Thank you Gratis. Six minutes past 11 programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by the Catholic Community Foundation celebrating 5 years of service. I promise to Future Generations. Good morning, and welcome to mid-day on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary eichten glad you could join us 24 years ago the house Judiciary Committee held formal impeachment hearings in the conduct of President Richard Nixon committee, ultimately approve several articles of impeachment leading to Nixon's resignation in August of 1974. A constitutional crisis had been averted nearly everybody to clear it at the time that the system had worked. Well today that Watergate model is being involved. Once again with the house Judiciary Committee schedule to meet Monday morning to discuss and vote on whether to begin a formal impeachment mean Korean President Bill Clinton's conduct both Republicans and Democrats are pointing to the Watergate model as a standard against which we can measure the fairness of this process as first mid day will be talking with four or two former members of that Watergate era house Judiciary Committee to get their Impressions on just how the process this time around has worked and what we should watch for as the pro. Justin Falls joining us this first half-hour the program from the Georgetown law school in Washington were a teacher has lost its former, Massachusetts congressman Father Robert. Drinan joining us during the second half hour will be former New York. Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman who is now in private law practice in New York. And of course we invite you to join our conversation as well. We're talking this hour about the lessons of History the lessons of the Watergate era and what they can teach us about the process underway that could lead to the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Give us a call or Twin City area number is 227-6002 276 thousand oxide the Twin Cities 1 800 to +422-828-227-6102 for 22828 father. Drinan. Thanks for joining us this morning as well as in the spirit of full disclosure. We should point out that both you and Elizabeth Holtzman are Democrats. So maybe we can set aside the partisanship for a little while. Some of us Democrats voted against having at the backdating of taxes of President Nixon an impeachable offense. We did not think that that particular offends Rose to the level of a peach ability, right? Well, first of all Watergate, is it a proper standard in your mind did the system work is what you folks did should that be a model for members of Congress today? Even before going into the hearings to find impeach of Italy? We put out a study of some 500 page with everything that is known in English history in American history about the nature of impeachment and this guy tried has not done that and it seems to me that's very fundamental that they should agree upon some definition before they go back and do all of us of all these volumes of testimony. Do you think that the discussion of standards of impeachment? Should that be a public discussion? There's nothing secret about that. Didn't you folks resolved. What's an impeachable offense? We had a much better case, but the evidence was overwhelming that President Nixon not merely had lied to the American people. He had corrupted the White House. He had abused his power and the he supervised in essence a burglary of a hotel room. He has hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing through the White House in for corrupt purposes. How did the climate in Washington today compared with the climate at that time? You know it looking back at we keep hearing about how Republicans and Democrats join hands and in the spirit of cooperation and all but I would think that that was a fairly partisan Affair to was it not basically I felt badly for the Republicans who Revolt against the Run president but I think in the both fit in in that case it was very evident from the Watergate hearings of the Senate that something was very wrong. That's several people in the cabin were about to go off to jail. They have been indicted for obstruction of justice. All of the situation is entirely different. Can you remind us father? Drinan? Why was it that the Senate held hearings on this rather than going directly to you folks and that the committee triggered in only when impeachment was one of the things because specifically in the Constitution the house has the the right and the duty to initiate impeachment proceedings. There is a lot of discussion now about the what should be the sculpt and the length of the house in Cory. Did you folks get into that in terms of the scope of the inquiry? How do I we we certainly did and Strava limiting it except that there was so many things wrong that we said where we kind of limited. One of my disappointment is that we didn't do adequate investigation into the Clinton Destin bombing of Cambodia. I file the first resolution of a peach mint in the house on July 31st, 1990 19 73, and that was the Grove on a bike allegation that he had violated the Constitution and was some Peach ebook because he has set out 3800 sorties of bonding over a neutral country with no knowledge or consent by the Congress. Once this process gets underway though. I would think that pretty much anything that anybody would have ject to could somehow be brought into the into the discussion of of impeachment. I know I mean if your people if they aren't you sure give me wants to be honest if they want to act as a good lawyers, they would say that we this is our try to get his the definition of impeachable offenses and then they They will take all the evidence of try to experiment with the definitions. So that's the key in your mind to get the get the firm consensus on what is in fact an impeachable. If I left the very loyal like things to do at that. What are we looking for? And then do these facts fit into this target? What about the length of the inquiry? I