Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.57.23] Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. In a moment I may yield. Likewise, the fact of notice pleadings, which our counsel, Mr. Jenner. has pointed out, is clear here. The President is put on notice as to the specific types of impeachable conduct which we allege against him. This is enough to alert him, to give him notice as to what are the charges. And bear in mind that if and when this matter reaches the Senate, it will be accompanied not only by a committee report, but, of course, by the final articles of impeachment, and he will then, if he desires. have the right to make a motion for a bill of particulars or the idea being to request a greater specificity in the charges against him. Or, if some of those charges appear to be a little bit vague and uncertain as to time, and place, and manner, he can make a motion to make more specific and certain, and aided by the results of those motions, he will have a wealth of information, everything that he could possibly need to make his own defense in this case. In essence, in this case he, is in a better position simply because, and I know this cannot be charged to him at the present time, but as a practical matter, and in the real world in which we are operating, the President does have some 40 volumes of evidentiary and statistical Matter already at his disposal and in his office, and I think that unless we are to stultify commonsense we are going acknowledge that that fact. I would say this, if this committee should decide in order to lessen the concern of our colleagues on the other aisle list any specific item of -factual information in these articles, it must be couched in such language, and the committee report worded in such language that it is imminently clear that proof in the Senate would not be restricted to those specific items. Mr. DENNIS. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. SANDMAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. DANIELSON. I yield back to my donor. It is not my time. I yield back to Mr. Kastenmeier. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin has time remaining. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 Minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question of friend from Maryland briefly, if he could give me his attention for just a moment. On the theory you advanced of your article this morning as I understood you, and am I correct that before the acts or acts of alleged agents and subordinates could be attributed to the President you would have by some means and some type of evidence to establish the existence of the policy which you allege he had adopted, is that correct? Mr. SARBANES. The acts of the subordinates have to be carrying out the policy of the President. Mr. DENNIS. Yes, and before you could prove them as against the President, you would have to first establish policy, would you not! Mr. SARBANES. Well, there is a possibility of ratification here, which I think the gentleman---- Mr. DENNIS. But before you could attribute their acts to him By your own theory, you would have to have a -policy there which They were carrying Out, isnt that right You would have to have the policy established first? Mr. SARBANES. Not if there was a ratification involved. and there could be a, ratification involved on the part of the President with respect to acts of his subordinates. Mr. DENNIS. You would have to prove a ratification then. Mr. SARBANES. Absent a ratification, there would have to be established policy. Mr. DENNIS. What the gentleman is really doing under another name, is adopting a theory Of conspiracy , isn't he? Mr. SARBANES. I asked that question this morning and while I indicated I did not tie the, article to the proof of a criminal conspiracy, I did say that the article contained elements of a conspiracy theory; Yes. Mr. DENNIS. And first by a Horn Book law you have got to prove that the conspiracy exists, before the acts of the co-conspirators are attributable to the principal. That is just elementary, is A not? Mr. SARBANES. Well the President can intrude into that conspiracy and ratify events. If that happens, then I think the gentleman recognize that those, acts are then part and parcel of' the President's responsibility. Mr. DENNIS. I suggest to the gentleman that proceeding on the. theory he is proceeding on, he better consider , if he ,has not. he may have, just, by what evidence he. is to establish this policy or conspiracy Or whatever you want, to call it, because until he does that/ the acts of these other people are not going to mean a thing, in my opinion. Now shifting to another matter, I just would like to talk about this matter of specificity for a moment. In a criminal charge, I just read the criminal rule, and that is the existing criminal rule. This 'IS least, a quasi- criminal -case, and my friend from California, Mr. Danielson, I am sure is aware of the due process clause and the very reason why we, require specificity is the exact reason why my friend from California seeks to be against it. It is for the exact purpose that a man may know what he is charged with, and that the proof may be held down indeed, to that with which he is charged. And I suggest that ordinary due process of law absolutely requires that,. Now I am not going to yield for a minute, No one contends and I do not contend certainly that you have got to plead in an indictment of the evidence by which you intend to support your specific, charge. But, you do have to say, if you are charging the man with making false and misleading statements, you do have to say in that on April 14, 1973, he did say to Henry Petersen, Assistant Attorney General of the United States, the so that he will know. He cannot be, required under the Constitution to look back over everything he may have said Sometime that somebody is now ...... [01.03.56--TAPE OUT]