Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Peter Rodino ( D New Jersey ) The committee will be in order, and the committee will resume its proceeding; I now recognize, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Sandman, for purposes of debate only, not to exceed 15 minutes. Mr. Sandman.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R New Jersey) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not going to attempt to cover all of the charges that have been made. I am going to isolate my statements to the major charge of the Watergate and Watergate cover up. If it were not for that I don't think we would be here tonight. I think it is altogether proper too, to commence by making a little bit of a review on what we have done, where we are tonight, and where we hope to go from here. My mind is unchanged as a result of the Supreme Court decision today. I believe that this committee should go on with its work. There are sufficient votes here for an impeachment resolution. This everyone knows. In fact, there has been that many votes here for a long time. There is no use kidding anybody about that. So regardless of what is the new tapes, a majority does exist here to impeach the President for some, reason or another.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) Now, I think that to say that this is the most unusual proceeding that I have ever been a part of would be a tremendous understatement. The thing that amuses me is it is as important as it is and even though it has been held in confidence behind closed doors, what I read in the papers from day to day led me to believe I could not have been here. I must have been somewhere else. We started in closed session and we swore by everything that was holy that we would uphold the rules of confidentiality. That has been joke of the century. There has been nothing confidential in this committee. Members of the other side have reported to the media, every hour on the hour, some every hour on the half hour. We have become first forum in the history of man to release to the public every shred of information we have before a single decision was ever made. When did that ever happen before? Never. But we have done it.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) And then when we think about releasing information, I am wondering. We have released tens of thousands of pages to the public and the, media, to the media to destroy, if they choose and some people in the media like to do that. And this involved hundreds of innocent people. Where was the American Civil Liberties Union about that? Isn't it strange that they have been remarkably silent. But willy nilly, we have been willing through one method or another to give to the media for whatever method they want to use it, every shred of evidence that exists, and most of it is not evidence. The interesting thing about this, too, is what happened the other day, just for example. One thing that apparently the media hadn't had yet was the large document that had 715 pages in it about miscellaneous documents. I was asked and so were the other members of this committee asked to vote for this willy nilly without the discussion of a single page or a single document. That is hardly the way to conduct good hearing, is it? But that is the way we have been working. Fortunately, that was defeated.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) And now another thing that happened the other day, I raised a question which I thought was a good one. I wanted to know whether or not counsel could advise me as to whether or not the articles of impeachment should be specific. Should each article involve a singular subject? I thought it should. Counsel never opened their mouths. We never got that far. And the Chairman hit the gavel and under the table that went. So there has never been a decision even on that point. And from the law as I understand the law, the articles that we have been handed tonight don t fit what the law requires because here you have a general article of impeachment, everything including the kitchen sink. And this they say, from best information available to me from some of the best legal minds in the world, should not be. I wanted to know. But I got no answer. Now, I have consistently said from time to time that the Chairman has done a good job, a fair job. And I think he has. I complimented the staff. I complemented counsel. Both majority and minority, but there s never really been much difference between those two. And I meant what I said then as I mean it tonight. But things started to change 3 weeks ago. 3 weeks ago it changed from a non-partisan inquiry into a highly partisan prosecution if ever there was one.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) Now let s see what happened. Better than that, I suppose I should do away with current events and get down to why we re here tonight. And I hope that this has some advantage, I really do. I don t know as we re going to change any votes. I hope we do. One way or another, I hope it serves a purpose. I can be persuaded if somebody for the first time in seven months gives me something that is direct. I ll vote to impeach. Maybe that should be the challenge to my 36 other colleagues tonight, 37 of us. Now, I want to say this at the very outset. This is not a case, as far as I m concerned, for or against Richard Nixon. I ran for governor in my state last year and Richard Nixon didn t help me one blessed bit. So I have no reason to feel kindly toward him.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) Now, secondly, this is the third time in my life that I have had to vote whether or not someone should hold a very high office. And I think because of the coincidence it s worth telling you a little bit about it. The first vote that I cast in my life as public official was when I was the youngest member, newly elected, of the New Jersey state Senate. The first vote had to do with the seating of a Democrat Senator. And if there s anything I think I know it s the New Jersey election law. I listened to all of the experts from around the country testifying. At that time you only needed 11 Republicans to sign a petition and that Democrat would never sit in the Senate and we had 16 including me. I was the only Republican who voted to seat that Democrat. As a result of a long investigation it proved I was the only Republican right. He was seated. 16 years to the day later, I cast my first vote in the Congress. And that was on the seating of Adam Clayton Powell. What a coincidence. It meant no difference to me whether his name was Powell, Nixon or what it was. I voted my conscience as I understood the law without the persuasion of the Washington Post and others. I voted as I understood the law. I was one of only 13 Republicans. And I did not want Adam Clayton Powell seated. But under the Constitution as I understand it, the Congress did not have the right to exclude him for the reason they set forth. I was one of only 13 Republicans who voted to seat Adam Clayton Powell, purely on a Constitutional grounds. Only one of 13, and I may be one of less than that tonight, who knows. And more than that, who cares. I m doing this the way I think it should be done. This is the way I believe I pledged my oath of office. Although there were only 13 Republicans who voted to seat Adam, the United States Supreme Court said that only 13 Republicans were correct. Becuase they reversed the Congress and seated Adam.