Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.48.25] Mr, RANGEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding because the author of the motion to strike gives me a little problem in that he never directed himself as to whether or not he is saying that the President did not give false and misleading statements. I don't know whehter the motion to strike is merely a parliamentary maneuver but if it is a question that the gentleman has as to which authorized officers, employees, of the United States that the President lied to, then we are prepared to tell you the names and the dates of what Federal officials the President lied to. If you are having a problem with the language as to whether it was a Capitol policeman or whether it was someone that worked in the Printing Office, if it is a language problem you have. then I can understand why you raise the motion to strike. But if you are talking about the Attorney General, the Acting Attorney General, if You are talking about anybody that was involved, Silbert's office, if you are talking about grand jury testimony, if you are talking about anything to prevent his close associates from getting indicted, then the President lied, and we can only refer to the President's statements as to what he Said. What he said to Mr. Haldeman, to tell him that everybody that Dean said was not involved, he said, say they are not involved, I mean, if they were involved. He said lie and tell them something different. So that if the motion to strike is just to take time, then, of course, I can understand the gentleman from New Jersey's dilemma. It is a bad night. If, on the other hand if on the other hand the gentleman really Wants to find the names of the people that the President lied to, counsel can give you the names and then we can move on to your next motion to strike. Mr. SANDMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. RANGEL. It is not my time. Mr. SANDMAN. Well, whose ever time it is. Mr. CONYERS. I have the time. I have the time and I would like to say it is very, very -clear to us that there are two views. They have been thoroughly debated. Some of us would like to keep our pleadings consistent with the 20th century. Others of us would prefer them for reasons real or imagined, to keep them back into the Johnson impeachment. Mr. SANDMAN. Will the, gentleman from Michigan yield so I can answer the gentleman from -New York? Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman. Mr. SANDMAN. It is going to be very short really. I objected because I had to object because I have never been permitted under the procedures that we are following to get Some kind of a ruling as to what the law is here. I submit and it is undisputed to me and I don't care what anybody else says. the thing here is very clear. It should be specific. Now, you have all this information that you can give to people. Why can't you at least give simple sentences that are concise. Mr. CONYERS. Well, I 'IM not--- Mr. SANDMAN. And do it right. Mr. CONYERS. I am not going to yield any further to the gentleman. Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman? Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Don. Mr. DONOHUE. Order Mr. Chairman., The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order, and I believe that it is in order at this time to state that the view of one member does not express what is actually the law or the policy of this committee, the House of Representatives Mr. WIGGINS. Including the chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I would hope that the members would recognize that the Chair presides and the Chair is attempting to be fair in recognizing each member and at such time as the Chair recognizes those members, I think that those members should speak out. Until then I would hope that. we. could keep order and we would be true to the trust that, we, have and I don't mean to lecture in any way but I think that this is serious enough that indulging in parliamentary maneuvers to delay a decision on this very important question only I think serves to tell the people that, we ,Ire afraid to meet the issue. And I would hope that we, do have as we, said we have the courage of our convictions. And to the gentleman from New Jersey directly, Mr. Sandman. I would state, that while Mr. Doar may not have expressly stated what the policy is in setting" forward specifications I don't believe that the, gentleman at this time is prepared to state that he is, going to say what the Constitution is when the Constitution for so many years has spoken clearly and the, precedents have spoken clearly on the matter of what is established Policy. And I think that if we get on with the business of the day and-- whereas there have been questions raised as to what the facts are, remain on this side and on the side of the minority who are prepared to speak to the facts. And I think that is what we ought to be doing. [00.53.58]