Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.09.51] Mr. McCLORY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think in the context of this article that the paragraph 1 is inadequate. This article is in the nature of a criminal indictment. it essence is a criminal conspiracy which is being charged under designation of a "policy." It also, of course, includes the charge obstruction of justice, another criminal offense, and it should specific. From the standpoint of the proposed article II that I expect us to consider later, and relating primarily to the President's obligation, constitutional responsibility to see to the faithful execution of the it seems to me that such an allegation might take on a different postulation and therefore I am going to join in the motion to strike this language in this article, not withstanding that I may find that this language appropriate in another article which we may consider. Now, I would be happy this time to yield the balance of my time" any gentleman an who would like me to yield to him. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Dennis. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I have some time of my own, but I am grateful to my friend from Illinois adding to it. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the distance we are in danger departing from the law and the Constitution and sending into impeachment politics here this evening is -possibly illustrated best by the rather startling propositions I have heard advanced during the course of the debate from people who I really don't think ordinarily would have advanced them. For instance, it has been suggested in effect that statements in a committee report can be used to cure an article of impeachment Which is fatally defective because it is too definite and vague. At one point in the debate the statement was made that you didn't really need to worry much about the rules of evidence because they didn't apply in a trial before the U.S. Senate with the Chief Justice presiding. Then We heard several times in effect that due process of law is outmoded. We are now in the 20th century. You have got notice pleading. Now, everybody knows that, or I thought everybody knew, that an impeachment proceeding is at least quasi-criminal. I didn't know that was a matter of dispute. It is condone punishment and as Mr. Jenner I agreed here a while back, rule 7 of the criminal rules still applies and it Says, "The indictment"--or "The information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." Now, that is not notice pleading. There is nothing outmoded about it. You are entitled, anybody is entitled. I know a little about a few things and one of them is criminal law and you are entitled to be notified of the defense charge, and you are entitled to be notified in the charge. You want some 20th century, up-to-date law. Let me give 'You a little more. Whoever commits an action which the law declares to be punishable Or which is deserving of punishment according to the fundamental idea of a penal law and the sound perception of the people shall be punished. If no determinant of penal law is directly applicable to the action it shall be punished according to the law, the basic idea which fits it best. Doesn't that sound a lot like some of the propositions we have heard Advanced around here today and it is good 20th century law. It is part of the Nazi penal code from Hitler's Germany. You know, really, we don't--we didn't have to be arguing this all day and all night. This is a very very simple proposition. All you have to do not plead 12 books of evidence. You just say making false and misleading statements to lawfully authorized intelligence or investigative officers in that on such and such a day said the following to so and so. Now, Mr. Railsback 'has given us a long laundry list. He says I think they are disputable. Mr. Wiggins has disputed a couple of them very well. When the time comes that can be done but why don't we list them? And since we aren't going to list them and since obviously for some reason we have made--better just strike that thing out---- The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. As the gentleman suggests I support the motion. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 5 more minutes. The gentleman as his own 5 minutes. Mr. DENNIS. Well, in that case, Mr. Chairman, you almost seared me to death but I am glad to know that I have still got 5 more minute, and I will take a little more, time. You ought to specify, as I was about to say, since we, obviously are not going to specify in spite of the great knowledge of these gentleman men, and stated readiness to specify. If you were going to leave it the way it is, it say anything, and according to their theory, the operative parts, and up above here, paragraph 2, you do not, need it anyway, so out it ought to go. This is a good motion under the circumstances. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will Yield a, couple of minutes of my time to the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins, and reserve the balance for the moment. [01.16.25]