Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (1/2)
[00.38.37] [continued speech of Rep. THORNTON, D-Ark.] Early in this proceeding, the question was frequently asked whether impeachable offense was the same as an indictable crime. I think more is required. All men are ultimately answerable to the courts for the consequences of their illegal acts. To justify the bringing of articles of impeachment against the President, it is not enough to demonstrate that that there is probable cause that crimes and abuses have occurred. It is also necessary that these actions constitute high crimes & misdemeanors against the system of Government itself. Throughout these proceedings, I have attempted to analyze the facts & the evidence which has been presented according to these standards. I would like to say, though, that this judgment that each of us is called upon to make must be made on the basis of the whole body of evidence which has been presented to us & we perhaps err in trying to isolate a few instances of that evidence in this debate tonight. It is so easy to overlook details which might have some meaning b/c they don't seem to be too important. For instance, when Mr. Colson was testifying that when the President heard of the Watergate break-in at Key Biscayne, that he was told that the President threw an ashtray across the room in anger. Mr. Colson stated that he related this to us to demonstrate the President's surprise & anger, supporting a belief that the President didn't know of the burglary in advance. But, what that outburst of anger also indicates, at least to me, was the revelation, as of that moment, at the start, that his own men were involved in a stupid and criminal act, which had the potential of terrible embarrassment. Within hours following the burglary. the President's chief of staff Haldeman had discovered that if the investigation into the burglary should be thoroughly pursued, it would lead to the same individuals who had illegally broken into Dr. Fielding's office, who had engaged in illegal wiretapping and surveillance of individual American citizens and in various of the other activities that have been labeled as the White House horrors. 3 days after the break-in Mr. Haldeman reported to the President on subjects which his notes reflect as dealing with the Watergate break-in. And 181/2 minutes of that tape of that conversation have been destroyed by at least five separate and distinct erasures of the relevant portion of the tape. But, that was only the beginning. I suppose it would be human to try and cut the losses which would follow from a ridiculous and petty foolish act like breaking into the headquarters of an opposition party. So the 1st Watergate coverup got started immediately & even if we suppose for a moment that this coverup was managed not only to obstruct, the investigation but also to shield the President from direct Personal decisions, as the plan unfolded & grew in size & criminality there can be no mistake that he was aware and approved generally of the efforts to contain the evidence. You have heard about July 1972, the Pat Gray telephone call, that his aides were trying to Mortally wound him & the 3 conversations which have been mentioned by Mr. Froehlich, Mr. Seiberling and others, the first w/ John Dean on Sept 15 w/ the President. And talk about direct evidence, it is the rarest thing in the world to have the person who is being checked into I available to listen to & on this tape, which was furnished to the Special Prosecutor & later to our committee, the President says to John Dean, complimenting him on putting your fingers in the dike every time that leaks have sprung here and sprung there. In a second conversation on Mar 21, 1973, the President told Dean, "You had the right plan before, the election. You handled it just right. You contained it. And a third one, 'with John Mitchell , on March 22, 1973, when the President said, "As you know, up to this point, the theory has been containment. But, even if we accept that the first full knowledge of the terrible details of the first White House coverup was in the conversation on March 21, there was still time & adequate opportunity to choose the course of the, obedience to law of full & fair disclosure to Prosecutors of cutting away from those who had engaged in conspiracy which had pervaded the White House. And so for nearly 3 weeks before Henry Petersen came to him, concerned with what his investigation had developed, and offering what he-Henry Petersen-- thought was the last clear chance for the President to raise above the criminality which surrounded him, the President had sufficient & ample opportunity during this time to investigate & act. And therefore, the actions of the President w/ Henry Petersen must be considered in light of this knowledge & not based, as assumed by Mr. Petersen, upon a desire to investigate new revelations before taking action. Rather than choosing a course of simple obedience to law, commencing in March 1973 the 2nd coverup began this time, certainly under the direction and control of the President himself. In April 19 1973 Petersen gave the President information by the Department of Justice and the grand jury, relating to evidence of wrongdoing On the part of his aides, based on the President's assurances that he would not pass on what he knew what grand jury information. Nevertheless, the President relayed the information to his aides not only to possible witnesses, but possible defendants so that they could plan strategy to protect themselves. He withheld from the Department of Justice vital information which had been brought to attention. He refused the request, of the Special Prosecutor for recordings of conversations material to his investigation & then fired him after accepting the resignation of the Attorney General & the Asst Atty Gen, who refused to fire him in an effort to avoid the production of this evidence. And, of course, all Of the committee members are aware of noncompliance w/ this committee's subpenas. You know, with regard to obstruction of justice, the President's counsel has told us that many criminal defendants have been sentenced or are awaiting trial & that proves that the process of law had not been illegally interfered with. But it is no answer that, somehow the system has continued to work, despite the action of the President in trying to impede it. We have before us a momentous & a difficult decision. I approached it as a matter of law & b/c I have faith that people of this country believe that a system of law to which all men are subject is a system that we want & must preserve. I did not & I don't particularly enjoy the duty of sitting here in judgment of any other man's fulfillment of his Oath of office. But Mr. Chairman, like the other members of this committee, I have got an oath of office Of my Own, responsibility to decide this grave matter, not On the basis of political interest, but as a matter of my own best conscience, my judgment of the law, the constitutional principles that are involved. And I must say, as the gentlema