Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.18.42] Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman--- The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Maraziti, for 5 minutes. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was amazed to find--to hear the gentleman from Maryland explain why it 'IS not necessary to detail the fact,, and one argument given is that the counsel for the President was present in the room when these, matters were being discussed. That is not a satisfactory disposition of the matter. It reminds me of counsel for a defendant appearing in a magistrates court, presentation made of an hour or two, then the prosecutor of the county--a very general indictment--it is not sufficient for the prosecutor of the county to say I do not have to specify because the counsel for the defendant attended the, preliminary examination. And the President--the knowledge of the counsel is not the knowledge of the President. We do not know whether the, counsel for the, President that appeared here is going to be associate counsel or one of a number of counsel or whether there will be different counsel. Now, he makes a point of once the, resolution or the articles got to the floor they can be, justified, amended, and so on. That may be so. But I think it is necessary, Mr. Chairman, members of this committee, for to, the members here and now, before we vote for or against a particular article, to know the time and place and names, to know all the events. Now, I have done some. legal research during the noon recess because it was represented that the law that pertains to indictments does not necessarily apply to impeachment proceedings. And I found that from the very beginning, when impeachment proceedings were instituted in 1798, right down to the present time, the last, impeachment, of Judge Ritter in 1936, that every respondent charged has been faced with articles of impeachment that alleged specifies, and there, is a reason for it. There is a reason for it. So that he who is charged, and this is fundamental to Anglo-Saxon law, that he who is charged must know on what particular charge or points he must defend himself. It is not necessary for him to go over the tremendous amounts of information that we have here and say, well, maybe they will accuse me on this and maybe on that. And it is very simple, Mr. Chairman, because the, gentleman from Maryland began to specify certain times, places and events, Now, if that is it, if that is what the charge is, simply include it in the articles of impeachment. Just to take an example, on the point one of the--paragraph I Of the article, making false or misleading statements. All right. What statements? When were they made? And where were they made? That, is simple because if we are going to know about it when it goes to the: House of Representatives, we ought to know about it now. To lawfully authorized investigative officers. What officers? One, two, three. When? And where? What is so difficult about that? No. 5, approving, Condoning and acquiescing in payment of substantial sums of money. All right. How much money are we talking about? Mr. DANIELSON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. MARAZITI. The, amount. The purpose. I will yield as soon as am through. The purpose for which the, money was given. To whom was it given? How many persons are involved? No. 6, endeavoring to misuse, the Central Intelligence Agency. That is a very broad general statement and it may be true. I am not denying it. I am not affirming it either. Endeavoring to misuse CIA. We ought to know how, when, where did this occur. Disseminating information received from officers. What officers the Department of Justice? And that can be characterized throughout the entire part of this article. -No. 8, making false ----- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you. [00.24.08--Rep. MARAZITI's time expires]