Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.56.31] The CHAIRMAN. I recognized the gentleman from California. Mr. Danielson. I Mr. DANIELSON. Mr. Chairman, I, too, oppose the amendment offered my colleague, Mr. Wiggins. I respectfully submit if this amendment were put in to the article, it would unduly and unnecessarily limit restrict the proofs which the managers will be compelled to make fore the Senate. I concede that the managers must prove each and very charge before it can serve as a basis for an impeachment, but they should not be unreasonably and unrealistically limited in that proof. there is The wording of this proposed amendment would require that there is proof that the President in each and every instance knew in advance of the precise act that was going to be carried out by his agents and subordinates. I respectfully submit that that is unrealistic. Let's look at, for example, Segretti, Do you suppose as a-- is it reasonable to suppose if Mr. Segretti, if we were to prove that he was authorized by the President to commit these dirty tricks; do you suppose that he picked up the phone every time just before' he did one of them and the President, and said, "Mr. President, I am now about to order 100 pizzas for Mr. Muskie's fundraiser?" That is unrealistic and yet the language of Mr. Wiggins' amendment would require that type of prior action by the President in each and every instance. I respectfully submit that the managers before the Senate must prove each and every charge against the President, but this must be one in the context of the real world. If they should prove that the President knowingly and intentionally set One of these forces in motion, then the President is responsible for the natural and probable consequences of having set that force in motion. I mention Segretti's dirty tricks. This goes to many other things. Let's take a look at the Watergate burglary. Someone mentioned properly the other day that it was improbable that the burglars called the President down in Key Biscayne and said--I believe, it was my colleague, Mr. Rangel, "Mr. President we are about to make a hit." Of course, they didn't. But if it can be, shown that, he set this force in motion and that the activities of the Perpetrators were a natural and probable culmination of the force he set in motion I submit that he, is responsible. You know, we hold the, President to a higher standard of conduct than that, of the marketplace. He is the person who, is to set the and ethical standards of the Nation, of the entire Republic. that Mr. Wiggins; amendment would unduly and unnecessarily strict proof and for that reason it should be defeated. I yield to my--- Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. To Father Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you very much for yielding, and I would like to raise a basic question as to the authorization that is in the, proposed amendment by quoting the President just before the establishment of the Plumbers. The President speaking to Haldeman and Mr. Colson according to Mr. Colson's affidavit in the Ehrlichman case, said this: The President said: "I want these leaks to be stopped, I don't want to told why it cannot be done. I don't want excuses. I want results. I want it done, whatever the cost." Mr. DRINAN. I have difficulty in accepting the. proposed amendment in view this type, of blanket authorization. I yield back to the gentleman. Mr. DENNIS. Will the gentleman yield ? Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman. 1 would like. to add one more point. Of course, I do not believe and I do not think any other member believes that the, President should be held responsible for the acts of his subordinates under general doctrine, of respondeat superior which simply says that he is; liable for whatever his agents do within the scope of their general authority, but where the President has failed to take the actions, to make sure that his agents have stayed within scope of their legitimate authority and furthermore, as Father Drinan indicated, has told them " I don't care how you do it, just get it done," implying that he didn't care about the niceties of the law or anything else, why, -we have a totally different, situation and yet the amendment proposed would not take into account that type of situation. Mr. DANIELSON. I should like to conclude by stating, Mr. Chairman that if the President set forth a general policy or general instructions and pursuant thereto his aides misuse the President's power, then the President alone can be held to account. The CHAIRMAN. The time, of the gentleman has expired. The Chairman would like to observe that the proponents of the amendment have consumed 10 minutes and those in opposition have consumed 12 minutes and the gentleman from -Now Jersey, Mr. Sandman, is recognized in opposition to the amendment. Mr. SANDMAN. Oh, no. I want to be recognized in support of the amendment, sir. [Laughter.] Mr. SANDMAN. It wouldn't be truthful---- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. SANDMAN. It -would be untruthful for me to say I am surprised because so many things have happened here that would surprise anybody, so I guess we are following a normal course. But isn't this really the crux of what it is all about? The gentleman from California truthfully adds only two words, that is all be adds, for him to be responsible so that he can be removed from office. My colleague, from California says he either has to have knowledge of wrongdoing before it happens or he has to be the person directing that the wrong be committed. Now, maybe we are making new laws for Presidents and I want to say to my colleagues on the other side some day you might have a Democratic President and you want him to live up to all these kinds of new laws that you are making. We heard yesterday that the fifth amendment and due process has become outmoded. You want that to apply to your Presidents like you are trying to apply it to this one. you want all of these things to be done the hard way. Now, let's go through just a couple of things. And I am not going to prolong the argument on specificity, that long Word. But, isn't this why you will not, agree to that particular thing? Which one of these abuses are you going to attempt to prove, which one of them? And now we understand that, the gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson, says that it is all right even if you can show that, the President did not know about it or that he did not direct it. No other human being can be held responsible for the acts of his agents---- [01.04.04--TAPE OUT]