Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.28.07] The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Senate and Members of the House, I hope that we won't have to carry this on through all of theSe paragraphs, all nine, but, it seems as though this is what we have do to get some kind of a ruling on the law about which there should be no question. at the outset, of course, my objections to paragraph I is that it is indefinite, as is the preamble in the first paragraph. And it is reason, it is -not a legitimate Article of Impeachment. I may say at the outset, I had -wondered, after I had heard the nine witnesses before our committee on who the prosecutor would use as witness when this measure would ever get to the U.S. Senate, if it ever got there, and tonight I think I found out they apparently intend to use the gentleman from California, and using him as a witness is going to be about as legal as using the evidence that he is trying to make people believe tonight. Now, back to this particular item. So much as been said about the that the Special Prosecutor has in his job as compared to what we are doing here in our job. Now, this is an amazing set of circumstances. The Special Prosecutor is looking into exactly the same case, but, of course, his is a little different because crime is being charged there, and impeachment on our score. But, the Special Prosecutor, with a handfull of people and only a fraction of the time that we have consumed has been able to produce a theory of the case. The Special Prosecutor, in exactly the same case, has presented exact, precise articles of indictment. Now, why can we not do the same thing, with 105 employees, of which about half of those are lawyers? Why can we not do the same thing? It would be SO easy. Why are we arguing about all of this Everybody knows it is the only legitimate way to do this. It is a simple way. Reference to bill of particulars, reference to any other item is not, the same as making the original document specific, A simple parking ticket has to be specific. It has to say what you did that violated the law. It has got to have the license of your car it has got to have the date that you did it. You want to replace that and say, that does not have to apply to the President. Why, this is ridiculous , and this is an altogether new ball game. You can talk about all of the days and the months that we have been here, and St. Clair has been here, but that changes once you adopt one Article of Impeachment. That is a new ball game, because then it goes to the House of Representatives to decide whether or not a trial should be held in the Senate. And you know, I think the House of 'Representatives is entitled to a little bit of information. I think that it is altogether fitting and proper to tell them specifically what you are, going to prove. I do not think they should have to listen to their TV all night, and find out the next chapter of Mr. Waldie's summation. I do not think that is the way this case should be tried. You cannot, replace witnesses that you are unwilling to call, you cannot not replace him for Mr. Hunt that you did not want the public to hear. This is what the case is all about. Let us itemize this thing now. The House is going to go into a 10 debate, 435 people are, going to have something to say a-out this an they should not have to wait until the, same measure gets to the U.S. U.S. Senate, when Mr. St. Clair for the first time, according learned counsel, will have the right to ask for a bill of particulars. [00.32.25--here is a much better shot of John DOAR that shows Hillary RODHAM (CLINTON) seated behind DOAR] House of Representatives does not have to ask for a bill of particulars, they are entitled to the particulars from the first day one, you know it and I know it and let's do it. That is what we should be talking about now. Now, I would like to ask counsel this simple question. You have given some pretty good, wide-searching opinions tonight, especially on paragraph I where you have given your blanket endorsement to that paragraph, replete with generalities as being sufficient. I Will ask you one simple question. The Special Prosecutor is working on exactly the same case and, in fact, you want his evidence. You want his tapes. Would this be sufficient for the Special Prosecutor? Would it? Mr. DOAR. If this were, Mr. Sandman, if this were a conspiracy case, a criminal conspiracy case, in addition to the first paragraph there would be a requirement under the criminal law that one, overt act be done by one or more of the coconspirators pursuant to the agreement. But, the essence of a conspiracy case is an agreement. That is the essence of. a conspiracy case. And the essence of this case is the President's policy. And the essence of a conspiracy case is something is done in furtherance of the, conspiracy, in Mr. SANDMAN. IS. Pardon me. I am not trying to interrupt. I am not interested in the difference between conspiracy. We are both working on the, same case. I am talking about being specific. Is the language, according to your opinion, in paragraph 1, which you said is sufficietn for this case, is it -also sufficient for any kind of a case that the Special Prosecutor would bring? Mr. DOAR. Yes I believe it is. Mr. SANDMAN. Oh, this is sufficient for indictment? His is an indictment. Mr. DOAR. If one overt---- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired. Mr. DOAR. If you allege one overt act. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman [00.34.38]