[Deschler's Precedents, Volume 3, Chapters 10 - 14]
[Chapter 14. Impeachment Powers]
[D. History of Proceedings]
[§ 15. Impeachment Proceedings Against President Nixon]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 2167-2195]
CHAPTER 14
Impeachment Powers
D. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS
Sec. 15. Impeachment Proceedings Against President Nixon
Cross Reference
Portions of the final report of the Committee on the Judiciary,
pursuant to its investigation into the conduct of the President,
relating to grounds for Presidential impeachment and forms of
articles of impeachment, see Sec. Sec. 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, supra.
Collateral References
Debate on Articles of Impeachment, Hearings of the Committee on the
Judiciary pursuant to House Resolution 803, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.,
July 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, and 30, 1974.
Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, Report
of the Committee on the Judiciary, H. Rept. No. 93-1305, 93d Cong.
2d Sess., Aug. 20, 1974, printed in full in the Congressional
Record, 120 Cong. Rec. 29219-361, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 20,
1974.
Impeachment, Selected Materials, Committee on the Judiciary, H. Doc.
No. 93-7, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 1973.
Impeachment, Selected Materials on Procedure, Committee on the
Judiciary, Committee Print, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Jan.
1974. -------------------
Introduction of Impeachment Charges Against the President
Sec. 15.1 Various resolutions were introduced in the 93d Congress,
first session, relating to the impeachment of President Richard M.
Nixon, some directly calling for his censure or impeachment and
some calling for an investigation by the Committee on the Judiciary
or by a select committee; the former were referred to the Committee
on the Judiciary and the latter were referred to the Committee on
Rules.
On Oct. 23, 1973, resolutions calling for the impeachment of
President Nixon or for investigations towards that end were introduced
in the House by their being placed in the hopper pursuant to Rule XXII
clause 4. The resolutions were referred as follows:
By Mr. Long of Maryland:
H. Con. Res. 365. Concurrent resolution of censureship without
prejudice to impeachment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Ms. Abzug:
H. Res. 625. Resolution impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President
of the
[[Page 2168]]
United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. Ashley:
H. Res. 626. Resolution directing the Committee on the
Judiciary to investigate whether there are grounds for the
impeachment of Richard M. Nixon; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. Bingham:
H. Res. 627. Resolution directing the Committee on the
Judiciary to inquire into and investigate whether grounds exist for
the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. Burton (for himself, Ms. Abzug, Mr. Anderson of
California, Mr. Aspin, Mr. Bergland, Mr. Bingham, Mr.
Brasco, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. Boland, Mr.
Brademas, Mrs. Chisholm, Mr. Culver, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Dellums, Mr. Drinan, Mr. Eckhardt, Mr. Edwards of
California, Mr. Evans of Colorado, Mr. Fascell, Mr.
Fauntroy, Mr. Foley, Mr. William D. Ford, Mr. Fraser,
Mr. Giaimo, and Ms. Grasso):
H. Res. 628. Resolution directing the Committee on the
Judiciary to inquire into and investigate whether grounds exist for
the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon; to the Committee on Rules. . .
.
By Mr. Hechler of West Virginia:
H. Res. 631. Resolution that Richard M. Nixon, President of the
United States, is impeached of high crimes and misdemeanors; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts:
H. Res. 632. Resolution to appoint a Special Prosecutor; to the
Committee on the Judiciary. . . .
By Mr. McCloskey:
H. Res. 634. Resolution of inquiry; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
H. Res. 635. Resolution for the impeachment of Richard M.
Nixon; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. Mazzoli:
H. Res. 636. Resolution: an inquiry into the existence of
grounds for the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President of the
United States; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. Milford:
H. Res. 637. Resolution providing for the establishment of an
Investigative Committee to investigate alleged Presidential
misconduct; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. Mitchell of Maryland (for himself, Mr. Burton, and
Mr. Fauntroy):
H. Res. 638. Resolution impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President
of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 119 Cong. Rec. 34873, 93d Cong. 1st Sess.
The first resolution in the 93d Congress calling for
President Nixon's impeachment was introduced by Mr. Robert F.
Drinan (Mass.), on July 31, 1973, H. Res. 513, 93d Cong. 1st
Sess. (placed in hopper and referred to Committee on the
Judiciary).
In the 92d Congress, second session, resolutions were
introduced impeaching the President for his conduct of the
Vietnam conflict. See H. Res. 976 and H. Res. 989, 92d Cong. 2d
Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2169]]
Parliamentarian's Note: The resolutions were introduced following
the President's dismissal of Special Prosecutor Cox, of the Watergate
Special Prosecution Force investigating Presidential campaign
activities, and the resignation of Attorney General
Richardson.(7)
Authority for Judiciary Committee Investigation
Sec. 15.2 Although the House had adopted a resolution authorizing the
Committee on the Judiciary, to which had been referred resolutions
impeaching President Richard M. Nixon, to conduct investigations
(with subpena power) within its jurisdiction as such jurisdiction
was defined in Rule XI clause 13, and although the House had
adopted a resolution intended to fund expenses of the impeachment
inquiry by the committee, the committee reported and called up as
privileged a subsequent resolution specifically mandating an
impeachment investigation and continuing the availability of funds,
in order to confirm the delegation of authority from the House to
that committee to conduct the investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Comments were delivered in the House on Oct. 23, 1973, on actions
of the President. See, for example, the comments of Majority
Leader Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (Mass.), at 119 Cong. Rec. 34819,
93d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 6, 1974, Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, Chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, called up for immediate consideration
House Resolution 803, authorizing the committee to investigate the
sufficiency of grounds for the impeachment of President Nixon, which
resolution had been reported by the committee on Feb. 1, 1974.
The resolution read as follows:
H. Res. 803
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a
whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for
the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the
committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and
completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of
Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach
Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The
committee shall report to the House of Representatives such
resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as
it deems proper.
Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making such investigation, the
committee is authorized to require--
[[Page 2170]]
(1) by subpena or otherwise--
(A) the attendance and testimony of any person (including at a
taking of a deposition by counsel for the committee); and
(B) the production of such things; and
(2) by interrogatory, the furnishing of such information; as it
deems necessary to such investigation.
(b) Such authority of the committee may be exercised--
(1) by the chairman and the ranking minority member acting
jointly, or, if either declines to act, by the other acting alone,
except that in the event either so declines, either shall have the
right to refer to the committee for decision the question whether
such authority shall be so exercised and the committee shall be
convened promptly to render that decision; or
(2) by the committee acting as a whole or by subcommittee.
