Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Dennis Donovan

(18,770 posts)
Thu May 9, 2019, 05:59 AM May 2019

45 Years Ago Today; House Judiciary Opens Formal Impeachment Hearings against Richard Nixon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal


Members and staff of the House Judiciary Committee in 1974

The Watergate scandal was a major political scandal that occurred in the United States during 1972 to 1974, following a break-in by five men at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972, and President Richard Nixon's administration's subsequent attempt to cover up his involvement. After the five burglars were caught and the conspiracy was discovered—chiefly through the work of a few journalists, Congressional staffers and an election-finance watchdog official—Watergate was investigated by the United States Congress. Meanwhile, Nixon's administration resisted its probes, which led to a constitutional crisis.

The term Watergate, by metonymy, has come to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration. Those activities included such dirty tricks as bugging the offices of political opponents and people of whom Nixon or his officials were suspicious. Nixon and his close aides also ordered investigations of activist groups and political figures, using the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as political weapons.

The scandal led to the discovery of multiple abuses of power by members of the Nixon administration, the commencement of an impeachment process against the president, and Nixon's resignation. The scandal also resulted in the indictment of 69 people, with trials or pleas resulting in 48 being found guilty, many of whom were top Nixon officials.

The affair began with the arrest of five men for breaking into the DNC headquarters at the Watergate complex on Saturday, June 17, 1972. The FBI investigated and discovered a connection between cash found on the burglars and a slush fund used by the Committee for the Re-Election of the President (CRP), the official organization of Nixon's campaign. In July 1973, evidence mounted against the president's staff, including testimony provided by former staff members in an investigation conducted by the Senate Watergate Committee. The investigation revealed that Nixon had a tape-recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations.

After a series of court battles, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that the president was obligated to release the tapes to government investigators (United States v. Nixon). The tapes revealed that Nixon had attempted to cover up activities that took place after the break-in, and to use federal officials to deflect the investigation. Facing virtually certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction by the Senate, Nixon resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974, preventing the House from impeaching him. On September 8, 1974, his successor, Gerald Ford, pardoned him.

The name "Watergate" and the suffix "-gate", used after an identifying term (e.g. Bridgegate), have since become synonymous with political and non-political scandals in the United States, and some other parts of the world.

<snip>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon#The_House_Judiciary_Committee_takes_up_the_case

Impeachment hearings


The House Judiciary Committee opened its formal impeachment hearings against the President on May 9, 1974. The first twenty minutes were televised on the major U.S. networks, after which the committee switched to closed sessions for the next two months.

Focus was on Article One of the United States Constitution.

At the time of the initial impeachment investigations, it was not known if Nixon had known and approved of the payments to the Watergate defendants earlier than this conversation. Nixon's conversation with Haldeman on August 1, 1972, is one of several that establishes this. Nixon states: "Well ... they have to be paid. That's all there is to that. They have to be paid." During the congressional debate on impeachment, some believed that impeachment required a criminally indictable offense. President Nixon's agreement to make the blackmail payments was regarded as an affirmative act to obstruct justice.

Focus was also on allegations of misuse in a discriminatory manner of the Internal Revenue Service and other federal agencies.

Impoundment of appropriated funds, related to funds allocated by Congress that Nixon chose not to spend because he did not like the associated goals – in particular, for the Clean Water Act – was also considered by the impeachment inquiry. However the staff decided that, even though some courts had ruled such impoundments illegal, it was not an impeachable offense. Consequently, no article along these lines was brought up for a committee vote.

On July 9, the Judiciary Committee released its own version of eight of the White House tapes that Nixon had previously issued his own transcript of. The Committee transcripts were both the beneficiary of superior playback equipment and restored some of the potentially damaging statements that Nixon staffers had removed or heard differently.

This was quickly followed by the July 12 Committee release of its accumulated evidence on the case, which ran to 3,888 pages. For the first time, St. Clair acknowledged publicly that a committee vote in favor of impeachment was likely, but Press Secretary Ziegler said that the president remained confident that the full House would not impeach.

Ray Thornton of Arkansas, William L. Hungate of Missouri, and Jack Brooks of Texas were part of a group of three southern Democrats and four moderate Republicans who drafted the articles of impeachment adopted by the Committee. Nixon later called Brooks his "executioner".

During the hearings, President Nixon attempted to preserve his support in the House by wooing senior figures there, including some conservative Democrats, by inviting them to White House functions or evening cruises on the presidential yacht USS Sequoia.


Representative Barbara Jordan (left) became nationally known for her eloquence during the Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings

The televised coverage of committee hearings resumed on July 24. The commercial broadcast networks televised the evening sessions while PBS broadcast the morning and afternoon sessions as well; this was after considerable debate about whether such broadcasts were a good idea. The first broadcast was an evening session of the committee on the evening of the 24th and started two days of televised opening-statements by committee members. In total there were six days of 13 hours-per-day of televised coverage, watched by millions of Americans. On the afternoon of Friday, July 26, television viewers watched live as the first Article of Impeachment was read into the record against the President.

