Advanced Search
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.10.36] Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman and the members of the committee know, I do intend to support an article, perhaps two articles, of impeachment. But, I think that this article which is proposed, the substitute article proPosed by the gentleman from Maryland, is very faulty, very poor, and the, weakest article which I think the committee could recommend. Now, it has been correctly said that the process of impeachment is not a criminal proceeding but a civil one. We know that our counsel has confirmed that by recommending that we should only consider that the rule or the doctrine of evidence that must prevail here is that of clear and convincing proof, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what we have before us here is an allegation of a conspiracy. Now, It is called a policy and this Is the thesis which our counsel, Mr. Doar, has propounded when he took on this Partisan Posture in the, final days of our investigation, and the, thesis is that the President organized and managed the coverup from the time of the break-in itself or immediately afterward. And, of course, this is the thesis that my colleague from California and front Massachusetts are trying to develop. And it just does not, hold water. It is weak, It is fuzzy and it is contradictory. The theory just does not exist. Now, it may be that on the 21st of March, the next year, when the President learned about this and talked about it with Haldeman and Mr. Dean that, he got involved in another type, of activity. But, in June, and in September they weren't talking' about that at all. As a matter of fact on September 15, when the President talked about this subject, with John Dean, he asked John Dean: "What the, hell do you think is involved? What's your guess?" And what does John Dean say? He says "I think that the, DNC planted it, quite clearly." so that you see, at that time while they are trying to consider what the political implications are, they suggest that possibly the Democratic National Committee themselves planted the bug in order to try to trap the Republicans and it was kind of the political shenanigans that Were going on. And on September 15, if you consider that testimony, if you consider that tape fairly and clearly, and honestly, you will see, that they are talking about, the political implications, not Criminal implications', insofar as the. White House is concerned. And so, what it seems to me that we, I-lave got here, we have got a criminal charge and then we an, trying to, then we. are trying to support it by noncriminal allegations and noncriminal proof. Now, it is very well and good to say well, all of the proof is there, we have got -38 volumes But, you know the kind of proof I hat you are recommending that -was supporting this thesis of this policy or conspiracy is proof which consists of circumstantial evidence, of innuendo, 'of inferences. Now, what, is this President and his Counsel supposed to look at? It's in the 38 Volumes, that's fine. But, that IS not the kind Of specific [01.14.06--has a horrible time pronouncing "specificity"--HUMOR] allegations that the President is entitled to have. It seems to me that in connection with this article, in Connection With this charge of conspiracy, we, should be clear and definite. 'Where is the, direct evidence? 1, Sure, the gentleman talked about people lying As a matter of fact, the basis for this immediate involvement of the President is a press release, put out by John Mitchell which somehow they try to attribute to the, President. There is no indication, no proof in this hearing that the President ever Saw or heard or had anything to do with the press release or knew or didn't know whether it was false or true. It seems to me clearly what we should require, if we, are, going to charge the President with offense, which is what this is doing, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt because that is the standard which We, are required to apply in a criminal charge. So, I am hopeful that the, committee will either require that we do make these charges specific if they are going to be offered at all. or that we dispose of this proposed article and go by the one which relates to the President's oath of office in which the President did, indeed, fail to take care to see that the laws were faithfully executed and the violation of his constitutional oath. This does not require that kind of specific proof and allegation. And also I think we should turn to the subject of whether or not the President is not in Contempt Of Congress and subject to an impeachable offense because he refuses to comply with our subpenas and provide the information that we have required. So those are the things that we, should be looking at The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.16.08]
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974. Tom Railsback (R Illinois). I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and very briefly just say I was impressed also with the statement of Mr. Froehlich. And if we are going to be prepared to present a bill of particulars to the body, for the life of me I wonder why we can t have our own bill of particulars to take to the House, if we call it a bill of particulars or if we call it some kind of supporting evidence, but many of us feel we do need something. Perhaps it should be in the nature of a bill of particulars. John Seiberling (D Ohio). Well, as long as it is tentative, because new evidence may well be discovered before we got to the point of a trial in the Senate. Tom Railsback (R Illinois). It could be tentative, but I think it would help our colleagues and I really think it would help us. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired.
Hong Kong crowds
Hong Kong people swimming in pool
Hong Kong misc.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong
Hong Kong misc
Hong Kong
Hong Kong & China
B.O.A.C. Plane in Hong Kong airport
Lots of buildings, apartments, clothes lines
Hong Kong - Tiger Baum garden
Hong Kong - Tiger Baum garden
Rickshaws ??? on streets - signs in b.g.
