Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.06.28] [00.06.28] Mr. DANIELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apropos of the debate as to specificity as to time, I should like to point out that although this is not a criminal prosecution there is ample precedent in our Federal criminal procedural laws to establish that the only point, the only necessity for establishing- a date in ,in indictment, which this is analogous to, is to bring the' activity complained of within the period of the statute of limitations. Here since the pleadings would indicate that on June 17, 1972 and prior thereto, but obviously in its context, within the period of time that Richard Nixon has served as the President of the United States, and, therefore, clearly within the period of limitations for this proceeding, these events did take place, and the policies were established. The only other requirement in an accusatory pleading, which a bill of impeachment will be, as for specificity on facts, is that the facts be described with sufficient particularity so that the person charged or accused can be aware of the offenses with which he is charged, and thereby enabled to prepare his Defense. Second, that acquittal or conviction on that charge of factual information will serve as a bar to any subsequent prosecution. Now, I respectfully submit, that the pleading before us or proposed, pleading as submitted by Mr. Sarbanes does clearly establish as to a time that this policy was established, on June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, but within the term of office, of President Richard M. Nixon, and therefore, as to time, this is sufficiently specific. No. 2, as to the facts, I would respectfully submit that they are alleged with great particularity, and sufficiently enable the President to prepare his defense and to have an acquittal or a conviction serve as a bar to a subsequent prosecution, thereby avoiding the, constitutional ban against double, jeopardy. Last, I would like, to point out that this document, a, bill of particulars is not an indictment, and criminal law. the precedents do not control. They are valuable as an analogy, but this need not be as specific as an indictment in a criminal case. Moreover, the added information which counsel for the President may want in the nature of time. and in the nature of dates. places, par- particulars on facts, can be reached by him in the event this goes to trial in the Senate through his bringing a motion for a bill of particulars, or a motion to make more definite and certain, and it is not an attack upon the validity of this proposed article of impeachment. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman 9 Mr. SANDMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. I will be delighted to yield. Mr. SANDMAN. Now, you have made a point that this is not necessarily the same as a criminal indictment. Mr. DANIELSON. That is correct. Mr. SANDMAN. All right now, even if we were ere to agree on that point which I do not altogether, but let us assume we do, does the President have any rights pertaining to due process? Mr. DANIELSON. No, he does not. Mr. SANDMAN. As would a common criminal in an indictment? Mr. DANIELSON. He does not have any less right, and as a matte matter Of fact, in this proceeding he has enjoyed much greater rights: Mr. SANDMAN. All right, so he is entitled to due process? I Mr. DANIELSON. This is my time, Mr. Sandman. I will point out that the, President has been present, and participated in these proceedings since the very first hour that we have met. Mr. SANDMAN. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. His counsel has been permitted to introduced evidence and to examine witnesses. He has a complete copy Of document that pends before this committee. Due process; has not merely been observed here, it has been exalted, and I applaud it, but the President and no one else has ever had opportunity to be informed such as have been provided to him in this procedure. SANDMAN. Will the gentleman admit -that this begins a new chapter, this begins a new charge? Mr. DANIELSON. . I was about, I would say to the gentleman from New Jersey, I was about to yield to my colleague from California, Mr. Edwards. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. I would like to direct a question to Mr. Danielson. Mr. DANIELSON. I -will yield for the question. Mr. EDWARDS. Thank you. The purpose, of course, is to always be fair in an indictment, and that is -why it should be as exact as possible. You think that the President and his attorney can understand in at particularity exactly the charges, the specific events that this article of impeachment refers to? Mr. DANIELSON. Well, at the risk Of Sounding frivolous, I would state anyone who is in charge of the complicated business of this Nation Certainly would be able to understand the intendments of this proposed article of impeachment. But, if under some happenstance is not deemed clear to the person accused, he still will have the remedy of asking for a bill of particulars or make a motion for greater and specificity of these. facts at an appropriate time. Yes, due process is well served, and fairness has been preserved in these proceedings. Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DONOHUE. The time of the gentleman from California has expired. The Chair will now declare a recess until 3 o'clock. [00.12.21--Recess declared]