Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 26, 1974.
[00.48.18] The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi I overlooked, Mr. Lott. Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the hour is late, I will be brief. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of Mr. Mayne, and speak briefly in support of the motion to strike by Mr. Sandman. I Oink that, he probably did not intend necessarily to offer motions to strike on each amendment, but I think it has been clearly demonstrated here by what has been said. that we do have a need to see what the specifics are so that we can debate and agree, if possible, on what will be included in the articles.Now, we have already pointed out earlier that there, was a mistake the first allegation in support of this section. And I have another that I could speak to with regard to the President's giving false and misleading statements to Petersen on March 21, but I think enough has been said about this. I think now that the point has been made very clearly by the last few speakers, on both sides of the aisle, that we do need to find some, way to come, up with the particulars and I urge the committee to go ahead and get on with their vote on the motion to strike and make some termination as to what we can do or some way that we can find to be more particular so that we can debate the real issues, the real facts that have been asking for an opportunity to discuss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a reward for your pa patience, I shall not take my full 5 minutes. I take this time to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Doar. If we do not strike this item, it is your intention, then, to leave it in these general terms and to go to the statements of information for the details? Mr. DOAR. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Mr. LATTA. Is it your intention if the article--item is not stricken as proposed by Mr. Sandman. is it your intention then to go to the statements of information for the details that will have to be spelled out specifically in the charge the President? Mr. DOAR. No; Mr. Latta, it -would not be my intention to do that. Mr. LATTA. Where will you (yet the information? Mr. DOAR. You would have the statements in a report that would go along with the article to the floor. and in the report yon would be keyed to the summary of information that you were furnished last week, and that in turn would also be keyed back to the, statements of information, but what you would have, as I would envision it, you would have a report that was maybe 15, 20 pages long that would summarize these facts, these ultimate facts. and relevant facts, and that would be keyed if someone wanted further information to the summary of information that, was about 150 pages long and had it all keyed to statements of information where you could see the documentary--- , the testimony, if you needed to see them. Mr. LATTA. Where would the President have to go to find out the charges being made against him specifically? Mr. DOAR. Well, the President would have the article or articles of impeachment. MR. LATTA. Which would be general. Mr. DOAR. Which would be general. The President would have the report of the committee. The President would have the summary of information, and the President, would have the statements of information. Mr. LATTA. He would have to go to all of those? Mr. DOAR. Well it isn't a question of reading them all. They, would all be. keyed so you could got from one to the other very easily. It is not--it is not a difficult job of getting in and out of this material if you have the proper Index. Mr. LATTA. SO what you are saying, then, you are going to have,' report in addition to the statements of information. Mr. DOAR. Well, there would be a committee report. That is my understanding what the chairman has said. Mr. LATTA. And you wouldn't be incorporating all 38 or 39 statements of information in that report. Mr. DOAR. Oh, no. Mr. LATTA. But the President, would still have to go to those statements of information to get the details of the charges being mad against him specifically. Mr. DOAR. Not the details of the charges, but if he had Mr. LATTA. Let's get the specifics. Mr. DOAR. The specifics would be in the--there would be more specifics in the report. If he was--you could be more Specific if you looked at the summary of information that we furnished last week Mr. LATTA. Well, then, the question is how would the President knows the charges being made against him if we left this charge "making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States". Now. will you just outline how he would know what those charges are so he can defend himself against them? Mr. DOAR. Well--- Mr. LATTA. He would go then to the report from this document Mr. DOAR. He would go to the report, and if the report--then he would look at the summary of information. That is the document we furnished, one notebook. Then in the one notebook that is the statement of information, and he could go to that and the actual testimony, for example, or the statement that a person made, or the press release, or whatever else was relevant on that subject and then--that is not unusual with respect to modern civil or criminal practice Mr. LATTA. It might not be unusual, but in cases, in criminal court these days we don't 38 or 39 volumes of statements of information and I would just like the American people to know what we are talking about. And this- [00.54.26--to demonstrate, piles the STATEMENTS OF INFORMATION, EACH THE SIZE OF A PHONEBOOK, on top of each other on the table] [00.54.56--laughter as LATTA FINISHES his demonstration]