Subpenas and interrogatories so authorized may be issued over the
signature of the chairman, or ranking minority member, or any
member designated by either of them, and may be served by any
person designated by the chairman, or ranking minority member, or
any member designated by either of them. The chairman, or ranking
minority member, or any member designated by either of them (or,
with respect to any deposition, answer to interrogatory, or
affidavit, any person authorized by law to administer oaths) may
administer oaths to any witness. For the purposes of this section,
``things'' includes, without limitation, books, records,
correspondence, logs, journals, memorandums, papers, documents,
writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, reproductions,
recordings, tapes, transcripts, printouts, data compilations from
which information can be obtained (translated if necessary, through
detection devices into reasonably usable form), tangible objects,
and other things of any kind.
Sec. 3. For the purpose of making such investigation, the
committee, and any subcommittee thereof, are authorized to sit and
act, without regard to clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, during the present Congress at such times
and places within or without the United States, whether the House
is meeting, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such
hearings, as it deems necessary.
Sec. 4. Any funds made available to the Committee on the
Judiciary under House Resolution 702 of the Ninety-third Congress,
adopted November 15, 1973, or made available for the purpose
hereafter, may be expended for the purpose of carrying out the
investigation authorized and directed by this resolution.
Mr. Rodino and Mr. Edward Hutchinson, of Michigan, the ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Jucliciary, explained the
purpose of the resolution, which had been adopted unanimously by the
committee, as follows:
Mr. Rodino: Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the English statesman Edmund Burke said, in
addressing an important constitutional question, more than 200
years ago:
[[Page 2171]]
We stand in a situation very honorable to ourselves and
very useful to our country, if we do not abuse or abandon the
trust that is placed in us.
We stand in such a position now, and--whatever the result--we
are going to be just, and honorable, and worthy of the public
trust.
Our responsibility in this is clear. The Constitution says, in
article I; section 2, clause 5:
The House of Representatives, shall have the sole power of
impeachment.
A number of impeachment resolutions were introduced by Members
of the House in the last session of the Congress. They were
referred to the Judiciary Committee by the Speaker.
We have reached the point when it is important that the House
explicitly confirm our responsibility under the Constitution.
We are asking the House of Representatives, by this resolution,
to authorize and direct the Committee on the Judiciary to
investigate the conduct of the President of the United States, to
determine whether or not evidence exists that the President is
responsible for any acts that in the contemplation of the
Constitution are grounds for impeachment, and if such evidence
exists, whether or not it is sufficient to require the House to
exercise its constitutional powers.
As part of that resolution, we are asking the House to give the
Judiciary Committee the power of subpena in its investigations.
Such a resolution has always been passed by the House. The
committee has voted unanimously to recommend that the House of
Representatives adopt this resolution. It is a necessary step if we
are to meet our obligations. . . .
Mr. Hutchinson: Mr. Speaker, the first section of this
resolution authorizes and directs your Judiciary Committee to
investigate fully whether sufficient grounds exist to impeach the
President of the United States. This constitutes the first explicit
and formal action in the whole House to authorize such an inquiry.
The last section of the resolution validates the use by the
committee of that million dollars allotted to it last November for
purposes of the impeachment inquiry. Members will recall that the
million dollar resolution made no reference to the impeachment
inquiry but merely allotted that sum of money to the committee to
be expended on matters within its jurisdiction. All Members of the
House understood its intended purpose.
But the rule of the House defining the jurisdiction of
committees does not place jurisdiction over impeachment matters in
the Judiciary Committee. In fact, it does not place such
jurisdiction anywhere. So this resolution vests jurisdiction in the
committee over this particular impeachment matter, and it ratifies
the authority of the committee to expend for the purpose those
funds allocated to it last November, as well as whatever additional
funds may be hereafter authorized.8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. 120 Cong. Rec. 2349-51, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parliamentarian's Note: Until the adoption of House Resolution 803,
the Committee on the Judici
[[Page 2172]]
ary had been conducting an investigation into the charges of
impeachment against President Nixon under its general investigatory
authority, granted by the House on Feb. 28, 1973 (H. Res. 74). The
committee had hired special counsel for the impeachment inquiry on Dec.
20, 1973, and had authorized the chairman to issue subpenas in relation
to the inquiry on Oct. 30, 1973. House Resolution 74 authorized the
Committee on the Judiciary to conduct investigations, and to issue
subpenas during such investigations, within its jurisdiction ``as set
forth in clause 13 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.''
That clause did not specifically include impeachments within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The House had provided for the payment, from the contingent fund,
of further expenses of the Committee on the Judiciary, in conducting
investigations, following the introduction and referral to the
committee of various resolutions proposing the impeachment of President
Nixon. Debate on one such resolution, House Resolution 702, indicated
that the additional funds for the investigations of the Committee on
the Judiciary were intended in part for use in conducting an
impeachment inquiry in relation to the President.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. See H. Res. 702, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was considered necessary for the House to specifically vest the
Committee on the Judiciary with the investigatory and subpena power to
conduct the impeachment investigation and to specifically provide for
payment of resultant expenses from the contingent fund of the
House.(10)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. On Apr. 29, 1974, subsequent to the adoption of H. Res. 803, the
House adopted H. Res. 1027, authorizing further funds from the
contingent fund for the expenses of the impeachment inquiry and
other investigations within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on the Judiciary. The report on the resolution, from the
Committee on House Administration (H. Rept. No. 93-1009)
included a statement by Mr. Rodino on the status of the
impeachment inquiry and on the funds required for expenses and
salaries of the impeachment inquiry staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in section 6, supra, House Resolution 803 was
privileged, since reported by the committee to which resolutions of
impeachment had been referred and since incidental to consideration of
the impeachment question, although resolutions providing for funding
from the contingent fund of the House are normally only
[[Page 2173]]
privileged when called up by the Committee on House Administration, and
resolutions authorizing investigations are normally only privileged
when called up by the Committee on Rules.
Preserving Confidentiality of Inquiry Materials
Sec. 15.3 The Committee on the Judiciary adopted Procedures preserving
the confidentiality of impeachment inquiry materials.
On Feb. 22, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously
adopted procedures governing the confidentiality of the materials
gathered in the impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President
Richard Nixon. The first set of procedures, entitled ``Procedures for
Handling Impeachment Inquiry Material,'' limited access to such
materials to the chairman, ranking minority member, special counsel,
and special counsel to the minority of the committee, until the actual
presentation of evidence at hearings. Confidentiality was to be
strictly preserved.
The second set of procedures, entitled ``Rules for the Impeachment
Inquiry Staff,'' provided for security and nondisclosure of impeachment
inquiry materials and work product of the inquiry staff.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. For the text of the rules, see Sec. 6.9, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Determining Grounds for Presidential Impeachment
Sec. 15.4 During the inquiry into charges against President Richard M.
Nixon by the Committee on the Judiciary, the impeachment inquiry
staff reported to the committee on the constitutional grounds for
Presidential impeachment, as drawn from the historical origins of
impeachment and the American impeachment cases.
On Feb. 22, 1974, Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, Chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, made available a report by the inquiry
staff on the conduct of President Nixon. The report, entitled
``Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,'' summarized the
historical origins and constitutional bases for impeachment and
chronicled the American impeachment cases.
