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.
37.45 Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). I recognize the, gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead. Carlos Moorhead (R California). Mr. Chairman, the struggle against reason and reality insofar as making the charges specific is something that I can't understand from the explanations that have been given. Because if it is possible to make up a bill of particulars and that won t delay the proceedings, I can't understand stand how it would delay the proceedings to put it into the pleadings. One thing that I think is most important that is that the members of the committee when they vote on each one of the charges be able to see the thing that backs up that particular charge that is made against the President. And from that evidence and from those particulars to reason with themselves as to whether they want to make that a charge for removing the President of the United States from his Office. And I think that we have to consider that on each One of these things that comes up.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
38.50 Carlos Moorhead (R California). I m sure that from the debate that his taken place here tonight, largely between the two gentlemen from California, Mr. Waldie and Mr. Wiggins, it must be apparent that the facts are confusing. That if you want to take a particular point of view or the other, you can prove almost anything, especially if you are willing to take hearsay evidence and some of the other irrelevant evidence that has been offered before this committee. It s important that the evidence that is to back up any charge must be strong and persuasive and of a kind that is admissible in court, and we as a member, members of this committee have the right to see to it that the specifics that are available are sufficient to support any charge that had been made.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
39.42 Carlos Moorhead (R California). One thing that has come up continually and I think I ought to comment on it, and that is concerning Mr. Dean's position as having been ordered or not ordered by the President to make an investigation. There is no question but what in the White House, Mr. Dean was the person that all the members of the White House staff looked to for information and took their information to concerning anything connected with Watergate. Mr. Colson testified to that in testifying before the committee here a few days ago. It can't be any surprise, either to members of this committee, to know that the President felt that Mr. Dean had a mission in going up to Camp David and preparing a report. Because in the tape that we heard that was presented to us by the committee, the President may not have ordered Dean to make a report when he was at Camp David, but he suggested to him that if he went to Camp David, it might be a good opportunity for him to think about a report that he might make back to the President. We are arguing with semantics when we try to make that a major issue in this impeachment hearing.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
41.07 Carlos Moorhead (R California). One last comment that I would like to make and that is in connection with all of the evidence that we have had and the things that we have heard. A few good rifle shots and a good solid target would be a lot more effective than the shotgun blast at thin air that have had these hearings. David Dennis (R Indiana). Will the gentleman yield? Carlos Moorhead (R California). I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
41.32 David Dennis (R Indiana). I suggest perhaps to my friend from California that one of the reasons there is such an unwillingness to be specific may be that some of the specifics that they would rely on if they had pled them just wouldn't pan out as true. Mr. Wiggins has already mentioned this, but one of the points that been suggested here is that on the 27th of March the President instructed Ehrlichman to tell Attorney General Kleindienst that Dean was not involved and that that is false. Here is what he said. He said, "Look, Dick," this is what he is saying to Ehrlichman, but I should say to Kleindienst, "Let me tell you, Dean was not involved. Had no prior knowledge." Now they are talking about prior knowledge of the Watergate break in. And there is no hard evidence that Dean had prior knowledge of the Watergate break in. They re not talking about the coverup. And that is proved when you go over further and read what Ehrlichman actually did tell Kleindienst he said, The President said for me to say this to you, that the best information he had and has is that neither Dean nor I nor anybody in the White House had any knowledge of this burglary." Now that is all they are talking about. And it is a very, very thin suggestion that there is anything false in that. Charles Rangel (D New York). Would the gentleman yield? David Dennis (R Indiana). It isn't false by the weight of the evidence, Charles Rangel (D New York). Would the gentleman yield? I think we can have a meeting. David Dennis (R Indiana). I yield back to my friend. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman from California has expired.