noticed Democrats today are saying that the house Judiciary Committee should put a time limit on this. So I guess they're proposing November 25th Republicans argue that that's just an invitation to stonewalling a skin Essence. I think that the Democrats probably have a good idea all the work has been done after all we have for years and 40 million dollars for the findings of fact so that they don't have to have Harry's Aveda 24 years ago. They don't have to go back and give everybody that day and caught they do they want for political reasons to rehash this whole thing. Do they really want to have Monica on the stage? And and then allow the president of his lawyers, they will do it at this is going to be hard the Republicans will do it only if it is political Patriot for them and they will discover one way or the other after November 3rd. Is this playing in Peoria? Everybody's tired of it. Lots of people like the vast majority don't think very highly of mr. Star and people say get it over with and that they are not going to do that unless they think that's if it if they think continue it is to that benefit. Did you folks call witnesses and all of that? Of course, we did private for weeks and weeks and let the president's lawyer was there this is Jim Sinclair. He could say anything that he wanted and that then we eventually release all that inventory. Then we had public hearings. Everybody had their say And we observed very careful Road South of testimony and cross-examination and that has not been done for the present at all and that mr. Starts at this is a grand jury investigations the grand jury had nothing to do with this. They never passed on this evidence. They never voted. It's all supposed to stop and his ruthless prosecutors who is setting up these alleged facts. Well shouldn't based again on the way you folks operated and give him the fact that Mr. Star is a prosecutor had his own points to make here wouldn't that argue then for the current committee to hold a series of here ain't like you folks data extended hearings are both in private and public in terms of trying to get to what really is the the facts of the case. They they should do what federal judges always do. They have a motion to dismiss and they have to decide initially on a repeatable grounds here. And that is why the Democrats are insisting that we just can't Rehash all of these things by Harry's we have to decide. Is there an impeachable offense here? And that's what judges do every single day a motion to dismiss a preliminary thing is the ordinary way of proceeding and they could make that decision in your mind without holding the hearings that you talk about if the Republicans come to a cuz if the whole committee comes to some consensus that they they are not impeachable offenses just dismiss the whole thing in the Watergate era in that case. Of course, we had a Republican president did the Republicans dig in their heels pretty deeply in terms of trying to protect Richard Nixon. What if I'm dead and some didn't and that we had at least 6 or the Republicans who joined in at least two of the grounds for impeachment that we agreed to at the end and I have admiration for the those Republicans that did come out way and I thought it was tough on them and they had some fear that they might lose their seat, but they said that the truth of all the corruption of the White House compels my vote to go against my own president. I want to get to some callers here. But one more question before we get to that we get that far what role did public opinion play in the water get in your house Judiciary Committee considerations that is to say to you folks think a lot about how much support Richard Nixon have in them in public opinion polls rather decisive den and the outrage of the entire nation after the firing of Archibald Cox the Saturday night Massacre and after that everybody knew that something was up for the next was being challenged directly. So I think the public opinion inevitably has something to do with an impeachment proceeding because the impeachment is to some extent political so you paid some attention to it, but it wasn't the kind of mixed bag that it is today. Why wouldn't that the mix back people overwhelmingly against the president being urged or forced out and that two-thirds of the country do not How to go forward with her featuring is that something you think that the committee members legitimately should take into account and that it may well be that that's the sense of what decent people and honest people and good lawyer should come to to in other words. We are always respectful of public opinion that after all it's their Republic they are the several people and I think that it all case is not merely this we should look very very carefully and what the people think by the Robert drinan join just this morning from Washington Robert drinan was a member of the Watergate area are a house Judiciary Committee that approved articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon and we thought to what with the house Judiciary Committee beginning proceedings on Monday add scussion of whether to hold a formal of impeachment in Corry, it would be useful to look back at the Watergate era and see what lessons can be learned if you'd like to join our conversation. Call 227-6022 area number to 276 thousand outside the Twin Cities one 800-242-2828 little later. The shower will be joined by a former Congressman Elizabeth Holtzman who I'm also observed in that committee Glenn your question, please. They're just like for the president of the United States to his for next in line for Clinton. But the question I ask is if he if they were involved in determining what an impeachable offenses to remember the number of pages. He said but why aren't those pages applicable now? Why do we have to go through that all now, that's a very good question sir. And that I hope that they miss to hide in and of the committee will recognize the 718 pages in a