Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling, is recognized for 5 minutes. John Seiberling (D Ohio). Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the gentleman, the other gentleman from Ohio, has put his finger on one of the very fundamental issues which brought about this proceeding which is whether under the guise, the phrase national security, the President has a blank check to violate the law. Because that is what this issue is all about.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). When Attorney General Ruckelshaus declined to fire Special Prosecutor Cox after Elliot Richardson had resigned because he declined to fire him, you remember what General Haig, the President's aide, told him. He said, "Your Commander in Chief has given you an order." And Mr. Ruckelshaus had to remind him that he was subject to the law. And that the Commander in Chief could not give an order that violated the law. Now let us take a look at that law. Point 5 of this Article talks about the disregard of the rule of law by the President of the United States. And among other things, he disregarded it when he, fired the Special Watergate Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, or ordered him to be fired.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). Now let us go back to April 30, 1973, when the President accepted the resignation of Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Kleindienst and Dean. He at that time pledged to the American people that he would do everything in his power to ensure that those guilty of misconduct within the White House and in his campaign organization were brought to justice. And he announced he was going to appoint Elliot Richardson Attorney General and he announced Elliot Richardson would appoint a Special Prosecutor and in due course that came to pass. And Mr. Richardson submitted to the committee a statement of duties and responsibilities of the Special Prosecutor. And the statement provided that he would have jurisdiction over offenses arising out of the Watergate break in, allegations involving the President, members of the White House staff or Presidential appointees. And they also provided that the Special Prosecutor would have full authority for determining whether or not to contest the assertion of executive privilege or any other testimonial privilege and that he would not be removed except for extraordinary improprieties.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). Now the law had already been long established by the Supreme Court in the case of Accardi v. Shaughnessy in 1953 that as long as the Attorney General's regulations remained operative they had the force of law and denied him or any other member of the executive branch the right to violate those regulations. And such were the regulations under which the Special Prosecutor was operating. And that principle was upheld again as recently as last week when the Supreme Court reaffirmed it in the case of United States v. Nixon.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). Now we all remember the shock that we all experienced last October when in quick succession two Attorney Generals and the Special Prosecutor were fired on order of the President because they had the temerity to carry out an order of a Court of the U.S. Government which order had been appealed and affirmed by the Court and ordered the President to turn over the tapes which he subsequently was forced to do by public opinion. And it was that act which brought about the creation of this special proceeding.
Watergate Impeachment Hearings House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974
John Seiberling (D Ohio). Now, I have always believed that any man elected to the highest office in the land would rise to the occasion. Like every American I want to believe the best of my President and I ve tried to do so as I studied the evidence before us in this proceeding. And having done so, I must sadly say to my friends on both sides of the aisle and in the country: He let us down. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.