F. Lee Bailey and Herbert Brownell exited Room S-207, a multipurpose room near the Senate Chamber that had been divided up to give working space for both the House managers and the President’s lawyers, and walked towards the Chamber for opening statements. They were near the door when Helen Thomas from UPI grabbed Bailey’s arm and asked, “Mr. Bailey, what did you think of Chairman Bush’s resignation statement?” The famed litigator was caught off-guard, as he had no clue who Thomas was talking about, having chosen to not familiarize himself with any Republicans that did not serve in the Senate. Brownell leaned in and said, “No comment, Helen. We’ve got a trial to start.” Bailey took the hint and walked away with Brownell. The former Attorney General leaned in the ear of the nation’s most celebrated trial lawyer and said, “George Bush is the chairman of the Republican National Committee, but I take it he just resigned, and Helen there wouldn’t have ambushed us out here unless it was a doozy. We’ll have one of the paralegals go make a call and find out what the hell happened, Lee. God knows how this might influence the senators.” Indeed, as they took their seats at the defense table in the well of the Senate, Brownell could see a number of GOP senators in huddles. Jacob Javits, Edward Brooke, Richard Schweiker, and Lowell Weicker, the liberal northeastern crowd, were in the back of the chamber, and Weicker could be seen talking animatedly, his hands moving about to emphasize whatever he was saying. Much closer to the front, the Western hardcore conservatives like Barry Goldwater, Paul Fannin, Clifford Hansen, and James McClure were having their own discussion. Brownell knew two things: first, that Goldwater had gone to Nixon and indeed told him he should quit; second, the other three senators in that group were not big fans of the liberals (Bush and Brownell included) and had more or less stood by Nixon so far. Would they follow Barry’s lead or stubbornly hold the line for the President?
The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren Burger, entered the chamber, interrupting Brownell’s reverie, and the senators took their seats. Burger read his notes, then gazed over to the House managers and nodded. “You may proceed.” The choice for the first manager to speak had been the subject of numerous (and furious) debates. Peter Rodino, as chairman, wanted to go first, but others on the committee knew he was not the most charismatic of speakers, and wanted someone more able to capture the attention of the senators and of those watching on television. While Barbara Jordan might’ve been the choice under other circumstances, the men believed that a black female would not be able to win any hearts and minds amongst those they needed, like the Dixiecrat caucus. With that consideration in mind, Jack Brooks was chosen to open. The straight talker from Texas was such an interesting product of a generation that had produced many impressive men. A Texan who served in World War II as a Marine, then became a lawyer and a constitutional law expert, all while serving in the House of Representatives. He’s like John Wayne with brains, a DNC staffer had sniggered when hearing that Brooks would open.
“Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished members of the Senate jury, I am honored to be here before you today. We are taking part in a rare, yet vital part of our democracy—an impeachment trial. The Founders made impeachment a part of the Constitution because they understood that a nation of laws is governed by man, and men are fallible. It is because of that fallibility that we needed a procedure to be able to cleanse our government of those who have acted so egregiously against the national interest that they simply could not remain in their office. That is why we are here today. We are faced with a president who has repeatedly and willfully chosen his personal interests over that of the nation. We are faced with a president who has violated his oath of office. We are faced with a president that does not believe in an honest democratic process, for if he did, he would not have sought to subvert that process with his actions. Wiretapping without court orders, burglaries of private offices, forged documents, use of government assets to conceal his own criminal behavior, campaign contributions so massive that they cannot be conceived as anything else but a bribe, and finally, the lowest of the depths, being so inebriated at times that he could not perform the function of his office!” Brooks barely got that last syllable past his lips before Bailey jumped up and yelled, “Objection, Mr. Chief Justice!” There were snickers amongst the many lawyers that made up the Senate, as objections during opening arguments in any trial are rare and especially so here. Burger frowned, asked for the parliamentarian, and whispered a question as to the ability of counsel to object to a statement. The parliamentarian informed Burger that yes, counsel could object, as no rule existed in the Senate’s procedures to bar objections.
Burger pondered it for a few seconds. “Mr. Brooks, as the charges brought by the House do not include drunkenness, I’m going to instruct the Senators to disregard that last statement and instruct the House managers to not refer to that again.” Of course, the Senators had heard whispers of an incident last year, and most of them knew Richard Nixon was incapable of holding his liquor, having witnessed many a dinner where a mere couple glasses of wine made Nixon become a slurrer of words. Brooks resumed his opening statement. “President Nixon has committed documented, verifiable crimes. We had copious amounts of evidence to that effect, thanks to the excellent work performed by the Select Committee chaired by Senator Ervin last year, and also thanks to the admission by former White House special counsel Leon Jaworski, who informed the House Judiciary Committee of the President’s destruction of evidence. Finally, we have the Nixon tape transcripts, a means of avoiding the subpoenas issued by the former Watergate special prosecutor’s office and later the Judiciary Committee. Despite his best efforts, those transcripts contain damning references to a coverup of the Watergate affair, and certainly punch holes in his explanation that he had no idea about any of the actions of his subordinates prior to his meeting with John Dean on March 21, 1973. Quite simply, an innocent man does not behave as Richard Nixon did. We have the evidence, and we shall prove our case here before you. We have no wish to belabor this process, so we will limit the witnesses we call, since nearly every relevant witness has already given sworn testimony to this august body last year.
