Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.36.23] The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Brooks, is recognized. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman. there can be no satisfaction in impeaching a President of the United States, but it is essential to remove from our body politic any President whose actions threaten to destroy our System. The checks and balance system incorporated in our Constitution places this responsibility on the Congress. And the future strength Of our democratic form of government requires us to exercise this Power at this time. Under Mr. Nixon, the Constitution and the laws of the United States have been so abused, so distorted, so ignored, and so converted to personal use that continued respect and support for our system Of law and equality before that law demands that he who has so abused this process be, removed from office. We must demonstrate to future generations of Americans that no man, even the President, can put himself above the law. Now, Mr. Chairman, many people voted for Richard Nixon in. the last election. Most Republicans, and a lot of Democrats. I did not. But those who did had no way of knowing that the man in whom they had placed their trust would so abuse it. No one who voted for Richard Nixon need he ashamed of that vote for no one could have known what was happening or what was to occur. We have, been disappointed in him and I know that the vast majority of people who supported him do not condone the way he abused that power. Mr. Chairman, to permit such behavior to go unanswered can only have the effect of destroying the American people's faith in our constitutional form of government. I yield the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish, is recognized. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in the -way article I concerned obstruction of justice, article II as 1 understand it is based on abuses of power or expressed in the negative the constitutional duty to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. We heard quite a lot of discourse on this subject this morning and frankly I found it to be quite legalistic. Now, obviously to take care that the laws are faithfully executed as a mandate to the President doesn't mean that he personally executes all the laws. Well, what does it mean? I can't help but believe that this constitutional requirement is plain and understandable. Now, I would like to pose some, suggestions, some questions to you, Mr. Jenner, to see if we can't -work out in everyday language just -what this constitutional responsibility upon which this article rests means. Would you say that included in this responsibility is the duty on the President not to mislead his subordinates, not to put in motion a course of action by perhaps some loose language such as to order something be done indicating you don't care how it is to be done'? Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir, Mr. Congressman, Mr. FISH. Would you say that in addition there is a duty incumbent on the President to police his lieutenants, to see that they are, operating within proper bounds? Mr. JENNER. I think that is inherent in the clause. Mr. FISH. Would you further say that the President would have a duty to be alert to what is going on, such a duty as President -Nixon. manifests in his daily careful reading summary of the news that was brought to him? Mr. JENNER. I think that is a clear thrust of the clause. Mr. FISH. And finally, and maybe not finally, if you care to add more, but there is a fourth thought I will in put forward, that the President would have a duty to find out what is going on in those agencies of Government set up by the Congress and the people such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the CIA, and furthermore, a duty to disclose to them any information that he has knowing of their interest in that information? [00.41.05]