Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.30.17--in committee room] [1990's Massachusetts Governor Bill WELD is visible to left of Counsel GARRISON, wearing blue sportcoat] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. Mr. CONYERS./ Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to observe, if I might, that we have spent a good deal Of time talking and I think we may have reached some agreement upon the validity of the Sarbanes substitute. That is to say, we realize that 'we are going to bring to the floor of the Congress this matter so that--to attempt to detail the policy or the plan that has been suggested as the basis for article I in the substitute would be a little bit ludicrous. Mr. Sarbanes has outlined on at least three or four 5-minute periods Of members' times the basis for that continuing course of conduct and it seems that for us to continue to say that we want to write it in article I of a resolution of impeachment would be highly unsound. Now, as I look across this article, we have only nine subsections. We allege a plan, that the President using the powers of his office made it his policy to delay, impede and obstruct the investigation of the illegal entry of the DNC on June 17, 1972, and as I look at the first, specifically specification of making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, it is clear that on April 18, 1973, for example, the President talking to Mr. Petersen, the Assistant Attorney General of the United 'States, He told Petersen to stay out of the, Fielding break-in investigation because of reasons of national security. That was a false, or misleading statement. We have documented it tiny number of times in the course of the months that we have been and so for us to have to write this in is an unnecessary act becaus there is not just one or two. there are several, any number of them, any of which, since as I read this pleading, it is in the, alternative would be sufficient'. The. means used to implement the policy of the President have included one or more of the following , emphasis, one or more of the, following and we allege nine specific courses of conduct that demonstrate that the President of the United States used his office to obstruct justice. Now, with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I think that after we analyze I any number of these reasons, that demonstrate a course. of conduct, those of us who are ready to support the notion of impeachment as embodied in this -very plainly worded language should be able to support it, before this evening is over and I would hope that we would move to that point so that we could at least accept this very first article before the end of this evening. Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. CONYERS. I would yield if I have time remaining to the gentleman from Pennsylvania for an observation, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized 1 1/2 minutes. Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I think that we should be very careful about the subject of specificity As you have said, this is a unique proceeding and in that. sense I believe it is one that is developing all the time. At most, every day we relearn son something more about the situation With regard to the White House. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the--as we, know, the Supreme Court has Ordered 64 subpenas to be turned over to the Special Prosecutor, Suppose that those tapes or portions of them. become available to the House or even the Senate at a later time. I am a afraid that If the articles or subheadings are too specific that some subjects that may arise, out of those 64 subpenas that Might Ultimately Come into our possession might be denied consideration when. they should be considered by the House or by the Senate. Also, Mr. Chairman, we have a trial we know is coming up in September of Mitchell, et al, and it is entirely possible that facts or situations may- develop which may bear on the ultimate outcome in the in the Senate if there is one and I say that we should not be so frozen in here that -we can't use additional information, and we don't know what other disclosures may come about, what other situations next few weeks and couple of months, and I suggest, Mr. Chairman that the outline in article I as suggested by the gentleman from Maryland is definitely enough and still gives us that flexibility so additional facts may be brought to bear. Mr. WIGGINS. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has expired recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. For 5 minutes. Mr. LOTT. I thought that determining the specific charges was what this was all about. Now there has been some talk about including all the other specifies and a report. I wonder who would prepare that report. Would it be left just to the, staff? I think that is a question that we should........ [01.35.46--TAPE OUT]