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) Now for the first time in my life, I have to judge a Republican, a man who holds the most powerful office in the world. Make no mistake about that. I look back over history and I try to judge what I should do here. This is the most important thing I shall ever do in my whole life and I know it. Far more important than whatever happens to me as a result of this vote. And I know that history tells me that 107 years ago the country was thrown into a fit of hysteria. And in less than 3 days, President Johnson was impeached during that fit of hysteria. That has gone down in history as one of the darkest moments in the government of this great nation. And I don t propose to be any part of a second blotch on the history of this great nation. How was it all done? The hysteria that was generated. Should it be done? Let s not use some words by some great people, let s use all of them and put them together. James Madison among other things said, the President should be impeached only for something extremely serious which affects his capability to conduct the affairs of the nation. And because of James Madison, a word was inserted into that part of the Constitution having to do with impeachment. He wasn t satisfied that it could be any crime because he said it had to be a high crime, a serious one. And this is what I think we have to follow. I m not a nitpicker. You can find almost anything that will disturb you. There s lots of things wrong. There were lots of crimes committed by lots of people. But were they placed at the door of the President? I don t think so. But maybe you can convince me in the rest of the time we have to argue. And if you do, I will vote to impeach. But not on what I ve gotten so far.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) Madison said that the President should be removed only for the most serious offense. To do otherwise would deprive the electorate of the right to select. To do otherwise would place a mechanism in the hands of a majority party that any time they choose they could throw the county into a turmoil to replace the Chief Executive and that should never happen. So it shouldn t be any kind of a crime, it should be a serious crime, effecting the Chief Executive s ability to rule the nation. Some people say we re here as a grand jury. I think we are here as much more than a grand jury because even Mr. Doar said. I do compliment his ability as a lawyer. I think he is one of the best I ve ever met and one of the fairest I ve met too, up to 3 weeks ago. But even he said the weight of evidence must be clear, it must be convincing. And let s keep to those 2 words. You can t substitute them for anything else clear and convincing. Now prove to me they are clear and convincing and I will vote to impeach. But you cannot and you should not under any circumstance attempt to remove the highest office in the world for anything less than clear and convincing. Anything less than something highly serious. This is what I prove I purpose to do.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) Now, many wrongs have been committed, no question about it. But were those wrongs directed by the President? Is there direct evidence that said he had anything to do about it? Of course there isn t. And what has happened in the interim, fair articles like this. A reliable news magazine I m told. What does it say? And if this isn t trying to incite the people into a frenzy against good judgment, you tell me what is. Newsweek, July 22nd 1974, The Evidence only half of an extremely damaging sentence. It says, quoting the President I want you all to stonewall it. Let them plead the 5th Amendment. Cover it up. Do anything. Save the plan. Terrible isn t it. They left off the other half of the President, as did that very fair Washington Post, when they buried on page 20 the other half of the sentence, which quoted the President as saying, but I rather it be done the other way. This is what has happened every day, every hour on the hour. So we don t have to do this in frenzy. Let s do it the right way.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) The first tape of March 21, 1973 worried me to death. When I went to bed that night I made up my mind. The President is cooked. He doesn t have a chance. But the following morning I heard another tape that was made only 3 hours later on the same day. And that completely did away with what was happening on the first tape. So you can t use one tape, as this fair magazine has done. You can t use one part of the tape as the Washington Post did. You have to use it all in context to arrive at the truth. And this is what I suggest we do. It is not the purpose of any media to make the news. It is the purpose and the objective of the media to fairly report the news. Now to say, as this committee did over many weeks, everything that Haldeman knew, Nixon knew. That s not proof.
Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Charles Sandman Statement
Representative Charles Sandman (R - New Jersey) And I want to pose this one last thing. I wonder what the prosecutor in the United States Senate is going to do for witnesses. I wonder what he is going to do. Is he going to plead his whole case on tapes? Because he can t use any of the witnesses we had. Because every one of them testified, no active wrongdoing on the part of the President. And if you don t think so, go through the lot. Who was the man who handled the money, LaRue. Was there any involvement by the President? His answer to the question No. To the man who received the money, Bittman, the attorney did your client make any threat to get clemency from the President or any of his agents? The answer no. As to the man who supposedly directed the payment of the money, Mitchell did the President have anything to do with that direction? The answer no. Now with these kind of witnesses how do you prove that case before the Senate? Is there a soul here who honestly believes that 67 out of 100 Senators are willing to accept this kind of evidence? I don t think so. And I think this is why we re here. Now maybe in the time that is remaining, someone somehow will point out the fact that I m only human and I m not infallible. Maybe I overlooked something. Maybe there is a tie in with the President. Alright, there s 37 of you. Give me that information. Give it to 202 million Americans. Because up to this moment, you haven t.