Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.04.03] Mr. HOGAN..... And for several months -we have had a chronicle of all of the illegalities and crimes that they have committed under that assumption. Now, obviously both of those groups of people were wrong. Both should be held accountable for the violations of the law. Now, what -we are debating today is whether or not, the President of the United States lived up to his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the laws and the, duties of his office. And we have talked a lot about this all day. And I would like, to read for you verbatim the oath that every President of the United States is required to take under article II of the Constitution. The President must state and swear, quote: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." What -we have been debating today is whether or not he has lived up to that. The British House of Commons impeached the Earl of Suffolk for high crimes and misdemeanors, 600 years ago, and that is the first reference in all of history to this term which has become so familiar, If not fully comprehensible to all of us on this committee. The wrongdoing against which the crimes and misdemeanors charge was made at that time involved some form of corruption of office or misuse of office, offenses which inflicted some great injury on the state. Now, based as it was on hundreds of years of British precedent, our Founding Fathers who established this country used the same term, "high crimes and misdemeanors," clearly intending not as a catch-all phrase with which to threaten Presidents and confound lawyers and scholars and members of Judiciary Committees, but as a broad, widely recognized standard of impeachable conduct. The abuse of power by those in high office, then, constituted what was essentially the first impeachable offense, and what is still today the touchstone of our debate. Now, as the consistent abuse of power holds greater danger for the republic than does a single criminal act, it is a much more serious offense and a far more serious charge than the one that this committee has already approved. Now, has the President faithfully executed the Code. Title 18, section I of the United States Code says, quote: "Whoever, haying knowledge of the actual commission of a felony recognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or some other person in civil or military authority in the United States may be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than 3 years or both." That is under misprision of felony. I submit that our record is complete with a whole litany of repeated offenses of this particular statute. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Flowers. Mr. FLOWERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I shall be very brief. I listened with much interest to my dear friend, and he is my dear friend, from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman. And I find that I agree with almost everything he said except the way he put some of the things together. And I cannot quite do it that way for myself, although I do not say that he should not have the right to look at it the way he does, and I respect him, and he knows I respect him. And we will be together on something else maybe later this week or next week. But, you know, Mr. Chairman, I think that this article of impeachment is perhaps more important than article I, as some others have said, As I see it, article I could even perhaps be included as a subparagraph or a subheading under this article IT. There are some things here in this article that I do not feel as strongly about as I do others, but overall I believe it to be a strong case made out by article II. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and if this President failed to assert that affirmative duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, if he has failed to resist even the transgressions of these laws before his eyes and ears. If he has violated the so-called sensitive agencies of our Government, and I believe he has, and these sensitive agencies are both necessary and useful, but also precarious in our system, then this President has abused his public trust and he ought to be impeached. With the same reluctance and with the same sorrow and regret that was mine on Saturday, Mr. Chairman, I find that I must also support this article of impeachment. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. I am not seeking recognition at this time, Mr. Chairman. [01.09.53]