Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.13.52] Mr. McCLORY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to point out I voted against article I which involved a conspiracy charge--obstruction of justice--against the President because of the fact that there was insufficient evidence in the record and the amendment which is offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, which I propose to accept would make reference to the kind of evidence that was lacking with respect to the first article. I did not say that there, was sufficient evidence to impeach the President on article I. I said there was insufficient evidence. Mr. WIGGINS. Well. I cannot yield further. And I-- Mr. McCLORY. That is what our need is. Mr. WIGGINS. Unless my memory failed me the gentleman found by clear and convincing evidence just on yesterday that the President should be, impeached and removed from office. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. WALDIE. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and I think what we are doing in this article as in every article of impeachment is attempting to define by the legislative process. by the impeachment process if you will, the extent of powers that we will permit Presidents to exercise in the future. It is if you will accept it, a constitutional redefinition of those powers and I think what the author of the resolution and the author of the amendment is saying in this instance, is that future Presidents, if subjected to an impeachment inquiry, will not be permitted to 'Make the determination that this President has sought to make, that he will determine what is relevant to that inquiry. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate the point the gentleman is making It is a good point. The way to do it is by legislation, not by a bill of attainment. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the. other gentleman from California, Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the article offered by the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. McClory, and also the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that it is essential that we resolve this issue of the subpenas. The issue has been joined. This committee has issued a number of subpenas. The President has directly stated that he refused to obey them and reserves the right to decide what evidence will be presented before ore us from his office. The question we have here is very delicate and very finely drawn, but it is critical to the separation and allocation of powers under the' Constitution. The Thornton amendment brings into this article the type of responsible restraint that we need. It limits the impact of this article solely to the function of the Congress under the impeachment Clause, our sole power to impeach. This is a basic issue of constitutional separation and allocation Of powers. I submit that, in resolving this question this committee and the Congress must remember that we have no more right to refuse a jurisdiction which is ours than we have to assume a jurisdiction which is not ours. Nor does the Judicial Department nor does the executive department. It is for us to make a judgment here and on the floor of the House as to whether we are going to exercise our responsibility and our jurisdiction under the sole power of impeachment. Mr. McCLORY. In the Thornton amendment and the resolution, I submit that we will have met that issue, and I urge that both the amendment and the a article be adopted. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. I would yield to the lady from New York. MS. HOLTZMAN-. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I would just like to add a few points to his very eloquent statement. There has been some talk that the failure, of the President to comply -with the subpenas wrought no harm, and I would just like to point to the, area of the milk inquiry in which we did seek a number of subpenas and in which the committee in general has come to the conclusion that the evidence has not been sufficient even though there have been any number of indictments handed down, and some of the conversations that we subpenaed had to do with these indicted persons, Second, the argument is the same as was raised yesterday -with respect to IRS: That is, an illegal act which does not succeed is somehow less illegal. That remind me of attempted murder. Do we allow somebody to go free, because the victim survives? That is really a doctrine I think we cannot countenance. And I would like to add one other point, and that has to do with seeking the ruling of the courts. You know, the Founding Fathers placed the impeachment power solely in the hands of the Congress, and they explicitly rejected having the Supreme Court sit as the trier on a Conviction. If we were to allow the Supreme Court to decide on that relevance of the evidence in an impeachment inquiry, and if we were to allow the Supreme Court to decide basically what evidence an impeachment inquiry could have, I feel we would be violating the decisions of the Founding Fathers to place the right to inquire for the purposes of impeachment solely in the hands of the Congress. I very strongly support this article and yield back. [00.19.39]