Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00--Rep. HUNGATE] Mr. HUNGATE. [quoting from testimony] Mr. BUTTERFIELD [white house staff] I know him to be a detail man. Then he goes on The President often, of course, was concerned whether or not the Curtains Were closed or open, the arrangement of state gifts, whether they should be on that side of the room or this side of the room, displayed on a weekly basis or a monthly or daily basis. Social functions were always reviewed by him, the scenario, after they came to me from Mrs. Nixon. Each was always interested in the table, arrangements. He debated whether we should have a U-shaped table or round table. He was deeply involved in the entertainment business, whom we should get for what kind of a group, small band, big band, black band, white band, jazz band, Whatever. He was very interested in meals and bow they were served and the time of the waiters and was usually put out if a State dinner was not taken care Of in less than an hour or an hour's time. He debated receiving lines and whether or not he should have a line prior to the entertainment for those relatively junior people in the administration who were invited to the entertainment portion of the dinners only and not to the main dinner. [end quoted section] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman ? Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Did Mr. Dennis seek recognition? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I will Seek recognition, sure. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dennis Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues on the committee, think this article, if proof were here, would be more important in many respects than article I that, we dealt with earlier. But, the difficulty as I see, it is that whereas on article I you had a, difficult matter of balancing Proof mid deciding where the weight lay and whether a case had been made beyond a, reasonable type of a doubt. and I decided it had not been, but while you have that kind of a problem there, here we might have a serious case, if you had the evidence, you don't really have the evidence. And I cannot believe that we are going to impeach the President of the United States, without the facts. Now, it is difficult to go over the same ground, but lot us just look quickly at what we are talking about,. First is the IRS. I was just talking about that a moment ago. The Japanese had an offense, in the old days that they called dangerous thinking, and maybe on the basis of the conversation of September 15 you could convict somebody of that if it were an offense in this country I do not think it is. A bunch of politicians get around after an election or before an election and are talking about the opposition. What they are going to do to them and I don't think that it is a very high-class conversation, but I do suggest that that conversation in itself is not an impeachable offense. You've got to show that something was done as a result of it and done by the President or by his instructions. Now, there. is not any, evidence. We have a hearsay statement about the Wallace matter. That is all. We have the enemies list and Dean himself said that was not done. at the President's request and he agrees that he. never followed up on it. And as far as he knows. nobody ever followed up on it. And the Joint Committee. says that, nobody was ever audited as a result. My friend from Iowa, Mr. Mezvinsky, talks about overfriendliness to someone. He didn't specify anybody, but one case, that I remember we checked into was alleged was the case of John Wayne and that was checked In and nothing was found to exist at all. It was treated just like everybody else. And the Joint Committee has looked into this thing and said' that in none of these cases was the taxpayer improperly treated because of political considerations. Now, my friend from Alabama, Mr. Flowers. says it is a terrible thing to ha have a statement in the White House "do you need any IRS stuff." Well, again, maybe it is not the kind of statement you would like, to hear, considering all of the circumstances and what not but is that an impeachable offense? That is what -we are, talking about here. Nobody shows that anybody went and got any IRS stuff and used it for any improper situation. Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield for a question? Mr. DENNIS. I hate, to yield because of the length of my time. otherwise I would be happy to. Mr. McCLORY. I -would just, like to say--- Mr. DENNIS. Well, I yield to my friend from Illinois since he, is going to talk anyway, I will be glad to yield to him. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you very much. I just want to say don't You think that it is really, genuinely fortunate that we had Commissioner Walters and that we had Secretary of the Treasury Shultz who decided that they just would not tolerate any such business as that, even though some close to the President wanted to misuse the IRS? Mr. DENNIS. I completely agree with my friend, As I said before, they were appointees of the President, and I think that he is entitled to a great credit for having that kind of people as his main appointees. He appointed them, and none of them have said anything in the evidence before us in this record to indicate that they feel that the President ever pushed them. The President himself, so far as I am aware. Now, I am going to the second matter, the matter of the surveillance. We talked about that already, too. You have to consider the climate, the leaks, about Cambodia and the bombing, about troop -withdrawal, about SALT. I think personally----- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Indiana has expired. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman. may I make a parliamentary inquiry, please? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has asked for a Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. SANDMAN. Mr. Chairman, would not be in order it this time since, one from each side has spoken, for a member to move that all debate on this article terminate within 1 hour so that the time can be equally divided? The CHAIRMAN. Well. under the rule, the members -who wish to speak have that time, reserved to them, and unless there, were unanimous Consent, then I do not believe that such a motion would be in order. Mr. SANDMAN. Could I ask for unanimous consent that all debate on article II end at 10 minutes after 10, which is I hour? The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection? Mr. SEIBERLING. Reserving the right to object Mr. Chairman, could we have some indication as to how many members intend to speak so that we have some idea of how much time will be allotted'? [00.09.10]