Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.16.00] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* [Chairman RODINO with Reps. RAILSBACK, SARBANES, DRINAN, others] DUKE/LEHRER v.o. discuss the conflict between the members over specificity, LEHRER saying it could become very drawn out and difficult. [01.18.55--GAVEL to order] The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order.I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jordan, for 5 minutes. Thank Ms. JORDAN. Thankl you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this committee has spent 2 days receiving and listening to very eloquent arguments. We talked about the Constitution I and we talked about the Serious nature of the impeachment process and all which -was said, we were telling the truth. We believed what we were talking about. Now, Mr. Chairman, this committee is called upon to get to the matter of the consideration of articles of impeachment. It apparently is very difficult for the committee to translate its views of the Constitution into the realities of the impeachment provisions. It is understandable that this committee would have proceeding difficulties, because this is an unfamiliar and strange procedure. But, some of the arguments which were offered earlier today by some members of this committee in my judgment are phantom arguments, bottomless arguments. Due process. If we have not afforded the President of the United States due process as we have proceeded through this impeachment inquiry, then there is no due process to be found anywhere. Well, what did we do? The Judiciary Committee under all of the historical precedents available does not have to allow counsel to the President to participate in its proceedings, but this committee, because of its grace, because it wanted to be fair, because of its interest in due process allowed, suffered, if you will, counsel to the President to sit in these proceedings every day. He was present. Was he gagged? Was he silent? No, because this Judiciary Committee cast a rule which allowed the President's counsel to speak. Now, one might say, well, certainly that is minimal due proem. All I am saying is that the committee was under no compulsion to do that, but voted to do it. So, the President's counsel was here and received every item of information this committee received. The President's counsel suggested witnesses be wanted called and heard by this committee. They were all called. They were all heard. The President's counsel was afforded the right to cross-examine witnesses. I Now, I know that our rules disallowed cross-examination on said question. But, those of you who know of the capacities and abilities of Mr. St. Clair would certainly say that be cross-examined the witnesses who appeared before this committee. What else did he do? He submitted to this committee a reply brief: in addition to making and oral argument in response to all of the' material which this committee had received. Now. we have board a lot today about specificity, about our being so general that no one would be able to answer it, that the President would not be advised of his rights, and that therefore would not be able to answer or prepare for his defense. Well, Mr. St. Clair felt that the case presented before this committee was specific enough for him to file a reply brief and to engage in oral argument, both before this committee. The subpenas. We were very reluctant to issue a subpena to the president of the United States. But the President asked us for additional time to respond to our first subpena and we said we want you, Mr. President, to have due process, so additional time is yours. And we gave him that time. Due process? Due process tripled. Due process quadrupled. We did that. The President knows the case which has been heard before this committee. The President's counsel knows the case which has been heard before this committee. It is a useless argument to say that what We Would do is to throw 38 or 39 books at the House and say, you find the offenses with which the President is charged, and say the same thing to the President. We talked about a report and we say that the report will be filed along with the bill of impeachment, resolution of impeachment. That report will be filed and it will contain the rather detailed specific particularized information so that no one can question whether the President has been advised of the allegations against him. The CHAIRMAN. The time of gentlelady has expired. MS. JORDAN. Thank you. [01.26.15]