The report, printed as a committee print, did not necessarily
reflect the views of the committee or its members, but was entirely a
staff report. The staff concluded, in reviewing the issue whether
[[Page 2174]]
impeachable offenses were required to be criminal or indictable
offenses, that such was not the case under the English and American
impeachment precedents.(12)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. For the text of the report, see the appendix to this chapter,
infra.
The conclusion of the staff report was included in the
final report of the Committee on the Judiciary recommending
impeachment of the President. (H. Rept. No. 93-1305, by the
Committee on the Judiciary.) See 120 Cong. Rec. 29220, 29221,
93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 20, 1974.
The minority views included in the committee report reached
an opposite conclusion from that of the staff report and from
that of the majority of the committee, which determined to
impeach the President for both criminal and noncriminal conduct
(see Sec. 3.8, supra, for the minority views and Sec. 3.7,
supra, for the majority views on the issue).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Reports
Sec. 15.5 During the impeachment inquiry involving President Richard M.
Nixon, the inquiry staff of the Committee on the Judiciary reported
to the committee on the status of its investigation.
On Mar. 1, 1974, the staff for the impeachment inquiry reported to
the Committee on the Judiciary on the status of its investigative work
(summarized in the committee's final report) with respect to specified
allegations:
A. Allegations concerning domestic surveillance activities
conducted by or at the direction of the White House.
B. Allegations concerning intelligence activities conducted by
or at the direction of the White House for the purpose of the
Presidential election of 1972.
C. Allegations concerning the Watergate break-in and related
activities, including alleged efforts by persons in the White House
and others to ``cover up'' such activities and others.
D. Allegations concerning improprieties in connection with the
personal finances of the President.
E. Allegations concerning efforts by the White House to use
agencies of the executive branch for political purposes, and
alleged White House involvement with election campaign
contributions.
F. Allegations concerning other misconduct.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. H. Rept. No. 93-1305, at p. 8, Committee on the Judiciary, 93d
Cong. 2d Sess., reported Aug. 20, 1974.
On May 23, 1974, the House authorized by resolution the
printing of 2,000 additional copies of a committee print
containing the staff report. H. Res. 1074, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
The House also adopted on May 23, H. Res. 1073, authorizing
the printing of additional copies of a committee print on the
work of the impeachment inquiry staff as of Feb. 5, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presenting Evidence and Examining Witnesses
Sec. 15.6 In the Nixon impeachment inquiry, the Committee
[[Page 2175]]
on the Judiciary adopted certain procedures to be followed in
presenting evidence and hearing witnesses.
On May 2, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary unanimously adopted
special procedures for presenting the evidence compiled by the
committee staff to the full committee in hearings. The procedures
provided for a statement of information to be presented, with annotated
evidentiary materials, to committee members and to the President's
counsel.(1~4~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. See Sec. 6.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The procedures allowed for the compilation and presentation of
additional evidence by committee members or on request of the
President's counsel.
Procedures were also adopted for holding hearings to examine
witnesses. Under the procedures, hearings were to be attended by the
President's counsel, and he was permitted to examine witnesses.
The procedures followed in the presentation of evidence are
reflected in the summary from the committee's final report:
From May 9, 1974 through June 21, 1974, the Committee
considered in executive session approximately six hundred fifty
``statements of information'' and more than 7,200 pages of
supporting evidentiary material presented by the inquiry staff. The
statements of information and supporting evidentiary material,
furnished to each Member of the Committee in 36 notebooks,
presented material on several subjects of the inquiry: the
Watergate break-in and its aftermath, ITT, dairy price supports,
domestic surveillance, abuse of the IRS, and the activities of the
Special Prosecutor. The staff also presented to the Committee
written reports on President Nixon's income taxes, presidential
impoundment of funds appropriated by Congress and the bombing of
Cambodia.
In each notebook, a statement of information relating to a
particular phase of the investigation was immediately followed by
supporting evidentiary material, which included copies of documents
and testimony (much of it already on public record), transcripts of
presidential conversations, and affidavits. A deliberate and
scrupulous abstention from conclusions, even by implication, was
observed.
The Committee heard recordings of nineteen presidential
conversations and dictabelt recollections. The presidential
conversations were neither paraphrased nor summarized by the
inquiry staff. Thus, no inferences or conclusions were drawn for
the Committee. During the course of the hearings, Members of the
Committee listened to each recording and simultaneously followed
transcripts prepared by the inquiry staff.
On June 27 and 28, 1974, Mr. James St. Clair, Special Counsel
to the President made a further presentation in a similar manner
and form as the inquiry staff's initial presentation. The Committee
voted to make public the initial presentation by the inquiry
[[Page 2176]]
staff, including substantially all of the supporting materials
presented at the hearings, as well as the President's response.
Between July 2, 1974, and July 17, 1974, after the initial
presentation, the Committee heard testimony from nine witnesses,
including all the witnesses proposed by the President's counsel.
The witnesses were interrogated by counsel for the Committee, by
Special counsel to the President pursuant to the rules of the
Committee, and by Members of the Committee. The Committee then
heard an oral summation by Mr. St. Clair and received a written
brief in support of the President's position.
The Committee concluded its hearings on July 17, a week in
advance of its public debate on whether or not to recommend to the
House that it exercise its constitutional power of impeachment. In
preparation for that debate the majority and minority members of
the impeachment inquiry staff presented to the Committee
``summaries of information.'' (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. H. Rept. No. 93-1305 at p. 9, Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong.
2d Sess., reported Aug. 20, 1974, printed in the Record at 120
Cong. Rec. 29221, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 20, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on the Judiciary had previously adopted a resolution
which was called up in the House under a motion to suspend the rules,
on July 1, 1974, to authorize the committee to proceed without regard
to Rule XI clause 27(f)(4), House Rules and Manual Sec. 735 (1973),
requiring the application of the five-minute rule for interrogation of
witnesses by committees. The House had rejected the motion to suspend
the rules and thereby denied to the committee the authorization to
dispense with the five-minute rule in the interrogation of
witnesses.(16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. 120 Cong. Rec. 21849-55, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Consideration of Resolution and Articles Impeaching the
President
Sec. 15.7 Consideration by the Committee on the Judiciary of the
resolution and articles of impeachment against President Richard M.
Nixon was made in order by committee resolution.
On July 23, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary adopted a
resolution making in order its consideration of a motion to report a
resolution and articles of impeachment to the House. The resolution
provided:
Resolved, That at a business meeting on July 24, 1974, the
Committee shall commence general debate on a motion to report to
the House a Resolution, together with articles of impeachment,
impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States. Such
general debate shall consume no more than ten hours, during which
time no
[[Page 2177]]
Member shall be recognized for a period to exceed 15 minutes. At
the conclusion of general debate, the proposed articles shall be
read for amendment and Members shall be recognized for a period of
five minutes to speak on each proposed article and on any and all
amendments thereto, unless by motion debate is terminated thereon.