document that I had before him before the end. This this nothing that is known that is not here. Towing in in essence the committee of the current committee could just simply adopt the information that you folks had to work very very very rare and that it is very difficult to get to the level of an impeachable offense and that in the Constitution that says that treason bribery listen to this all other high crimes and misdemeanors call for impeachment. So it's other high crimes and misdemeanors. It has to be somehow in the realm of treason or bribery. Now when you folks adopted that's standard for impeachment. Was that pretty much a bipartisan standard that was adopted. I'm sure it was that we disagree deposited Tails, but we said that yeah, there was a strong strong and deep confesses on the nature of the impeachment process. Steve address some of my questions one is again. What is the role what role does public opinion play in the continuation of of the impeachment of President Clinton. I personally am outraged with list Mister star. I think he's the villain in this situation. I think that there has been a huge misuse of monetary and Human Resources. Am I I also questions what is the impact of of all of this investigation into the private lives of Monica and Clinton going to do on the preservation or going to have on the preservation of privacy with our nation? Well, ma'am, thank you very much for those good comments at we don't know at this time the implications of that we have to go back to and say that mr. Stark I got this power that he alleges that he has because of a special prosecutor law and I have the hope more more that's going to phase out come next shoe they just won't renew it you folks or we're dealing with an entirely different set of charges the very nature of what you were talking about is quite different boiling it down in simplistic terms I suppose you could compare at this exit vs. Burglary or something how has that dispose affected the process or how would it have affected the way you folks dealt with impeachment would like to hope that if the committee that we had a 1974 reconstituted many of them across of God, we would say that we don't think that anything is impeached. Unless it is a threat to the Republic unless it is an egregious and continuing abuse of power that only the president has the framers of the Constitution thought a long time about this in Patron and some people said they should not the any impeachment process at all because the house and the Senate will always have used it and they will interfere in the work of the executive But ultimately in a narrowboat. They said we have to have some break and they did that because of that time that we didn't have the AGI limitation and they were afraid in those early days that we would have some person get to the White House who would assume Regal Powers who would be despotic and the be no way of getting rid of him and that for that reason they put in this very narrow remedy of impeachment which requires 2/3 conviction in the Senate and it should be noted also that they are at that time. They took these is a definition of treason and narrative very very sharply from what it wasn't England. They put the definition of treason right into the Constitution. They did not want that to be abused. There is been a lot of talk that about the fact that members of Congress should not be passing judgment on Bill Clinton unless their private lives are clean and I slaved not sinned in the past or at least owned up to what they've done did that come up in your circumstances? Well, did you get the feeling that members of Congress should participate in the impeachment process should only participate if in fact they had to operate on the straight out of the bed should be binding today that the every president has had false. Can you sometimes very serious fault but that there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Congress to get rid of him because of his Marvel character. There is for federal judges. It's a much lower standard that a federal judge continues it office only during good behavior and the kind of sits in judgment. What is good behavior? What four presidents even if he has bad behavior, there's no way by which they can remove them unless they are able to prove a high crimes and misdemeanors John your question, please yes, go ahead. Yes, that's exactly yet. What my call is about the high crimes and misdemeanors. Now today a misdemeanor is is minor back then was a was there a different the definition of the estimator. That's a good question and an English law that we inherited the high crimes and misdemeanors was a consecrated price and that mean meant exactly what I said. Hi give this to me this means that this is something that goes to the essence of the Republic that is subversive. It's a misuse of power. So we inherited that and it's not very intelligible in and out of itself and that's why they committee produce 700 pages of the whole background of that price. Back to the phones not a caller on the line with a question for former Congressman Robert. Drinan who served on the Watergate era house Judiciary Committee Bob. Hi, I'm an admirer father drinan, but something that's distressed me over. The years is the declining collegiality in the Congress in the country in general. And it's it's it's puzzling. I wonder if you have some comment on it. But for example, we've got out at the Watergate hearings as having been more bipartisan, then what were encountering today and yet the father drinan on two occasions this morning has referred to Nixon as their president. Why wasn't he your president as well? Because he certainly was mine. Even though I didn't go for it. Now you survive you make a very good point and inevitably some partisanship gets into this process when they the Republicans are now trying to bring down a Democratic president and that insofar as we can we should get rid of all of that and I I misspoke when I said Dear brother