Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.32] Mr. HUNGATE. [continuing] In the March. 21, 1973, transcript, relating to the, conversation from 10:12 to 11:55 a.m. Appendix 6 of the GPO conversations: *QUOTED SECTION* Mr. DEAN. There is no doubt I was totally aware what the Bureau was doing at all times. I was totally aware of what the grand jury was doing. I knew that witnesses were going to be called. I knew what they were going to be asked, and I had to. NIXON. [I infer that is the President.] Why did Petersen play the. game so straight with us? DEAN. Because Petersen is a soldier. He kept me informed. He told Me when we had problems, where we had problems, He believes in you and he believes in this administration. This administration has made him. I don't think he has done anything improper but he did make sure the investigation was narrowed down to the very, very fine criminal thing which was a break for us. There is no doubt about it. [Mr. HUNGATE. There would be another break if you narrowed this thing down to the head of a, pin.] NIXON. He honestly feels that he did an adequate job? DEAN. They ran that investigation out to the fullest extent they could follow a lead and that was it, -NIXON. But the point is, where I suppose he could be criticized for not doing an adequate job. Why did he call Haldeman? Why didn't he get a statement from Colson? Oh, they did get, Colson. DEAN. That is right. But see, the thing is, is based on their FBI interviews There. was no reason to follow up. There were no leads there. Colson said, "I have no knowledge of this" to the FBI. Strachan said "I have no knowledge of--you know, they didn't ask Strachan any Watergate questions. They asked him about* Segretti and the-" *END QUOTED SECTION* The CHAIRMAN. Vie time of the gentleman--- Mr. HUNGATE. [reading] AS a result of sonic coaching, he could be the dumbest pap paper usher in the bowels of the White House. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman and Mr. Railsback correctly observed Andrew Johnson impeachment, the committee brought to the general recommendation of impeachment. The House, approved then and only then was a committee appointed to draw Up charges to go to the Senate. Over there as someone observed there not only some added but there -were some ignored. I think one traps that we are falling into here is that we are drawing this grand jury analogy much further than it warrants. A number of US in our remarks in genera debate tried to indicate What an impeachable offense is, Now, if you subscribe to the idea, that an impeachable. offense must, be an indictable offense then perhaps you have some. justification for arguing that we are really here drawing an indictment. But such is really not the case. We are not a grand jury . [We are operating here under a constitutionally authorized extra-legal power. We are not involved in a criminal proceeding. So that when we go to the floor, we can go with as broad and nebulous an impeachment resolution as -we possibly desire to draw. It is amendable on the floor depending on what rules we operate under. It is even by the precedents amendable in the, Senate. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, could we have order? the CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, The gentleman will suspend until the committee is in order. Mr. HOGAN. But even beyond that, Mr. Chairman, I think -we are ally straining here as we talk about precedents. There are not really that many precedents. There have not been that many impeachments and there have been far fewer, there have been only about a. dozen impeachments and if my memory serves me, there were only three convictions and those impeachments are contradictory one with the other. So I think we are really not, looking at--the responsibility that we have here is to go forward with a recommendation to the House. That really all that we are about. Now, I personally think it -would be preferable to have specific charges naming places and dates and times and names but it is not essential and to argue that that is our responsibility under the Constitution is just ignoring what the Constitution gives us for the impeachment power. [01.25.00]