Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.31.45] I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Wiggins. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have. an amendment at the, desk. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment be deemed to apply to the language in subparagraphs 1 and 3, because those are exactly the same words, and as you know that new language was read in as an addition here just a few moments ago. Does Mr. Hungate understand my point, since it is his substitute? Mr. HUNGATE. As I understand the gentleman, the. amendment would be substantially the same in both the paragraphs 1 and 3? Mr. WIGGINS. Would be exactly the game. Mr. HUNGATE. And I have no objection, Mr. Wiggins. The CHAIRMAN. So the Chair would understand that if the amendment were disposed of, it -would be disposed of Mr. WIGGINS. As to both. The CHAIRMAN. [continuing]. As to 1 and 3. Mr. WIGGINS. as Certainly. of would like to do it all at one time. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment. The CLERK [reading] Amendment by Mr. Wiggins. In subparagraph (1) after the word "has", strike the words 'acting personally and through his subordinates and agents" and add the following: "personally and through his subordinates and agents acting with his knowledge or pursuant to his instructions". The CHAIRMAN-. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe my intent is evident from the words used, and I merely am trying to avoid any possible ambiguity created by the language which is now in subparagraph (1) and subparagraph (3). Going back to the introductory words in article II it states, in essence, Richard Nixon has repeatedly engaged in conduct, et cetera. It makes it clear that we are talking about Richard Nixon's acts, and yet, when -we move to subparagraph (1) -we deviate from that standard and we say, as presently proposed, that he acted personally and through his subordinates and agents. I have no quarrel with impeaching President Nixon by reason of the, acts of his subordinates and agents so, long as we know that we are talking about those acts of his subordinates and agents which were done with his knowledge or pursuant to his instructions. And we are not Seeking to impeach the President vicariously by reason of the acts of others about which he had no knowledge, and contrary perhaps to his instructions. I have every reason to expect, although I have not asked my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, to support such an amendment because this is, in essence, what he was talking about yesterday, that he was willing to impeach the President by reason of his personal misconduct, but was not, willing to impute vicariously the acts of others. My amendment to subparagraph (1) and subparagraph (3) is to Make this concept abundantly clear, and I urge its acceptance. . Mr. COHEN-. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. Of course., I will yield. Mr, BROOKS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. WIGGINS. I have yielded to the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman still has time. Mr. Cohen. Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Wiggins, under your proposal that would make it personally and through his subordinates and agents acting with his knowledge, or pursuant to his instructions, would that also cover such situations such as where his agents may have acted without the President's personal knowledge in advance, but such acts were thereafter ratified or condoned by the President? Mr. WIGGINS. Yes, I would not necessarily exclude that. 1 realize that a President must Of necessity act through subordinates and that the acts of subordinates may not be personally known to the President. But so long as those. acts are pursuant to his instructions, or perhaps policy, to use a, word that has been used around here, or ratified and condoned by him as his acts, then I have no objection to attributing them to the President. Mr. COHEN. SO, if he acquired knowledge thereafter and ratified in effect the prior acts, that would be within the scope Of your amendment. Thank you. Mr. WIGGINS. I will submit that, question, Mr. McCLORY. Would the gentleman yield to me? Mr. WIGGINS. If I have time, I will yield first to the gentleman from Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California knows that pursuant to the rule that we have adopted, those supporting his amendment and speaking in support of it will have 20 minutes in entirety. Mr. WIGGINS. I think then that, I had best reserve whatever time 1 have and permit others to speak. Mr. Chairman. Well, now, Mr. Chairman, am I in effect forgoing the balance of my time, if I reserve? It is not my understanding that I personally have 20 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. No; you personally do not have 20 minutes. But those in support of your amendment have 20 minutes, and therefore Mr. WIGGINS. If I have used up my time, of course, I am out, of time and. others can speak. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman still has 1 1/2 minutes. Mr. WIGGINS. I yield. to the gentleman from Illinois. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois. Mr. RAILSBACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have only the same, I think the same questions that were raised by the gentleman from Maine. what worries me about this. the President, in some cases. perhaps had knowledge not initially, perhaps, but learned of improper activities and saw I fit to either condone or acquiesce in such activities, and what I am wondering is if it is the intent of his amendment, and again let's make it very clear is it the intent of your amendment to rule out that kind of what I believe is serious misconduct? Mr. WIGGINS. It is not my own intent, to rule it out, but I do not wish to say I embrace it. I will, as you said yesterday, let the words speak for themselves. [00.37.41]