Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
[01.03.54] [continued speech of Rep. OWENS, D-Utah] My background is that which the authors of the Constitution foresaw for those who would be asked to judge Presidents. I am a politician. And I would be much less than candid if I were not to state for the record that I approached this responsibility as a longtime political adversary of this President. I am not certain how many people have really believed me over the many months of this inquiry when I have repeatedly said that Iwould forget my political background and approach this matter objectively. Having served on the staffs of Senator Robert Kennedy, and then Senator Edward Kennedy, the press and others have from the beginning taken my vote almost for granted, which I regret. Recognizing all that, I want now to state, as strongly and as clearly IS I can, because it is important that the public have confidence in our committee's impartiality, that, I believe I have been successful in setting aside the natural inclinations I may have brought with me to this in inquiry. I have honestly sought to learn the truth as I have had the ability to recognize it and to be, guided by nothing else than the truth in my actions. I, too, recognize that this is the most important vote that I will probably ever cast, and I want to face that mirror in later years with the peace that will come from knowledge that I gave my best efforts to this inquiry and voted solely upon the dictates of my conscience. I have studied the evidence before this committee very carefully over many months, I have participated every single presentation of evidence. I have listened to every single witness. I have read extensively about impeachment, agonized about impeachment, and have discussed impeachment and its implications for good or bad, with many Intelligent men and women both in Washington and in Utah. I have now measured the actions of President Richard Nixon by my understanding of his unique constitutional responsibilities. I believe that impeachment of a President is a grave act to be undertaken only in the most extreme of circumstances, and only for a violation of a principle of conduct which we are willing to say should be applied to all future Presidents and established as a constitutional precedent. Each member must determine for himself whether the evidence is sufficient to vote to place the President on trial before the U.S. Senate, whose constitutional role it is to be the final judge. I believe that we must vote to impeach if we believe the evidence so clear and convincing that it would support conviction Of the President during a Senate trial.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Our task during these hearings has been made easier because we have had the benefit of the views of the President's attorney on the sufficiency and meaning of the evidence., and we have, had a partial proffer of the President's defense in evidence, by Mr. St. Clair, and legal argument both by Mr. St. Clair and by Mr. Garrison, the acting minority counsel to the committee, and this assistance has been very helpful. However, much of the relevant evidence has been wrongfully and unconstitutionally withheld from this committee by the President preventing us from making a judgment on all the facts. To a very great extent, the. President has chosen the evidence that we have seen. We thus can assume, for purposes of this decision, that all of the evidence which is favorable to the President is now before us. We can also reasonably infer, as any civil court would instruct its jury that, the additional evidence we have sought has been denied, because it is detrimental to the President's case. Fellow members of this committee, on the basis of all the evidence before us, I am now persuaded that, the President has knowingly engaged in three types of conduct which constitute impeachable offenses Under the, requirements of the Constitution and that he should now call called to account before the U.S. Senate. First, I find the evidence convincing that the President know and willfully directed and participated in a coverup of the Watergate break-in. There is clear proof that the President personally agreed the distribution of funds, the offering of clemency to, and the coaching Of Persons involved in the Watergate break-in, in an attempt to secure their silence or influence, their sworn testimony; that the, President knew that perjury had been committed in furtherance of the coverup and that the President personally withheld from law enforcement officials, evidence needed to solve crimes all across the spectrum of offenses known broadly as the Watergate affair. When I hear members Of the committee say there is no direct evidence connecting President with these crimes, I wonder whether we have attended the same presentations. Second, the, President has undermined the presidency by seriously abusing the powers of his office for political profit. This includes the President's misuse of the FBI, for wiretaps and other acts, the misuse of the Justice Department, the IRS, the CIA, and other Federal agencies, well as permitting the substantive violation by his subordinates of the rights & civil liberties of many individuals. Third, the President refusal to respond to our legal subpenas constitutes an obstruction of the constitutional impeachment process Which, in my view, is an extremely grave offense.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
