Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
19.27 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman, Mr. Mayne. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). I thank the chairman for yielding and I want to thank him also for his patience tonight. And to assure the Chairman that I am not trying to delay these proceedings but I ask for this time because I am very genuinely concerned whether the person charged here with very serious offenses, who happens to be the President of the United States, is really given adequate and fair notice of the nature of this charge. Which has been stated a number of times in this particular subparagraph it is that either personally or through subordinates and agents he has made false and misleading statements to authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
20.37 Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). Now, Mr. Railsback, my good friend from Illinois, has rattled off a great many instances which he believes would come within this category. And the gentleman from New York, Mr. Rangel, has said such instances are all over the place. But it seems to me that that is the very point, that the President and his attorneys should not have to look all over the place in preparing their defense. I cannot see how it can be of any possible prejudice to the House of Representatives in an impeachment proceeding to set out fairly and specifically when these instances occurred. If the gentleman from Illinois is correct in his recital, and I believe Mr. Doar indicated that he thought that he was, it would seem to me that no harm could possibly be done setting those out. There are, after all, many, many authorized investigative officers. I think that the FBI agents, and I believe Mr. Doar mentioned that there were some FBI agents to whom such statements are alleged have been made, certainly it would be no great task or unreasonable burden for the staff in preparing these articles to set out the names of those agents so that the defense would not have to sift through every single interview with every agent that took place. And the, point has already been made that there are even more employees of the United States than there are authorized investigative officers. The President happens to have a number of agents and subordinates. Many statements have been made which some of my colleagues he tonight feels were false and misleading. But if only particular statements are those on which you rely, I fall to see how it would not be proper, why it not be required by fair play and process to set these matters out in detail in these articles so that American people, as well as the President and his attorneys, will know just what it is that they are up against. (Hillary Rodham (Hillary Rodham Clinton) seated behind John Doar)
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
23.36 Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). And I would like to ask Mr. Doar, if I may, Mr. Chairman, what harm would come from setting out in subparagraph 1, I believe it at least the one that is the subject matter of this motion. What harm would it do to the impeachment case for you to set out the names of the agents and subordinates of the President, the specific occasions on which you allege that he made these misleading statements and to whom he made them. Why should there be any mystery about it? Why should there be any speculation or guesswork about it? Why would this prejudice the House of Representatives? It does seem to me that it very definitely will prejudice the President, that he shouldn t just have to rely on some, I apologize, I do not, wish to say offhand statement by the gentleman from Illinois because it was obviously carefully prepared but given a necessarily very hurried manner, isn't this a matter of enough importance so that you should prepare it specifically and in a manner that the defense and the American people can fully understand? John Doar, attorney. Well, I think in order to answer that you have to admit that you have to balance. On the one hand you have to give the President fair notice. On the other hand, you have to move along and avoid dilatory tactics. And it seems to me that experience has shown throughout the last 200 years of our country that the way to fairly present these matters is to present in the pleadings short, concise, simple statement of the ultimate facts that you base your articles on and then give to the person charged full opportunity in the pretrial, in the discovery stage to learn all the facts about the case. That if you get arguing about the pleadings, the paper, experience has shown that you run into a considerable amount of delay and dilatory arguments that are really, really, experience has shown in the judicial process is unnecessary. So that you can t, I really think, Mr. Congressman, that to get this all out in a pleading, in an Article would cause harm. Not in the sense of depriving the President of knowing every single thing that entitled to know, the nature of the charges, but rather that it will and build and feed and fester into more and more delay of getting to have this case finally decided one way or the other. Wiley Mayne (R Iowa). Well, I assure the gentleman I share the concern about delay, but I am afraid we are inviting and causing delay by the filing of a bill of particulars if this statement is not sufficient. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). Time is expired.