Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
27.11 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Froehlich. Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Wiley, do you need more time? Wiley Mayne (R Iowa) No. I thank the gentleman.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
27.21 Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that what we are going through here today is, I recall the statement I believe the Vice President made, impeachment is what this committee says it is or what the If House says it is. Many people have disputed that, including some members of this committee. We started out in this process, as was pointed out. We could not, as a committee, come to a conclusion as to what was an impeachable offense by definition. We never decided by a committee what the level of proof, the burden of proof should be for us. Whether it should be clear and convincing, as many of us agree to, or whether it should be beyond a reasonable doubt as some of the individuals thought. We never settled that.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
28.13 Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). And so now we are here before, we finally got the Articles, the proposed Articles before us. And why have we spent this whole day arguing over the articles? Because they were not specific. Because many of the individuals on this committee did not know what the proposers of this Article were going to use to back it up. And so we have argued for a full day. Now, had the committee staff, which I understand is physically and emotionally drained, had the staff had the time to properly sit down and prepare the details, they could have backed up with a statement, the specifics for each one of these subparagraphs. We could have made a decision as a committee whether they should have been included or not included. But you see, we are here with an article presented when the debate started on Wednesday night. And we have been going for the television cameras morning, afternoon, and evening ever since. The staff people have been going, the committee has been going. There has not been time to detail the specifics of these charges, either in the charges or in supplementary material. And we can t stop to take the time.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
29.37 Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). We told the American people the importance, the awesomeness of this task. And now we are under the gun. We can't stop and take the time to write the specifics to everyone's satisfaction. Now not everyone on this committee is going, to agree, but it seems to me that we needed to take the time to put these specifics in detail behind each one of these Articles to at least the satisfaction of the staff and the people proposing the Articles, so then we could say then based upon this information "Yes, I will vote for it" or "No, I won t." But you re asking the committee members to really buy a pig in the poke. Many of us have tended to lean toward an Article of impeachment and obstruction of justice. We think it needs to be spelled out.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
30.30 Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Now the motion from the gentleman from New Jersey is not dilatory. It s not made to delay. It is made to explain to the American people the specifics behind each one of these subparagraphs. And in talking to the gentleman from Alabama, he said we need this, to me earlier this evening, and I think we need it and the American people need it. Now the best way to get it is not to spend another day fighting over the next eight Articles or asking staff to explain the next eight Articles or trying to explain them shooting from our hip. But it s to take the time and 1 day or 2 days after 8 months is not going to make the difference. It seems to me we need to take the time to give the staff the opportunity to work with the proposers to detail the specific items behind the charges and then we can sit down and say, "yes" or "no".
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
31.29 Walter Flowers (D Alabama). Would my friend yield, my friend from Wisconsin yield? Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). Yes, I yield. Walter Flowers (D Alabama). I think he s made an excellent statement. I did to talk to him earlier. And I think it is highly important that we proceed in some manner to elicit the specific facts that go with the specific charges. And I think this is one process of doing it, a motion to strike a specific section of it and then discuss it in detail. For I would certainly agree that although it might be per se dilatory, it is also per se very helpful in adducing the evidence that stands with each one of charges. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I appreciate his statement.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
[00.32.15] Harold Froehlich (R Wisconsin). We started, Mr. Chairman, at 11:00 this morning. The most important vote the members of this committee will ever cast in their life is a vote for impeachment. And we re dragging then through 12 hours today, more than that yesterday, months of this. And to take some time to think, we are not allowed to. We ve got to rush forward, we ve got to have this on the Floor. I think that is a mistake, Mr. Chairman. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired.