Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.33.48] Mr. MOORHEAD. This is not justice, and I cannot laugh at jokes that Mr. Hungate or anyone else might tell in a serious time like this. This is an important time for the people of America, and -we are fighting for far more than Watergate or any specific thing. I will fight for it, for clean Government, and I am against anything that is dirty in Government or that involves the morals, of our elected officials. But, surely let us have the rights that are given to us under Constitution, and give it to the President as -well as we would anyone else. Mr. HOGAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes, I Will yield. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Jenner, I am sure that you would not want to be misunderstood, but in response to Mr. Froehlich's question about who draws up the charges, you said the managers on behalf of the House. I am sure you did not mean to imply that the House -would not approve those charges before they went to the Senate, or did you ? Mr. JENNER. I think that is a very good question. May I give it a minutes or a few seconds' thought, because, Congressman Hogan, a bill of particulars in criminal proceedings does bind the indictment it would be my judgment that perhaps the bill of particulars would have, to be submitted to the House. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Would the, gentleman yield, if he has time? Mr. MOORHEAD. Yes. MS. HOLTMAN. I think it is very important to note that this is not a criminal proceeding, and. that the Constitution of the United States specifically provides that in the event that somebody is impeached, that shall not bar him from trial or indictment or conviction according to law. So, -we are not talking about a criminal procedure at all. And I am very surprised to hear the gentleman's statement that the rules, the, Federal rules of civil procedure which were enacted in the late 1930's have not yet reached California, because I am well aware of them, at least in New York. And they certainly bind Federal proceedings throughout the United States. And those rules of civil procedure allow for notice pleading. This is basically a civil case and a civil proceeding, and I do not think that we ought to be bound by criminal practice. And I think that these articles as they have been Proposed are eminently fair, and eminently within established Procedures. Mr. MOORHEAD. My I have an opportunity to answer? The time of the gentleman from California has expired. Mr. MOORHEAD. May I have 30 seconds to reply to the question as put to me? Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given a an additional minute. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for I additional minute. Mr. MOORHEAD. There is a basic difference in court hearings in which the defendant almost immediately upon being presented with the charges gets a bill of particulars. In this case there would be no way that the President could know of the charges until very shortly before he was to begin trial. I would also point out that while this may not be a criminal proceeding, impeachment is a penalty almost worse than death to any human being that would be President of the United States, to get that penalty, and certainly he deserves to have his constitutional rights protected. And in almost every single impeachment that we have had in recent years the President has had the right to know what be was charged with before he went to trial. Are we going to degenerate the benefits that we give to a President or any other accused in this modern day When supposedly we are expanding the rights of freedom instead of restricting them? Mr. BROOKS. Would the gentleman -yield ? The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired, Mr. MAYNE. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Mann, seek recognition? Mr. Mann? Mr. MANN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that I have to yield to anybody in my desire to see that these proceedings are fairly conducted. And if it goes to a trial in the Senate, the proceedings there will be fairly conducted. But, as I read this article, the gravamen of the offense is that Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, made it his policy and in furtherance of such policy did act directly and personally and through his close subordinates and agents to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up. conceal and protect those responsible: and, to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. Now, this article goes on to list nine means by which that impeachable offense was carried out. Now, I am astonished to infer that, there are those here who would assert that we should list in this article all of the evidence that applies to this charge. It. is very clear, of course' that if we were to attempt to do that we would have a document filling several of these books. [00.39.32]