Each proposed article, and any additional article, shall be
separately considered for amendment and immediately thereafter
voted upon as amended for recommendation to the House. At the
conclusion of consideration of the articles for amendment and
recommendation to the House, if any article has been agreed to, the
original motion shall be considered as adopted and the Chairman
shall report to the House said Resolution of impeachment, together
with such articles as have been agreed to, or if no article is
agreed to, the Committee shall consider such resolutions or other
recommendations as it deems proper.(~17)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. H. Rept. No. 93-1305, at p. 10, Committee on the Judiciary, 93d
Cong. 2d Sess., reported Aug. 20, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in the committee's final report, consideration of the
motion to report and of the articles of impeachment proceeded as
follows on July 24 through July 30:
On July 24, at the commencement of general debate, a resolution
was offered including two articles of impeachment. On July 26, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered to Article I.
In the course of the debate on the substitute, it was contended
that the proposed article of impeachment was not sufficiently
specific. Proponents of the substitute argued that it met the
requirements of specificity under modern pleading practice in both
criminal and civil litigation, which provide for notice pleading.
They further argued that the President had notice of the charge,
that his counsel had participated in the Committee's deliberations,
and that the factual details would be provided in the Committee's
report.
On July 27, the Committee agreed to the amendment in the nature
of a substitute for Article I by a vote of 27 to 11. The Committee
then adopted Article I, as amended, by a vote of 27 to 11. Article
I, as adopted by the Committee charged that President Nixon, using
the power of his high office, engaged, personally and through his
subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to
delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of the unlawful entry
into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in
Washington, D.C., for the purpose of securing political
intelligence; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible;
and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert
activities.
On July 29, an amendment in the nature of a substitute was
offered for Article II of the proposed resolution. After debate,
the substitute was agreed to by a vote of 28 to 10. The Committee
then adopted Article II, as amended, by a vote of 28 to 10. Article
II, as amended, charged that President Nixon, using the power of
the office of President of the United States, repeatedly engaged in
conduct which violated the constitutional rights of citizens;
[[Page 2178]]
which impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the
conduct of lawful inquiries, or which contravened the laws
governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of
these agencies.
On July 30, an additional article was offered as an amendment
to the resolution. After debate, this amendment was adopted by a
vote of 21 to 17 and became Article III. Article III charged that
President Nixon, by failing, without lawful cause or excuse and in
willful disobedience of the subpoenas of the House, to produce
papers and things that the Committee had subpoenaed in the course
of its impeachment inquiry, assumed to himself functions and
judgments necessary to the exercise of the constitutional power of
impeachment vested in the House. The subpoenaed papers and things
had been deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve, by
direct evidence, fundamental, factual questions related to
presidential direction, knowledge, or approval of actions
demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for
impeachment.
On July 30, the Committee considered an amendment to add a
proposed Article, which charged that President Nixon authorized,
ordered and ratified the concealment of information from the
Congress and supplied to Congress false and misleading statements
concerning the existence, scope and nature of American bombing
operations in Cambodia. The proposed Article stated that these acts
were in derogation of the powers of Congress to declare war, make
appropriations, and raise and support armies. By a vote of 26 to
12, the amendment to add this Article was not agreed to.
Also on July 30, the Committee considered an amendment to add a
proposed Article, charging that President Nixon knowingly and
fraudulently failed to report income and claimed deductions that
were not authorized by law on his Federal income tax returns for
the years 1969 through 1972. In addition, the proposed Article
charged that, in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the
Constitution, President Nixon had unlawfully received emoluments,
in excess of the compensation provided by law, in the form of
government expenditures at his privately owned properties at San
Clemente, California, and Key Biscayne, Florida. By a vote of 26 to
12, the amendment to add the article was not agreed to.
The Committee on the Judiciary based its decision to recommend
that the House of Representatives exercise its constitutional power
to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, on
evidence which is summarized in the following report. . .
.(18)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. H. Rept. No. 93-1305, at pp. 10, 11, Committee on the Judiciary,
93d Cong. 2d Sess., reported Aug. 20, 1974, printed in the
Record at 120 Cong. Rec. 29221, 29222, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug.
20, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The debate on the resolution and articles of impeachment were
televised pursuant to House Resolution 1107, adopted by the House on
July 22, 1974, amending Rule XI clause 34 of the rules of the House to
permit committee meetings, as well as hearings, to be broadcast by live
coverage.(19)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. 120 Cong. Rec. 24436-48, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2179]]
The transcript of the debate by the Committee on the Judiciary was
printed in full as a public document.(20)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. See Debate on Articles of Impeachment, Hearings of the Committee on
the Judiciary pursuant to H. Res. 803, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., July
24, 25, 26, 29, and 30, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Review of Impeachment Trial Rules
Sec. 15.8 After impeachment proceedings had been instituted in the
House against President Richard M. Nixon, the Senate adopted a
resolution for the study and review of Senate rules and precedents
applicable to impeachment trials.
On July 29, l974,(1~) during the pendency of an
investigation in the House of alleged impeachable offenses committed by
President Nixon, the Senate adopted a resolution related to its rules
on impeachment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 120 Cong. Rec. 25468, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Michael J.] Mansfield [of Montana]: Mr. President, I have
at the desk a resolution, submitted on behalf of the distinguished
Republican leader, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hugh Scott),
the assistant majority leader, the distinguished Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Robert C. Byrd), the assistant Republican leader, the
distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. Griffin), and myself, and
I ask that it be called up and given immediate consideration.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will state the resolution.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
S. Res. 370
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration is
directed to review any and all existing rules and precedents
that apply to impeachment trials with a view to recommending
any revisions, if necessary, which may be required if the
Senate is called upon to conduct such a trial.
Resolved further, That the Committee on Rules and
Administration is instructed to report back no later than 1
September 1974, or on such earlier date as the Majority and
Minority Leaders may designate, and
Resolved further, That such review by that Committee shall
be held entirely in executive sessions.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, the Senate will
proceed to its immediate consideration.
The question is on agreeing to the resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 370) was agreed to.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Senate Parliamentarian prepared and published, at the request
of Senator Robert C. Byrd (W. Va.) a study entitled ``Procedure
and Guidelines for Impeachment Trials in the United States
Senate,'' S. Doc. No. 102, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 8, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee on Rules and Administration reported out Senate
Resolution 390, amending the
[[Page 2180]]
Rules and Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on
Impeachment Trials, which was not acted on by the Senate. The
amendments reported were clarifying and modernizing
changes.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Sec. 11.2, supra, for the committee amendments to the rules for
impeachment trials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosure of Evidence of Presidential Activities
Sec. 15.9 Pending the investigation by the House Committee on the
Judiciary into conduct of the President, the Senate adopted a
resolution releasing records of a Senate select committee on
Presidential activities to congressional committees and other
agencies and persons with a legitimate need therefor.