On July 25, 1974, Texas Democrat Barbara Jordan delivered a fifteen-minute televised speech before the House Judiciary Committee supporting the impeachment process. Jordan's statement on the articles of impeachment is thought to be one of the best speeches of the 20th century and earned Jordan national praise for her rhetoric, morals, and wisdom.

Democratic Representative Walter Flowers of Alabama, a conservative Democrat, was considered to be leaning against impeachment. After a long struggle, which caused an ulcer to recur, Flowers indicated he would vote for impeachment. The congressman said "I felt that if we didn't impeach, we'd just ingrain and stamp in our highest office a standard of conduct that's just unacceptable." Coming from a state which had supported Nixon in 1972, he was seen as influential even with some Republicans. He told the undecided Republicans on the committee, "This is something we just cannot walk away from. It happened, and now we've got to deal with it.

Republican Representative M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia explained his vote in favor of impeachment by saying, "For years we Republicans have campaigned against corruption and misconduct. ... But Watergate is our shame." Representative Lawrence Hogan of Maryland, another Republican, said, "After reading the transcripts, it was sobering: the number of untruths, the deception and the immoral attitudes. By any standard of proof demanded, we had to bind him over for trial and removal by the Senate." After much internal and external anguish, Representative Tom Railsback also decided to vote in that direction.

Representative Elizabeth Holtzman of New York, a young Democrat, also drew national media attention as a member of the committee. Another representative from New York, Charles Rangel, became a force in the House in subsequent years. Rangel had a more positive take on what transpired: "Some say this is a sad day in America's history. I think it could perhaps be one of our brightest days. It could be really a test of the strength of our Constitution, because what I think it means to most Americans is that when this or any other President violates his sacred oath of office, the people are not left helpless."

As a member of the Judiciary Committee, Drinan, who had introduced the earlier resolutions, also played a role in the Congressional investigation of Nixon administration misdeeds and crimes and gained national visibility as a consequence.

One of the arguments that Nixon supporters on the committee often made was that the charges and the questions being asked about them needed more "specificity". In that respect they challenged those who would impeach to come up with more details in purposeful conversations to be linked together as part of a concerted plan of action.

Republican Charles E. Wiggins of California was Nixon's fiercest and ablest defender on the committee. Wiggins consistently argued that no specific piece of evidence directly linked Nixon to any criminal act. Other prominent defenders included David W. Dennis of Indiana and Delbert L. Latta of Ohio.

Republican Charles W. Sandman, Jr. of New Jersey defended Nixon throughout the proceedings, often to the point of caustic stridency, and gained brief national visibility as a result. The New York Times described him as: "a heavyset man with glasses on the end of his nose, a pencil grasped between his hands, heaping sarcasm and scorn upon the arguments of those who would impeach the President". He was one of those most vocally demanding "specificity". At one point during the hearings, Sandman angrily told his New Jersey colleague on the committee, Chairman Rodino, "Please, let us not bore the American public ... you have your 27 votes", referring to the 27 affirmative votes for the first article of impeachment against Nixon. Sandman denied that emotion was the key behind his defense, saying "My role is not one of defending the President – that's for sure. I believe in a strict construction of the Constitution. If somebody, for the first time in seven months, gives me something that is direct, I will vote to impeach."

Attorney James D. St. Clair, having been named a special counsel to the president in January 1974, represented Nixon before the House Judiciary Committee as they considered the impeachment charges against him. He said in explanation of his role, "I don't represent Mr. Nixon personally. I represent him in his capacity as president."[88] This dovetailed with Nixon's argument that he was motivated by a desire to protect the presidency and not by any urge for self-preservation.[88] St. Clair's defense was centered around the notion that while Nixon had made a number of statements that looked bad, he had committed no crimes.

There was tension between the two minority counsels, Jenner and Garrison, as Garrison had firmer ties to the conservative Republicans on the committee. Once Jenner came out in favor of impeachment, saying the evidence for it was persuasive, he was removed from his role as the minority's chief special counsel. Garrison was chosen to replace him on July 22, and had to put together on a last-minute basis his own defense of the president. Garrison later said that the stress of his position caused him to collapse from anxiety at one point.

Law professor Raoul Berger was a popular academic critic of the doctrine of "executive privilege" and was viewed as playing a significant role in undermining Nixon's constitutional arguments during the impeachment process.

Shortly before the committee undertook its impeachment votes, a Harris Poll showed that 53 percent of Americans supported an impeachment of Nixon by the House. The same poll showed that 47 percent thought he should be convicted in a Senate trial, 34 percent thought he should be acquitted, and the rest were unsure. A Gallup Poll taken around the same time revealed that Nixon's favorability rating had fallen to 24 percent.

These hearings culminated in votes on proposed articles of impeachment. As the Judiciary Committee prepared for the votes, Rodino said: "We have deliberated. We have been patient. We have been fair. Now the American people, the House of Representatives and the Constitution and the whole history of our republic demand that we make up our minds."

