Advanced Search
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.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative Jack Brooks (D - Texas) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). I recognize for the purposes of general debate only the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Brooks, not to exceed fifteen minutes. Representative Jack Brooks (D - Texas). Thank you Mr. Chairman. This committee has heard evidence of governmental corruption unequalled in the history of the United States. The cover up of crimes, obstructing the prosecution of criminals, surreptitious entries, wire tapping for political purposes, suspension of the civil liberties of every American, tax violations, and personal enrichment at public expense, bribery and blackmail, flagrant misuse of the FBI, the CIA, and the IRS. Eighteen individuals have been convicted or pleaded guilty and six have been indicted for criminal activities directly related to Mr. Nixon s reelection efforts or activities which originated within the White House. These individuals are not obscure government officials but include cabinet officers, personal assistants, and the closest personal advisors to Richard Nixon.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
Never in our hundred and ninety-eight years have we had evidence of such rampant corruption in government. We must decide whether this corruption attached to the President, whether there is evidence that the President by his actions or inaction failed in his constitutional responsibility to faithfully execute the law. We on the committee, both Republicans and Democrats, have taken our constitutional responsibility most seriously and have pursued the facts often without the cooperation of those possessing information and at times, in the face of planned efforts to mislead and divert us from the truth. It is our constitutional duty to determine whether there is sufficient cause to bring Richard Nixon before the United States Senate for trial and removal from office.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
In resolving this issue, we should put aside that legalistic jargon of our profession; present to the American people in plain language our best judgments as to whether there is evidence that Richard Nixon has brought disgrace and disrespect to the office of the President. We must immediately put to rest the argument that the corruption we have witnessed in the last five years is only an extension of what is always been done. I do not share this view or the view of those that hold that all Presidents have lied, broken the law and compromised the Constitution. And if George Washington accepted bribes, it would not make bribery a virtue nor would it be grounds for overlooking such acts by his successors.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Jack Brooks Statement
There is no political gain for anyone or any political party in this proceeding. If ever there was a time to put aside partisanship, now is that time. There would be no Democratic gains from removing a Republican President and having him replaced by another Republican, who represent and might well receive a great outpouring of support from our people. We must now report to the House of Representatives and the American people our conclusions as to whether there is sufficient evidence that Richard Nixon, while serving as President, has violated his oath of office and has thereby jeopardized our constitutional system of government. This is not a pleasant duty, but it is our constitutional duty. Its performance may mean ignoring personal and political relationships of long standing. We, as well as the President, are on trial for how faithfully we fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. I want to thank the Chairman for recognizing me in the interest of expediting this resolution of this very difficult problem. You have the remainder of my time.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Henry Smith Statement
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 - Representative Henry Smith (R - New York) Statement Rayburn House Office Building, Washington DC
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). I recognize the gentlemen from Wisconsin, Mr. Kastenmeier for purposes of general debate only not to exceed fifteen minutes. Representative Robert Kastenmeier (D - Wisconsin). Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the last, virtually eight months been engaged in this quest for facts, evidence and for truth and up till now the American people now have been very patient. And Mr. Chairman I want to commend you for stating tonight that we will proceed inexorably to a conclusion of these deliberations. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court s decision for I do not believe the Supreme Court decision will have or should have any immediate effect on our committee s deliberations. It would have been helpful to have this evidence before but we do not; we are prepared to accept the moment of truth and hopefully Mr. Chairman perhaps we can conclude this very week.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
This being as far as the deliberation of the committee for many months is concerned a concluding episode. I would like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to our professional staff. I am proud to claim that John Doer and Richard Cates are from my home state of Wisconsin. And as well I would like to pay my respects to Mr. Jenner from the neighboring state of Illinois. These and others who have so ably counseled us these past months I m sure long after this matter has been put to rest that we are concluding in committee this week, can go to bed nights secure in the knowledge that they have been faithful to their conscience and to their country. Indeed if those legal advisors to the President in former times had such a view the President this proceeding and other proceedings might not have been necessary.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
I would also say that as the general debate progresses and as the articles of impeachment are offered and debated the specifics of the case against the President hopefully will emerge. But even then in the several days and under the procedural limitations we cannot hope to treat very much of the mass of evidence we have considered over these many months. However, the public is aware that these materials are now released publically. Television, radio, newspapers, and news magazines have attempted to communicate what this mass evidence means and while we here will have but a few hours of your attention in terms of the discussion of the implications of it, the public release of the materials should help the public even more.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Mr. Chairman we have labored long and hard in effort for it to be fair to the President and to those among us who must sit in judgment but may not share common views. We now decide how to vote for or against impeachment. It is not our duty to attempt to assess whether Mr. Nixon committed common crimes. That is a determination which must ultimately rest elsewhere. In my own case, my decision has been made. I have concluded after careful consideration of all the evidence that President Nixon must be impeached and removed from office. I say this, whatever the record of the administration may be in other fields notwithstanding. This decision was not reached lightly nor was it made out of personal animosity towards the President. The process of impeachment is of drastic undertaking not only for the congress but for the country and cannot be taken causally. I would also have as I have thought many times Mr. Nixon were the leader of my party, if instead Mr. Nixon were instead Mr. Johnson or Mr. Kennedy and had been charged with same offenses could I freely and with as much certainty come to the same conclusion. I have to answer yes.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
I believe clear and compelling evidence does exist and leads inescapably to only one conclusion. President Nixon s conduct in office is a case history in the abuse of presidential power. The abuses documented by the evidence gathered by this committee are numerous. And will be discussed here and after as they have in part been discussed before. I hope too that some of the issues and charges which may not originally be in articles before us, whether they are on the bombing of Cambodia, or the presidential impoundment, be fully considered. And whether or not they constitute any final articles approved by this committee, they ought to be considered as a pattern of a whole in terms of presidential disregard for truth and for law.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Mr. Chairman it is important to draw clear distinction between preserving the man and preserving the office. Mr. Nixon has consistently argued that this fight against the committee and the courts is designed to save the office. In fact I would argue this fight is designed to save one person, Mr. Nixon. Impeachment is the one way in which the American people can say to themselves that they care enough their institutions, their own freedom and their own claim to self government, their own national honor to purge from the Presidency anyone who s dishonored that office. This power of impeachment is not intended to obstruct or weaken the office of the Presidency. It is intended as a final remedy against executive excess, not to protect the Congress against the President, but the people against the abuse of power of a chief executive. And it is the obligation of the Congress to defend democratic society against a chief executive who might be corrupt.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Justice Brandice warned Americans of dangers of official illegality. In the government of laws, he wrote, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent and omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If government because a law breaker it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself. It invites anarchy.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Mr. Chairman, in my view Richard Nixon has shown disrespect for the citizens of this nation and has violated their Constitution and their laws, engaging in official wrong doing. Society through its elected representatives condemns this conduct. Otherwise, we will cease to have a government of laws. I will therefore vote for impeachment of Richard M Nixon and I do this with the belief that the House of Representatives will agree in that his trial in the Senate will result in his conviction and removal from office. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 24, 1974 Robert Kastenmeier Statement
Chairman Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The Chair is going to be compelled to recess for a period of time. The Chair will state that the meeting will resume at the call of the Chair but it is necessary that we do recess for a period of time.