The President's refusal to comply with our subpenas would make a, nullity of the impeachment power if we failed to judge this offense impeachable. One night a month ago, about midnight, after studying the transcripts of some recorded Presidential conversations for a long time and being somewhat puzzled, I located one of- the committee's technicians Jeff Banchero, at his home and asked him to return to the impeachment committee office to replay for me the taped conversations of the Morning of March 21, 1973, and that of the following day. I wanted to study the President's intention. I wanted to know what the President intended when he apparently agreed repeatedly to the payment of hush money to Howard Hunt. Was he playing the devil's advocate or did he intend that the he payment be paid? I replayed a. dozen times that section of the March 21 conversation which two prior speakers mentioned the section mentioned. When the President told John Dean to "get it," in apparent reference to the, $120,000 which Hunt was demanding as the price for his continued silence, and I had been intrigued by the new plan to handle Watergate about which the President had spoken and Wanted developed. I had a clear feeling that late night that I knew what the, President intended when as I replayed the tape time and again I heard him instruct John Dean to develop a, new plan for containment of Waterate. This is the President speaking: "And then once you, once, you decide on the plan-- John--and you had the right plan, let me say, I have no doubts about the, right plan before, the election. And you handled it just right. You contained it. Now, after the election, we've got to have another plan because we can't have for 4 years, we can't have "this thing-you are going to be eaten away. We can't do it." And Bob Haldeman's followup response to the President, "John's point is exactly right, that the erosion here now is going to you," meaning the President-"and that is the thing we have got to turn off, at whatever the cost. We've got to figure out where to turn it off at the lowest cost we can, but at whatever cost it takes." And the following morning. further discussing the, new plan with John Mitchell the President instructs: "I want you all to stonewall it, Let them plead the fifth amendment. Cover up or anything, If it will save it, save the plan. That is the whole point." And in his final explanation to John -Mitchell, "Up to this point the whole theory has been containment, as you know, John." The late hour and my fatigue combined with the realization that this was the President of the, United States speaking, and it created in me a sense of unreality. I could hardly believe -what I -was hearing, on those tapes. But I heard his words unmistakably from his mouth. The Presidents intention was clear and inescapable. Awesome as the impeachment and removal of a President can be, the Framers of Our Constitution provided for this power. They didn't expect us to fear it. We were not to be intimidated by It, The power was to be used when necessary and proper. They created after all a Government of laws, not a Government of men & whether we like it or not, impeachment is the only tool the Constitution provides to control a President who refuses to obey the law.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 25, 1974 (2/2)
Now, I do not fear that the impeachment of a President on evidence, would do harm to the office of the Presidency. Our Nation, recently survived the trauma of a Presidential assassination and united behind a new President. Vice President Ford is an honest man Of integrity and intelligence The country would rally to his support if by action of Congress he were to become President. Mr. Chairman. I believe. the significance of what we do here will endure for many years to come. If our standard of impeachment is too low or insubstantial, we -will seriously weaken the Presidency and create a precedent for future use of the impeachment power when charges may be trivial or partisan, but if we set standards of impeachment which are too low or narrow, if we fail to impeach now with this evidence before us, we, are saying to future Presidents you are not required to obey the law. The implications for or wholesale loss of individual freedom freedoms would be staggering. And we would in that circumstance render completely impotent the. impeachment power which the Constitution vested in Congress as the last resort, to prevent serious abuses of power by all Presidents. I believe that the impeachment of this President, if it resulted in his removal and his replacement by Gerald Ford, would not, be, to the political advantage of my Party, but the totality of the evidence has convinced me that it would be to the public benefit of my country. It is possible that in a Senate trial additional evidence, which we have not seen would be presented in the President's defense and no one, knows, nor should they pre-judge whether the Senate would convict. That would depend upon the evidence Presented to them. But the weight of the evidence presented to this committee now stands clearly and convincingly for impeachment. I take no joy & no satisfaction in this decision. I do not take pleasure in pointing an accusing finger. It is a disgusting and distasteful task. It is a joyless resolution to a heartbreaking problem which will cause great pain and suffering. I do it strictly because of the obligation Imposed by my membership On this committee and by my judgment that the Constitution requires it, of me. This Republic, created by the Constitution, represents the finest attempt in the history of mankind to establish a government of laws which can assure equal justice for all and guarantee each individual the dignity to which he is entitled. Today the, Nation looks to this committee to resolve, in unprecedented crisis of confidence in that system and its leaders which left, unresolved could have, disastrous implications. Ours is the responsibility of restoring confidence in our Government by assuring that the President is charged before the Senate where he will either be convicted or acquitted. With the evidence before us, if we fall to Vote for impeachment and a Senate, trial we will have failed the Nation for today and for the future. We will increase public despair and especially disillusion among the young and we will have no way to resolve these questions about the President's conduct which a Senate trial will put to rest one way or another. If we fail to impeach because of our own political allegiances or fortunes. we will have engaged in conduct as harmful to the -Nation as that conduct of the President, the record of which I believe we must now refer to the Senate for their appropriate action.