Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (2/2)
[01.25.02] The CHAIRMAN. You are recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. I don't just happen to have a lot of prepared material by me like my friend from Utah does, because to use one of the President's favorite words, the scenario has not been so well written over here, as it has been over there where this has been very carefully taken care of by the assistance of staff counsel and everyone has his piece. But, I think I can still read English unassisted, and I do not need a lot of reference I do not believe, to help convince any reasonably open minded person, if there is such a person on the committee, that this particular paragraph belongs out of here on a motion to strike. Honest to God, just ordinary garden variety principles, without much reference to the weighty matters we are dealing with, because it just does not have anything to do with what we are talking about. We should go back to the beginning of article I and see what we are discussing, The article starts out and it says that on June 17, 1972, agents of the Committee to Re-elect committed an illegal entry into the Democratic National Committee, Headquarters and subsequently thereto Mr. Nixon, pursuant to plan, and so forth, acting through various subordinates did various things to delay, impede and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry. That is what this is all about. And to cover up and protect those responsible. Now, that is the gravamen of the charge, that he tried to obstruct the investigation of an illegal entry and protect, those responsible. Then they begin to spell out how that was done, not how something else was done, and you come down to this No. 8 and it says making false, or misleading public statements. I do not care whether false or misleading or not, our present 'purpose, is, the question is, do they obstruct the investigation of this break-in, and protect the people who did it? And it. says here not for what purpose, because I suppose anyone could see that that would not be very much for Obstructing an investigation of a break-in but for the purpose of deceiving the people of the, United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted when I Suppose in fact. it had not, been. Now, if that is any kind of a charge at, all, I certainly submit that it is not the charge of article 1. You could have just as false a statement and I would like, to make clear that I am not conceding there was any false statement. but for the sake of argument, you could have one and you could have one made for the purpose of making people think that there had been an investigation of this break-in and you still would not have any single thing which implemented the charge here, which Is obstructing the investigation of the break-in. What difference does it make what the old lady in Dubuque thinks about whether there is an investigation or not? The question is was there, and was something done which interfered with the investigation? The President of the United States could put anything he wanted to in all of the papers in the country and it would not interfere with that investigation which is what we are talking about here. This No. 8, whatever it is, just does not belong here as a specification. such as it is, of this particular charge. And I think my good friend from Alabama, whom I greatly love, respect, and admire, will vote with me, to strike this One because I just simply suggest and submit that there is not any logical grounds on which you can leave this monstrosity in here in this particular place. I just do not. see it. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. Mr. LOTT. I thank the. gentleman for Yielding. On this particular charge I think there are three things we should keep in mind. First a question. Did the President have knowledge that he was allegedly making false statements? Second, some of the arguments advocated in behalf of this section are actually true, and SO what? And third are We now in the business of impeaching Presidents for making misleading statements? The CHAIRMAN. The time Of the gentleman from Indiana has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from California Mr. Waldie for 5 minutes. in opposition to the amendment. [01.30.17]