except that that's the way they conceived as and they were very good man. They had worked very hard for my mister. They could he had campaign for them and that it's a very very difficult call. But this that's another reason why at the very beginning how she Sherry Covidien everybody in Congress should examine that conscious am I doing this for partisan political reasons and if they could say yes, they did they should say, well I'm going to drop this and that they should come Together As We Did a nineteen seventy-three and seventy-four we had caucuses with the Republicans. What are we doing here? This is a great National think that we're doing and we shouldn't have any partisanship those caucuses those meetings. Did they get heated or was everybody all on the same page and was there that I need you? I love you. Let Bob refers to know I I think so that everybody was terrified at what was happening to the nation. This was after the firing of Archibald Cox and As in the Elliot Elliot Richardson resign, I think everybody was subdued what's going on in the White House and that then also the crimes were coming out that the Watergate burglary people be getting arrested and John Dean said it's a cancer on the presidency. So it wasn't just a little something of a private nature. This scene was going to the essence of the Republic don't have a lot of time left. I know you have to leave but let's get one more call Iran, you're outraged and I'll shamelessly the Democrats have come to try and different ways to come to try and protect this this person that is occupying the presidency of the United States. This is not about his sex life is about perjury portray to a Federal grand. Jury. How can this man by the same office as Washington Jefferson and Lincoln be Expected it to govern in that same manner. When he lies the American people about everyone else that comes in contact with this man Susan blue hundreds this man in 10 to people that are in jail did the perjury with perjury fit into the definition of impeachment that so you folks were settled on Well, I don't know and I appreciate the call is speaking his outrage, but we have to go back to something very basic the framers of the Constitution knew that the medians of enemies of any incoming president and they did not want to allow the legislative branch to jump all over him and to say that you're not a good character. Therefore. We throw you up we have by four year term without a parliamentary democracy and we have to suffer whatever personal if a rattly a president has only and only when it comes to some public morality probably a morality. Can we even begin to think of impeaching him? I want to come back full circle here before we run father drinan if public opinion what you said before that the Congress inevitably needs to take that into account to some degree of public opinion turns on this and a large number of people want Clinton removed. Should they should members of Congress? Act on that change of public opinion or kind of move above that. The Congress has the bye to your obligation of say what do we mean by obstruction of justice? If a large number of the American people save this man is unworthy to be president that has to be factored into any ultimate judgment by members of the House. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you Father Robert. Drinan joining us from Washington DC Georgetown University law school former member of the Watergate era house Judiciary Committee which course so recommended articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon going to take a quick break here. And then we're going to be joined by another member of that Watergate era house Judiciary Committee Elizabeth Holtzman. When was the last time you heard something so good here on Minnesota Public Radio. You stayed in your car until it was over or the time we made you so mad you threw your coffee at the radio. Well, here's your chance to speak your mind good or bad about NPR come to our public comment meeting Thursday, October 8th where members of the NPR programming staff will be on hand to respond to your comments and questions That's Thursday, October 8th at 7 at the Tacoma Community Center 24th and East Minnehaha Parkway in South Minneapolis. Will see you there. Reminder that Minnesota public radio's Main Street radio coverage of rural issues is supported by the blandin foundation strengthening rural communities and Environmental Education through the school nature project weather forecast for the state of Minnesota good chance for some rain across the southern Minnesota this afternoon partly cloudy in the north with highs in the 50s, then it looks like it's going to rain all weekend Twin Cities 20% chance for a shower this afternoon with a high in the mid 50's right now. It is 50° and it's cloudy in the Twin City metropolitan area. This hour on midday were focusing on the past and how it Bears on the looming impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives on Monday at the house Judiciary Committee will begin discussing whether to hold a formal impeachment inquiry into the conduct of President Bill Clinton. We will be providing live coverage of those hearings and at last report. It looks like those hearings are probably get started about 8 Monday morning found coverage here on Minnesota Public Radio, whenever the hearings begin today over the noon hour. We're going to hear from Democratic. Senator Joseph Lieberman talking about the impeachment process. He argues among other things that the process must be above board and above criticism. So as to improve into a serious problem in this country. He also argues that the Congress must be able to continue to conduct the nation's business even while those impeachment hearings go forward, so we'll hear from Joe. Lieberman over the noon hour course, he's a longtime Ally Bill Clinton, but then Nationwide got Nationwide attention September 3rd, when he got on the floor of the Senate and sharply criticized