ground targets. MS bomb explosions. MS U.S. paratroopers on the ground in Vietnam. CU soldier firing machine gun. MS back view soldier running with rifle. LS explosion. CU soldier giving CPR to wounded comrade. MS Vientamese women and small children. MS U.S. soldier with bad leg wound drinking from a canteen.