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
43.14 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me and for your patience in the proceedings tonight. I support the motion to strike this section. We ve heard the statement made today that we don t want to strangle the pleadings with the facts and I certainly agree with that statement. But I think, Mr. Chairman that we ought to, at this time, to make a very technical distinction that we as lawyers understand between evidence and facts. On the one hand, proof and allegations on the other hand. We are not talking here about proof, evidence, facts. We re talking about allegations. Now, what is an allegation? It is simply a precise statement of the charge. The evidence and the facts constitute proof. Now we are not asking for the inclusion of the evidence and the facts. We certainly don't want that in a pleading. But you want the, allegations, very simply as has been stated here by many members, the time, the place, and in this particular instance, the statements that were alleged to have been made. That s very simple. What statements were alleged to have been made and to whom and where?
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
44.59 Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Now, the recitation here in this hearing tonight, in this room tonight is not the answer. The recitation of facts, or alleged facts, and I must say in many instances, opinion by the gentleman from California, Mr. Waldie, which recitation is replete with conclusions of his own, is certainly not the answer. The allegations should be included in the Articles of Impeachment. We re not seeking an explanation of the allegations orally. It must be in the Articles of Impeachment for two reasons, so that we know what we are voting on and so that the respondent knows what he must answer.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
45.57 Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Now, some reference has been made to the committee report. Now, this has been referred to by the Chairman and by Mr. Doar, but the committee report, the report that s to be written is not the answer. The report is not a part of the Articles of Impeachment. Now if Mr. Doar is going to get the allegations and the facts and other matters that he wants to put in the report, that s fine. But let's have the allegations now as, the gentleman from Wisconsin has suggested. Let's have them when they are ready. Whatever time it takes, we should take, and certainly if is only a matter of a day or two. And then we can vote on the articles with the allegations. And Mr. Doar and the staff and the members can work on and put in the report whatever is to be put into the report.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
46.59 Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Now, the gentlewoman from Texas in regard to an analysis of due process has said that due process has been given to the President in the proceedings that we have had here during the last months. Some will dispute this allegation, but nevertheless, let's assume that that was the case. But are we going to stop, are we going to stop due process at point, the most crucial point when we are drafting and voting on Articles of impeachment? Mr. Chairman, I submit it to you that due process at this point of our proceedings requires that the Articles of Impeachment contain the specific allegations. Mr. Chairman, therefore I say to you that in the essence of the specific allegations, in this section that we are dealing with, I have no alternative but to vote in support of the motion of the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.