the President Clinton's behavior and called for what he termed a public rebuke of President Bill Clinton, Connecticut. Senator, Joseph Lieberman speaking at the national Press Club over the noon hour today this hour, we are focusing on what we can learn from history specifically the lessons of Watergate. Of course, the Watergate hearings held in 1974 have been held up as a model of how to deal with an impeachment process. The system worked people say that after the president had to resign President Richard Nixon in August of 1974. And so what we are doing this hour or talking with a couple of former members of that Watergate, Are a house Judiciary Committee to see how the current process Stacks up and what we can look for as the process unfolds. We were talking the first half-hour with a former Congressman Robert drinan and joining us shortly here will be former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman. If you'd like to join our conversation, the number would be to 276 thousand in the Twin City area to 276 thousand outside the Twin Cities. You can reach us toll-free at one 800-242-2828. Meanwhile, let's go back to the phone store number of callers on the line with some comments Rick. Go ahead. Please pull on TV over the weekend were there was about 40% that said he should stay in office and it seemed to me that if you add up the twenty-seven or twenty-eight percent who thought he should be in feet. Turn the twenty-seven or twenty-eight percent of thought I should resign like about a 55-45 for him to go and I'm just wondering were fathered Ryan's are coming from that would be the first I mean, I'm not an expert on this Rick could be sure you wanted to say I'm thinking I think most of the Paul's. I've indicated a pretty broad majority of people want Clinton to stay in office or at least I don't want him and Peach and dad. So I am not sure, you know, I asked you this record I got you on the phone hear what role do you think public opinion should play in this the gang great among others is said that frankly the Members of Congress should not be looking at these polos. They shouldn't be paying much attention to it because they have a constitutional duty to to look into these charges and the take appropriate action regardless of the polls. Do you think I'm closer attention means that they have in and decide if in fact that what you'll Clinton said was in their minds perjury and if it was perjury then view let the number one guy in the country Get It Go on prosecuted for that perjury and then regardless answer the poll results for you better not commit perjury cuz it's Years in jail, you know, how do you how do you how do you govern with the with that sort of a double standard? Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments record trying to get connected here with former. Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman who is standing by somewhere in New York even as we speak to join our program to share her impressions of how the Watergate era house Judiciary Committee proceedings might bear on the current to proceedings on Monday again, of course the house Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin discussions as to whether it should be holding a formal impeachment inquiry into contact Bill Clinton. It is expected that the committee will vote to move ahead recommend impeachment inquiry. The Full House is expected to go along with that recommendation by the end of next week will be providing a full live coverage of the house proceedings next week here on Minnesota Public Radio in while we wait for Congressman or congresswoman Holtzman or former Congressman Holtzman to join us at the back of the phones. Joann is on the line for Menomonie. Good morning. Are old Nemesis feedback? Okay between the Democrats and Republicans and I feel that the Democrats seem to be more concerned about their party than they do about their their duty of upholding the Constitution and I really believe impeachment proceedings need to go forward. I guess I feel that this different investigations going on with the 1996 campaign and the China connection situation. I feel like we're dealing with more than what it might appear to be enchanted. We don't have a responsibility to turn over documents which one it turned out that should have been included in the report but weren't because he could they couldn't get the information and I just think there's a possibility of treason and I and I and I also think so. Annabelle's first Clinton conduct is concerned in the all-black has and is 43 people that are closely connected with him that are close friends and even 14 of them are bodyguards that have died that have been questionable and I just feel there's a lot of cover up then and trying to get everybody's attention to other areas and instead of on what's really going on other people, you know, if anybody has any proof of any of this or is this all kind of gossip and innuendo and rumor you are you old enough to remember the Watergate hearings. How do you compare the process today in the way of Congress is handling the system with the with the way of the house Judiciary Committee handled the Watergate the inquiry. I really don't I really can't answer that. I guess I don't like your call Joanne standing by still hoping to hook up with former Congressman Elizabeth Holtzman to get her impressions of just how the Watergate era in Quarry Compares with the inquiry today. We thought it would be interesting to get to the comments of some of the former members of that committee. Prior to the beginning of the end of the official proceedings in the house Judiciary Committee. Lots of folks are on the line. Meanwhile including Michael joins us from Fridley Mike morning. Good morning. I'm a big Clinton supporter. I was before and I still am and I feel that the impeachment proceeding should go forward for these reasons Republicans have a tit-for-tat attitude Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace. Therefore, they've