On July 29, 1974,(4) Senator Samuel J. Ervin, Jr., of
North Carolina, offered in the Senate Senate Resolution 369, relating
to the records of a Senate select committee. The Senate adopted the
resolution, following Senator Ervin's remarks thereon, in which he
mentioned the needs and requests of the Committee on the Judiciary of
the House:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 120 Cong. Rec. 25392, 25393, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ervin: Mr. President, under its present charter, the Senate
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities has 90 days
after the 28th day of June of this year in which to wind up its
affairs. This resolution is proposed with the consent of the
committee, and its immediate consideration has been cleared by the
leadership on both sides of the aisle.
The purpose of this resolution is to facilitate the winding up
of the affairs of the Senate Select Committee. The resolution
provides that all of the records of the committee shall be
transferred to the Library of Congress which shall hold them
subject to the control of the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration.
It provides that after these records are transferred to the
Library of Congress the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration shall control the access to the records and either
by special orders or by general regulations shall make the records
available to courts, congressional committees, congressional
subcommittees, Federal departments and agencies, and any other
persons who may satisfy the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration that they have a legitimate need for the records.
It provides that the records shall be maintained intact and
that none of the original records shall be released to any agency
or any person.
It provides further that pending the transfer of the records to
the Library of Congress and the assumption of such control by the
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, that the Select
Committee, acting through its chairman or through its vice
chairman, can make these records available to courts or to
congressional committees
[[Page 2181]]
or subcommittees or to other persons showing a legitimate need for
them.
I might state this is placed in here because of the fact that
we have had many requests from congressional committees for the
records. We have had requests from the Special Prosecutor and from
the courts. . . .
I might state in the past the committee has made available some
of the records to the House Judiciary Committee, at its request,
and to the Special Prosecutor at his request. The resolution also
provides that the action of the committee in doing so is ratified
by the Senate.
Broadcasting Impeachment Proceedings
Sec. 15.10 The House adopted a resolution providing for the broadcast
of the proceedings in the House in which it was to consider the
resolution and articles of impeachment against President Richard M.
Nixon.
On Aug. 7, 1974, the Committee on the Judiciary, having previously
determined to report affirmatively to the House on the impeachment of
the President, the House adopted House Resolution 802, called up by
direction of the Committee on Rules, authorizing the broadcast of the
anticipated impeachment proceedings in the House. Ray J. Madden, of
Indiana, Chairman of the Committee on Rules, who called up the
resolution (with committee amendments), cited the prior action of the
House in changing the rules of the House to permit the deliberations of
the Committee on the Judiciary to be televised.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 120 Cong. Rec. 27266-69, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 15.11 After impeachment proceedings had been instituted in the
House against President Richard M. Nixon, the Senate Committee on
Rules and Administration reported a resolution for televising any
resultant trial.
On Aug. 8, 1974,(6) Senator Howard W. Cannon, of Nevada,
reported in the Senate, from the Committee on Rules and Administration,
Senate Resolution 371, to permit television and radio coverage of any
impeachment trial that might occur with respect to President Nixon. The
resolution was subsequently laid on the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 120 Cong. Rec. 27325, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedures for Consideration by the House
Sec. 15.12 The House leadership considered a number of special
procedures to be followed in the consideration of a resolution and
articles im
[[Page 2182]]
peaching President Richard M. Nixon.
On Aug. 2, 1974, Ray J. Madden, of Indiana, Chairman of the
Committee on Rules, addressed the House on a recent meeting of the
leadership as to the proposed hearings of the committee relative to the
consideration by the House of the impeachment of President Nixon:
Conference of House Rules Committee on Impeachment Debate
(Mr. Madden asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks, and include
extraneous matter.)
Mr. Madden: Mr. Speaker, the coming Presidential impeachment
debate calls for the House to adopt certain special procedures
which are not otherwise necessary when considering regular
congressional business.
The members of the Rules Committee, Speaker Carl Albert, House
Majority Leader Tip O'Neill, House Majority Whip John McFall, House
Minority Leader John Rhodes, House Minority Whip Les Arends,
Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino, and Representative
Edward Hutchinson, the ranking minority member of the Judiciary
Committee, met in an unofficial capacity Thursday afternoon, August
1. In the 2\1/2\ hour meeting thoughts were exchanged and
recommendations made regarding the rules and procedures which would
be most practical in allowing the entire House membership
participation in this historical legislative event.
Although the bipartisan gathering reached no official decision,
there was agreement that after the Judiciary Committee files its
report on the impeachment proceedings next week, August 8, the
Committee on Rules will then convene--on August 13 for the purpose
of defining the rules and procedures for House debate. It was also
agreed by the members of the Democratic and Republican leadership
present that the impeachment debate will begin on the floor of the
House on Monday, August 19.
Among the impeachment procedures to be given consideration by
the Committee on Rules will be: The overall time of debate;
division of debate time during the floor discussion; the control of
the time; the question of whether the three articles of impeachment
recommended by the Judiciary Committee should be amended; and
whether or not the electronic media should be allowed to broadcast
the proceedings of the House floor.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 120 Cong. Rec. 26489, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later on that day, Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, the
Majority Leader, and Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey, the Chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary, discussed tentative scheduling of
the resolution of impeachment and arrangements for Members of the House
to listen to tape recordings containing evidence relating to the
impeachment inquiry:
(Mr. [Leslie C.] Arends [of Illinois] asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1 minute.)
[[Page 2183]]
Mr. Arends: Mr. Speaker, I take this time to ask the majority
leader if he will kindly advise us of the program for next week.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino), chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary, so we may have some indication of his plans?
Mr. Arends: I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Rodino: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would really like to announce that today I have circulated a
letter that should be in the offices of each of the Members which
sets up a schedule so that Members who are interested may listen to
the tapes that are going to be available in the Congressional
Building where the impeachment inquiry staff is located. There will
be assistance provided to all of the Members, and this is spelled
out in this letter--the schedule as to the time when the tapes will
be available, together with the transcripts, and assistance will be
provided by members of the impeachment inquiry staff.
In addition to that, there is also in the letter pertinent
information which relates to the particular pieces of information
or documents that are available. All of the documents that have
been printed and the President's counsel's brief will be included.
Members will have available to them all that the Committee on the
Judiciary has presented and printed and published up to this
particular time, which I am sure all Members will be interested in.
I thought that I would make this announcement so that this
letter will come to the Members' attention and will not be somehow
or other just laid aside. I think the Members are going to be
interested in seeing it and knowing that there is a schedule for
them, and we will allow them sufficient time within which to be
briefed regarding these various materials that are available and
the facilities that are available to them.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Arends: I yield to the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. O'Neill: I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I should like to address some remarks to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rodino), the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, in view of the fact that the leadership on both sides of
the aisle met yesterday with members of the Committee on Rules
trying to put together a schedule, which, of course, we understand
is tentative.
