Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative Robert McClory (R - Illinois) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey), The gentleman is advised that while he has fifteen minutes remaining the rule has, while he has fifteen minutes the chair has to state that according to the proceeding and according to the policy we have adopted that no time would be reserved. And therefore I now recognize the gentleman from Illinois Mr. McClory for fifteen minutes for purposes of debate only. Representative Robert McClory (R - Illinois), Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would judge from the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts that indeed he has come to a resolution of the momentous question that s before us. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman let me express the view that this impeachment inquiry undertaken by our House judiciary committee has been both historic and honorable. Impeachment is of course a political process. Both political in the sense of governmental action, and political in that it involves partisan interest and views.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
It would be the grossest understatement on my part to suggest that Watergate and all that that word implies has not caused serious injury to my party, the Republican Party. And this is so despite the fact that no element of our established Republican Party organization was involved and no Republican member of the Congress has in anyway been implicated in this whole affair. Let me assert on the contrary that Republicans even more than Democrats are anxious to erase this blemish from our party. I ve heard it said by some that they cannot understand how a Republican could vote to impeach a Republican President. Let me hasten to assert that that argument demeans my role here. It would infer that no matter what high crimes and misdemeanors might have been committed, that if attributed to a Republican President than I as a Republican am foreclosed from judging the merits of the case. I cannot and do not envision my role in that dim light.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
As a purely partisan matter, would it enhance our Republican party if despite the evidence and the weight of constitutional law we as Republicans on this side of the aisle decide to exonerate a Republican President accused of high crimes and misdemeanors; simply because he and we are Republicans. I see that line as leading to Republican Party disaster. A viable two party system to my mind is an institution worthy of preserving second only to our constitutional system of checks and balances. Preserving our Republican party does not to my mind imply that we must preserve and justify a man in office who would deliberately and arbitrarily defy the legal processes of the Congress nor can our party be enhanced if we as Republican members of the United States House of Representatives tolerant the flaunting of our laws by a President who is constitutionally charged with seeing that the laws are faithfully executed as provided in Article two. We will enhance our Republican party and assure a viable two party system only if we are courageous enough and wise enough to reject such conduct even if attributed to a Republican President. The essential question which we must answer is not what is best for our party but what is best for our nation?
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
While the investigation has been far reaching and has in my opinion delved into some peripheral areas. I cannot help but recognize that on the major subjects which have been investigated the work of the committee and of our committee staff has been both objective and bipartisan. I would like particularly too observe that we have been assisted by able council to make a general observation that the members of the minority staff, Republican staff have contributed substantially to the overall work product of our inquiry. Despite our partisan differences, I would add that you Mr. Chairman have in general been very fair with the minority. The American public need have no fear that the Republican interests have not been ably and appropriately served by our ranking member Mr. Ed Hutchinson of Michigan. And by my other distinguished naval colleagues who sit on the Republican side in this committee room.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
I shall turn at once to the main subject of our inquiry, namely the numerous allegations of wrongdoing charged against the President of the United States. All of which allegations we have investigated over a period of many months for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not President Nixon should be charged with the commission of an impeachable offense. The most serious allegations and those upon which the President s accusers have placed principal reliance go under the general title Watergate and the cover up . Our majority council Mr. Doer, in interpreting the information before us have expounded the thesis that the President organized and managed the Watergate cover up from the time of the break in on June 17th 1972 up until the present time. While serious questions exist regarding the President s authorization or acquiescence in an obstruction of justice, a conclusion which might be reached from examining the transcripts of taped conversations and other evidence, the thesis advanced by Mr. Doer that the President was in charge of a cover-up from the time of the break in is, in my opinion, unjustified in light of the evidence presented to our Committee. Our Chief minority council, the able Mr. Sam Garrison made an important and extremely significant point in his final submission of the Watergate evidence. He said Mr. Doer s case of circumstances showing presidential involvement from the beginning is a very, very weak one. Because you cannot simply aggregate suspicions, you cannot aggregate inferences. You can only aggregate facts.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Watergate is a serious matter. Many in and out of the White House have been involved with this tragic episode. But while voluminous evidence has been produced, I question seriously that it is of the clear and convincing nature that should impel us to indict the President on the charge of cover-up or obstruction of justice. Instead, the case against the President rests upon circumstantial evidence, inferences, innuendoes and a generous measure of wishful thinking on the part of some who would indict the President even without adequate proof of wrong doing in the Watergate affair.