Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.39.32] Mr. MANN. But, what bothers me most of all are the loose statements, some Which we have Just now heard, that the, President is going to go to on trial, Without knowing what the charge is. The President if he goes to trial, is going to trial not only knowing what the charge is. but knowing, what every word, every i and every t, every bit of evidence that has been made available to this committee, which has been presented here in the presence of the President's counsel. If we get further evidence, I can assure you will have my support to see that the President's counsel is present when it is presented to this committee and that, he is present when it is presented to the House of Representatives, if -new evidence is presented at any time. So, what are we talking about sneaking tip on someone? The evidence all of it, will be available to the President tomorrow or the next day. He has gotten it up until now. He has some, of course that we would like to have. Now, I do not find that this proceeding, which admittedly has sparse precedent, is in violating the constitutional rights of anyone who stands before the bar of justice possessed of every fact known to the prosecution and possessed of the description of the charge against him. What surprise--what surprise can I conclude other than this is not a substantive objection; it is a procedural matter. It is a matter that I must suggest that I somewhat predicted as I realized that the arguments made here in front of these cameras would not be made for the benefit of me as a member of this committee. I do not think Mr. Sandman would be so strident or even so partisan if these proceedings were not being conducted to influence the opinions of the American People. But, I am here to study the law and the evidence, and to see that Richard Nixon gets a fair trial, that he is advised of all the evidence against him, and in my judgment , the charges that are included in article I notify him of what he is charged with. And they set out something extra , the means by which he is alleged to have committed that offense of obstruction of justice. Let us be reasonable. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield'? Mr. MANN. We have had the advice of Mr. Jenner who because of his objectivity stands stripped of his title as minority counsel, a man who was chairman of that body of the American Bar Association, the Advisory Committee to advise the Supreme Court on Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure, and the foremost expert in the United States, I submit on this subject. And he tells us that in his judgment this article is adequate to advise the respondent of the charges against him. Mr. WIGGINS. the gentleman yield? Mr. MANN. Fairness is what is required. I would settle for nothing less. And I submit that this article grants fairness in the highest tradition of American jurisprudence, and of the power of this body to exercise its serious power of preserving our Government through the power of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. WIGGINS. Would you yield for a second, please? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Mayne, for 5 minutes. Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, and reserve my remaining 2 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. I am amazed that I have heard some of the arguments I have heard here today. I cannot believe this is the same group that made all of those speeches yesterday and the night before, everyone of them making that Constitution, the Constitution the most valuable thing that was ever made, and it is, and yet, so willing to cast aside the most important provision therein, the one known as due Process, that one now for their own convenience they will throw under the rug. Isn't it amazing that they are willing to do anything such as resistance to making the thing specific? Isn't it amazing they have so much, but they are willing to say so little? Isn't it amazing? They are willing to do anything except make these articles specific. It is the same old story, you know, when you don't have the law on your side, YOU talk about facts. If you don't have the facts on your side, you just talk, and that is what a lot of people have been doing today. Now, we talk about this going to the Senate. What about the House of Representatives? Are you going to get down there and say fellows, we have got so many stories to tell, here is 40 books that have been put together by Doar and Jenner, you just rehash those, you don't need anything else. Don't pay any attention to the constitutional law or else, just look over these things, and maybe this is the reason why they didn't want any witnesses. Never wanted a witness. [00.45.42]