Advanced Search
Auocets
Auocets
CU Seagulls
CU Seagulls
SA Heel Sand Piper
SA Heel Sand Piper
Island - waterbirds
Island - waterbirds
Sand pipers
Sand pipers
Grebes - Loons
Grebes - Loons
Terns
Terns
Sandpipers/terns
Sandpipers/terns
Terns
Terns
Misc. Water birds
Misc. Water birds
Berlin Election: Reds Swamped as Brandt Wins
Berlin Election: Reds Swamped As Brandt Wins. Mayor Willy Brandt scores an unexpected landslide as West Berliners go to the polls to elect a new City Parliament. His party was favored to win, but his victory was overwhelming as he captured nearly 62% of the vote. The Communists pulled only 1.3% and failed to win even one seat. A man putting an election on a pole, traffic in the back ground. MCUSOH - German people queuing up for political pamphlets. MCUS - Man casting his ballot. CUS - Candidates manes listed on the ballots. MCUS - Election officials inside a hospital room where an elderly patient can cast his ballot, while he's in a hospital bed. MCUS - Mayor Willy Brandt queuing up with other citizens waiting to cast his vote accompanied by Mrs. Brandt. CUS - A graph showing that Mayor Brandt got 62 % of the vote and he is declared the winner.
New Offbeat Boat: Design Inspired By Lunar Rays
It's called the New Moon and its' the pride and consternation of the Norfolk Yacht Harbor of California Oakland Estuary. Concocted by Sculptor David Brooks, it's an ark of many-splendored stain glass windows with more facets than a diamond. How it would fare in a gale in anybody's guess but it's kooky and wonderful. This unusual, almost, diamond shaped boat house that's built on the lower portion of a WWII Landing Craft Hull is crafted out of plywood. Sculptor David Brooks busy chiseling away a piece of wood. Side view of the boat shows seven different styles of windows that David incorporated. The front of the house David has different shapes of stained glass windows.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.31.20] Mr. HUTCHINSON. I Yield 5 Minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Railsback The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Railsback is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman and members of the, committee, let me, associate myself the remarks Of the gentleman from California who I think has accurately stated the facts. I Just want to elaborate a little. bit more on the facts as I know them to be. Let, me say that, I also don't question the sincerity of the, gentleman from Iowa in--I know of his concern about this particular area, but personally I can't help but think this is another case, where we have "impeachmentitis", which along with some of the other things that we -voted On earlier today, in an overkill. The, second affirmative act that, was claimed in the alleged presidential misconduct is the President's signature of his tax return which was done, on April 10. And I just want, to elaborate a bit on. what Mr. DeMarco testified to as well as Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. DeMarco, the President's tax counsel, explained in his interview with our inquiry staff the explanation to the President consisted of DeMarco pointed to the appraisal of the papers and stating, and I quote: "This is an appraisal supporting the deduction for the papers which you gave away." And according to DeMarco, the President's response was : "That Is fine." DeMarco said there was no discussion about the deed giving the gift of papers to the United St States. Moreover, DeMarco has stated that, there was no in-depth analysis of the tax return -while he was with the President. I remember seeing an interview of DeMarco after some of this came to light, where DeMarco indicated that he still felt that everything was proper. Then in addition to that. what has the President done when some of it, came to light? He agreed to turn it over to the Joint Committee of Congress given authority to make, a determination concerning his 1970, 1971, and 1972 returns. The committee made, its determination, which resulted in a finding of tax responsibility in the amount of something over $432,000, Plus interest, and it, is my understanding that the President agreed to it, although there is some discussion about, the 1969 liability. If he does pay that, which goes back before the statute of limitation, he will be able to take that as a deduction. My feeling is the President. who has been impeached by, this committee for two serious, grave acts and who has been assessed an income tax liability of $432,000 plus interest, I really think, I think- the committee had gone far enough, and I suggest that there is a serious question as to whether something involving his personal tax liability has anything to do with his conduct of the office of the President. And I suggest that -we rest with the three articles that have been adopted against him, and maybe let him have a little relief. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds out of his 5 minutes left. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to Mr. Mezvinsky. The CHAIRMAN. . The gentleman from Iowa is recognized. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield 10 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you, Mr. Mezvinsky. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. No man in America can be, above the law. It is our duty to establish ,now that evidence of specific statutory crimes and constitutional violations by the President of the United States will subject all President now and in the future to impeachment. [01.35.52--TAPE OUT]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.19.40] The, CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan if he--- Mr. HUTCHINSON. Yes; I will be happy to take time now. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClory is recognized for 4 minutes, Mr. McCLORY. Thank -you. I have an idea that the gentleman from California when he was inquiring about evidence which is not in our record may have been referring to LBJ's income tax returns and the practices that he had. Now, we are not reviewing his income tax which was substantial or any of his tax practices or anything like that. -We are here considering whether or not there is clear and convincing proof of tax fraud on the part of the President of the United States and we can't base that kind of a conclusion on suspicion. Now, there hasn't been any tax fraud found by the Internal Revenue Service, or the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue both of which have investigated thoroughly the, income taxes of the President, and the President has not concealed anything. I don't know anyone who has made a cleaner breast of his income and his deductions and laid bare his Federal income tax returns for all to see. And so there isn't any mystery, there is no concealment about this at all and there hasn't been any fraud found against the preparers of the taxes even though there may be pending some investigations in that respect. I looked over the report of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue and went through the various tax deductions that the President had claimed, including the deferral or attempted deferral of a capital gain or a loss with respect to the purchase of residential property after he sold his apartment in New York in the Hotel Pierre and bought property out in California but that right to defer the capital gain or loss was denied. I never heard of such a thing before. And, of course, with regard to the. deductions for gifts which had been taken by others, we know Hubert, Humphrey and any number of others who have made gifts, many other persons, not public officials who have made gifts of valuable papers. And it seemed to me as I reviewed this that the, Internal Revenue Service and the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue have resolved all the doubts against taxpayer Richard Nixon. Now, I don't think the President is entitled to special treatment but it seems to me he is entitled to fair treatment, and I question whether he has received it or not. Now, we did have before us someone who formerly was -with the Internal Revenue, a prosecutor. Well, certainly the prosecutor thinks that something should go before, a grand jury because it is easy for him to find things wrong and things that should be prosecuted. But. I also have a, question to ask him. I said, well I think he overpaid his taxes in some, areas. Does he still have a right to go to the Tax Court or claim a rebate or refund, and of course he does. Now, we are just talking here about the President's Federal income taxes but there is no evidence here, no clear and convincing evidence, no substantial evidence of any tax fraud and this proposed article should be summarily rejected because it doesn't belong here. Not because we feel sorry for the President or anything like that but because measuring it by the same standard that we have measured every other proposed article that has come here, there is no clear and convincing Proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the President And I yield back the balance of my time. [00.23.16]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.08.50] Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And all I know about this is what I read in the papers. On January 21, 1974, I placed in the record a statement that: Much controversy has arisen over President Nixon's tax write-off on his official Papers, and his assertion that the late President Lyndon Johnson gave him the idea. I think my colleagues will be interested in this editorial from the Houston Post regarding President Johnson's Papers, "In view of President Nixon's reference to the late President Lyndon Johnson as having given him the idea for taking a tax write-off on official papers, it is interesting to notice President Johnson's own record. LBJ is thought to have taken a tax deduction for $200,000 out of a total of 31 million papers. They dealt with his life up to the time he entered the Senate. Ralph Newman Chairman of the Chicago Public Library, who has worked for every President since Herbert Hoover, appraised the LBJ papers as he later did the Nixon papers. He set it value of $20 to $40 million on the papers. But President Johnson bequeathed all the papers of his Senate years, his Vice Presidency and his Presidency to the LBJ Library without asking any tax advantage for his estate." I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield for a, question? Mr. BROOKS. I have 1 minute and one-half left, and gentleman, ladies, I would like to point out something about, the President's knowledge. The record is replete With evidence, ample evidence, that Mr. Nixon did involve himself in the renovations at Key Biscayne and San Clemente both those made at his own expense and those made at public expense. At. Key Biscayne we paid $65,000 for a fence because of the President's personal involvement in the design, not because the Secret Service required it. During hearings before the House Government Activities Subcommittee, the following discussion took place between me, and the Secret Service agent, Earl Moore. [quoting] Mr, MOORE. After the initial drawing or design was presented, I think I passed along to GSA a comment from Mr. Rebozo that the First Family. the President and First Lady, would prefer something more conventional, probably something similar to the White House fence. And I think as a result, the GSA copied the White House fence. Mr. BROOKS. Did the Secret Service, request that the fence be a replica of the White House fence? Mr. MOORE. 'NO, sir. We only wanted to get a fence up there. [end quoted section] Now. in testimony before this committee, Mr. Butterfield was asked to what extent the President gave attention to detail. He responded that Mr. -Nixon was very interested in the grounds at Key Biscayne, Camp David, San Clemente, the house the cottage, and the grounds. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 10 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. In the discussion, art- we going to be confined to evidentiary materials before the committee, or are the members free to call upon other materials known to them only? The CHAIRMAN. the gentleman is advised that during this time of debate members are to discuss the matters before them, which is the matter of possible impeachable offenses as it relates to the article before them, Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, if I could, would the gentleman yield for clarifiication? Mr. WIGGINS. Sure. Mr. BROOKS. The source of this information was furnished to the committee and is a part of the committee, records and was made available to Mr. Jenner and Mr. Doar and to the committee if they wanted to read them, Mr. WIGGINS. Well, I appreciate that. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Chairman? Mr. WIGGINS. I think we are going to have some more new information shortly. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I am going to take I minute to make a comment concerning the matter of fraud I think It has to be shown and brought to the attention of this committee that we heard an expert witness who had been the head of the Criminal Tax Fraud Division of the Department of Justice. He was responsible for drafting the manual on the matter of fraud. He told us that considering the facts that we. have had presented to I including the taxpayer's failure to answer the questions submitted to him by the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation, he said, and I quote: [quoting] If no satisfactory response was forthcoming, it would be my Judgment that in the case of an ordinary taxpayer on the facts as we know them in this instance, the case would be referred out for presentation to a Grand Jury for prosecution. [00.13.46]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.49] The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Hutchinson, has 39 minutes and 40 seconds remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 4 minutes to the, gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman, after the remarks of Mr. Sandman I think it would be just as well if I pass my time back and not try to add to it. However, I -want to emphasize again the. remarks that he wound up -with. This afternoon, quite to the surprise Of some Of US, we spent the part, of the, afternoon working on an article dealing with the bombing of Cambodia which - we, most of us, knew -would be defeated. Why? For a very good reason, so that, tonight -we would have an opportunity to talk about the President's taxes. It, is a good political issue. But is it one that you impeach a President for? We the people don't like the idea that our President has not, paid taxes commensurate rate with his income. But will -we not admit that he is entitled to make, those deductions which, according to his counsel and the law, are legal? You may not like it, but do you impeach a President for mere negligence in filing personal income taxes, The question, as has been mentioned by the gentleman before me. is willfulness, and In this case it turns on whether or not the President knew no gift of his papers had been made before July 26, if in fact, they had not already been donated by the actual delivery. I spent a good bit of time in 1969 personally working king on a gift of papers in a, similar situation and I know how it was because the law practically changed from month to month. You had to really stay close to it. Now let's consider Some Of the facts that have already been mentioned to some extent. At the end of 1968 the President made a much smaller gift to the Archives. $80,000 worth of his papers, and he personally was deeply involved in this unquestioned legal gift. He discussed the deduction with his attorneys was briefed on the alternatives, and personally signed the deed conveying the papers. In 11 1969 he did not give the same Personal attention to this gift. And for a good reason. He was President of the United States. Surely he, could rely on the advice of his White House counsel and a noted personal tax' attorney to see that it was properly and legally done. In fact, he apparently should not have relied on their competence. Now, here, is a chain of events I would like to go over with You. First, the President made a gift in 1968, Second, in late February 1969 the President told John Ehrlichman the counsel. that he intended to make a bulk gift of papers during the year. Next, John Ehrlichman wrote a memorandum to the President on the subject of the charitable contributions and deduction. Then the papers were actually transferred to the Archives on March 26 or 27, 1969. On June 16. Ehrlichman ill a memorandum to White House attorney Morgan who was handling the papers conveyed a number of the President's decisions and concerns respecting his income taxes and these papers. In November 1969 appraiser Newman wrote the President and advised him of the value of his papers. and I might add that this appraisal was substantially above the deduction that was actually taken. It is important to note that the President did not sign the gift. It was signed by attorney Morgan and with no written or oral power of attorney from the President, In April 1970, when the President signed his 1969 income tax return. hi,:-, tax lawyer told that he had a 5-year tax shelter here with this charitable deduction. This is in the evidence, This was clearly a strong indication to the President that all necessary steps had been taken to consummate this gift. This is tax lawyer talking to him. I think it can be effectively argued that a very confused manner the existed wit], regard to the applicable law, that Congress changed that Year, and I would like to go over just briefly the dates there. First Of all, there was no indication the law was to be, changed in February. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi has expired. Mr. LOTT. If I could just conclude with One sentence, mere mistake or negligence, by the President in filing his tax returns should clearly not be grounds for impeachment. Thank you very much. [00.33.33]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.40.40] Ms. HOLTZMAN. Let me proceed with some other points. We have discussed the question of the tax deduction for the gift of papers which is very sizable. I think that in order to understand that, we ought to take a look at some of the other matters that were not reported on the President's tax returns during the period 1969 to 1972. In 1969, there was a sale of Mr. Nixon's New York apartment. He failed to report $75,924 from the sale of this property. In 1970 there was a sale of a portion of the San Clemente property. Mr. Nixon failed to report a capital gain of $54,581. From the period of 1969 through 1971, the, Joint Committee staff found that the President did not report royalty income which he should have reported. In 1972, Mr. Nixon failed to report the use of approximately $5,000, apparently from campaign funds, that were used to purchase platinum and diamond earrings, Mr. Nixon's, President Nixon's gift to his wife On her 60th birthday. Now, let me just state--- Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order that I would like to make. Mr. BROOKS. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. DENNIS. And my point, of order- is that there is absolutely no testimony in our record on the subject to which the gentlewoman from New York is referring and, therefore, it is not legitimate to argue it here. We. just have not heard anything on that subject. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman's point of order is not -well taken, The gentlelady is referring to what she believes, and what has been evidence. that has been before the committee. Mr. DENNIS. Well. I would like to see where it was before the committee I bet no one can point it out. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Well---- Mr. BROOKS. I be heard on the point of order? Mr. MEZVINSKY. Let the gentlelady finish. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was referring to Certain- The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady I is certainly qualified to speak for herself. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I -was, referring to the -draft of the final report of the, Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities of the U.S. Senate. which we received and I personally received only a week or so ago. and that refers specifically to this matter. And I believe that we had some briefings, at least I did, with respect to this matter from the staff -Now, let me proceed with respect to I ],is $5,000, the $5,000 apparently from campaign funds that was used to purchase diamond earrings. Now, Just one- thing about this is interesting to note, that this $5,000 was taken out, of a bank by Mr. Bebe Rebozo in June 1972 and went through two separate banks and three separate accounts in 1 day. We have heard of laundering money in the Watergate matter, and I Would suggest that this bears a strong resemblance to that. Finally---- Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentlelady yield? Is the, gentlelady asserting the truth of these matters? We do not have any evidence of that. That is just a draft report. Even the committee does not assert the truth of that. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I do not think that there is any question about that, Mr. Wiggins. The, CHAIRMAN. If the, members would like to interpose objections they should address the, Chair. And I think the gentlelady is reference to material that has been properly before the, committee. Many of these. documents have been received at the request of the Chair, with the concurrence. of the, members from the various committees of the Congress, and this is a matter that is properly referred to. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I am objecting on the ground that it is not before us. If this report has been made a part of our record and introduced into our evidence here, then I would not object, but I do not believe that it has been. It is a Senate report which there may have been mention of here sometime. I do not, recall it was ever Placed in our record, and certainly it was not testimony before us. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the gentlelady is recognized, and the gentleman's point of order is not sustained. Ms. HOLTZMAN. I thank the chairman. I just would like to point out that the Senate. select committee's report raises other serious questions, and unfortunately neither the Senate committee nor our committee was able to fully explore these, some of which showed that apparently $45,000 worth of improvements at Key Biscayne were. paid personally by Bebe Rebozo. Now, one of the problems has been in terms of getting the records regarding these transactions and whether or not, in fact, you find campaign funds deflected at a very large and substantial amount, for the President's personal use. I think all of these are very serious questions, and I think that they are very difficult questions, because if this country is going to work on a system of voluntary tax payments, then certainly the President of this country ought to set a standard of Strict, scrupulous obedience to the law and strict and scrupulous obedience to the tax laws. And I would thank the Chair for recognizing me and I would yield whatever time I have remaining to Mr. Brooks from Texas. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. one of the members, my distinguished colleague, I believe it was Mr. Lott from Mississippi, was concerned about whether we had Cambodia or taxes tonight or tomorrow or in the afternoon, and he reminds me of the story of the hard-working mother who gave her son two ties for his birthday. The next morning be came down with one of the ties on and she said, "Son, you didn't like the other tie." [00.46.07]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.07.29] Mr. BROOKS. I would be delighted. my distinguished friend. In May of 1973, the GSA somewhat reluctantly, under pressure from the press. said that. they had spent about $39,000 on those properties. on certain parts of it that they asked about, Then in June of that same year they found that they had spent $1.9 million. And a little bit later, by August of that same year, 1973, last year they got the number up to $3,700,000. And then a little later there was considerable pressure. and we announced hearings in another congressional committee and when it became obvious that a hearing was to be held then the White House announced that all agencies totaled about $10 million expenditures at Key Biscayne and San Clemente . Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. And when the hearing was over, it, was $17 million. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield? That expression has to be corrected. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 23 minutes remaining. Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne. Mr. MAYNE. I Yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California, Mr. WIGGINS. Well, in fairness Mr. Brooks. you should indicate that the numbers that you mentioned, the $17 million, were not improvements On the President's property, but included that entire military office complex at San Clemente. Now, is that not a fact? Mr. BROOKS. Would the gentleman allow me to respond? Mr. WIGGINS. Well, Well, I know the answer. If you would affirm it then we can move on to the gentleman's time. That, is the correct state of affairs. Mr. BROOKS. I wish you would give them the, breakdown on it. it would be helpful. Mr. WIGGINS. You know you are not talking about the President's property. That property is owned by the Coast Guard out there. I yield back to this gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The 30 seconds of the gentleman have expired. Mr. MAYNE. May I proceed? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MAYNE. Thank you, 'Mr. Chairman. I think I would set a higher standard even than the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling. It seems to me ladies and gentleman, that a President has a very high obligation to set a good example to the American people in carrying Out his personal as well as his public responsibilities and that is especially true of the way in which he claims deductions and declares income On his Federal income tax returns. Regrettably to Me this President has set us a very sorry example in the way that he has performed this basic obligation of American citizenship. Even if it Were technically legal, I think it was highly questionable for him to claim such huge deductions for his personal papers. And for that, matter. it, was a very grave mistake by this Congress of the United States for it to ever authorize such a, deduction in the first place. I was not in the Congress when that action was taken, that, law was passed, but I was here in time to vote for its repeal in 1969. 1 think we have to accept the fact though that this provision was not law and the President tax adviser did advise him to take, advantage of it. I wish they had not and I certainly wish he. had not taken the advice. But. much as I deplore the way in which his tax affairs were handled, the, question remains did he commit criminal fraud in Connection with his taxes after listening to the evidence very carefully, and it, is my considered judgment that proof of criminal fraud is certainly insufficient in this case. And I was particularly impressed by the testimony of One of the few witnesses who was permitted to appear and testify before our committee, in person. That was Herbert Kalmbach testify who related how he, was present when the first, tax return in which this deduction was claimed was read to the President. by, his tax attorney. Mr. DeMarco And 'Mr. DeMarco went, through the return page, by page. They said it took about 10 minutes and then Mr. DeMarco did assure the President that this was a legitimate and valid tax deduction, not only for that year but for 4 or 5 years in the future. So the evidence does indicate that the President, like many Americans, relied on the advice of his tax advisers. Now, even if criminal fraud had been proved, and I think quite clearly it is not, then -we would still have the question whether it is a high crime or misdemeanor sufficient to impeach under the Constitution, because that is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen, to determine whether the President should be impeached, not to comb through every minute detail of his personal taxes for the past 6 years, raking up every possible minutia which could prejudice the President on national television. I certainly do not believe that Madison and the. Framers of the Constitution had in mind any such recital as we are hearing here tonight. They did not want the President, to be removable simply because he did not enjoy the support and confidence of a majority in the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.13.43]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.19.11] Mr. DRINAN. Do I understand correctly Mr. Brooks that he has in fact paid the tax a assessed on the $94,000 ? Mr. BROOKS. He has paid a portion of that tax. A part of those improvements were made in 1969 and he has not paid the 1969 taxes 'although he, said in his news release, that he would pay them. Mr. DRINAN. But he is not legally required to pay the taxes? Mr. BROOKS. He was not then but he volunteered and said he would pay them. He did pay the taxes, as I understand it, in 1970, 1971, and 1972, a portion of which was that same type of emolument based on improvements to his personal properties. Mr. DRINAN. One last question, Mr. Brooks, if I may are these two items in your article inseparable, the items of taxes with which I and others here are obviously are having difficulty and the question of emolument? Are they so inseparable that they must remain together? Mr. BROOKS. Certainly either could be a separate article of impeachment. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa now has 12 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. Hutchinson, has 11 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cohen is recognized. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, would you indicate to me When 2 minutes of my time have expired'? The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman will be notified. Mr. COHEN. First, I would like to say that I do not wish to ascribe any malevolent motives to the majority members of this committee and the timing of this issue. I think it IS an important issue which should be discussed and prime time is as good as any other. I would also like, to suggest to Mr. Brooks that it is my hope that this committee will, lit its good wisdom see fit to reject both of the ties that the gentleman has selected. Mr. Jenner, I would like to address a couple of questions to you, and if I could just have yes or no answers, because of the time limitation. My understanding is that the Joint Committee sent interrogatories to the President that were not answered, correct'? Mr. JENNER. That is correct. Mr. COHEN. Did this committee every send Similar interrogations to the President? Mr. JENNER. It did not. Mr. COHEN. Did this committee ever undertake any separate investigative work of its own on this matter? Mr. JENNER. Not of that character. Mr. COHEN. So even though the. Joint Committee said it did not deal -with the question of tax fraud, even though the Justice Department has not seen fit to prosecute the issue, and even though the Internal Revenue Service said it was civil negligence and not fraud, this committee has not done anything independent on its own to establish tax fraud is that correct? Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. We have undertaken some, interviews of course. Congressman Cohen, but we do not, have The capability to make the type of inquiry that a fraud investigation requires. Mr. COHEN. I understand that. Let me ask you this question. If the deed as to the 1969 papers had, in fact been properly executed prior to July 1 of that year that it became' effective, would the President's deduction have been allowed on the information that we have based it? Mr. JENNER. Yes, subject to the question of whether the deed was delivered. Mr. COHEN. Right. Now it seems to me that our investigation--the question before us is whether or not the. President had knowledge that the deed had not been delivered. Isn't that the real issue, as to whether the gift had been completed? Mr. JENNER. You are really asking two questions, To the last portion of your question, the answer is yes" as to whether the gift had been completed. Mr. COHEN. And he wouldn't necessarily know whether the gift had been---- The CHAIRMAN The gentleman has consumed 2 minutes. Mr. COHEN. he wouldn't necessarily know whether the gift had been delivered necessarily by looking at his tax return, would he? Mr. JENNER. That, is very difficult. It depends on What knowledge he had. Mr. COHEN. But not on the tax return itself? Mr. JENNER. 'Not from the face of the return, unless he, knew the return didn't correctly reflect what he otherwise knew. Mr. COHEN. Just one final point. I have heard the IRS praised day after day by my good friend, Mr. Sarbanes from Maryland, for its Integrity, that it did not bend and yield to the pressures' of the President of the, United States and the question I would ask, if in fact there was criminal fraud involved. ask yourself this question. Wouldn't this independent agency have asked the Justice Department to bring it before the grand jury for prosecution? Now I yield to my good friend from California. Mr. Waldie. [01.23.35]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.28.57] Mr. BUTLER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has .1 minute. Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like- The CHAIRMAN. One and a' half minutes remaining. I am Sorry. Mr. BUTLER. I will take what I have Mr. Chairman, and I thank you. I would just like to repeat what- I said earlier today, that the impeachment power In the House of Representatives is discretionary. Sound judgment would indicate that we not, add this article to the trial burden we already have, I will therefore vote against the article before us at this moment, and I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Maine. Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like to say I would associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, in that this was indeed morally shabby conduct but I would also point out, that the gentlelady from New York said this committee has not fully explored the question nor has the Senate, and we should continue our investigation, we should not seek to ratify our suspicions and beliefs into clear and convincing evidence on, the issue of criminal fraud. Mr. BUTLER. Will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has expired. The gentleman from Iowa has 12 minutes remaining Mr. MEZVINSKY. Mr. Seiberling, I yield 1 additional minute. Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you. I would like to address a question to the Chair. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me, in view of some of the statements here that, some of the members feel that this question may be-that action on this question may be premature in that there is still incompleteness to the investigation of this whole matter. And I would like to ask the Chair if it isn't correct that the resolution House Resolution 803 under which we are operating. will authorize the staff to continue to keep the investigation open. on this particular point even after we have voted on this matter this evening. Is that correct? The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 803 under which this committee has been conducting its inquiry, the vitality of the investigation will continue and the investigation therefore Into this area will continue. Mr. SEIBERLING. I thank the Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman now has 11 minutes remaining, the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield 11 of those to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. Mr. BROOKS. 