Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.15.29] The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, The gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, is recognized. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first perhaps submit, or ask my colleague from South Carolina, who is the underdog now? Mr. MANN. I would like to answer that. Mr. LOTT. All right, sir. I yield, Mr. MANN'. Because I am fully aware that many American people consider that the President is being attacked and abused by sinister forces in this country, by the leftwing press or by the Democrats, and I can assure this gentleman that it matters not to me his party or his position. He is subject to the rule of law, and to justice, and in my role under my oath, he will get it, be he President or be he pauper. Mr. LOTT. I appreciate the seriousness of the gentleman, and I, too, share that feeling. And I think that knowing of my background, I think he knows that this is not a matter of partisanship with me, either. It is a very serious matter. We are, setting a precedent for the future of whether or not a President, because he is unpopular, because of some acts of his aides, even mistakes, or parts of several cases-will a President be impeached. Now, several of you here tonight referred to a gentleman by the name of Butterfield that came in and testified, and I would like to refer to some of his testimony. In one area he testified "everything I am saying to you, incidentally, is judgment, guess. I don't claim to be-to have precise knowledge." And -when I asked him questions about. his position sitting right there in the middle of the White House, right next to the Oval Office, I said: In view of your situation, your location there, and of what has subsequently occurred, and the fact that you were staying abreast of -what was going on, did you have any knowledge of the Watergate cover-up? No, he did not. But he was sitting there right next to -what -was going on, right next to the President. And I asked him did he know about the Plumbers? He did not. Now, -what we have got here in article II is a catch-all accusation. It lumps together five separate charges with a connecting link of only certain common phrases. The purpose, in my opinion, is to put together several partial cases with the hope that the result would be one whole case. Grouping these different charges together in one article represents a clear attempt to accumulate guilty votes, and would be completely improper under any theory of criminal proceeding. In subparagraph 1 of article 11. the President is accused of trying to improperly use the IRS. In subparagraph 3, he is accused of the Watergate cover-up and other unlawful activities which were subsequently specified. There is no real connection between them. It is clear, through, why the catch-all approach has been adopted, and why that is the approach being used. A Congressman who believes that the President should be removed from office for interfering with the FBI may add his vote to the total, even though he does not believe, for example, that the President in any way approved the break-in into the office of Dr. Fielding. Another Congressman may vote for the entire article because he subscribes to one paragraph and he may not subscribe to subparagraph 5. In criminal justice, such words as duplicity and prejudicial joinder of offenses would come into play, but we do not have it here. I think that we do have parts of several cases, and maybe it gets up to three-fourths of a case, or an eighth, or whatever, but you get them together and you get on a tack, and lot me quote the words of Senator Austen in the impeachment trial of Judge Ritter in 1936: "Six legal noughts cannot become a unit of legal accountability." Again, I think we must consider the overall impact of what -we are doing here is going to have on our country for years to come. [01.19.59]