Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.45.42] Mr. SANDMAN. Why didn't Dennis get his right to have the big man here, Hunt, the man who had demanded the money? The most important witness never testified before this committee because this committee doesnt want witnesses. This committee doesn't want to be specific. This committee just wants to rehash tales. That's what this committee 'wants, an and that I say is a miscarriage of justice. Now, three-quarters at least of all of the charges levelled -against this President will not be involved in any articles of impeachment presented to this committee tonight and everybody knows it. And the President is entitled to know which ones are left. And every lawyer knows that it is the only fair thing, to do. the only fair thing to do. You don't require an adversary to do all kinds of things. What is so wrong about simple sentence saying what happened, -what is so difficult about that? You have so much but you are so The CHAIRMAN. The 3 minutes have expired. Mr. MAYNE. Mr. Chairman I yield--- The CHAIRMAN. You have 2 minutes remaining. Mr. MAYNE. I yield those. 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis, The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dennis is recognized for 2 minutes. DENNIS. I thank my friend from Iowa. I merely want to suggest that there are at least two points that deserve some thought. First, if you are going with Mr. Sarbanes' theory, you have got, to figure out when and how did the so-called policy come into being and prove it, because until and unless you do that, you cannot attribute the act of anyone else to the President of the United States. Second, if you are, going to rely on implementing the policy by the allegations here, you are going to have to come up with when and what were the specific occasions on which that policy policy -was implemented by for instance, making false statements to investigating officers, or counseling with witnesses to give false testimony. Now, those things either her happened or they didn't. If they did it is very easy to specify them and the law says that you have to do it. And it does not; make any difference whether the respondent knows or doesn't know some of the things you may have in your mind. He is still entitled to a, good charge. That is due process of law. And you cannot satisfy it by saying that statements in a committee report can perform the function of a good charge or that you don't have to pay any attention to the rules 'of evidence with the Chief Justice in the Chair, because in impeachment thing is somehow different. You have got the votes, of course. You can vote anything, but somewhere do the line you are, going have to follow the law and the Constitution and prove your facts. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling for 5 minutes. Mr. SIEBERLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I quite agree that due process is absolutely essential, that the Contittition requires it in an impeachment proceeding as in any other judicial proceeding under our Constitution. But, due process does not require any specific form of proceeding. It requires certain essential matters of substance, such as notice to the defendant or the person who is on trial as to the nature and the detail of the charges against him. Now as Mr. Jenner pointed out, under our modern practice -we do not do that any more in the indictment or the similar documents. We get into the details through other matters of discovery and that is just as much due process as to do it in the, old way. What was done years ago in the trial of Andrew Johnson is not necessarily the only Way to do it. But, even then I would like to read some authorities older than Andrew Johnson's trial. Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers with respect to impeachment "The nature of the proceeding can never be tied down by such strict rules in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors as common cases served to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security." And Justice Story in his commentaries on the Constitution says: "It is obvious that the strictness of the forms of the proceedings in cases of offenses of common law are ill adopted to impeachment The adherence to technical principles. which perhaps distinguishes criminal law more than any other, are all ill adapted to the trial of political offenses in the broad courses of impeachment. There is little technical in the mode of proceeding. The charges are sufficiently clear, and yet in general form. There are few exceptions which arise in the a application of the evidence which grow out of mere technical rules and quibbles." Now, every time we talk the facts, why the gentleman from New Jersey wants to talk about procedure. And when we get to the procedure, the gentleman from Indiana wants to talk about the facts. And I suggest that the facts still need to be discussed as the gentleman from New Jersey originally started to ask us, and I yield the balance Of my time to the gentleman from California, who I thought was doing a pretty good job of it. [00.51.27]