There has been partisan activity in this city since its earliest days. We have seen many presidents bend, twist, and mold the law to suit their purposes. We have seen many officials abuse their power, and many of those officials were caught and forced out of power. Regardless, those of us in this chamber, the House managers, you, the Senate jury, and the defense counsels, all swore an oath to the law, and I believe that each and every one of us meant it. The rule of law is what has separated America from nations ruled by monarchs and despots. It makes us unique. It makes immigrants want to become Americans and it gives us special standing around the world. We cannot maintain that standing, and remain a nation of laws, if Richard Nixon is not found guilty for his actions and removed from office. I thank you, and yield the balance of my time.”
Brooks returned to his seat, and Chief Justice Burger summoned Herbert Brownell to make his opening statement. Brownell opened his binder, looked out at the senators, and began. “Distinguished members of the Senate, Mr. Chief Justice, I am honored to be here today as a representative of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in this most serious matter, that of impeachment. The President has been charged with one article of impeachment, alleging the crimes of bribery, obstruction of justice, abuse of his office, and the destruction of evidence in the Watergate investigation. These charges are premised upon the following: the hearsay of Leon Jaworski and the biased interpretation of the audio transcripts by the Judiciary Committee; the letter of James McCord, a convicted felon; the Senate testimony of John Dean, the former White House counsel who admitted to being a criminal in his own right by destroying evidence and conspiring with other White House aides—this is the evidence with which the House of Representatives wishes this Senate jury to remove the President from his office! The charges are severe and if proven, would certainly justify the removal of the President, but this evidence simply does not meet that burden of proof.”
Brownell took a sip of water, letting that thought swirl in their heads for a minute. He continued, “There has been much scandal in this city in recent years. The fates of Bobby Baker, Walter Jenkins, and even the Vice President, Mr. Agnew, are cautionary tales of how public servants can be corrupted in some fashion. However, in all of their cases, there was hard evidence of their moral and legal failings. One could feel for Mr. Jenkins, of course, his failing was of the flesh and hurt nobody but himself and his family. The Vice President, on the other hand, was literally given bulging envelopes filled with cash to sway government contracts to those who bribed him. That, members of the Senate jury, is hard evidence, and it is why the Vice President pled guilty and resigned his office.” Watching at home in Ocean City, Spiro Agnew threw his tumbler of scotch against the wall in a rage at this public humiliation. “Now, does such hard evidence exist against the President? As I’ve already stated, it does not. There is no tape where the President explicitly says to cover up a crime. There is no testimony that says the President ordered the break-in. There is a lot of hearsay, recollections of conversations, most given by those already implicated in crimes themselves. Without hard evidence, can this body really remove a President from office? Can you each vote to convict on such unsubstantiated claims? What is seen in these transcripts,” and here Brownell picked up one of the bound volumes, “is difficult for many to read. It shows the humanity of our leaders, both good and bad, and we are not accustomed to that. We want to believe the best in our leaders, and when we hear crass language or crasser political calculations, it causes us to wince, to turn away. Yet, while that language may be crass, it also supports the President’s claim that national security was on his mind when he found out who had been arrested and implicated. James McCord was a CIA technical services man. E. Howard Hunt was the operational officer for the Bay of Pigs invasion. Their involvement would have given any President pause. A rogue operation was something not unknown to Richard Nixon—Allen Dulles did such things more than once, as some in this room are aware.” This was a bombshell to most, one large enough that it would nearly overshadow much of the other bombshells from this day. Since most senators did not know of the deeds of Dulles, there would be a spirited full Senate meeting after adjournment for the day. That was yet to come, though. “So, yes, our President made inquiries to the CIA and the FBI, asked them to hold up the investigation, only so that a proper inquiry could be made into what, if anything, elements at the CIA had to do with this.” A few faces twitched at this, including Ted Kennedy and Alan Cranston. “It did not sound that way, in the plain way of speaking that the transcripts revealed, but that was his intent, and that was the proper and correct thing to do.”
Turning to his final page, Brownell concluded, “If the Senate deems it necessary, we will be happy to have the President answer, in a sworn statement, any questions that they may have for him to clarify these matters. We have nothing to fear from the truth in this trial, and we believe that at its conclusion, the Senate will acquit him of these charges.” With that, Brownell stepped away from the podium, and Chief Justice Burger gaveled the first day to a close.
).
