Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Ray Thorton (D - Arkansas).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Ray Thorton (D - Arkansas).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Ray Thorton (D - Arkansas). Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton, is recognized for 3 minutes and 30 seconds. Ray Thorton (D Arkansas). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that many of the views which have been expressed in opposition to the adoption of this article are similar to views which I ve expressed in urging that it should more properly be considered for inclusion in one of the general articles previously adopted. I would like in the short time that I have to refer specifically to some questions that have been asked during the debate. The gentleman from New Jersey referred to the words "direct evidence used in my perfecting amendment. For the purpose of the record, by those words I intended to refer to that evidence within the President's custody and control which is most direct, the original documents and tapes to which our subpoenas were addressed. Next, when I use the phrase that these papers and things were deemed necessary to resolve questions, I certainly did not intend to suggest that the committee lacked clear and convincing evidence upon which to base its decision, but rather that in resolving the question before us, our committee was seeking to obtain all of the evidence relating to the Presidential direction, knowledge, or approval of, actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. By its votes, this committee has already determined that there is clear and convincing evidence which has compelled a large majority, of our committee to reach its conclusion with respect to Articles I and II. But we are not charged with the simple duty of proceeding until we find sufficient evidence upon which to base our conclusions. We were charged with the duty of investigating fully and completely all necessary evidence and drawing our conclusions from that material. And our committee was impeded in its inquiry by the refusal to comply with our subpoenas. Now, we ve already dealt with the question as to whether the courts should be called upon to determine the extent of our subpoena authority in an impeachment proceeding and I think we correctly determined that the duty to enforce our subpoenas rested upon the Congress and not upon the courts. Mr. Chairman, there must be a sufficient nexus between the evidence subpoenaed and the independently impeachable offense for refusal to comply with the subpoena to be an impeachable offense. I believe that the evidence gathered by the committee establishes that at between the obstruction of justice and the refusal to comply with our lawful subpoenas. For the reasons I have outlined, I m prepared to vote for the article offered by the gentleman from Illinois as it is now connected by amendment to substantive offenses charged in Articles I and II. However, I would like to state that I consider the matter to be more appropriately included in the body of a substantive Article and that I will therefore, support the efforts of the gentleman from Maine to include it there on the House floor.