Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.20.28] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. The proposed article Of impeachment now being debated charges that the President has violated his oath of office and his constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. It charges that he, has done. so by repeatedly engaging in unconstitutional and illegal conduct. The wording of the proposed article II raises a number of serious questions which I hope will be addressed by its proponents during the course of this debate. While I strenuously dispute as a matter of fact that the evidence establishes that the President has repeatedly engaged in unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, I am curious as to what the drafters of this article perceive to be the legal significance of the allegation that such acts have been done repeatedly. What is The gravamen of the offense charged in this article; the supposed repetition of misconduct or the specific instances of it which are alleged? Would any of these individual allegations standing alone support an article of impeachment? Or do they only amount to impeachable conduct when considered in the aggregate? If some would stand alone and others could not, tell us which is which. How many of these allegations must we believe to be supported by the evidence before we would be Justified in voting for the entire article ? Even if each and every allegation were Proved true, is it, fair or is it grossly misleading to say that, the President has violated his oath repeatedly? Repeatedly means again and again. Surely this does not mean isolated or even sporadic failures of duty. It can only connote a regular persistent course of conduct, warranting a belief that the alleged instances of lawlessness are characteristic and not exceptional. Is it really fair? Does it depict the Whole truth to examine the entire record of this administration during the past 5 1/2 years, to examine the totality of countless tells of thousands of official actions taken by the President personally by members of his White House staff and by other subordinate officials of the executive branch of Government and to cull from that huge mass of official action this relative, handful of specific allegations and to derive from them the proposition that the President's conduct, has been repeatedly unlawful? Consider, for example, the question of -wiretaps. I do not acknowledge that these wiretaps were unjustified or under all the circumstances illegal as the law exist at the time they took place. But even if some were, which I do not concede, in all fairness can it be said that if those, few -wiretaps, most of which were instituted in two groups spread over a 1-year period and the last of which terminated in February 1971 furnish evidence of repeated violation of the Constitution? As in the case, of the evidence relating to the Plumbers' operation they, show a, specific Presidential response to a specific and serious problem: namely, the public disclosure by leaks of highly sensitive information bearing upon the, conduct of American foreign policy during that very turbulent period both domestically and internationally. What effect--what effort has our staff made to bring before this committee a coherent comprehensive reconstruction of the claimant and the circumstances of the 1969 through 1971 period in which The wiretaps occurred? We have heard no eloquence to stir our memories as to the violence and as to the disorder and the war which nearly had this Nation on its knees at the time that Richard Nixon look office. The President's prosecutors would have us view the actions of which they, complained in the abstract, ripped from the very context of the event which precipitated them, giving not even lip service to the Serious governmental problems which they were designed, even if designed clumsily to Cope with. Mr. Chairman, I will vote against this ill-conceived article of impeachment. [00.25.23]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.31.45] I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have. an amendment at the, desk. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment be deemed to apply to the language in subparagraphs 1 and 3, because those are exactly the same words, and as you know that new language was read in as an addition here just a few moments ago. Does Mr. Hungate understand my point, since it is his substitute? Mr. HUNGATE. As I understand the gentleman, the. amendment would be substantially the same in both the paragraphs 1 and 3? Mr. WIGGINS. Would be exactly the game. Mr. HUNGATE. And I have no objection, Mr. Wiggins. The CHAIRMAN. So the Chair would understand that if the amendment were disposed of, it -would be disposed of Mr. WIGGINS. As to both. The CHAIRMAN. [continuing]. As to 1 and 3. Mr. WIGGINS. as Certainly. of would like to do it all at one time. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK [reading] Amendment by Mr. Wiggins. In subparagraph (1) after the word "has", strike the words 'acting personally and through his subordinates and agents" and add the following: "personally and through his subordinates and agents acting with his knowledge or pursuant to his instructions". The CHAIRMAN-. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe my intent is evident from the words used, and I merely am trying to avoid any possible ambiguity created by the language which is now in subparagraph (1) and subparagraph (3). Going back to the introductory words in article II it states, in essence, Richard Nixon has repeatedly engaged in conduct, et cetera. It makes it clear that we are talking about Richard Nixon's acts, and yet, when -we move to subparagraph (1) -we deviate from that standard and we say, as presently proposed, that he acted personally and through his subordinates and agents. I have no quarrel with impeaching President Nixon by reason of the, acts of his subordinates and agents so, long as we know that we are talking about those acts of his subordinates and agents which were done with his knowledge or pursuant to his instructions. And we are not Seeking to impeach the President vicariously by reason of the acts of others about which he had no knowledge, and contrary perhaps to his instructions. I have every reason to expect, although I have not asked my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, to support such an amendment because this is, in essence, what he was talking about yesterday, that he was willing to impeach the President by reason of his personal misconduct, but was not, willing to impute vicariously the acts of others. My amendment to subparagraph (1) and subparagraph (3) is to Make this concept abundantly clear, and I urge its acceptance. . Mr. COHEN-. