Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Maraziti, is recognized. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the motion of the gentleman from Alabama for a number of reasons. First, let me say that there are not sufficient allegations for this committee to know exactly what the charge is. There are not sufficient allegations for the respondent, the President of the United States, to know what the specific charge is. A simple reading of the paragraph will indicate exactly what I mean. "Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants." What prospective defendants? If we know who they are, and we certainly ought to know who they are if they exist after 7 months of investigation. Why could not the staff or the proponent of the resolution the Article of Impeachment here have named them? It goes on to say: "And individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect fair treatment and consideration , and so on. What favored treatment and consideration? "In return for their silence or false testimony or rewarding individuals." What individuals? And what rewards?
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). I can only assume from what I have heard that we are speaking here of possibly executive clemency. I only know that from what I have heard presented here, not by an amendment to the Articles of Impeachment which I certainly would be satisfied with, but with a recitation of evidence of information that I suppose in due course is expected to be set forth to prove the allegation. And this is the problem we ve had here for 2 days. I am sure that, as I said previously, as lawyers we know exactly what we are talking about here and what the difference is between allegations set forth in the Article of Impeachment and the evidence and the proof.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Tom Railsback (R Illinois). Would the gentleman yield to me? Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). I will in just a moment. I do not know if I have enough time and I would like to finish my presentation. And let me say that s what we should be doing, amending the Articles of Impeachment. But let us go to the facts that have been discussed and I think that since they have been discussed that it is only proper that we who may not agree should have an opportunity to answer them. Yes, it s true that the President has on a number of occasions discussed this subject, as other subjects have been discussed, and we know how he has carried on his activities as has been evidenced by the testimony here and the other information we have. He meets with his staff and he throws out ideas and suggestions and he wants alternatives, considers alternatives, and then suddenly makes up his mind and says yes or says no. And I think it is very clear that he has rejected, and he rejected clemency on a number of occasions.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Robert McClory (R Illinois). Will the gentleman yield? Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Just as soon as I conclude. All we have got to do is refer to the tape of March 21st, 1973, and after discussing clemency, he says very emphatically, No, it is wrong. That is for sure. No, it is wrong, that is for sure. And then again in the same tape, And the second thing is we are not going to be able to deliver on any of a clemency thing." What I submit to you, members of the committee, is that certainly members of his staff had made many suggestions to the President. They talked to him. He listens to them. And then he accepts or rejects. In this case, in my opinion he very affirmatively rejected clemency. And I Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman from New Jersey has expired.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5 more minutes William Hungate (D Missouri). Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield two minutes to gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hogan. Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding and I d like to briefly address the questions asked my Mr. Maraziti with respect to the last sentence in this paragraph about rewards to individuals who had perjured themselves. Mr. Maraziti said, what individuals and what rewards? And I asked my friend from New Jersey, and he is my friend, what the reasonable and prudent man would conclude from the facts which I m going to recite.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Jim Magruder testified that he had in January 1973, told HR Haldeman that he would commit perjury in the trial of United States v. Liddy which he did. On February 19, 1973, Dean testified that he prepared a talking paper, he testified that on that date he prepared a talking paper for a meeting between Haldeman and the President at which Haldeman would discuss with the President an administration job for Magruder. The paper said that Magruder would be vulnerable if nominated for a position which required Senate confirmation because Sloan was going to testify against him and reveal a number of things. Now we tried to subpoena the tape of that conversation between Haldeman and the President and it was refused. But we do know that after that meeting between Haldeman and the President Magruder was offered the highest paying job in the government which didn t require Senate confirmation. He got a $36,000 at the Department of Commerce. And he retained that position for even a month after Dean had discussed with the President on March 21, 1973, that Magruder had committed perjury. I submit an individual who was known to have committed perjury was rewarded for the perjury.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Will you yield and give me an opportunity to answer? Lawrence Hogan (R Maryland). Well, it s not my time. The gentleman from Missouri has the time. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The 2 minutes of the gentleman from Maryland has expired and the gentleman from Missouri has 3 minutes remaining.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). I thank the gentleman and I yield briefly to the gentleman from Utah. Wayne Owens (D Utah). I had a point of clarification. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). Will the gentleman yield. William Hungate (D Missouri). I had a prior request, Mr. Maraziti, I m sorry. Wayne Owens (D Utah). The statement that the gentleman read First it s going to require approximately a million dollars to take care of the jackasses that are in jail. That could be arranged. Is that the same group in jail that we re assured by the President s council the President justified payment of half a million dollars on the basis of compassion and concern? William Hungate (D Missouri). Mr. Owens, that may be but in Missouri the term jackass is not necessarily derogatory.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). Mr. Maraziti. Joseph Maraziti (R New Jersey). That you very much Mr. Hungate. I appreciate your yielding. Now in reference to the question propounded by my friend from Maryland, if he has the information, and apparently has some of it, I d like to ask the gentleman why he has not listed these names? That is what we are talking about. In the Articles of Impeachment, the names and favored treatment and so on. We want the specifics. I m not talking about the evidence. The specifics and the allegations. Now, in reference to the charge you made. There s no evidence that the President offered the job to Magruder. Haldeman denies that Magruder says he perjured himself. It is his word against Magruder s. There s no evidence the President offered the job to Magruder. Thank you.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974.
William Hungate (D Missouri). I thank the gentleman. And it seems we end as we began, with a question. There are different views here and I widely respect them. And I think all of those here respect the different views because I think they help the Country to develop the truth. Some wise man has written that the truth is seldom pure are never simple. And I think we see that here today. I would apologize to some if they found occasional attempts at humor offensive, but I ve never thought a sense of humor need to destroy your sense of responsibility. And in my case I felt it better to have a sense of humor than no sense at all. But to close on a most serious note, because this is a solemn responsibility that weighs heavily upon all of us and upon the staff and the American people. We all seek to do the right and proper thing and I hope we can have Divine guidance in the difficult decisions we must yet make. And remember that I can see Omaha beach, the national cemetery there to the dead of World War Two and the United States and in stone above that monument to those men it says They endured all and suffered all that mankind might know freedom and deliver justice. And I hope our deliberations here will promote that cause. Peter Rodino (D New Jersey). The time of the gentleman from Missouri has expired.