Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974
[01.26.22] Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that while we were on our good behavior yesterday, we are back to the normal procedures that we have been engaged in behind closed doors for the last several weeks which are to effectively explode the myth that there has been a totally nonpartisan air to all of these hearings. I think that that is unfortunate. I was not aware when we started the televising of these proceedings that we were intending to duplicate the 10 weeks of evidentiary hearings that we had. I do think that we have in many ways done a disservice to ourselves and the American people today. We have members relating narrative that are embellished and filtered through the prism of their own partisan bias, and we have them and others call it evidence. It is not evidence. Mr. Waldie's narrative, while it might be suitable for a scandal magazine or a speech to his constituents, I think it is totally inappropriate here. His statements have had inaccuracies, embellishments, frivolities, irrelevancies, and allegations that have not been substantiated by the evidence. We should address ourselves in these proceedings, it seems to me, to the factual evidence which is supportive of the articles of impeachment which we are debating. We do not need humor. Our role is not here to entertain the American people, but to address ourselves to the constitutional responsibilities we were so awed with. Now, I oppose the motion to strike, and we have been belaboring the same point so many times over and over where ,Nf r. Wiggins Continues to call what we are about an indictment. It is not an indictment. We are not involved in a criminal procedure, and we should recognize that and stop deluding ourselves. I am disappointed in some of my colleagues. When Mr. Waldie talks about Mitchell lied, and Krogh, and -Magruder, and Porter perjured themselves, they are not the subjects of this impeachment. When he says the President knew full well that White House people were involved before a certain point in time is not supported in the record. When Congressman Drinan says that Stans was interviewed in his office and not before the grand jury, and he called this a compromising procedure, that is not the case. And the Justice Department and Mr. Stans are not the subject of this impeachment. It is not even unique or unusual for people of prominence to be interviewed outside the grand jury, and I remind the gentleman from Massachusetts that another distinguished gentleman whom I revere, from his home State, former Speaker John' McCormack, was not required to go before the grand jury when the investigation and prosecution of his own staff aides was involved. He testified- Mr. DRINAN. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. HOGAN. Re testified before the Department of Justice, ass Stans did. Mr. DRINAN. Would the. gentleman yield 2 Mr. HOGAN. I will not, yield at this point. And my good friend and colleague from Maryland, while he is generally very calm and dispassionate, and logical, I think has done an outstanding job today in defending his substitute. even he has fallen into this trap. We all feel so strongly about these things that we have a hard time keeping our natural propensities in check. He was reading from the transcript where he made a, parenthetical remark where he got to the point where the President says to Dean, "Well, you had quite a, day, didn't you, you got Watergate on the way, huh?" And then he says, then Dean says. "Quite a 3 months." Then he made a parenthetical remark and said that, incidentally, that was not in the White House transcript. And the implication of that, is that there was deception on the part of the White House in leaving that part of the statement out. During the interim of the recess, I had checked what Mr. Jaworski's transcript. Special Prosecutor said, and for Dean's statement there, they have "[Inaudible] 3 months." which is not, what we have in ours. we have "How did it all end up?" and The next sentence, Mr. Jaworski's transcript says "How did this all end up?" Now, these are all inconsequential, but when you give the implications that the White House, without any substantiated proof, has tried to fabricate the transcripts, when -we ourselves have transcripts that are, not the same, as Mr. Jaworski's or the White House, I think we are Just confusing the issue for ourselves and the American people. I hope that When we return tomorrow we will all try to rediscipline ourselves and focus in on the articles themselves which are under debate and not try to propagandize this, because I think by doing so we are doing a disservice to these proceedings. And now I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. [01.31.39]