filled parody is necessary and they must Force Clinton into either resigning or impeachment. Secondly, I believe that there's a seditious conspiracy that a foot or the President Clinton was set up and compromise just as if any spy would be set up in the CIA or any person would be set up by a foreign government in order to be used and thirdly. I think it needs to be, I think the only way it'll come out any of this stuff will come out. We'll be in an impeachment proceeding where they can put Kenneth Starr on the stand as a witness and Can cross-examine I want to put in lawyers Clinton lawyers have never cross-examined principal in either the Fallen Jones case or the Lewinsky matter and the only way that the president is going to get it President's while you're going to get a chance to cross-examine anybody and put out any eggs and expose any exaggerations or any lies is through an impeachment proceedings. And thirdly. I'm curious, you know, you are seem to believe that you know, there's a there's a kind of a plot at work here Joanne seems to think there's a plot at work love from the other side. Do you think that These proceedings assuming there will be some will put all of these suspicions to rest on both sides know. What was the politics involved in this. I don't think people I don't think they are representatives in her and are especially our Senators are going to go put themselves on the line and do in vote against the president and put themselves on the line in front of their constituents. There's there's just there's just too much it's just too it's all politics. That's all it is. How can how can I have all the lawyers after care after Robert Fisk fun? Absolutely. Nothing in Watergate or the Vince Foster suicide. How is it that out of all the lawyers and all the judges in Washington. They appoint a prosecutor was never even prosecuted a dog cat dog bite case and yet he he's appointed prosecutor and before This heat is the guy who filed it Friends of the brief court or friends of the court brief in the Paula Jones case and yet he is appointed special prosecutor out of all the prosecutors in Washington an anomaly strange, but the whole case from the beginning to the end is an anomaly Republic Republican appointed judges. Okay. Thank you, sir. We are closed. I guess now to getting hooked up with former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman who served on the Watergate era house Judiciary Committee to get her impressions of the process in Washington while we're waiting that for that connection that Sally are your thoughts today. Yeah, I would just like to ask if this is Watergate was happening today. And that was a real significant question for the country. So well being I would say is that were happening today? And we had all this pulling and all the input from the from the public and the outrage from the in that case the Democrats. What would the State of Affairs be like, I think this is about sex. I don't care what kind of a whitewash people wanted want to put on it is about sex. What is this was about treason or about theft or about break-ins or about National Security how would this be handled today? And what kind of effect with is having a party at this time? Thank you. Let's get Elizabeth Holtzman on the line here from New York to answer that question. Thanks for joining us. I don't know if you had a chance. I don't know if you had a chance to hear the caller's question. Did you how how would the in your mind the how would the charges that have been brought that were brought rather against Richard Nixon be handled today and I suppose let's turn it around to how would you folks have dealt with the charges so that Clinton faces. Never would have commenced. I believe any proceeding against Bill Clinton for these. Charges because we didn't have a special prosecutor who had a mandate to write a report nor we confronted with a special prosecutor who wanted to write a report indicting a president a special prosecutor for someone that was no independent counsel law and Leon Jaworski and Archibald Cox did not I don't believe see it as their job to bring down the president. They turned over. I mean Jaworski was a second prosecutor. Appointed by the justice department supported by a republican justice department turned over graduate material. There was no report. There was no are Haitian. There was no conclusion. That was a statement that this is about into a Peaceable offenses Congress is presented with information. We looked at it and we made our own judgment as to what to do what it meant and how serious it was. So I think is that just a huge difference. We have one person who decided that the patient has had to submit its course in his report. He makes no definition of impeachable offenses. He doesn't take the time or trouble to analyze the Constitution nor to see why they claim is perjury obstruction of justice and so forth were committed. He really make takes no time or trouble to analyze the statutes to determine whether it is even a provable crime. Betty cases, you don't even have enough evidence to Warrant probable cause that so I think the best for a different how the Richard Nixon impeach will be handled today. Well, I think the Press would have been even more vehement with respect to us today than it was then. They were pounding on our doors and saying why you holding close hearings. And why are you taking this long? And why aren't you speeding up? But Peter rodino is a very wise and very intelligent and thoughtful person. Nice if we're going to do it the right way and we've got to do our own homework before we bring this to the public today. You have the house Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives releasing thousands and thousands of material. Which constitute is huge invasions of personal privacy, gross details of sexual encounters, which conference has no business make public event not relevant to any understanding of the charges whatsoever. They