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. Of course., I will yield. Mr, BROOKS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. WIGGINS. I have yielded to the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman still has time. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Wiggins, under your proposal that would make it personally and through his subordinates and agents acting with his knowledge, or pursuant to his instructions, would that also cover such situations such as where his agents may have acted without the President's personal knowledge in advance, but such acts were thereafter ratified or condoned by the President? Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, I would not necessarily exclude that. 1 realize that a President must Of necessity act through subordinates and that the acts of subordinates may not be personally known to the President. But so long as those. acts are pursuant to his instructions, or perhaps policy, to use a, word that has been used around here, or ratified and condoned by him as his acts, then I have no objection to attributing them to the President. Mr. COHEN. SO, if he acquired knowledge thereafter and ratified in effect the prior acts, that would be within the scope Of your amendment. Thank you. Mr. WIGGINS. I will submit that, question, Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield to me? Mr. WIGGINS. If I have time, I will yield first to the gentleman from Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California knows that pursuant to the rule that we have adopted, those supporting his amendment and speaking in support of it will have 20 minutes in entirety. Mr. WIGGINS. I think then that, I had best reserve whatever time 1 have and permit others to speak. Mr. Chairman. Well, now, Mr. Chairman, am I in effect forgoing the balance of my time, if I reserve? It is not my understanding that I personally have 20 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. No; you personally do not have 20 minutes. But those in support of your amendment have 20 minutes, and therefore Mr. WIGGINS. If I have used up my time, of course, I am out, of time and. others can speak. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman still has 1 1/2 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. I yield. to the gentleman from Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have only the same, I think the same questions that were raised by the gentleman from Maine. what worries me about this. the President, in some cases. perhaps had knowledge not initially, perhaps, but learned of improper activities and saw I fit to either condone or acquiesce in such activities, and what I am wondering is if it is the intent of his amendment, and again let's make it very clear is it the intent of your amendment to rule out that kind of what I believe is serious misconduct? Mr. WIGGINS. It is not my own intent, to rule it out, but I do not wish to say I embrace it. I will, as you said yesterday, let the words speak for themselves. [00.37.41]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.10.45] Mr. BUTLER. I thank- the gentleman from Maine. I just would take A moment, but I feel like we ought to complete what was said by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks, with reference to the O'Brien investigation, and point out that there is among the evidence -which Was brought to our attention the affidavit of Mr. Thompson with reference to the conversation -with Mr. Fred Buzhardt on behalf of the White House in which he advised on September 15, 1972, Dean reported on the IRS investigation of Larry O'Brien. There Would be some questions in my mind under this amendment as to whether that would, in fact be relevant and admissible, but under the proposed amendment, substitute by Mr. Hungate, I am quite satisfied that it -would. In my judgment, the proposal by Mr. Wiggins expressly excludes the opportunity for ratification and evidence of ratification. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield on that? Mr. BUTLER. And I think that is very significant. "The time is not mine,. Mr. WIGGINS. Would someone yield? Mr. COHEN. I would yield to the gentleman. Mr. WIGGINS. It is not my intention as the maker of the' motion to exclude the concept of ratification. That is not my intention. My words were, only intended to convey to the gentleman that I did not accept the view that the facts constituted a ratification, but that, the issue of ratification is still before us in terms of my language. Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. HOGAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I agree with my colleagues who say that we cannot, impeach the President for the wrongdoing of his aides. I have said so myself. I think there is a very, strong case of personal culpability on his part, as Mr. Cohen has indicated, and there are a number of them and in the short time, remaining I will try to hit some of them myself. We have his words on record, but one of the strongest things of personal involvement to me is when the Department of Justice files briefs in the Ellsberg case and says that there is no record of any wiretaps or any overheard conversations of Ellsberg. The reason they filed those briefs is because it -was not in the files of the FBI. And why 'was it not in the files of the FBI? Because the Assistant Attorney General, Mardian, flew to San Clemente and personally discussed the matter with the President, not his aides, personally with the President and he said what shall I do with these records, and the President said deliver them all to the White House, And Mr. Mardian testified that he delivered them to the Oval Office. When he was asked, well, to whom did you deliver them, he said, I would rather not say. Well, who sits in the Oval Office except the President? They were then given to Ehrlichman and Ehrlichman kept them in his files outside of the records of the Department of Justice. This is one of the reasons the Ellsberg case was dismissed, which I think was a calamity. In February 1973, when Time magazine came out with a story about a White House wiretap program, the President personally approved the cover story, as he did in the Daniel Schorr case, and there was no such wiretap program. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. HOGAN. May I have another 30 seconds with unanimous consent? the CHAIRMAN. Well, there, are 3 minutes remaining in support, or in opposition to the amendment. Mr. HOGAN. Could I be recognized for one of those, 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will be recognized. Mr. HOGAN. He denied the existence of the wiretap program when with Time Magazine came out with the story. That is in February 1973. In May 1973, he publicly states that he, the President, personally had authorized and directed the electronic surveillance of 17 persons. A number of these wiretaps were blatantly illegal. There, was no justification for them whatsoever under criminal or domestic security bases. And is it reasonable for reasonable and prudent men to conclude that White House aides would tap the phone of the President's own brother without his approval in advance? I think there is ample material linking impeachable offenses directly to the President, not to his aides. Directly to him. I agree we should do that, and I think we have done so. The CHAIRMAN. The 1 minute of the gentleman has expired. There are 5 minutes remaining to those in support of the amendment and 2 minutes remaining to those in opposition to the amendment. And I think the Chair will, unless there are those who wish to be, recognized at, this time for the short 2 minutes, otherwise, there, is a rollcall vote, and the vote Is on the conference report, Of Military procurement authorization, and the Chair will defer calling on any member On either side, until we have returned from the rollcall vote at 2:30 p.m. We will recess until 2:30 p.m.. [01.15.35]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.22.24] The gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. I have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk -will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Wiggins. In the Hungate substitute, strike from subparagraph 4 the words "and concerning other matters." The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this raises once again the question which was debated at some length concerning specificity. I call your attention to the wording of subparagraph 4. It Charges the President With failing to take care that the laws, were faithfully executed by failing, to act in two respects. One, with respect to the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and two, with respect to other matters. It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that this pushes beyond all reason the desire, apparent desire on the. part of the majority to not specify With Particularity that conduct which they condemn. I can think of more vague nor uncertain than the language "concerning other matters. If we start from the premise required by the Constitution that a defendant in any proceeding and especially in these is entitled to reasonable notice of the nature of the charges against him, then I ask You. what notice is afforded by the charge that he failed to act concerning other matters? We should have extended debates on this. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the author of the substitute would state with particularity the other matters if he wished to rely upon them, but failing that, It seems to me appropriate as a matter of law and certainly as a matter of the good sense of this committee to strike the vague and uncertain language now contained in subparagraph (4) that the President failed to act with respect to other matters. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed I minute and a half. There will be 18 1/2 minutes---- Mr. WIGGINS. Under the, rule I take it I may yield ,it this point- but I cannot reserve my time. is that correct The CHAIRMAN. You can yield at this time but there are still 18 1/2 minutes remaining for those in support. Mr. FLOWERS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. Of course I will if it is in support of the amendment. Mr. FLOWERS. I Support your amendment. I think this is-- Mr. WIGGINS. I will be happy to yield. Mr. FLOWERS. This is material that perhaps, I hope, escaped the drafter of it and can be stricken from it. That 'is about all I have to say. I support your amendment. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate the, gentleman's support. I am prepared to yield to my friend from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. Really, this matter does not need much debate. I don't believe, because it, is so obvious and plain that under any theory of the law, modern, ancient or whatever you want to call it, you are entitled to know a little something about what you are charged with and as a matter of fact there is a certain amount of specificity in this article as it, is drawn and we have been given some justifications for article II up here which are fairly specific and just to run in here that he failed to take care that laws were faithfully executed, by failing to act when he had reason to know his subordinates were going to do certain specific things with regard to (he Democratic Headquarters and then throw in a, catch-all concerning other