Hong Kong - Chinese Pagodas
Markets, citites, boats, busses
Children, school, flannel gray boat people
Kowloon??
L.S. Macao
Tibetan border
On Preview Cassette # 218849 00:00:00 Fatehpur Sikri (Imperial City, Mughal Emperor Akbar): GV pan tomb of Salim Chisti w/in the Fatehpur Sikri Complex. TLS three men walking along road toward camera, walls of Fatehpur Sikri seen in distance. LS two people walking w/in the complex. GV Jodha Bai's Palace. GV pan palace courtyard. GV Birbal's House. GV arch of Shahi Darwaza (Royal Entrance). GV arched entrance to Jama Masjid (Mosque). GV tomb of Salim Chisti. (Agra District, Uttar Pradesh State) 00:00:56 Nice GV of busy street with men on rickshaws & bicycles, women walking in traditional clothing w/shawls covering heads. GV river bank conjested w/boats & urban buildings. GV Indian family riding past camera on cart pulled by white oxen. Nehru & Prince Philip Military Parade
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.08.52] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that we are' faced with the problem that confronts the drafters of pleadings constantly, and that is the conflict in the requirements of trying to be specific in the details and the need to be clear and concise in stating the nature of the charges which are to be, brought. In order to accomplish this, the procedure which is usually followed is to have a clear and concise statement of charges such as the one before us and then to supplement that with a bill 'of particulars or as has been discussed by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jordan, a report which would detail in great particular the specifies. I see no great difficulty in proceeding that way and would like to join the gentleman from New York. Mr. Fish, in suggesting that perhaps our differences over procedural matters are interfering with our approach to the very grave, and substantive matters which we must consider. I think it is important for each member of this committee to know the detail of information which does lie behind each of the paragraphs which we have, and our counsel has indicated that he is prepared to give us that information. We have heard during the day very specific illustrations of some of the detail which supports these charges. And, Mr. Chairman, I just think that we should make every effort to get away from the problem of procedural drafting and move forward to a consideration of the Substantive questions which are represented by this document, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Holtzman, for 5 minutes. MS. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just briefly want to state that the debate here is whether we ought to follow the procedure that was used and developed centuries ago or whether we in this impeachment proceeding will bring ourselves into the latter part of the 20th century -where we find ourselves. It is true that the earlier impeachment proceedings pleaded very specific language. It is also true at that time that they were based on the general civil practice which required specific factual pleadings. We abandoned that system of specific factual pleadings in 1938 in our Federal court system and since that time have been operating on a notice pleading system which has been held by courts on innumerable times to supply defendants with due process of law. And I think that that is the issue here, whether we are going to bring ourselves up to date or whether -we are going to discuss really a phony issue involving antique practices. I would like to address myself, Mr. Chairman.. to the. substance of the article before us, and in particular the language which says "subsequent to June 17, 1972, Richard M. Nixon, using the power of his high office, Made it his policy to cover up, to conceal and protect those responsible for the Watergate break-in, and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities." The question -was raised earlier today, when did the. President make this his policy? Mr. Waldie has been trying to give a chronology starting if from at least June 17 and I would like to point to a very important Conversation that took place on March 21, 1973, and to what happened in that conversation. John Dean, counsel to the President, came to President Nixon and said that there is a cancer growing on the Presidency. He said that there has been blackmail, there as been perjury, there has been coverup, there has been obstruction of justice, hush money has been paid to buy silence, clemency has been promised to buy silence. He told this to the President and he said to the President: "I was under pretty clear instructions not really to investigate" this whole matter during the summer. "I worked on a theory of containment." He told the President "I know that Magruder has perjured himself, I know that Porter has perjured himself." he also said to the President that "Bob." that is Bob Haldeman, "is involved in that," the hush money payments, "John is involved in that"' John Ehrlichman, "I am involved in that. Mitchell is involved in that, and that's an obstruction of justice." What did the President of the United States say in response, to these revelations? What did he say? He said John, John Dean, "You have the right plan, let me say. I have no doubts about-, the right plan the before election, and you handled it Just right. You contained it." In that conversation the President was approving what John Dean had told him about the perjury, about the blackmail, about the, theory of coverup, about the clemency, and I would like those of you who say that the President has not approved this and made this his policy, how that is not so to explain to me, I yield back the balance of my time. [00.15.20]