Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.14.09] LEHRER Reviews the voting record of each member in turn, pointing to photos with pen. DUKE says that it seems from the demonstration that the coalition has been pushed to its limit, and dissolved. Speculates that the first two articles will be strongest on the HOUSE floor, doubtful for the third. LEHRER notes that it remains to be seen who will be the Floor Managers for the Articles in the Floor vote. The committee will probably want to preserve bipartisanship in the HOUSE, pointing out Rep. RAILSBACK as a possible REPUBLICAN choice as Manager in the Floor Vote. LEHRER introduces the guest commentators, Constitutional Scholar Jack MURPHY and Columnist George WILL. To introduce questioning, LEHRER introduces a clip from the day's hearings featuring Rep. RAILSBACK, shown arguing that the third article and others represents OVERKILL. LEHRER asks if the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS article carries the same clout as the first two did. WILL responds that he doesn't think that ARTICLES III-V represent "political overkill". States that the CONTEMPT of CONGRESS Article was part of a very hotly contested Constitutional debate, and that the charge of political overkill doesn't wash when you consider that the second ranking REPUBLICAN on the committee sponsored the Article. States that moving on the CAMBODIA BOMBING was a disservice to the committee itself, but that the final vote of rejection by a bipartisan majority indicates strongly that that issue is dead as far as impeachment is concerned. States that Rep. RAILSBACK may be laying it on a little thick about the potential for overkill, says that the evidence as presented will compell the committee to reject weak articles. MURPHY says that as a lawyer, he had some problems with the CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS article in that the vote was extremely narrow and partisan. States that legally, he's disturbed that the committee was so eager to set a precedent that it did not have to set, the Supreme Court could have been asked to rule, and two strong Articles of Impeachment have already been approved. States that a more frivolous Congress in the future might use the PRECEDENT to set up a President for political reasons. His opinion is that the Impeachment Process will not be hampered if the article is not passed, offers as illustration the evidence obtained by this committee through non-Executive sources. DUKE asks MURPHY if he agrees with Rep. DENNIS'S argument that the Article III is simply a setup, a manufactured attempt to get the President to incriminate himself. MURPHY states that he does agree with DENNIS, and that the committee has taken it upon itself to rule on a very delicate point of Constitutional law. [00.26.30]