Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Charles Rangel (D New York). Mr. Chairman, it, is pretty clear to me that Mr. Sandman has pretty much made up his mind as it relates to articles of impeachment. But, I do deem it a little unfair to use parliamentary procedure when in fact his motion to strike deals with each and every article that is outlined in Article I of our impeachment articles. It-seems to me that he has made an admission to this committee that he was moving to strike paragraph I of the Sarbanes substitute, not because he did not believe that the. President had made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers, but because it was his personal belief that this type of information should be included in the articles of impeachment. Well, if Mr. Sandman is going to take this route because of his personal belief as to how the articles should be drafted, he has at the desk nine amendments. If the Chair continues to be as generous in his ruling to give 5 minutes to each member to discuss these blanket Motions to Strike, as suggested by Mr. Sandman, then it would have consumed 27 hours of this committees time to deal merely with Mr. Sandman's Parliamentary questions.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Charles Rangel (D - New York). There are more than enough people ready to deal with some of the problems we have with the President. It s difficult to think in all of the criminal terms suggested by Mr. Dennis because Mr. Dennis would forget the fact that the President is an unindicted coconspirator. If you want to deal with the criminal law, there is plenty of opportunity to deal with that. Unfortunately, in our Constitution the burden falls on us because the President can t be indicted. If indeed the writers of the Constitution wanted to use the criminal law they would have not given the President that protection as to not being indicted. It is a little surprising, however, where the President says that the Watergate grand jury has all of the information that it needs to indict the guilty and exonerate the innocent and then when he comes close to it Mr. St. Clair says that they did not have enough evidence.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Charles Rangel (D - New York). Nevertheless, if you really want, to deal with the false and misleading statements then I ask my colleague from Maryland why don't you walk with me through the President steps, walk with me using his language as he went to bed the night of March 21st and talked to himself self on a dictaphone. And this was March 21, 1973. You don t have to pick these things at random, they are all over. And then on March 27, the words that he says to Ehrlichman as to what to tell the Attorney General. It is false, misleading and expletive deleted. Now, what did the President say to himself? The President dictated his recollections of the day. He said Magruder will bring Haldeman down. This is the language that he heard from Dean. If Hunt wasn t paid, he would say things that would be very detrimental to Colson and Ehrlichman. That Mitchell had been present when Liddy offered his political intelligence proposal. That Colson with Hunt and Liddy was in his office. That he had called up Magruder. That Colson had pushed too hard. That Ehrlichman sent Hunt and his crew out to check into Ellsberg psychiatric problem and Krogh was in a straight position of perjury. This is not what he is saying is true. This is what he is saying that Dean told him and Strachan had been a courageous fellow through all of this and that Strachan certainly had knowledge of the matter and that he was going to call Mitchell. Now, he calls Mitchell and of course that's when they talk about stonewalling it.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Charles Rangel (D - New York). Now, I just want to say with all of this information with Dean talking about the cancer and no one takes issue with the fact that the President is talking, and we heard the conversation. And I will yield if I have, time, but what bothers me is March 27th where the President is talking to Mr. Haldeman and he wants to get all the information that he can from the grand jury. And he tells Haldeman to ask Kleindienst. He said put it on the basis it's John Mitchell that wants the information from the grand jury and so everyone can't say it's the White House raised hell about it because we are not raising hell, just tell him that he owes it to Mitchell. And here's the last part and I ll yield. He says "I think you have got to tell them. Look Dick" that s Dick Kleindienst "let me tell you that Dean was not involved." Well, the President says on March 21st to himself that Dean had confessed. Paul Sarbanes (D Maryland). Would the gentleman yield? Charles Rangel (D New York). Wait a minute, now. The President said and it is President's words, that Dean felt he was criminally liable for his action in taking care of defendants. March 21, Nixon talking to March 27, Nixon talking to Ehrlichman. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman has expired. Charles Rangel (D New York). He said "Tell them, Look Dick, Dean was not involved." Now this is not taking anything out of context, and then the President goes on to say "Tell Kleinienst that nobody in the White House was involved."
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given 30 seconds so he can yield 15 of it to me. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Without objection, it is so ordered. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Would the gentleman yield? Charles Rangel (D New York). I yield. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). The gentleman misunderstood my criticism. If it is criticism. I would be happy to walk hand by hand with him through the evidence and pluck out the things that are germane to our articles of impeachment. But I think we should reject those that are not. That was the only point I was trying to make. Charles Rangel (D New York). Would the gentleman agree that the gentleman from New Jersey is not concerned with the fact you and I agree. The American people should know? Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). I will let the gentleman from New Jersey speak for himself. But I abhor the commendatory things about Strachan. And in fact, I was responsible for putting into the Sarbanes substitute the language about rewarding those who have committed perjury. Given a $36,000 job to Magruder after he was known to have committed perjury is even more damaging. And I want all of those things to be brought out and specified. But I also think we should reject the things that are not germane. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time has expired.