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Now in the light of today s Supreme Court decision, there may be indeed other available evidence to the committee within the next few days or weeks. Substantial additional evidence from the White House tapes upon which this committee can better judge the guilt or innocence of the President in the whole Watergate affair. The doctrine of absolute executive privilege upon which the President and his council relied has been substantially rejected by the Supreme Court and we can expect hopefully that we will get promptly and without equivocation from the White House the additional tapes which we also subpoenaed and which are now under the President s decision to be made available to the special prosecutor. And we also have the mechanism for excising those irrelevant parts which might not be appropriate for us to see.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Although on the basis of evidence those far received the case involving Watergate has been less than convincing. There are other subjects which the facts in which the facts are virtually otherwise undisputed and where the only unsettled question is whether or not an impeachable offense has been committed under the constitution, which I made reference. If the extremely serious subject of Watergate results never the less in a weak case against the direct involvement of the President, this should not be construed to mean that there has been no wrong doing in the White House. Watergate and the alleged cover up involves the offense of obstruction of justice, for instance, payments of hush money, inducing witnesses to commit perjury and others. These offenses have been committed at the White House or by the President s most intimate aides and friends. But if the President is not personally and criminally liable because the evidence does not directly and personally implicate him. Nevertheless we may appropriately ask has the President fulfilled his obligation to see to a faithful execution of the law. A solemn obligation imposed by the constitution. This obligation is above and beyond that of other citizens all of whom are required to obey the laws.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
We may ask further is the office of the Presidency being operated in the manner contemplated by the Constitution, when under the disguise of national security, dissatisfaction with the head of the FBI, or personal animosity against enemies, we experience burglaries, wire taps, muggings, unlawfully provided shredding and concealment of evidence, misuse of the CIA, FBI, IRS and a host of other misdeeds. It should not be hard for my solid Midwest constituents, Republicans, Democrats and independents alike to see and understand what s troubling me? Believe me it s also troubling them. The question remains whether these acts and omissions of Richard Nixon as president are to be approved or denounced. If in these respects the president is to be denounced and if the president is too called to account for such acts and omissions, impeachment is the appropriate and constitutionally designated vehicle for bringing these specific charges against him.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
What about the offenses committed by Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Closon, LaRue, Dean and others. There is substantial authority for attributing their misconduct to the President in a strictly legal sense and require him to account for their offenses. But there s the higher constitutional obligation to see that such criminal acts are not committed or condoned. A constitutional demand to see that the laws are obeyed, particularly in the Presidents own house, which we call the White House. After receiving evidence for weeks and weeks, evidence which has been frequently peripheral as it relates to direct involvement of the president in Watergate and other crimes, I ask myself is this any way to run a White House or a country?
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Finally, the clearest and most convincing issue before us is perhaps one, which is perhaps more fundamental to our inquiry, is that of the committee subpoenas. In which we requested information from the President. Fundamental to the entire impeachment inquiry is his obligation to provide us the information we require so that we can perform our role. We do want a strong Chief Executive, but we also want a Congress which is given full recognition as well as the courts. Likewise it s essential the President respect that part of the Constitution which vests in the house the soul power of impeachment. The House judiciary committee as the designated unit of the House of Representatives is endeavoring to fulfill that role with honor and dignity consist with our responsibilities. At this particular time in our history we demand a Congress capable of exercising its law making authority, but also its power of the oversight function, which includes that of the extraordinary authority of impeachment.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
Earlier this year the President promised full cooperation with our inquiry, consistent with his responsibilities to the Office of the Presidency. But despite that pledge the only materials which we received have come from the grand jury and from the special prosecutor, except some that have accidentally fallen into our hands. On May 30, we sent the President a letter advising him what the consequences were of his failure to comply. We said In meeting our constitutional responsibility the committee members will be free to consider whether your refusals in and of themselves might be A ground for impeachment. The committee has taken this stand because of the President s noncompliance with the committee s subpoenas. A defiance of the powers of the Congress and impairing our ability to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. In this sense, it seems to me, the President s failure to comply threatens the integrity of our impeachment process itself. His action is a direct challenge to the Congress in the exercise of its solemn Constitutional duty.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert McClory Statement
These then are the issues which are disturbing me. As we approach this final phase of our assignment under the House resolution authorizing this comprehensive impeachment inquiry which my colleagues and I have been conducting and which we must resolve deliberately and responsibly within the next few days. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.