'Mr. Chairman, I want to explain a little further the detail as to how the---- The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman defer? Does the gentleman, who controls the time, and who has the right to assert his arguments last, does he intend to use all of the time now? Mr. MEZVINSKY. I would yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks. The CHAIRMAN. The, gentleman has 11 minutes. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, to clarify the fact that the President does take a very personal interest in his activities, in our conversations before this committee and in testimony, Mr. Butterfield testified that Mr. Haldeman never did anything without the knowledge of the President. I want to quote from that testimony of Mr. Butterfield. [quoting] Mr. JENNER. Was there any occasion during all of the. time that you were at the White House that there came to your attention that Haldeman ever did anything without the knowledge of the President? Mr. BUTTERFIELD. No, never. Mr. JENNER. Dealing with White House affairs? Mr. BUTTERFIELD. No, never, Nothing unilateral at all. He was essentially, I may have said this, but an implementer. Mr. Haldeman implemented the decisions of the President, as did Mr. Ehrlichman, but perhaps to a lesser extent. But Haldeman especially was an implementer because the President ran his own personal affairs. He was not a decisionmaker. Mr. JENNER. Mr. Butterfield, would you repeat that for me? I didn't hear it. Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I said I did not know Mr. Haldeman to be a decisionmaker. He was entirely in my view an implementer I can hardly recall the decisions, any decisions that he made, unless that it was that the White House staff mess personnel would wear jackets or something along that line. He implemented the President's decisions. The President was the decisionmaker. The President was 100 percent in charge. [end quoted section] I want to point out that the last witness before this committee, Mr. Herb Kalmbach, the President's personal attorney who served as the President's personal representative at San Clemente, and during his appearance the following discussion took place between Mr. Kalmbach and our friend Mr. Jenner. [quoting] Mr. JENNER. A. previous witness has testified, as a matter of fact, Alexander Butterfield, that the President was "very interested" in the grounds at Key Biscayne, Camp David, San Clemente, the house, the cottage and the grounds. From your experience in serving in the capacity you indicated, is that a fair characterization? Mr. KALMBACH. It is. Mr. JENNER. And that arises from your personal knowledge and experience in dealing with this matter? Mr. KALMBACH. Yes. [end quoted section] Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman--would the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. I would rather complete this. Mr. RAILSBACK. Go ahead. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Kalmbach, in reply to another question- [quoting (Kalmbach)] Mr. Jenner, I recall walking with the President and Mrs. Nixon------- [01.34.50--TAPE OUT] +
Tahiti - firewalkers
Partridge
Partridge
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.07.26] Mr. BROOKS. Now, gentlemen, I would at this time yield to my friend, Mr. Railsback. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Are you--are you establishing or trying to establish by reference to Butterfield that the President knew what Haldeman knew or--in other words are you trying to say that there was a, knowing conversion by reason of what Haldeman knew or, can you just explain that a little? Mr. BROOKS. What I am trying to establish is that very clearly these assistants and close associates and executives of the President did -what he wanted them to do and that Haldeman testified and Butterfield testified that he, the President made the decisions and that they implemented them. It is just that simple. It was not something that they individually thought up and did. These were implementations of the President's ideas, to quote his own people. Now, may I conclude--- Mr. RAILSBACK. Would YOU just yield? I thought that Ehrlichman was the primary participant in the San Clemente matter and not Haldeman. Also what about Colson saying the, President didn't want to know a lot? In other words, he left it to his subordinates. Mr. BROOKS. I am just quoting Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Butterfield -who sat outside the door all those years. And I would reserve my closing time, and yield--reserve that 6 minutes, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Mr. DENNIS. Can't do that under the rules. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. I can yield it back to Mr. Mezvinsky and then get it If that would suit the technicalities of the situation' The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6 minutes remaining and Unless the gentleman from Michigan wants to proceed, the gentleman is now to consume his time. -Mr. RANGEL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROOKS. Certainly I yield to my distinguished friend from "New York, Mr. Rangel. Mr. RANGEL. Thank you. We have a real problem here as it relates to the President's involvement. The President did sign that tax form. We all sign a tax form and we say that to the best of our knowledge the facts in that form are true. The unique thing about this case is that when the Internal Revenue did finally review the President's tax forms, it said because it was the President of the United States that they didn't feel that they should approach the President. It appears now that when the, President saw fit to turn over all of his books and records to the Joint Committee the committee did what the Internal Revenue Service did not do, and that is contact the taxpayer, We know that is basic regardless of what office we hold. When there