Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. HOGAN.....to give a summary of the kinds of arguments which support the various paragraphs in the article. We are not presenting the evidence. I will vote against the amendment of the gentleman from California, but I do hope that some of our draftsmen who are supporting article II will jot some additional specifics and offer some additional amendments so we can clarify the objection raised by the gentleman from California. Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from Maine. Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to follow up on the line of reasoning of Mr. Hogan and inquire of the gentleman who drafted this article as to whether or not he was prepared, as we have been prepared in the past, to list a number, of specific instances to -which you are referring, in addition to the break-in into Dr. Fielding's office. I think that of particular concern, might be the matter that Mr. Hogan mentioned just prior to the break and that was the activities involving the transfer of FBI -records to' the Oval Office at the direction of the President. Could the gentleman from Missouri help us out in that regard as to whether or not be would be in a position to delineate some of the specific items upon which he intends to rely upon for the proof of this case? Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri if he wants to respond. Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The language of 4, if you refer to the first few lines of that, when you talk of concerning other matters he has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by falling to act, when he knew or had reason to know his close subordinates, et cetera. Now, -we are talking of situations of which he should know or should have reason to know, and as we have said earlier, the doctrine of impeachment cannot really be very narrowly confined. It is as broad as the king's imagination. It has to be. If I can define it closely enough, there will be somebody to figure a way around it. Take the Kleindienst situation. The testimony, the evidence before the committee, as I recall it and would state it is that Mr. Kleindienst received what we would I guess call a chewing out from the President, in rather plain and forceful, clear language, and concerning a specific matter. And then when he was before the Senate committee they were asked if anybody had approached him concerning the matter, ITT, as I recall. and he in effect. said -"well, he might have casually mentioned it". Well, I am telling you that the chewing out that, he, got was such that you would remember it no matter who gave it to you, and certainly if it came from the President he would remember. Now, we still find him, the President after this date, going before the American people and saying when he knew that this testimony had been given, and when he had reason or knew, or had reason to know that the testimony was, not true, and upholding the testimony of Mr. Kleindienst in that situation. Now, there are other examples. I am told in the Jaworski consideration in the false Diem cables, these are, the sort of things that would be, covered here. I yield back the time. Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman from Illinois yield? The CHAIRMAN. How much time, has expired? Mr. McCLORY. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. DENNIS. I thought you had some time. That's all. The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman please defer. There are 7 minutes that have been consumed in opposition and 4 in support. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Waldie. Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and the reason I do is because We were specific in our allegation in the first portion of that paragraph, where we limited the failure to faithfully execute the. laws into the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee. Now, I happen to believe that the matter of Mr. Kleindienst and the antitrust case might well fall within the provisions of the general allegation of paragraph (4), but we alleged specifically the break-in of the, Democratic National Committee, and we throw in just absolutely, as an afterthought those last four words, and concerning other matters." And I am not at all--I do not at all concur in what I have thought to be the objective of my friend from California, Mr. Wiggins, to limit and narrow this inquiry so precisely that the -proof that could be produced would be almost prohibitive in our ability to produce it. But, in this instance I think we have strayed so far into generalities that we would be well advised to adopt his amendment and we would in so doing, in my judgment, do no violence to our standards of fairness, and do no violence to our obligation to have an opportunity to consider and introduce all proof necessary that bears upon impeachable offenses of the President. So I support the gentleman from California. Mr. SARBANES. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WALDIE. I will be happy to yield. t[00.07.39]