4 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 Re-elect 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 Office 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. CONTENTS Page The Organization of the White House and Its Relationship to the Com- mittee to the Committee for the Re-Election of the President_----- Adoption of a Political Intelligence Plan Including the Use of Elec- 35 The Implementation of the Political Intelligence Plan.... Appendix B-Subpoenas Issued to President Richard M. Nixon by the Committee on the Judiciary and Justification Memoranda----. Supplemental, Additional, Separate, Dissenting, Minority, Individual and COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION The Constitution provides in Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, that "the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment." Article II, Section 4 provides, "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Resolutions to impeach President Richard M. Nixon were introduced by members of the House in the last session of Congress and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. On November 15, 1973, the House adopted H. Res. 702 to provide additional funds for the Committee for purposes of considering these resolutions. On December 20, 1973, special counsel was employed to assist the Committee in its inquiry. On February 6, 1974, the Committee recommended that the House explicitly authorize the Committee's investigation to determine whether the House should exercise its constitutional power to impeach President Nixon. On February 6, 1974, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 410 to 4, adopted H. Res. 803. That resolution authorized and directed the Committee on the Judiciary 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. As part of the resolution the Committee was granted the power of subpoena for its investigation. In its report to the House on H. Res. 803, the Committee had stated: The Committee's investigative authority is intended to be fully coextensive with the power of the House in an impeachment investigation-with respect to the persons who may be required to respond, the methods by which response may be required, and the types of information and materials required to be furnished and produced. On February 21, 1974, the Committee received a report from its impeachment inquiry staff entitled, "Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment." The report reviewed the historical origins of impeachment, the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, and the American impeachment cases. The report also addressed the question whether grounds for impeachment, "high crimes and misdemeanors," must be crimes under the ordinary criminal statutes. The report concluded as follows: Impeachment is a constitutional remedy addressed to serious offenses against the system of government. The purpose of impeachment under the Constitution is indicated by the limited scope of the remedy (removal from office and possible disqualification from future office) and by the stated grounds for impeachment (treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors). It is not controlling (6) 7 whether treason and bribery are criminal. More important, they are constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself, and thus are “high” offenses in the sense that word was used in English impeachments. The framers of our Constitution consciously adopted a particular phrase from the English practice to help define the constitutional grounds for removal. The content of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" for the framers is to be related to what the framers knew, on the whole, about the English practice— the broad sweep of English constitutional history and the vital role impeachment had played in the limitation of royal prerogative and the control of abuses of ministerial and judicial power. Impeachment was not a remote subject for the framers. Even as they labored in Philadelphia, the impeachment trial of Warren Hastings, Governor-General of India, was pending in London, a fact to which George Mason made explicit reference in the Convention. Whatever may be said on the merits of Hastings' conduct, the charges against him exemplified the central aspect of impeachmentthe parliamentary effort to reach grave abuses of governmental power. The framers understood quite clearly that the constitutional system they were creating must include some ultimate check on the conduct of the executive, particularly as they came to reject the suggested plural executive. While insistent that balance between the executive and legislative branches be maintained so that the executive would not become the creature of the legislature, dismissible at its will, the framers also recognized that some means would be needed to deal with excesses by the executive. Impeachment was familiar to them. They understood its essential constitutional functions and perceived its adaptability to the American contest. While it may be argued that some articles of impeachment have charged conduct that constituted crime and thus that criminality is an essential ingredient, or that some have charged conduct that was not criminal and thus that criminality is not essential, the fact remains that in the English practice and in several of the American impeachments the criminality issue was not raised at all. The emphasis has been on the significant effects of the conduct-undermining the integrity of office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office, arrogation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact on the system of government. Clearly, these effects can be brought about in ways not anticipated by the criminal law. Criminal standards and criminal courts were established to control individual conduct. Impeachment was evolved by Parliament to cope with both the inadequacy of criminal standards and the impotence of courts to deal with the conduct of great public figures. It would be anomalous if the framers, having barred criminal sanctions from the impeachment remedy and limited it to removal and possible disqualification from office, intended to restrict the grounds for impeachment to conduct that was criminal. The longing for precise criteria is understandable; advance, precise definition of objective limits would seemingly serve both to direct future conduct and to inhibit arbitrary reaction to past conduct. In private affairs the objective is the control of personal behavior, in part through the punishment of misbehavior. In general, advance definition of standards respecting private conduct works reasonably well. However, where the issue is presidential compliance with the constitutional requirements and limitations on the presidency, the crucial factor is not the intrinsic quality of behavior but the significance of its effect upon our constitutional system or the functioning of our government. It is useful to note three major presidential duties of broad scope that are explicitly recited in the Constitution: "to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. The first is directly imposed by the Constitution; the second and third are included in the constitutionally prescribed oath that the President is required to take before he enters upon the execution of his office and are, therefore, also expressly imposed by the Constitution. The duty to take care is affirmative. So is the duty faithfully to execute the office. A President must carry out the obligations of his office diligently and in good faith. The elective character and political role of a President make it difficult to define faithful exercise of his powers in the abstract. A President must make policy and exercise discretion. This discretion necessarily is broad, especially in emergency situations, but the constitutional duties of a, President impose limitations on its exercise. 8 The "take care" duty emphasizes the responsibility of a President for the overall conduct of the executive branch, which the Constitution vests in him alone. He must take care that the executive is so organized and operated that this duty is performed. The duty of a President to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" to the best of his ability includes the duty not to abuse his powers or transgress their limits not to violate the rights of citizens, such as those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and not to act in derogation of powers vested elesewhere by the Constitution. Not all presidential misconduct is sufficient to constitute grounds for impeachment. There is a further requirement-substantiality. In deciding whether this further requirement has been met, the facts must be considered as a whole in the context of the office, not in terms of separate or isolated events. Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office. On February 22, 1974, the full Committee on the Judiciary unanimously adopted a set of procedures governing confidentiality for the handling of material gathered in the course of its impeachment inquiry. The purpose and effect of these rules was that the Committee as a whole deferred, until the commencement of the initial presentation on May 9, its access to materials received by the impeachment inquiry staff. Only the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member had access to, supervised and reviewed the assembly of evidentiary material and the preparation of transcripts of the President's recorded conversations. In a status report to the Committee on March 1, 1974, the Inquiry staff reported on investigations in six principal areas: 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. In anticipation of the presentation of evidentiary material by the Inquiry staff, the Committee on May 2, 1974, unanimously adopted a set of procedures for this presentation. These procedures were consistent with four general principles: First, the Committee would receive from the staff and consider initially all reliable material which tended to establish the facts in issue. At the time that the evidentiary proceedings began, the Committee would give the President the opportunity to have his counsel present and to receive such documents and materials as the staff presented to the Committee Members for their consideration. Second, during the presentation of this evidentiary material, whether in executive or in open session subject to the rules of the House, the Committee would give the President the opportunity to have his counsel present and to hear the presentation. Third, at the end of this presentation, the Committee would give the President the opportunity to have his counsel make his position known, either orally or in writing, with respect to the evidentiary material received by the Committee. |