Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.14.51] Mr. HOGAN. Will the Chairman Yield Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. HUTCHINSON I thank the chairman for yielding. If I understand the chairman's remarks, it is that perhaps this committee in working on articles of impeachment so-called, that our responsibility is not now actually to perfect any articles but simply to decide whether or not we should recommend impeachment, and that those recommendations could be included in a report, and so on. However, somewhere down the line the House of has got, to draft some articles of impeachment, which in the opinion Of the House will stand the legal test in the Senate and if that is so wonder whether or not--whether the House will look to anybody but this group in the Judiciary Committee to do that, very task-. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have that responsibility And we might as well give our attention to those problems right now. The, CHAIRMAN. I do not want to take more, time except that I must correct, the, gentleman from Michigan who I am sure would want to set the record straight, does not want to misunderstand me. I did not state that, we should not perfect the articles. What I merely stated was a legal proposition that in impeachment proceedings there is no requirement in fact that the articles be, specifically set out. That is what I stated. Mr. LOTT. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman? Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Now, I recognize--I have to go to this side. I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Hungate. Mr. HUNGATE. . I thank the chairman, I would like to begin by commending our colleague, Mr. Sarbanes, who seems to be the target for tonight, on a rather excellent job I think of explaining what he has worked out here and what is going on. This reminds me a great deal of an old saying of our former distinguished chairman Mr. Celler, "I can give You explanations. I can't give you understanding." I think Mr. Sarbanes has done an excellent job. The impeachment grounds, as the chairman has indicated, indeed are quite broad. As I understand it, in the case of Andrew Johnson., they passed a resolution of impeachment. came back and drew up nine articles, went over in the Senate, decided they needed some more and drew a couple more. So going into all Of this great, I hesitate to say specifically, I really can didn't mean to say it. [Laughter.] As we get into all these legal terms. it is a lot, of fun, for 38 lawyers, 38 good lawyers, I think --well--37 good lawyers. It is a lot of fun, but we forget perhaps that in the House of Representatives they aren't all lawyers and the public likes it that way, I think. They may like it better. As for strict standards of proof--I saw where one of the distinguished Senators said yesterday that some of them had differing views from the discussions we had about rules of evidence. The Senate will decide on the rules Of evidence and as I recall in the, Johnson case they did. They overruled the Supreme Court's Chief Justice so many times that he finally threatened to quit and leave unless they behaved a little better. So I think it is educational for us lawyers but the doctrine of impeachment, is as strong as the Constitution and as broad as the King imagination, and we have that problem no now, perhaps. All the technicalities just remind me of the story of ,in old Missouri lawyer--the fellow was, kind of a country follow and got a case finally in the Supreme Court. He was nervous. He got up there and was arguing along and one of these judges looked down at him and He said. "Well, young man, where you come from do they ever talk the doctrine of 'que facit per aluim facit per Se?'" Well, he said, "Judge, they hardly speak of anything else. [Laughter.] Let me tell you I think Mr. Haldeman faked it per aluim and 'Mr, Ehrlichman faked it per aluim there is lots of evidence. If they dont understand -what we talking about now, they wouldn't know a hawk 'from a handsaw anyway. Seriously, we know what we are discussing. It is really a question of pleading and I think we are seeking to--piling inference on inference. There you go again, making inferences. We sit through these hearings day after day. I tell you, if a guy brought an elephant through that door and one of us said that is an elephant, some of the doubters would say, you know, that is an inference That could be a mouse with a glandular condition. [Laughter.] And perhaps one of them might be, but not 12, or even 28 volumes. Let talk some about this evidence. I know these distinguished gentlemen know the law far better than I and they realize that we don't have, to plead it with all that great whatever that word was. Article III, I would like to talk about it a little, "approving, acquiescing, counseling witnesses to give false and misleading statements," et, cetera, of, cetera. [01.20.32]