Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (1/2)
[00.08.52] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. Thank you Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that we are' faced with the problem that confronts the drafters of pleadings constantly, and that is the conflict in the requirements of trying to be specific in the details and the need to be clear and concise in stating the nature of the charges which are to be, brought. In order to accomplish this, the procedure which is usually followed is to have a clear and concise statement of charges such as the one before us and then to supplement that with a bill 'of particulars or as has been discussed by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jordan, a report which would detail in great particular the specifies. I see no great difficulty in proceeding that way and would like to join the gentleman from New York. Mr. Fish, in suggesting that perhaps our differences over procedural matters are interfering with our approach to the very grave, and substantive matters which we must consider. I think it is important for each member of this committee to know the detail of information which does lie behind each of the paragraphs which we have, and our counsel has indicated that he is prepared to give us that information. We have heard during the day very specific illustrations of some of the detail which supports these charges. And, Mr. Chairman, I just think that we should make every effort to get away from the problem of procedural drafting and move forward to a consideration of the Substantive questions which are represented by this document, I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Holtzman, for 5 minutes. MS. HOLTZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just briefly want to state that the debate here is whether we ought to follow the procedure that was used and developed centuries ago or whether we in this impeachment proceeding will bring ourselves into the latter part of the 20th century -where we find ourselves. It is true that the earlier impeachment proceedings pleaded very specific language. It is also true at that time that they were based on the general civil practice which required specific factual pleadings. We abandoned that system of specific factual pleadings in 1938 in our Federal court system and since that time have been operating on a notice pleading system which has been held by courts on innumerable times to supply defendants with due process of law. And I think that that is the issue here, whether we are going to bring ourselves up to date or whether -we are going to discuss really a phony issue involving antique practices. I would like to address myself, Mr. Chairman.. to the. substance of the article before us, and in particular the language which says "subsequent to June 17, 1972, Richard M. Nixon, using the power of his high office, Made it his policy to cover up, to conceal and protect those responsible for the Watergate break-in, and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities." The question -was raised earlier today, when did the. President make this his policy? Mr. Waldie has been trying to give a chronology starting if from at least June 17 and I would like to point to a very important Conversation that took place on March 21, 1973, and to what happened in that conversation. John Dean, counsel to the President, came to President Nixon and said that there is a cancer growing on the Presidency. He said that there has been blackmail, there as been perjury, there has been coverup, there has been obstruction of justice, hush money has been paid to buy silence, clemency has been promised to buy silence. He told this to the President and he said to the President: "I was under pretty clear instructions not really to investigate" this whole matter during the summer. "I worked on a theory of containment." He told the President "I know that Magruder has perjured himself, I know that Porter has perjured himself." he also said to the President that "Bob." that is Bob Haldeman, "is involved in that," the hush money payments, "John is involved in that"' John Ehrlichman, "I am involved in that. Mitchell is involved in that, and that's an obstruction of justice." What did the President of the United States say in response, to these revelations? What did he say? He said John, John Dean, "You have the right plan, let me say. I have no doubts about-, the right plan the before election, and you handled it Just right. You contained it." In that conversation the President was approving what John Dean had told him about the perjury, about the blackmail, about the, theory of coverup, about the clemency, and I would like those of you who say that the President has not approved this and made this his policy, how that is not so to explain to me, I yield back the balance of my time. [00.15.20]