Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.10.36] Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. McClory. Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman and the members of the committee know, I do intend to support an article, perhaps two articles, of impeachment. But, I think that this article which is proposed, the substitute article proPosed by the gentleman from Maryland, is very faulty, very poor, and the, weakest article which I think the committee could recommend. Now, it has been correctly said that the process of impeachment is not a criminal proceeding but a civil one. We know that our counsel has confirmed that by recommending that we should only consider that the rule or the doctrine of evidence that must prevail here is that of clear and convincing proof, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what we have before us here is an allegation of a conspiracy. Now, It is called a policy and this Is the thesis which our counsel, Mr. Doar, has propounded when he took on this Partisan Posture in the, final days of our investigation, and the, thesis is that the President organized and managed the coverup from the time of the break-in itself or immediately afterward. And, of course, this is the thesis that my colleague from California and front Massachusetts are trying to develop. And it just does not, hold water. It is weak, It is fuzzy and it is contradictory. The theory just does not exist. Now, it may be that on the 21st of March, the next year, when the President learned about this and talked about it with Haldeman and Mr. Dean that, he got involved in another type, of activity. But, in June, and in September they weren't talking' about that at all. As a matter of fact on September 15, when the President talked about this subject, with John Dean, he asked John Dean: "What the, hell do you think is involved? What's your guess?" And what does John Dean say? He says "I think that the, DNC planted it, quite clearly." so that you see, at that time while they are trying to consider what the political implications are, they suggest that possibly the Democratic National Committee themselves planted the bug in order to try to trap the Republicans and it was kind of the political shenanigans that Were going on. And on September 15, if you consider that testimony, if you consider that tape fairly and clearly, and honestly, you will see, that they are talking about, the political implications, not Criminal implications', insofar as the. White House is concerned. And so, what it seems to me that we, I-lave got here, we have got a criminal charge and then we an, trying to, then we. are trying to support it by noncriminal allegations and noncriminal proof. Now, it is very well and good to say well, all of the proof is there, we have got -38 volumes But, you know the kind of proof I hat you are recommending that -was supporting this thesis of this policy or conspiracy is proof which consists of circumstantial evidence, of innuendo, 'of inferences. Now, what, is this President and his Counsel supposed to look at? It's in the 38 Volumes, that's fine. But, that IS not the kind Of specific [01.14.06--has a horrible time pronouncing "specificity"--HUMOR] allegations that the President is entitled to have. It seems to me that in connection with this article, in Connection With this charge of conspiracy, we, should be clear and definite. 'Where is the, direct evidence? 1, Sure, the gentleman talked about people lying As a matter of fact, the basis for this immediate involvement of the President is a press release, put out by John Mitchell which somehow they try to attribute to the, President. There is no indication, no proof in this hearing that the President ever Saw or heard or had anything to do with the press release or knew or didn't know whether it was false or true. It seems to me clearly what we should require, if we, are, going to charge the President with offense, which is what this is doing, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt because that is the standard which We, are required to apply in a criminal charge. So, I am hopeful that the, committee will either require that we do make these charges specific if they are going to be offered at all. or that we dispose of this proposed article and go by the one which relates to the President's oath of office in which the President did, indeed, fail to take care to see that the laws were faithfully executed and the violation of his constitutional oath. This does not require that kind of specific proof and allegation. And also I think we should turn to the subject of whether or not the President is not in Contempt Of Congress and subject to an impeachable offense because he refuses to comply with our subpenas and provide the information that we have required. So those are the things that we, should be looking at The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. [01.16.08]