Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.05] *See information in RIGHTS field before using* LEHRER turns questions over to guest commentators VAN ALSTYNE and DIAMOND asks a question, interrupted by DUKE announcing that LEWIS has gotten a chance to talk with Rep. SANDMAN. [cut LEWIS with SANDMAN, who is smiling pleasantly] LEWIS asks if the REPUBLICANS who support NIXON are going to extend debate to the fullest length of time possible. Rep. SANDMAN says that he doesnt' intend to do this on every point, but thinks he's sure that others will. Says his own motion was on a strict point of law, and he is not willing to yield to the rulings made today. Says that the case for impeachment on this article is very soft, which is why the pro-impeachment side is averse to specifics in the allegations. LEWIS points out that SANDMAN'S side obviously does not have the votes to win any of the motions. Why carry it on. SANDMAN says that he believed strongly in his argument, and that he needs to establish his objection in committee on the particular point so that he is justified in raising it on the HOUSE FLOOR later. He does not plan to do this for other parts of the ARTICLE. It is important on principle not to let the allegations go by unchallenged if they are believed to be inadequate. LEWIS asks if it's impossible to conclude the debate on the ARTICLE could be finished by the next day. SANDMAN confirms that it will take longer than that. [01.19.06--DUKE/LEHRER in studio] LEHRER says that SANDMAN left no doubt about his position on debating the ARTICLE. Returns to guests--question-- has the time been wasted? VAN ALSTYNE says no, and that it is likely that after 11 hours of debate, he can't think of any further objection to the ARTICLE as drafted, and he'd be surprised if the numbers even change on each vote. The rest of the debates may serve to educate the public in some sort of "Chinese Water Torture" process, but not to change the votes DUKE says that VAN ALSTYNE is saying that there exists a stable coalition in favor of the ARTICLE that is not going to succumb to efforts to reject the ARTICLE. DIAMOND disagrees that the matter is decided, that there is nothing decided about the final form of the articles. [01.22.22]