</snip>


14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
45 Years Ago Today; House Judiciary Opens Formal Impeachment Hearings against Richard Nixon (Original Post) Dennis Donovan May 2019 OP
Golden opportunity FBaggins May 2019 #1
+1000! Rhiannon12866 May 2019 #2
+1,000 malaise May 2019 #3
This needs to become a meme! Rhiannon12866 May 2019 #4
Love it malaise May 2019 #5
I hope they make the connection on the news today! Rhiannon12866 May 2019 #6
I received a response to my email to my R rep yesterday. Below is the B.S. answer I received. llmart May 2019 #7
ahem mopinko May 2019 #11
His whole response was an insult to my intelligence. llmart May 2019 #12
. mopinko May 2019 #13
45 years?!? Wow, seems like only yesterday. FailureToCommunicate May 2019 #8
Republican Groundhog Day 50 Shades Of Blue May 2019 #9
Great post! Brings back old times FakeNoose May 2019 #10
..and if DU had existed, people here would be complaining... brooklynite May 2019 #14

FBaggins

(26,727 posts)
1. Golden opportunity
Thu May 9, 2019, 06:01 AM
May 2019

Start one on the same day and this might eventually be a new "Throw the Bums Out" national holiday in commemoration.

Rhiannon12866

(205,200 posts)
6. I hope they make the connection on the news today!
Thu May 9, 2019, 06:51 AM
May 2019

If the news organizations run with it, it could get the ball rolling!

llmart

(15,536 posts)
7. I received a response to my email to my R rep yesterday. Below is the B.S. answer I received.
Thu May 9, 2019, 07:37 AM
May 2019

"I believe the preservation of our democracy relies on all Americans. Those elected to public office and the constituencies they serve must use sound reasoning in wielding the respective powers they hold. Removing a president before their term expires would be an incredibly serious matter, only to be undertaken when there is clear evidence of exceptional misconduct and when no other action would sufficiently protect the strength of our democracy. It is not a remedy to use lightly, preemptively, prematurely, or to nullify the results of an election.

As you know, former FBI Director Robert Mueller was named Special Counsel to investigate potential influence by Russia in American politics and government, particularly during the 2016 presidential election. On April 18, 2019 the Special Counsel’s final report on this investigation was made available to the public. This report reinforces what I and many others have said all along – there was no conspiracy collusion between members of the Trump Campaign or any American and Russia. The Department of Justice also did not conclude that President Trump committed obstruction of justice – or any crime – with respect to the investigation.

Removing a president before their term expires would be an incredibly serious matter, only to be undertaken when there is clear evidence of exceptional misconduct and when no other action would sufficiently protect the strength of our democracy. It is not a remedy to use lightly, preemptively, prematurely, or to nullify the results of an election. Article II, Section IV of the Constitution states that the president, vice president, and civil officers of the United States may be impeached and removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors. Accordingly, in the absence of definitive conclusions that President Trump committed a crime, I do not support beginning impeachment proceedings in response to the Special Counsel’s report."

mopinko

(70,078 posts)
11. ahem
Thu May 9, 2019, 09:11 AM
May 2019

"It is not a remedy to use lightly, preemptively, prematurely, or to nullify the results of an election. "
dude, the whole purpose of the process is to nullify the results of an election.

llmart

(15,536 posts)
12. His whole response was an insult to my intelligence.
Thu May 9, 2019, 09:45 AM
May 2019

I made sure I responded to him with counterpoints. Here's a bit of what I wrote:

"As you know, We the People and our elected representatives have still not seen the full Mueller report, so please don't insult my intelligence by saying the report exonerated him. It did not. What it did do, however is point out Trump's numerous instances of obstructing justice. For that alone he should be impeached. Impeachment is not the same as removal from office. Impeachment allows We the People to hear all the facts and see the entire report. That is the first step and we are entitled to take that first step.

This doesn't even take into account how he uses taxpayer monies to support his family businesses and enrich his family members.

I never expected a Republican to say anything differently than what you did in your response. Once we fix the gerrymandered districts in our state, your job will be in peril, so one would think you'd be more concerned about being on the right side of the law, but morality and ethics are something that the Republican party sorely lacks these days."

FailureToCommunicate

(14,012 posts)
8. 45 years?!? Wow, seems like only yesterday.
Thu May 9, 2019, 07:38 AM
May 2019

Republicans: keeping corruption alive, for each new generation to deal with.

FakeNoose

(32,633 posts)
10. Great post! Brings back old times
Thu May 9, 2019, 08:29 AM
May 2019

... that we cannot allow ourselves to forget. There's one major difference then and now: in 1974 there really were a few old-time patriots and leaders left in the Republican party. I'm sure the youngsters won't believe that now, but it's true. Nowadays, it's all up to us Democrats because the GOP leadership is MIA.

brooklynite

(94,502 posts)
14. ..and if DU had existed, people here would be complaining...
Thu May 9, 2019, 11:59 AM
May 2019

...that they were dragging things out and why didn't they just vote to Impeach since everyone "knew" Nixon was guilty.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»45 Years Ago Today; House...