Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative J. Edward Hutchinson (R -Michigan) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey), I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan. Representative J. Edward Hutchinson (R -Michigan). Thank you Mister Chairman. I certainly agree with the opening paragraphs of your statement. And I want to compliment you upon a statement in which I m sure you hold strong and firm belief. Although I would disagree with parts of it. I certainly wanted to say that I certainly compliment you upon its opening several paragraphs.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
We now proceed to consider the large mass of evidentiary material which was assembled during many months and presented to us by committee staff, and by the testimony of witnesses who have appeared before us. During the next few days, we will be weighing the evidence and acting upon it. After a period of general debate, we will be discussing amendments and voting upon them. And finally, the end product of our deliberations will be manifest. Either we shall by minority majority vote have recommended one or more grounds for impeachment against the President or all of those proposed for adoption will have been defeated. In our deliberations the people will have an unusual glimpse into the discussions of those charged with decision making in a unique judicial process. But perhaps ours is more of a political than judicial function after all. The fact is that of course judges and juries deliberate behind closed doors. But by the Committee s action in opening these discussions it has in effect determined that our function is more political then judicial. I think that the public should know that until now the only decisions made by this committee have been procedural ones. No substantive matter has yet been resolved.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Early in the inquiry the staff submitted a memorandum on what constitutes an impeachable offense within the meaning of the Constitution. But the committee took no action upon it, it being recognized that no definition could be drawn which would be agreed to probably by most members. Thus as of this minute the committee has not resolved just what an impeachable offense is. As the staff assembled evidence many of us thought that the Committee should decide and give some direction to the staff as to the scope of the inquiry. We thought the Committee should direct the staff into those areas of inquiry in which the committee itself determined that it might be merit so that time and effort would not be consumed in frivolous or otherwise non-meritorious allegations. But such a course of action would have required the committee to make decisions of substance. And no decisions were made. The articles of impeachment which are to be exhibited tonight are, like any legislative bill, merely a vehicle upon which the committee may work its will. They will be open to additions, to deletions, amendments and substitutions. Each member of this committee individually weighing the evidence against his own concept of what warrants impeachment will come to his own conclusion on how he votes on the articles in their final form. Each of us is struck by the enormity of the decision that we are called upon to make.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
As I see it, and I state only my personal views, a vote for an article of impeachment means that a member is convinced that the article states an offense for which the President should be removed from office. And that there is evidence which supports the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike criminal juries prudence where there is discretion in the court to make the sentence fit the crime, the Constitution mandates that conviction on impeachment shall carry with it removal from office, nothing less. It seems to me than that in determining in my own mind whether a specific charge states an impeachable offense, I would have to decide whether I thought the offense charged is of sufficient gravity to warrant removal of the President from office because of it. In other words, some offenses may be charged for which there is convincing evidence and still such offenses may not, in the judgment of a member, be so serious as to justify impeachment and removal of the President of the United States from office.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 J. Edward Hutchinson Statement
Earlier today the Supreme Court announced that the President of the United States is required by law to comply with a certain subpoena duces tecum served upon him in the case United States versus Mitchell and others, by submission of the subpoenaed material to the trial judge for his private examination. And that the judge shall deliver to the prosecutor only those portions which are relevant to the case, returning the balance of the documentation to the President without disclosing its contents. Since this Committee has requested the tapes of the same conversations from the President, and then subpoenaed them, the question arises whether our Committee should proceed further. Until the availability of the additional evidence to the Committee is determined. Many members on this side Mr. Chairman, feel strongly that we should not. We believe the American people will expect us to examine and weigh all available evidence before we decide the momentous and most difficult issue before us. Even now Mr. Chairman, we hope that the Chair will consider whether in view of the events of today the Committee ought not first to determine to postpone consideration of articles of impeachment until the evidence now becomes available through the court, can be available to this Committee.