Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.25.02] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* DUKE introduces the guest commentators, William VAN ALSTYNE and Martin DIAMOND, to offer perspective on the legal haggling in the committee. DIAMOND says that the conflict is part of a process, necessary, of getting beyond superficial compromise to an agreement of accomodation on a deep level VAN ALSTYNE says that the PRO-IMPEACHMENT side is strong, the OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE count is strongly supported through the preliminary debate, and through the wording of the ARTICLE, close to the statutory definition, it's possible that if impeached and removed, NIXON could be criminally indicted. DUKE asks what is the status of the new bill drafted by SARBANES. Starts to go through the ARTICLE charge by charge, asking for comment. [THE CONSENSUS OF ALL OF THE COMMENTATORS IS THAT THE LACK OF SPECIFICITY IS A LEGAL TIGHTROPE FOR THE PRO-IMPEACHMENT SIDE--THEY WANT TO BE BROAD ENOUGH TO GIVE THE FLAVOR OF A CONSPIRACY, REQUIRED BECAUSE NOT ALL MEMBERS MAY AGREE ON ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE OF OBSTRUCTION, BUT NOT SO BROAD AS TO HAVE THE ARTICLE THROWN OUT ON GROUNDS OF DUE PROCESS. SPECIFICITY FAVORS THE PRO-NIXON SIDE] VAN ALSTYNE says that this is a largely political debate, because the historical and legal precedent for proceeding on general terms is well established, and technically, the HOUSE may send impeachment to the Senate on no articles whatsoever until asked for such by the Senate. [00.37.23]