It was my understanding from that meeting that the Judiciary
Committee would be planning to report next Wednesday, and would be
going to the Rules Committee on Tuesday, August 13, with the
anticipation that the matter of impeachment would be on the floor
on Monday, the 19th.
Would the gentleman want to comment on that?
Mr. Rodino: If the gentleman will yield, that is correct. That
is the schedule that we hope to follow. I have discussed this with
the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking minority member, and we
have agreed that the scheduling is the kind of scheduling dates
that we can meet. On Tuesday, the 13th, we would go before the
Rules Committee. I thank the gentleman.(8)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Id. at p. 26512.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2184]]
Committee Report as to Impeachment; Resignation of the President
Sec. 15.13 After the Committee on the Judiciary had determined to
report to the House a resolution and articles impeaching President
Richard M. Nixon, the President resigned; the committee submitted
its report recommending impeachment to the House, without an
accompanying resolution of impeachment. The House then adopted a
resolution under suspension of the rules accepting the committee's
report, noting the committee's action and commending the chairman
and members of the committee for their efforts.
On Aug. 9, 1974, President Nixon's written resignation was received
in the office of the Secretary of State, pursuant to the provisions of
the United States Code.(9)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. 3 USC Sec. 20 provides that the resignation of the office of the
President shall be an instrument in writing, subscribed by the
person resigning, and delivered to the office of the Secretary
of State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Aug. 20, 1974, Mr. Peter W. Rodino, Jr., of New Jersey,
submitted as privileged the report of the Committee on the Judiciary
(H. Rept. No. 93-1305) to the House. The report summarized the
committee's investigation and included supplemental, additional,
separate, dissenting, minority, individual, and concurring views. The
committee's recommendation and adopted articles of impeachment read as
follows:
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
consideration of recommendations concerning the exercise of the
constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the
United States, having considered the same, reports thereon pursuant
to H. Res. 803 as follows and recommends that the House exercise
its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of
the United States, and that articles of impeachment be exhibited to
the Senate as follows:
Resolution
Impeaching Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, of
high crimes and misdemeanors.
Resolved, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United
States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the
following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in the name of
itself and of all of the people of the United States of America,
against Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of
America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment
[[Page 2185]]
against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States,
Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration
of justice, in that:
On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee
for the Reelection of the President committed unlawful entry of the
headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington,
District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political
intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the
powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his
subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to
delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful
entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to
conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert
activities.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan
included one or more of the following:
(1) making or causing to be made false or misleading statements
to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the
United States;
(2) withholding relevant and material evidence or information
from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of
the United States;
(3) approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling
witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading
statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and
employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in
duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
(4) interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of
investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Watergate
Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
(5) approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious
payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining
the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential
witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry
and other illegal activities;
(6) endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an
agency of the United States;
(7) disseminating information received from officers of the
Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of
investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative
officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of
aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid
criminal liability;
(8) making false or misleading public statements for the
purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing
that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with
respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of
the executive branch of the United States and per
[[Page 2186]]
sonnel of the Committee for the Reelection of the President, and
that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct;
or
(9) endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and
individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment
and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony,
or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary
to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Article II
Using the powers of the office of President of the United
States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his
constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the
constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper
administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or
contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch
and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and
agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in
violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential
information contained in income tax returns for purposes not
authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional
rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax
investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory
manner.
(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret
Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard
of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or
authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue
electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes
unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any
other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or
permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes
unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any
other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the
concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation of electronic surveillance.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and
agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of
citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret
investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in
part with money derived from campaign contributions, which
unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence
Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to
prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully
executed by
[[Page 2187]]
failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close
subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by
duly constituted executive, judicial, and legislative entities
concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the
Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and
concerning other unlawful activities, including those relating to
the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the
United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the
break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign
financing practices of the Committee to Reelect the President.
(5) In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the
executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive
branch, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal
Division, and the Offlce of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, of
the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency, in
violation of his duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary
to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
Article III
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States,
Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the
office of President of the United States and, to the best of his
ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without
lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by
duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary
of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974,
May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such
subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary
by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence
fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction,
knowledge, or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to
be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In
refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon,
substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for
the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the
lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming
to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the
sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House
of Representatives.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary
to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional
government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice,
and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants
impeachment and trial, and removal from office.\(10)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. H. Rept. No. 93-1305, pp. 1-4, Committee on the Judiciary, printed
in the Record at 120 Cong. Rec. 29219, 29220, 93d Cong. 2d
Sess., Aug. 20, 1974. For complete text of H. Rept. No. 93-
1305, see id. at pp. 29219-361.
Pursuant to H. Con. Res. 566, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., 10,000
additional copies of the report were printed for the use of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2188]]
The report was referred by the Speaker to the House Calendar and
ordered printed.
The Committee did not report a separate resolution and articles of
impeachment for action by the House, the President having resigned.
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, the Majority Leader,
moved to suspend the rules and adopt House Resolution 1333, accepting
the report of the Committee on the Judiciary and providing for its
printing, and the House adopted the resolution without debate--yeas
412, nays 3, not voting 19:
H. Res. 1333
Resolved, That the House of Representatives:
(1) takes notice that
(a) the House of Representatives, by House Resolution 803,
approved February 6, 1974, authorized and directed the Committee on
the Judiciary to investigate fully and completely whether
sufficient grounds existed for the House of Representatives to
exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon,
President of the United States of America; and
(b) the Committee on the Judiciary, after conducting a full and
complete investigation pursuant to House Resolution 803, voted on
July 27, 29, and 30, 1974 to recommend Articles of impeachment
against Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of
America; and
(c) Richard M. Nixon on August 9, 1974 resigned the Office of
President of the United States of America;
(2) accepts the report submitted by the Committee on the
Judiciary pursuant to House Resolution 803 (H. Rept. 93-1305) and
authorizes and directs that the said report, together with
supplemental, additional, separate, dissenting, minority,
individual and concurring views, be printed in full in the
Congressional Record and as a House Document; and
(3) commends the chairman and other members of the Committee on
the Judiciary for their conscientious and capable efforts in
carrying out the Committee's responsibilities under House
Resolution 803.
Following the adoption of House Resolution 1333, Mr. O'Neill asked
unanimous consent that all Members have five legislative days in which
to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1333, but Mr.
Robert E. Bauman, of Maryland, objected to the request on the ground
that no debate had been had on the report.(11)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 120 Cong. Rec. 29361, 29362, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. The Majority Leader
had announced on the previous day, Aug. 19, his intention to
offer the resolution, and had read the text of the resolution
on the floor of the House. 120 Cong. Rec. 29005, 29006, 93d
Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2189]]
Neither the House nor the Committee on the Judiciary took any
further action on the matter of the impeachment of former President
Nixon in the 93d Congress.
Impeachment Inquiry Evidence Subpoenaed by Courts
Sec. 15.14 The Speaker laid before the House subpoenas duces tecum from
a federal district court in a criminal case, addressed to the
Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and to the chief counsel
of its subcommittee on impeachment. The subpoenas sought evidence
gathered by the committee in its impeachment inquiry into the
conduct of President Richard M. Nixon. The House adopted a
resolution granting such limited access as would not violate the
privileges of the House or its sole power of impeachment under the
U.S. Constitution.
On Aug. 22, 1974,(12) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
laid before the House a communication and subpoena from the Chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. 120 Cong. Rec. 30025, 30026, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Communication From the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
The Speaker laid before the House the following communication
and subpoena from the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary,
which was read and ordered to be printed:
Washington, D.C.,
August 21, 1974.
Hon. Carl Albert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Speaker: On July 29, 1974 two subpoenas duces
tecum issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, one naming myself and one naming Mr. John
Doar, an employee of the Committee, were served commanding
appearance in the United States District Court on September 9,
1974 and the production of all tapes and other electronic and/
or mechanical recordings or reproductions, and any memoranda,
papers, transcripts, and other writings, relating to all
nonpublic statements, testimony and interviews of witnesses
relating to the matters being investigated pursuant to House
Resolution No. 803.
The subpoenas were issued upon application of defendant H.
R. Haldeman in the case of U. S. v John Mitchell, et al.
The subpoenas in question are forwarded herewith and the
matter presented for such action as the House deems
appropriate.
Sincerely,
Peter W. Rodino, Jr.,
Chairman.
[[Page 2190]]
----
[Subpoena]
[U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 74-110]
United States of America v. John N. Mitchell, et al.,
Defendants
To: Congressman Peter W. Rodino, United States House of
Representatives, Washington, D.C.
You are hereby commanded to appear in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia at Constitution
Avenue and John Marshall Place, N.W. in the city of Washington
on the 9th day of September 1974 at 10 o'clock A.M. to testify
in the case of United States v. John N. Mitchell, et al., and
bring with you all tapes and other electronic and/or mechanical
recordings or reproductions, and any memoranda, papers,
transcripts, and other writings, relating to:
All non-public statements and testimony of witnesses
relating to the matters being investigated pursuant to House
Resolution No. 803.
This subpoena is issued upon application of the Defendant,
H. R. Haldeman, 1974.
Frank H. Struth,
Attorney for Defendant,
H. R. Haldeman.
James F. Davey,
Clerk.
By Robert L. Line,
Deputy Clerk.
The following resolution, in response to such subpoenas, was
offered by Mr. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts:
Concerning Subpoenas Issued in United States Versus John N.
Mitchell, et al.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Speaker, I call up House Resolution 1341 and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1341
Whereas in the case of United States of America against
John N. Mitchell et al. (Criminal Case No. 74-110), pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
subpoenas duces tecum were issued by the said court and
addressed to Representative Peter W. Rodino, United States
House of Representatives, and to John Doar, Chief Counsel,
House Judicial Subcommittee on Impeachment, House of
Representatives, directing them to appear as witnesses before
said court at 10:00 antemeridian on the 9th day of September,
1974, and to bring with them certain and sundry papers in the
possession and under the control of the House of
Representatives: Therefore be it
Resolved, That by the privileges of this House no evidence
of a documentary character under the control and in the
possession of the House of Representatives can, by the mandate
of process of the ordinary courts of justice, be taken from
such control or possession but by its permission; be it further
Resolved, That the House of Representatives under Article
I, Section 2 of the Constitution has the sole power of
impeachment and has the sole power to investigate and gather
evidence to determine whether the House of Representatives
shall exercise its constitutional power of impeachment; be it
further
Resolved, That when it appears by the order of the court or
of the judge thereof, or of any legal officer charged with the
administration of the orders of such court or judge, that
documentary evidence in the possession and under the control of
the House is needful for use in any court of justice, or before
any judge or such legal officer, for the pro
[[Page 2191]]
motion of justice, this House will take such action thereon as
will promote the ends of justice consistently with the
privileges and rights of this House; he it further
Resolved, That when said court determines upon the
materiality and the relevancy of the papers and documents
called for in the subpoenas duces tecum, then the said court,
through any of its officers or agents, have full permission to
attend with all proper parties to the proceeding and then
always at any place under the orders and control of this House
and take copies of all memoranda and notes, in the files of the
Committee on the Judiciary, of interviews with those persons
who subsequently appeared as witnesses in the proceedings
before the full Committee pursuant to House Resolution 803,
such limited access in this instance not being an interference
with the Constitutional impeachment power of the House, and the
Clerk of the House is authorized to supply certified copies of
such documents and papers in possession or control of the House
of Representatives that the court has found to be material and
relevant (except that under no circumstances shall any minutes
or transcripts of executive sessions, or any evidence of
witnesses in respect thereto, be disclosed or copied) and which
the court or other proper officer thereof shall desire, so as,
however, the possession of said papers, documents, and records
by the House of Representatives shall not be disturbed, or the
same shall not be removed from their place of file or custody
under any Members, officer, or employee of the House of
Representatives, and be it further
Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions be transmitted
to the said court as a respectful answer to the subpoenas
aforementioned.
The House adopted the resolution.
Pardon of the Former President
Sec. 15.15 The House having discontinued impeachment proceedings
against former President Richard M. Nixon following his
resignation, President Gerald R. Ford granted a full pardon to the
former President for all offenses against the United States
committed by him during his terms in office.
On Sept. 8, 1974, President Ford issued Proclamation 4311, granting
a pardon to Richard Nixon:
Granting Pardon to Richard Nixon by the President of the United
States of America
a proclamation
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United
States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second
term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in
office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its
Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation
on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight
months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which
received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in
printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard
[[Page 2192]]
Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his
resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become
liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the
United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on
findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the
authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused
shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as
guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became
necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed.
In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been
restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by
the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United
States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and
divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further
punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the
unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office
of the United States.
Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United
States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article
II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these
presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard
Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard
Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during
the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day
of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-
four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the
one hundred and ninety-ninth.(13)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 39 Fed. Reg. 32601, 32602 (Sept. 10, 1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some Members of the House suggested in debate that impeachment
proceedings be resumed, notwithstanding the resignation of the
President; for example on Sept. 11, 1974, Mr. Ralph H. Metcalfe, of
Illinois, declared:
On August 20, 1974, Mr. Speaker, the House adopted House
Resolution 1033. This resolution took notice of the fact that on
February 6, 1974, the House, by adoption of House Resolution 803,
authorized and directed the Judiciary Committee ``to investigate
fully and completely whether sufficient grounds existed for the
House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to
impeach Richard M. Nixon''; further, House Resolution 1033 noted
that the Committee on the Judiciary recommended articles of
impeachment; that Richard M. Nixon resigned the office of President
of the United States; and further, this resolution accepted the
report submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary pursuant to
House Resolution 803.