matters, without any definition at all, seems obviously unfair. I agree with my friend from Iowa down there to the extent that I feel that, this article, too, if the proof were here, and I do not think it is, as I am going to discuss further, later when we get to debating the article proper but if the proof were here, I think in many ways this could be a more serious Impeachable offense than that we had presented under the article the other day, because if there were actually a concerned intentional abuse of the powers and duties of the Presidency for political reasons or other improper reasons, I think you might have something worthy of consideration. But if you are going to get into that, particularly if you are going to include things as we are trying to include here, which are not even violations of the statutes, you at least owe it to everybody to set out what you are talking about. This is just so vague and general it could go back as far as you can go and cover anything that anybody might dream up at some time. It is so difficult to argue because it is so simple and right. So I Support the amendment. [01.28.14]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.33.01] Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri if he wants to respond. Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The language of 4, if you refer to the first few lines of that, when you talk of concerning other matters he has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by falling to act, when he knew or had reason to know his close subordinates, et cetera. Now, -we are talking of situations of which he should know or should have reason to know, and as we have said earlier, the doctrine of impeachment cannot really be very narrowly confined. It is as broad as the king's imagination. It has to be. If I can define it closely enough, there will be somebody to figure a way around it. Take the Kleindienst situation. The testimony, the evidence before the committee, as I recall it and would state it is that Mr. Kleindienst received what we would I guess call a chewing out from the President, in rather plain and forceful, clear language, and concerning a specific matter. And then when he was before the Senate committee they were asked if anybody had approached him concerning the matter, ITT, as I recall. and he in effect. said -"well, he might have casually mentioned it". Well, I am telling you that the chewing out that, he, got was such that you would remember it no matter who gave it to you, and certainly if it came from the President he would remember. Now, we still find him, the President after this date, going before the American people and saying when he knew that this testimony had been given, and when he had reason or knew, or had reason to know that the testimony was, not true, and upholding the testimony of Mr. Kleindienst in that situation. Now, there are other examples. I am told in the Jaworski consideration in the false Diem cables, these are, the sort of things that would be, covered here. . I yield back the time. Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman from Illinois yield? The CHAIRMAN. How much time, has expired? Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. DENNIS. I thought you had some time. That's all. The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman please defer. There are 7 minutes that have been consumed in opposition and 4 in support. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and the reason I do is because We were specific in our allegation in the first portion of that paragraph, where we limited the failure to faithfully execute the. laws into the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Now, I happen to believe that the matter of Mr. Kleindienst and the antitrust case----- [01.36.05--TAPE OUT]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. George Danielson (D - California).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. George Danielson (D - California). George Danielson (D California). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman has not yet been recognized. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. George Danielson (D California). Well thank you again Mr. Chairman, I am very proud and honored to associate myself with the remarks of my dear friend, and very great lawyer, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Donohue. Mr. Chairman, our debate today has distilled the issues of this article to where we all know and can clearly see that they constitute a clear threat And an attack against our Constitution which is the essence and the soul of our Republic. We cannot and must not fail in a responsibility which is ours. And so again, with heavy heart and great sadness we must vote for this article of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Henry Smith III (R -New York).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Henry Smith III (R -New York). Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Smith. Henry Smith III (R New York). I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we have spent all of today in the debate of this Article II which says that the President of the United States contrary to his trust as President and subversive of Constitutional Government, repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the Constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice, and the conduct of lawful inquiries, for contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch of the Government. And I think probably everything has been said about this that could be said. From the comments that have been made I would say that a majority of this committee believe that we will support this Article and believes what it says and there are, some who don't feel that the evidence as such that has been produced in this long proceeding that this committee has been involved in makes out a clear and convincing case that this is so, the President of the United States himself. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Caldwell Butler (R - Virginia).
