Advanced Search
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.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey), I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Donohue. Representative Harold Donohue (D - Massachusetts). Thank you Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to the procedural resolutions which this committee adopted yesterday, I move that the committee report to the House a resolution; together with Articles of Impeachment, impeaching Richard M Nixon, President of the United States. Now copy of this resolution is at the clerk s desk. And I understand a copy is also before each member.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey), I recognize the gentlemen from Massachusetts for the purpose of general debate on his resolution where not to exceed fifteen minutes and every other member of the committee will be recognized for purposes of debate not to exceed fifteen minutes following Mr. Donohue s presentation. Mr. Donohue. Representative Harold Donohue (D - Massachusetts). Thank you again Mr. Chairman. This historic debate and the motion I have just offered to this Committee have their roots in the most fundamental precept of free men that no individual is above the law. On July 20, 1787, the Constitutional convention had before it the great question, Shall the executive be removable on impeachment? Mr. Governor Morris, a delegate to that convention, spoke out forcibly in opposition. He wanted no impeachment clause in the draft of our Constitution, but he listened intently. At first, Benjamin Franklin and then James Madison argued on behalf of such a clause. And finally, just before the question was voted, Mr. Governor Morris announced that his opinion had been changed by the arguments presented in debate. The impeachment clause was adopted by the convention and became Section Four of Article Two of the Constitution of the United States. And the solo power of impeachment was vested in the House of Representatives under Article One Section Two of the Constitution.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Now pursuant to that Constitutional power, House resolution 803 as stated by our distinguished Chairman was adopted by the House of Representatives on February 6 by a vote of 410 to 4. That that resolution directed this Committee to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional authority to impeach the President of the United States. For the past several months as it has also been stated this Committee has been continuously engaged in the careful conduct of this presidential impeachment inquiry. Under the absolute neutral leadership, I believe that our Chairman has well established its overriding motivation of honesty, decency, thoroughness and objectivity to the satisfaction of the great majority of the American citizens.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Now in truth there were and there are no positive material instruments available to us such as those by which we can measure a precise distance or pronounce the exact time of day to guarantee the errorless performance of this duty. The human means through which we must try to make the right measurement of conduct that is required in this historical task exists only in the individual minds and consciences of each of the committee members. These are the basic resources by which each determines the substance and culpability of and in the evidence related to the several allegations that in the course of the conduct of his official office President Richard M Nixon engaged in certain activities designed to obstruct justice, to unlawfully invade the Constitutional rights of private citizens, to refuse compliance with the dually authorized and properly served subpoenas of a committee of the Congress, to misuse executive agencies for personal and political benefit, and that President Richard M Nixon, in other and diverse ways failed to fulfill his constitutional obligations to insure the faithful execution of our laws.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Now the awesome constitutional duty of each member of this committee is to make an impartial determination as to whether or not the evidence before us warrants a reasonable judgment that Richard M Nixon, as President, has seriously, gravely, purposefully and persistently abused and misused the power entrusted in him by the People of these United States.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Harold Donohue Statement
Mr. Chairman, in my conviction, the hour for this decision has arrived. To this end, I believe the time has come to report to the House such resolutions, articles of impeachment or other recommendations as we deem proper on these enormous matters. I have carefully observed the witnesses appeared before this committee, heard their testimony, listen to the summations of council on both sides and I have fully studied all of the evidence. Mr. Chairman, I am most willing to listen to any further debate that may develop on the impeachment articles. I am prepared to vote on this momentous question before us and I can but simply say this. My vote will be consciously cast in what I most sincerely believe is in the best interest of our country. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
George Bush Remarks at the Republican Party Labor Day Picnic in Waukesha, Wisconsin September 7, 1992. Now, I admit it; Harry and I don't have everything in common.
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
President Bill Clinton (William Jefferson Clinton) speaking at Democratic rally on campaign trail in 1992, The truth is the only part of Harry Truman s legacy that George Bush wants is a in the election.
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
MS George Bush taking to platform at 1992 rally, people waving American flags. MS Bill Clinton shaking hands at rally.
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
B&W ARCHIVAL: MCU President Harry S Truman waving his hat to supporters on the street. GV multiethnic crowd in the street applauding. MCU Truman waving.
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
B&W ARCHIVAL: New Year's Eve Celebrations: GV couples in formal attire enjoying themselves on the dance floor. MCU intoxicated couple in tight embrace, smiling for the camera while dancing. MS couples seated at table, kissing & shaking noise makers at the stroke of midnight. MS couple wearing party hats seated in nightclub booth, man blows into noise maker then leans in to kiss his date. CU balloon with "1947" written on it being popped in celebration.
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
B&W ARCHIVAL: MCU white fashion model winking at camera form behind umbrella. MS white fashion model showing off plunging hemline skirt. The New Look
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
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
GV CLEVELAND INDIANS baseball players celebrating the 1948 WORLD SERIES VICTORY, carrying a player off the field.
GREAT UPSET OF '48 - PT1
MS of HOSPITAL NURSES wheeling pair after pair of baby cribs through a nursery (the baby boom).
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.