================================================================
January 14, 1975
U.S. Says It Is Now Free To Breach Vietnam Pact [1]
In response to repeated requests for confirmation that the United States had resumed reconnaissance flights over North Vietnam in open violation of the accords, the State Department spokesman, Robert Anderson, referred newsmen to a 1973 statement that international law permitted one party to breach an accord if the other side had already done so.
Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger, at a news conference today, acknowledged the flights. When asked whether they were going on, he said, “The blatant failure of North Vietnam to live up to its commitments has created a set of circumstances different from those at the time of the signing of the Paris peace treaty.”
Yesterday, the United States made public a diplomatic note in which it accused North Vietnam of “flagrant violation” of the agreements in stepping up its military activity against the Saigon Government. The note, said Hanoi “must accept the full consequences of its actions.”
That note, as well as today's veiled justification of the reconnaissance flights, seemed part of a concerted Administration effort to persuade Congress to allocate more military aid to Saigon. The campaign also appeared directed at bolstering the South Vietnamese Government and at cautioning North Vietnam against launching a big offensive.
Mr. Schlesinger seemed to warn Hanoi directly not to think it could take advantage of the American law barring United States combat involvement in Indochina. He said:
“American opinion, indeed, is volatile. American opinion historically has reacted in anger to outright aggression, unprovoked massive attacks. Hanoi still recognizes that were a massive invasion of the type of 1972 ‘to occur, that the President has the power to approach the Congress and the Congress under those circumstances might well authorize the use of American force.”
Mr. Schlesinger said that he supported an increase in military aid to Saigon—now under active Administration study—because “it would be a serious error on the part of the United States, and I believe, a serious moral lapse for us to contemplate the semi‐abandonment of an ally by failure to provide them with the appropriate financial resources.”
As to the military situation in Vietnam, Mr. Schlesinger said it did not appear that Hanoi was likely to launch a large, countrywide offensive. Rather, he said, North Vietnam seems to be trying to weaken Saigon's control of the countryside.
The question of the reconnaissance flights came up at the State Department's regular news conference. Mr. Anderson refused to confirm that they were taking place. But ‘he did refer newsmen to a similar dialogue between newsmen and the department spokesman, Charles W. Bray 3d, on April 20, 1973.
As part of the January, 1973, Paris cease‐fire agreement, ‘the United States agreed to “stop all its military activity” against North Vietnam. Officials at that time acknowledged that this included reconnaissance flights. And in April, Hanoi accused the United States of conducting such flights.
Noting that Hanoi had violated the January accord by, stepping up its infiltration of men and supplies into South Vietnam, Mr. Bray justified American actions on the basis of a “well‐known principle of international law.”
Referring to a 1969 convention on the Law of Treaties, Mr. Bray said on April 20, 1973, that the convention provided that “a material breach of an international agreement by one party entitles the other party to suspend operation ‘of the agreement in whole or impart.”
North Vietnam reacted sharply to accusations of grave violations of the cease‐fire. They turned the charge back on the United States and accused it of increasing its military involvement in Indochina. A commentary on Radio Hanoi said the State Department had distorted “the determination by the South Vietnamese people and armed forces of their legitimate rights to self‐defense to punish the Saigon troops and defend the Paris agreement.”
---------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] As OTL:
http://www.nytimes.com/1975/01/15/archives/us-says-it-is-now-free-to-breach-vietnam-pact-us-claims-right-on.html
================================================================
January 15, 1975
Nixon gives unorthodox State of the Union address [1]
As is traditional, President Nixon gave the annual State of the Union address to the American people. But this State of the Union address was an unusual one in that the President was not physically present in Congress when he gave his speech. While Nixon’s illness has confined him to the Western White House in San Clemente, California since November, he still wished to give the address. He delivered his speech in his office at his estate in front of a television camera crew [2], pausing occasionally for expected applause from Congress. Members of Congress listened to the speech in the House chambers from a radio.
Still physically weak from his phlebitis condition, President Nixon began his address by thanking Mr. Ford for his “capable leadership” of the nation in his absence. “I appreciated your superb and courageous support over the past difficult months,” Nixon said [3]. He also recounted his illness from his own perspective, crediting his doctors, his wife Pat, and his daughters in aiding his recovery. Despite the improvement in his health, Nixon claimed he was still a “sick man”, and on the advice of doctors, would not be ready to return to Washington.
In reference to Watergate, Nixon defended his actions, stating he had no part in the break-in. Here is a brief excerpt:
“I am alarmed about the double standard that has been applied to all the hearings and the political motivation behind the Watergate affair. I never knew about the Watergate break-in incident until after it occurred. I did not order the break-in or even contemplate such insanely stupid actions. And there’s no viable evidence, after millions spent by Watergate investigators that I was involved. The Watergate break-in was foolish, unnecessary and stupid. This is why I say that my actions regarding the attempted cover-up were politically legal but perhaps morally wrong.” [4]
Nixon surprised many by excusing his actions by saying that he was not as bad as his predecessors.
