Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] [in Rep. SANDMAN debating Rep. SARBANES about the specificity of his proposed ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT. Mr. SARBANES. I believe that this article that is presented to you meets the law of impeachment with respect to the problem that you raise. Mr. SANDMAN. I did not ask that. I asked do you understand the law to say that an article of impeachment must be specific? Mr. SARBANES. In the same sense that a criminal indictment must be specific? I do not believe that the standards which govern the specificity of a criminal indictment are applicable to an article of impeachment if that is the thrust of the gentleman's question. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, now, do you not believe that under the duo process clause of the Constitution that every individual, including the President is entitled to due notice of what he is charged for? Do you believe that? Mr. SARBANES. I think this article does provide due notice. Mr. SANDMAN. You are not answering my question. Mr. SARBANES. Well, I think, lam answering your question. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, let me ask you this, then. As I see this, you have about 20 different charges here, all on one piece of paper, and not one of them specific. The gentleman from California has asked you for a date, for example, on charge 1 and 2, no date. You say that he, withheld relevant material. When and how? Is he not entitled to know that? How does be answer such a charge? This is not due process. Due process---- Mr. SARBANES. I would point, out to the gentleman from New Jersey that the President's counsel entered this committee room at the very moment that members of this committee entered the, room and began to receive the presentation of information, and that he stayed in this room---- Mr. SANDMAN. I do not yield any further. Mr. SARBANES[continuing]. Throughout that process. Mr. SANDMAN. I do not yield any further for those kinds of speeches. I want answers and this is what I am entitled to. This- is a charge against the President of the United States, why he should be tried to be thrown out of office, and that is what it is for. For him to be duly noticed of what you are charging him, in my judgment, he is entitled to know specifically what he did wrong, and how does he gather that from what you say here? Mr. SARBANES. My response to the gentleman is that the article sets out the means. The President's counsel has been here throughout the proceedings and is aware of the material that was presented to us, and at this article, in comparison---- Mr. SANDMAN. One last question. One last question, and you Can answer. Do You or do you not believe, and you can say yes or no,, that the the President is entitled to know in the articles of impeachment specifically on what day he did that thing for which you say he should be removed from office? Is he entitled to know that, and in an article of impeachment, not by virtue of the fact that his counsel was here? Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SARBANES. I do not believe that the article of impeachment is going to contain all the specific facts which go to support the article. If it were to do that, the article of impeachment would be 18 volumes. Or whatever the number of volumes are, Pertinent to place into it all of the specific information. Mr. SANDMAN. I do not think it has to say that at all. But, I think It has to say that on a certain day he did something which is illegal. thus-and-so You can say that in a simple sentence, but you are not saying that here. And, in fact, there is plenty of law on this point. and it says that those things shall not be general, these things shall not be general. They shall be specific. This has been the case of every impeachment trial tried in the United States, all the way up to the last one in 1936. You do not dispute that. do you? Mr. SARBANES. I do dispute that. If the gentleman is talking or referring back to criminal indictments. then the thrust of the gentleman's point has some merit. but I do dispute it when he shifts it to the law of impeachment. It is not a correct statement of the law of impeachment, Mr. SANDMAN. I am talking about the impeachment of Justice Ritter. That was an impeachment. Mr. DONOHUE. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. DONOHUE. The Chairman recognizes the gentleman from California Mr. Danielson. [00.06.28]