themselves into their own homework. All the Tappan is if impeachment is never voted is that we have denigrated the presidency. I'm not tell you that this present but the presidency and undermined it and undermine the ability to present to function as a leader of this country. We have serious problems that to be dressed at least Let me let me ask you this. There has been a lot of talk about whether there should be some time limit placed on the house Judiciary committee's proceedings on the investigation and the the hearings if there going to be any Democrats today said that November 25th should be kind of a time limit. Did you folks at you? If you are pointing out that rodino took his time and going to work his way through the evidence. Do you think there should be any kind of a time limit on this much more troubled by the idea of an open-ended investigation? I don't think you folks come back there. I think you don't remove a president from Office unless it really substantial and serious evidence on none of that exists with respect to charges outside. I don't even think you have grounds for an impeachment with respect to the Starr report, but they certainly are no grounds for even starting an impeachment agree with respect anything else. But the house Judiciary Committee met with respect to Richard Nixon. We already had the hearings of the Senate Watergate committee on many of these subjects. We already had substantial evidence. Where is these people you had four years of stars investigations was turned up nothing on Whitewater file Gator travelgate, you've had endless set at hearings. You have it and was house hearing nothing has been turned up. That is anyway implicates the president person. In any misconduct, so the comments and impeachment hearing which would touch on the subject. I think suggested tremendous trivialization of the process. Do you think that instead of an impeachment hearing the Congress should hold formal investigative hearings as a result of it huge investigation Senator D'Amato is in serious political trouble in New York state now because of the I forget it seemed like endless hearings. He held Dan Burton of the house held long hearings also on the same question of Whitewater that says the issues have been studied and noisy. Mm perjury in the Lewinsky matter. Should they Congress hold the investigative hearings into that? Have an open-ended impeachment inquiry we don't believe that there's at this point sufficient evidence to Warrant. We've not been presented with after all these hearing sufficient evidence to Warrant any inquiry into those matters, but I personally think that what they should be doing now is looking at the Constitution and the question of what a high crime and misdemeanor is and then take a look at the Starr report and lie does that and they will see that there is no basis even to commencing it for it is no fun. No serious factual disputes that they are going to be able to resolve. That would provide for the basis for impeachment. You have it even if you assume that everything that's in that report is accurate that tennis store said the question is what is an impeachable offense and a beautiful offense does not involve private conduct of a president acting in his private capacity and as reprehensible that conduct is I don't want to condone the president's conduct a lie to the American people his grave If he if he lied under oath then that's obviously inexcusable as well. But the issue is let's assume he did all of those things. It's still doesn't about in my judgment having spent a long time studying. The Constitution is a teachable fattest does not amount to an impeachable offense. We are just about out of time here, but I do want to get one of the thought from you before we run here did public opinion. Play much of a role in your deliberations back in the Watergate era. I will start impeachment hearings. What happened was you had to Saturday night Massacre despite all the revelations that came out as a result of Judge sarika's efforts in court as a result of the Senate Watergate hearings bipartisan start a sort of parties and it became very bipartisan. We ain't had a huge amount of information but Congress still refuse to act until you had the Saturday night Massacre when the president fired or to head Archibald Cox fire the Attorney General of the Deputy attorney general United States reside the American people rose up in unison and said a president cannot be above lot of President can't pick the person who's going to investigate his subordinates and himself. He is accountable under the law and you Converse must act. So it definitely the public it was what was responsible for starting impeachment process here. You have a special prosecutor one person about whom serious questions his partiality and then raised there was the American people say enough is enough. We haven't had that here most Americans seem to feel that the accent cells are not grave enough to Warrant removal through the impeachment process. Has his or her own conscience and they obviously have the time and the requirements possibilities study the Constitution but you do have to take into account the fact that the Public Act grave. I mean that you do have a kind of basic understanding that you don't overturn an election cuz you don't like the president or his character. We have to have a constitutional we have to run. Thanks so much for joining us New York. Congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman who served on the Watergate era house Judiciary Committee joining us from New York to share a few of her impressions on how the current process is being handled Watergate of course is being held up as the model by both Democrats and Republicans. We thought it would be interesting today to find out how closely the current process matches up with the Watergate era processing and we'll keep an eye on that as the process unfolds. Midday will continue right now. It's time for The Writer's Almanac.