“However, the political acts of my predecessors, JFK and LBJ, established a pattern of behavior that was ‘apresidential’ and often worse than any act in my entire administration. I am referring to events like the Bay of Pigs disaster for Kennedy and the Bobby Baker affair for Johnson…We must remember that ‘executive privileges’ were supported and lauded by the liberal press in the Truman, JFK, LBJ, and Eisenhower administrations. The Democrat majority in Congress during those years felt that ‘executive privileges’ by the President of the United States should be honored and respected. A Democrat majority in Congress and the judicial system reversed the sanctity of executive privilege, a privilege first advanced by Thomas Jefferson in 1806. Jefferson refused to comply with subpoena, saying that the leading principle of our Constitution was the independence of the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. This is exactly my position too.” [4]
Nixon then turned his attention to recent events in Vietnam. Alarmed by reports of stepped-up North Vietnamese infiltration into the south, Mr. Nixon said: "We have informed the North Vietnamese of our concern about this infiltration and of what we believe it to be: a violation of the cease-fire. I would only suggest that based on my actions over the past four years, that the North Vietnamese should not lightly disregard such expression of concern when they are mad, with regard to a violation…We have told Hanoi, privately and publicly, that we will not tolerate violations of the agreement." [5]
----------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1]
https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/timeline.asp+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
[2] Nixon had previous given speeches from San Clemente in OTL, including this one:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2476
[3]
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/tapes-reveal-ford-nixon-friendship/
[4] All of this is based on a personal conversation Nixon had with Dr. Lungren around this time in OTL. While I don’t know if he would say this on TV, it is consistent with some of his later statements in the Frost/Nixon interviews. See “Healing Richard Nixon: A Doctor's Memoir”, pp. 120-121
[5] A combination of two OTL quotes from Nixon in 1973:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/asia/050175vietnam-thieu-bg.html
================================================================
January 17, 1975
Senate impeachment trial date set
Chief Justice Warren Burger has overruled an appeal by Nixon’s defense team, allowing the Senate trial of the President to proceed as scheduled. Nixon’s lawyer, Herbert “Jack” Miller, had requested a delay in the trial due to the President's illness. Burger cited the conclusions of the medical panel that had judged Nixon well enough to testify by February. The trial is set to begin next Friday, January 24.
================================================================
January 25, 1975
Nixon trial begins in Senate [1]
At 10 a.m. ET, Friday, January 24, 1975, the historic Senate impeachment trial of President Richard Milhouse Nixon had begun. This trial is significant because it is only the second Presidential impeachment trial in American history; the first one was 107 years ago.
As the House managers walked into the room, President pro tempore James Eastland proclaimed, "The managers will be received and escorted to the well of the Senate." The twelve House managers, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Butler, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Fish, Mr. Flowers, Mr. Hungate, Ms. Jordan, Mr. Mann, Mr. McClory, Mr. Railsback, Mr. Sarbanes, and Mr. Thornton, were led by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Peter Rodino. The solemn procession made its way from the House chamber through the halls of the Capitol to stand before the Senate.
As the House managers walked in and stood in the well of the Senate, the sergeant-at-arms, William H. Wannall exclaimed, "All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against President Richard M. Nixon [2]." There was complete silence in the Senate chamber.
Chairman Rodino solemnly read the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon:
"With the permission of the Senate, I will now read the articles of impeachment."
"RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to 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 against him for high crimes and misdemeanors…” [3]
After reading the two articles of impeachment against Nixon, Rodino concluded,
"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...." [3]
Two minutes later, Eastland thanked Rodino. He and the House managers departed the chamber as stoically as they had entered.
Shortly thereafter, Chief Justice Warren Burger arrived at the entrance to the Senate side of the Capitol. As stated in the Constitution, the Chief Justice presides over impeachment trials. Although Burger was appointed to the Court by Nixon in 1969, he also wrote the unanimous decision that forced Nixon to release the full Watergate tapes.
Ten minutes later, Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield asked for a quorum call to bring all of the senators back to the chamber. As Justice Burger walked in, the senators rose like members of a courtroom. Six senators representing both parties escorted him into the chamber. Burger was sworn in soon after.
The Chief Justice asked all 100 senators to raise their right hand, and administered the oath. One by one, each senator was called up to sign the oath book. The senators quietly filed back to their seats. [1]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES:
[1] Loosely based on this OTL article about Clinton’s Senate trial:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/07/history.dessauer/
[2]
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm
[3]
http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment
================================================================
