Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Committee Chairman U.S. Representative Peter Rodino (D-NJ) at House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings for U.S. President Richard Nixon, says, “The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes and 10 seconds; 2 minutes and 40 seconds.” Rep. Rodino recognizes Rep. William Cohen (R-ME), who proclaims his adherence to the claims in Articles One and Two of Impeachment, despite the fragile coalition. Cohen cites statement from Rep. Charles Wiggins (R-CA) that “Article Three is largely inconsistent with the votes for Articles One and Two”; Cohen does not agree, says the fact that one can reach a conclusion on clear and convincing evidence does not mean one needs to review all of the relevant evidence. Cohen argues that although evidence provided to Committee was sufficient to reach a conclusion, it does not mean the Committee was not entitled to all of the relevant evidence that President Nixon was not required to furnish all evidence, or that the Senate is not entitled to the evidence if they insist on a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. Cohen cites former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.: “One page of history is worth a volume of logic.” Cohen believes the evidence necessary to the Committee’s inquiry was withheld, that the doctrines of Executive Privilege and National Security have degraded; believes they have been invoked for illegitimate purposes. Cohen believes withholding evidence was a Presidential action calculated to impede the administration of justice. Cohen proposes an amendment to Article Three to set a precedent for the use of Executive Privilege, citing the spirit of the President Andrew Johnson impeachment trial was neither binding nor influential on this body. Cohen says he does not believe it should be set into law that no future president should be prohibited from invoking Executive Privilege or National Security as restraints on the power of the Legislative Branch. Cohen believes this case can be decided as a matter of fact rather than law.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Committee Chairman U.S. Representative Peter Rodino (D-NJ) at House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearings for U.S. President Richard Nixon, recognizes Representative Father Robert Drinan (D-MA), who discusses two previous votes on contempt citations during his time in Congress, the first against Dr. Frank Stanton (CBS President, regarding the House investigation of “Selling of the Pentagon”) in 1971, and the second with G. Gordon Liddy in 1973. Drinan considers the President to be in the same category as any person whose documents are subpoenaed by Congress, adding he finds nothing would justify the defiance of Congress’ subpoena; cites the Supreme Court ruling that Nixon had not invoked any military or diplomatic justification for his refusal of the subpoenas. Drinan points out that Nixon cannot be indicted in a court for contempt as a sitting president. Drinan is in favor of Article Three’s citation of contempt against Nixon.