Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.52] Mr. SARBANES; Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak because the hour is getting late, and I think it is necessary for this committee to move on and begin to consider these amendments. We must not delay inordinately in beginning to reach some resolution of this very grave matter. But some things have been stated that have forced me to try to respond. I agree with the gentleman from Indiana -when he says it is very important not to stray, perhaps in our excitement and concern, from a careful statement of what it is we are trying to express in this matter. I see he has left the room, and I regret that, but I intend to go on and make the points. Now, the gentleman from Indiana stated that earlier this evening it was said that due process of law was outmoded. No one said that here. The gentlelady from Texas made a very eloquent statement not only for the need for due process, but why it has been met. Why the Standards that this committee has followed meet the very highest test of due process. Second, the gentleman said that it had been stated in the course Of the discussion here that a defective article can be cured by a committee report. No one said that. What was said was that the article 'was not defective, that the article was valid, that this was good article. In fact it was stated in response to a question from the gentleman from Maine, that the Article went further than was necessary in providing additional notices material for the President, and that the report would then supplementing the article. Then it was asserted. it was asserted that, someone in the course, of this discussion said that the, rules of evidence do not apply in the Senate That was not asserted. What was stated was that in the previous proceedings. the Chief Justice ruled on questions of evidence, that the Senate has the authority to overrule him, and that the Senate does not necessarily have to follow the same, strict rules of evidence that would apply in a court of law. The Senate is sitting in all impeachment trials and is seeking the truth seeking to determine what is best for the country. So. I suggest that none of these sweeping statements were made. And while a debate is important, I think it is critical not to misstate what has come earlier. We can differ, but I think we, ought to recognize what has previously been said. Now, let me address myself to one other point that was made with respect to the President's statement on June 22. In that statement, the President said that he endorsed what John Mitchell had earlier stated, and John Mitchell had earlier stated that there was no involvement, either 'At the Committee To Re-Elect or of anyone else involved. That was Mitchell statement. The President endorsed the truth of that statement, and that, was read, of course, by, the gentleman from California. Now. the gentleman from California also referred to Mr. Hunt and said that Mr. Hunt had no connection with the White House, although it has been so asserted. The fact of the matter is that a very good case can be made that Mr. Hunt, indeed still had a continuing connection With the White House. That is in dispute. but look at what happened subsequent to June 17. Hunt's employment records at the White Rouse were falsified in order to indicate, through a memo. that Hunt had left such employment on March 31 and was not still a consultant to the White House on June 17. Telephone books used in the White House and the Executive Office Building as of immediately after June 17, which contained in them Howard Hunt's name and his telephone number were immediately recalled, brought back from all offices and that page with Hunt's name and number on it was removed from that book and another page substituted. Hunt's safe in his office in the Executive Office Building. of which he had made use, was drilled into, and the contents of that safe Were removed. And finally, Hunt was given instructions to leave, the country, which were subsequently countermanded, but Hunt -was given instruction to leave the country. Now, all four of these things happened immediately afterward, Now, the gentleman from California can contend that Hunt had no connection, but I suggest to him that there are facts to the contrary which indicate that Hunt may well have had a connection. And in any event, it seems to me important in that instance, and in the earlier matters, that these things be stated precisely, so that the differences between us are accurately perceived by the people. Mr. DONOHUE [presiding]. The time of the gentleman from Maryland has expired. [01.26.22]