are questions in connection with a tax form, the very least that should be done is You contact the taxpayer and have him explain away the discrepancies. In this particular case we find the President's men, that is these tax experts, not cooperating with the Internal Revenue We find the President not cooperating and answering the questions of the Joint Committee. And, if these things were to be held in abeyance it would mean that any President 'Who is not subject to criminal indictment will never have his conduct as relates to payment or nonpayment of income taxes reviewed. Now, a lot of talk. has been said that because the word "fraudulently" was accepted as a part of this article that we have the responsibility to prove the President's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If this were so, I would not be able to vote for the article. But the President's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt involves criminal liability which at this time the President has immunity from. It seems to me that the buck has to stop somewhere. The IRS will not ask the taxpayer. The Joint Committee said that, it would not go into criminal liability because that was a question for this committee. And we are merely recommending to the House under a resolution which allows for a continued investigation that the President be made to answer for not paying the taxes when it is clear he should have paid it'. It seems to me that the President again will have an opportunity to have more information presented to the Members of the House of Representatives since it has not been presented to the Congress or the IRS and then the President, too , will have the opportunity to come forward at long last in the Senate Of the United States and if in fact he is not guilty he will have the opportunity to present the facts. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me and I yield back. [00.12.52]
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.18.12] Mr. LATTA. And certainly the Congress of the United States is to be commended for repealing that legislation which permitted those type deductions. And second, I find him guilty of gross negligence for not taking more time in going Over his tax returns at the time he signed them. All through this investigation I have found the President of the United States too busy to take care of the little details that we have talked about here tonight, and I don't consider the matter of taxes a little detail. I have before me the transcript. We had Mr. Kalmbach, the President's personal attorney, testify before this committee about him going in for the ceremonial signing because he had only seen the President of the United States--get this--his personal attorney--five or six times in about 5 years. So he went along- to witness the ceremonial signing of this tax return. And what. did he say under questioning by Mr. St. Clair? [quote] "How long, were you in the President's presence?" "approximately. well, 35 to 40 minutes." [end quote] Well, now, I say to you that it takes me 10 times that, long to go over I page of my very simple tax return. But here, the President of the United States goes over a very complicated tax return and they are only in his is office, 35 to 40 minutes. Now, I say that is gross negligence. He should have taken a longer look. And in the meantime they talked about other things and we, 'have heard testimony here tonight that would lead you to believe that he went over page by page, line by line and the evidence does not support that statement. Now. the President, as has been alluded to here tonight, has paid those taxes with the exception of The 1969, He doesn't have to pay them but he has promised to pay 1969. We could go into that in great detail and I am certain that the President will pay 1969 even though he is not required to do so. Let's skip along to what Mr. Brooks has talked about, security precautions out at these Presidential mansions or homes or whatever he prefers to call them. Now, Mr. Brooks is in a very unique situation. He, was chairman of the subcommittee that went into these matters but likewise there was another subcommittee of this Congress that went into them also and that happens to be a subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that, paid the bills. Now, what was the finding of this subcommittee? Did they find anything grossly wrong as has been alluded to here by Mr. Brooks? Absolutely not. And we had a press conference by the gentleman from Oklahoma who happens to chair that subcommittee when he stated in so many words, that was true. And I might say that I talked to that gentleman this afternoon on the floor of the House and he is still of that opinion. We have gross negligence but it is on the part of the GSA in putting these security precautions and I heard him say this afternoon---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. LATTA [continuing]. That it is cheaper to keep Presidents alive than to bury them. Mr. HUTCHINSON. 'Mr. Chairman,. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish. The CHAIRMAN. Mr, Fish is recognized for 1 minute. Mr. FISH. I thank the gentleman very much for yielding to me. I certainly want to associate myself with what has been said about the tax situation being a bad scene. 'Nevertheless, there is not to be found before us evidence that the President acted willfully to evade his taxes. I do not think that can be, said on the basis of all the careful work that our staff has put before us. We do know that the IRS investigation has been cursory. They, no more than we, have not had under oath the key witnesses In this matter We also know that they have referred the matter to the Special Prosecutor and I believe that is where the matter should rest as far as we are concerned. If in the course of the Special Prosecutor's investigation now information comes to light, we have the reserve power to amend our articles at any time in the future, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana. [00.22.44]