The articles of impeachment voted out by the full committee,
Mr. Speaker, were never debated and voted upon by the full House.
At that time there was the strong possibility that the former
President would be indicted, and that
[[Page 2193]]
the President would be held accountable for his actions in a court
of law. President Ford's action on September 8, 1974, has
effectively nullified that course of action. . . .
Is there a precedent for the impeachment of a civil officer
after his resignation? I think there is.
In Federalist Paper 65, Hamilton states:
The Model from which the idea of this institution
(Impeachment) has been borrowed pointed out that course to the
convention.
The model that Hamilton refers to is clearly that of Great
Britain. The course of action that Hamilton refers to is
impeachment by the House of Commons and trial before the Lords.
And, consequently, it is to the English precedent that we must
first turn. Contemporaneous with the drafting and adopting of our
own Constitution was the impeachment trial of Warren Hastings in
Great Britain. Hastings resigned the governor-generalship of India
before he left India in February 1785, 2 years before articles of
impeachment were voted by the House of Commons for his conduct in
India. The impeachment of Hastings was certainly a fact known to
the drafters of the Constitution.
George Mason, in discussing the impeachment provision on
September 8, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention, makes a clear
reference to the trial of Hastings. Further, Prof. Arthur Bestor
states that--
American constitutional documents adopted prior to the
Federal Convention of 1787 . . . refute the notion that
officials no longer in office were supposed by the framers to
be beyond the reach of impeachment.
Bestor specifically cites the constitutions of two States-
Virginia and Delaware-which were adopted in 1776.
Bestor also cites a statement of John Quincy Adams, made in
1846 after he left the White House, made on the Floor of the House:
I hold myself, so long as I have the breath of life in my
body, amenable to impeachment by this House for everything I
did during the time I held any public office.
Another historical precedent is that of William W. Belknap,
Secretary of War in President Grant's cabinet. As Bestor summarizes
it:
Belknap resigned at 10:20 a.m. on the 2nd of March (1876),
a few hours before the House of Representatives voted to
impeach him, the latter decision being officially notified to
the Senate at 12:55 p.m. on the 3rd . . . on May 27, 1876, in a
roll-call vote of 37 to 29 (with seven not voting) the Senate
ruled that Belknap was amenable to trial by impeachment for
acts done as Secretary of War, notwithstanding his resignation
of said office before he was impeached.
Mr. Speaker, there is precedent for the impeachment of a civil
officer after he has resigned.
Another point to make, Mr. Speaker, is that article I of
section 3 of the Constitution states, inter alia:
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further
than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and
enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United
States.
There is a twofold penalty provided for in this article and
removal from office is but one part of the penalty.
Mr. Speaker, the former President has not been held accountable
for his
[[Page 2194]]
actions. He has avoided accountability through the impeachment
process by resigning, and he has avoided trial on charges of
alleged criminal misconduct as contained in the first article of
impeachment through the Presidential pardon of his successor.
Mr. Speaker, history can conclude that the Congress of the
United States was confronted with a series of actions by the Chief
Executive, actions which constituted a serious danger to our
political processes and that we did nothing. The proper forum, and
now the only forum, for a debate and a vote on these most serious
charges is here in the House. We have no other recourse but to
proceed if we are to assure that all future Presidents will be held
accountable for their actions whether such future Chief Executives
resign or not.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that the impeachment report of the House
Judiciary Committee be debated and that we proceed to vote on the
articles of impeachment.(14~)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. 120 Cong. Rec. 30695, 30696, 93d Cong. 2d Sess. (footnotes
omitted). For a memo inserted in the Record by Senate Majority
Leader Michael J. Mansfield (Mont.) on the power of Congress to
impeach and try a President after he has resigned, see 120
Cong. Rec. 31346-48, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Sept. 17, 1974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 12, 1974, Ms. Bella S. Abzug, of New York, introduced a
resolution of inquiry related to the pardon: (15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. 120 Cong. Rec. 30964, 30965, 93d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 1363
Resolved, That the President of the United States is hereby
requested to furnish the House, within ten days, with the following
information:
1. What are the specific offenses against the United States for
which a pardon was granted to Richard M. Nixon on September 8,
1974?
2. What are the certain acts or omissions occurring before his
resignation from the office of President for which Richard Nixon
had become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses
against the United States, as stated in your Proclamation of
Pardon?
3. Did you or your representatives have specific knowledge of
any formal criminal charges pending against Richard M. Nixon prior
to issuance of the pardon? If so, what were these charges?
4. Did Alexander Haig refer to or discuss a pardon with Richard
M. Nixon or representatives of Mr. Nixon at any time during the
week of August 4, 1974 or at any subsequent time? If so, what
promises were made or conditions set for a pardon, if any? If so,
were tapes or transcriptions of any kind made of these
conversations or were any notes taken? If so, please provide such
tapes, transcriptions or notes.
5. When was a pardon for Richard M. Nixon first referred to or
discussed with Mr. Nixon, or representatives of Mr. Nixon, by you
or your representatives or aides, including the period when you
were a member of Congress or Vice President?
6. Who participated in these and subsequent discussions or
negotiations with Richard M. Nixon or his representatives regarding
a pardon, and at what specific times and locations?
7. Did you consult with Attorney General William Saxbe or
Special
[[Page 2195]]
Prosecutor Leon Jaworski before making the decision to pardon
Richard M. Nixon and, if so, what facts and legal authorities did
they give to you?
8. Did you consult with the Vice Presidential nominee, Nelson
Rockefeller, before making the decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon
and, if so, what facts and legal authorities did he give to you?
9. Did you consult with any other attorneys or professors of
law before making the decision to pardon Richard M. Nixon, and, if
so, what facts or legal authorities did they give to you?
10. Did you or your representatives ask Richard M. Nixon to
make a confession or statement of criminal guilt, and, if so, what
language was suggested or requested by you, your representatives,
Mr. Nixon, or his representatives? Was any statement of any kind
requested from Mr. Nixon in exchange for the pardon, and, if so,
please provide the suggested or requested language.
11. Was the statement issued by Richard M. Nixon immediately
subsequent to announcement of the pardon made known to you or your
representatives prior to its announcement, and was it approved by
you or your representatives?
12. Did you receive any report from a psychiatrist or other
physician stating that Richard M. Nixon was in other than good
health? If so, please provide such reports
The resolution of inquiry was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary. A subcommittee thereof held hearings on the matter of the
pardon of former President Nixon, and President Ford appeared in person
and testified before such subcommittee on Oct. 17, 1974.