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Caldwell Butler (R - Virginia). Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler. M Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). I thank the gentleman from Virginia. A number of our colleagues have said that the evidence presented today fails to support the impeachable offenses. I know that they do not want to give the erroneous impression that they have been involved today or in any of these recent deliberations in a presentation of evidence. What we have been involved in is debating amendments to these articles of impeachment. The evidentiary presentation took 10 weeks of our time after months of staff work. So we shouldn't give the impression that what we have been presenting is evidence. But what we have seen is the results of all of that labor and having all 38 members of this committee study that evidence for 10 weeks in long sessions day after day, hour after hour, an overwhelming majority of this committee can subscribe to the idea that that evidence supports these articles of impeachment. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman has time remaining. M Caldwell Butler (R Virginia). I yield back the balance of my time.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974. Vote on article II of the Donohue resolution
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.09.10] The CHAIRMAN. A total of 20 members--21 members seek recognition. Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, -Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is a matter of sufficient importance so that the members should have, an adequate amount of time. I don't want to prolong this, but I I don't think we should Cut off debate on a matter of this seriousness, and therefore I must register my objection to the request. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard, The gentleman form California, Mr. Edwards---- Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman? The, CHAIRMAN. [continuing] Is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman. I would like to Speak just for a few minutes about all of article II which I suggest is an expression of our deep devotion to the Constitution, and above all, to the first 10 amendments, known as the, Bill of Rights. Article II is our rededication to and our reaffirmation of the Bill of Rights and the principle that no officer of our Government from the most lowly to the highest can violate with impunity those fundamental constitutional rights guaranteed every' American Citizen. In 1787 when the 13 Colonies Were, considering ratification of the new Constitution, three, of the new States voted to ratify only On condition that a recommendation for a Bill of Rights be added. These men remembered well that they or their parents had fled from the kingdoms of Europe to seek individual freedom in the New World. They had Just, finished winning a war to insure this independence and freedom, and they were not about to substitute a new Federal Government for the old tyranny without safeguards designed to protect their rights as individual human beings from the arbitrary encroachments of the new Government. So it was that the First Congress of 1789 enacted the, Bill of Rights as the first, 10 amendments its to the Constitution. Jefferson in a letter, to Madison 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 one, four, five, and six. The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. In direct contravention, of this amendment 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 The fourth amendment guarantees the rights of people to be secure in their homes. their houses, in their papers, against unreasonable searches and seizures In direct contravention of this amendment, President 'Nixon established a special investigative unit within the White House to engage in searches and seizures without legal warrant, and the special White House unit committed a burglary the State of California. The fifth amendment guarantees to all equal protection of the laws. In direct contravention of this amendment, President Nixon endeavored to use the Internal Revenue Service for tax investigations and tax harassment of political opponents . The fifth and sixth amendments guarantee a fair trial in all criminal prosecutions. In direct contravention of these amendments. President Nixon and his subordinates leaked information unfavorable to a criminal defendant, 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 than the notion that any public official, the President or a policeman, possesses a kind of inherent power to set the, Constitution aside whenever he thinks the public interest, or to use the popular term now given such easy currency, the "national security" warrants it. That, notion is the essential postulate of tyranny. It is indeed the very definition of dictatorship, for dictatorship 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 or yellow, from the Most powerful to the humblest, and say to all who will listen, 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; and your right to equal treatment under law without fear or favor from the Government; your right, if legal difficulties should enmesh you, to a fair trial; your right to be left alone to pursue life, liberty and happiness free from unlawful incursions at all levels of government from the President down. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00.14.55]
Korea war refugees
Korea - misc. - flag, parade in costume, girls dance in costume, with ????
Korea - farmers
Malaysia misc.
Malaysia - loading truck with grain
Malaysia - loading truck with grain
Malaysia jungle
Malaysia - misc. street scenes, growing rice, agriculture, fishing with nets.
Korea - riot - masses of people, soldiers
Korea - riot
Natives dance
(On preview cassette #98701.) New Guinea - dance, various good shots of New Guinea natives dancing, all men. They are dressed up in native costumes which include elaborate headdresses and ornaments like bone necklaces and earrings and what looks like feathers through their nose. Also have on face paint, looks like a warrior dance of some sort. Also a shot of 2 white men talking to some of the natives, probably anthropologists.
Asia - misc. b/w dupe neg