Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.37.23] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* LEHRER asks to point out that the beginning of the meeting has been delayed [shot of empty committee room] and viewers should be aware that live coverage will commence as soon as the committee is seated. DUKE AND LEHRER joke about the habitual tardiness of the committee. DUKE continues overview of allegations. Says this goes back to an old issue, was President responsible for aides' behavior, and in protecting his aides, did he participate in OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE? VAN ALSTYNE says there is nothing in the drafted article to suggest that NIXON is strictly responsible for his subordinates, but it does bring up the theory of James Madison that a PRESIDENT may be held responsible for such actions if he fails to superintend, which is not a radical theory of constitutional law. The committee is not bound by strict standards of evidence in this case. The President's oath of office gives him a responsibility to actively attack violations of law, whereas law for ordinary citizens only requires one not to actively impede the course of law. Thus, impeachability under the Madison theory is not bound to standars of criminal proceedings. DIAMOND concurs, saying that people don't elect Presidents and Senators to be "only as good as us". DUKE asks about the President's receiving grand jury info and giving it to the suspects in the case, and the payment of money to Howard Hunt. VAN ALSTYNE says it's possible to conclude that NIXON thought the gift of money to HUNT was compassionate, not bribery, it remains that he can be derelict. DUKE goes through last 2 parts of the article, concerning false public statements and the promises made to defendants of favorable treatment in exchange for silence at trial VAN ALSTYNE wonders whether the false public statements charge is valid basis for proceeding. Lying by itself is not a crime, but in the totality, the charge fits into the concept of a "mosaic" of obstruction theory advanced by the pro-impeachment side DIAMOND says that it's a dangerous precedent to attempt to punish the President for lying, but agrees that in context it lends weight to the whole. LEHRER says that he was surprised by Rep. WALDIE'S raising of allegations that NIXON made a FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENT at a press conference, since it's not a crime. VAN ALSTYNE says that it's up to the pro-impeachment side to be convincing that the LIES had an overriding motive to help the effort to obstruct justice. DIAMOND says that calling such lies "criminal" is appropriate if it's a discussion of "political crimes"--the impeachment process is explicitly separated from criminal law, because it must encompass noncriminal but intolerable actions. [00.48.52] [LEWIS on screen with Rep. WALDIE ] LEWIS asks about the prospects for a vote by the end of the night. WALDIE says that he's not sure what's happening, and the prospects for getting through are dim, but the "lawyer business" has prevented getting down to substance. LEWIS asks if it's right that Rep. WIGGINS is going to introduce motions to strike at all 9 parts of the article. Asks WALDIE to explain this for the public. WALDIE says that this means an effort to remove from discussion the allegations. The main hazard of this is that for each motion, every member gets 5 minutes of debate, which adds up to a long time. LEWIS asks what the REPUBLICAN minority has to gain. WALDIE says that they perhaps hope to provoke irritation and partisanship that might cast aspersion on the committee and delegitimize the impeachment resolution. [00.51.20]