Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (2/2)
[01.22.24] The gentleman from California. Mr. WIGGINS. I have an amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The clerk -will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading]: Amendment by Mr. Wiggins. In the Hungate substitute, strike from subparagraph 4 the words "and concerning other matters." The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. WIGGINS. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, this raises once again the question which was debated at some length concerning specificity. I call your attention to the wording of subparagraph 4. It Charges the President With failing to take care that the laws, were faithfully executed by failing, to act in two respects. One, with respect to the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and two, with respect to other matters. It is my view, Mr. Chairman, that this pushes beyond all reason the desire, apparent desire on the. part of the majority to not specify With Particularity that conduct which they condemn. I can think of more vague nor uncertain than the language "concerning other matters. If we start from the premise required by the Constitution that a defendant in any proceeding and especially in these is entitled to reasonable notice of the nature of the charges against him, then I ask You. what notice is afforded by the charge that he failed to act concerning other matters? We should have extended debates on this. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the author of the substitute would state with particularity the other matters if he wished to rely upon them, but failing that, It seems to me appropriate as a matter of law and certainly as a matter of the good sense of this committee to strike the vague and uncertain language now contained in subparagraph (4) that the President failed to act with respect to other matters. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed I minute and a half. There will be 18 1/2 minutes---- Mr. WIGGINS. Under the, rule I take it I may yield ,it this point- but I cannot reserve my time. is that correct The CHAIRMAN. You can yield at this time but there are still 18 1/2 minutes remaining for those in support. Mr. FLOWERS. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. WIGGINS. Of course I will if it is in support of the amendment. Mr. FLOWERS. I Support your amendment. I think this is-- Mr. WIGGINS. I will be happy to yield. Mr. FLOWERS. This is material that perhaps, I hope, escaped the drafter of it and can be stricken from it. That 'is about all I have to say. I support your amendment. Mr. WIGGINS. I appreciate the, gentleman's support. I am prepared to yield to my friend from Indiana. Mr. DENNIS. Really, this matter does not need much debate. I don't believe, because it, is so obvious and plain that under any theory of the law, modern, ancient or whatever you want to call it, you are entitled to know a little something about what you are charged with and as a matter of fact there is a certain amount of specificity in this article as it, is drawn and we have been given some justifications for article II up here which are fairly specific and just to run in here that he failed to take care that laws were faithfully executed, by failing to act when he had reason to know his subordinates were going to do certain specific things with regard to (he Democratic Headquarters and then throw in a, catch-all concerning other matters, without any definition at all, seems obviously unfair. I agree with my friend from Iowa down there to the extent that I feel that, this article, too, if the proof were here, and I do not think it is, as I am going to discuss further, later when we get to debating the article proper but if the proof were here, I think in many ways this could be a more serious Impeachable offense than that we had presented under the article the other day, because if there were actually a concerned intentional abuse of the powers and duties of the Presidency for political reasons or other improper reasons, I think you might have something worthy of consideration. But if you are going to get into that, particularly if you are going to include things as we are trying to include here, which are not even violations of the statutes, you at least owe it to everybody to set out what you are talking about. This is just so vague and general it could go back as far as you can go and cover anything that anybody might dream up at some time. It is so difficult to argue because it is so simple and right. So I Support the amendment. [01.28.14]