Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 29, 1974 (1/2)
[00.07.39] Mr. SARBANES. I think there is some truth to what the gentleman says. but I do think that we ought to consider the point that has been made that in this take care paragraph there. are other unlawful activities which occurred to which the responsibility of the President ought to run, and which ought to be provided as part of the proof with respect to this paragraph. So, it seems to me, there is a choice available between simply eliminating the clause and having nothing, and developing language that provides a more definite standard than the language that is contained at the end of this paragraph. And I would suggest to the gentleman that if we could develop such language, it would enable us to maintain the substance of what 'we are talking about here, which the gentleman from Illinois referred to somewhat earlier and yet meet the basic thrust of the objection of the gentleman from California. Mr. THORNTON. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WALDIE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Thornton. Mr. THORNTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to suggest that we give some attention to the result of this amendment, if adopted, in too narrowly defining the inquiry of this article, particularly in that it, would, in my view, exclude the coverup of the unlawful, entry into the Democratic National Committee or at least the second stage of that, coverup, when what Was then being considered was the failure of the President himself to advise the Department of Justice of the involvement which he knew of his own men in the coverup which had occurred. The language as it would read, if this amendment were adopted, would limit that failure to take care only to those acts surrounding the, unlawful entry into the, headquarters of the, Democratic National Committee. If you were to add "and the coverup thereof," it might improve this amendment. However, that is not included in the effect of the amendment as adopted which in my view limits the thrust of this paragraph (4) to the break-in itself and nothing further. Mr. WALDIE. Well Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. WALDIE. I respond, and I am still on my time, Mr. Chairman, and I only want to respond to Mr. Thornton's point which I think is well taken. If the language is limited only to a consideration of the events leading up to the unlawful entry, and not, the attempt to frustrate the inquiry into the events subsequent to the unlawful entry, the coverup, I think then that the point is awfully well taken. It was not ever my understanding that the initial words were limited only to the, unlawful entry, and that we included the coverup in the words "and concerning other matters." If we had to include the coverup by putting in the phrase "and concerning other matters," it is incredibly poorly drafted. My only impression is, and I would have to refer to the author. that the original words involving the break-in of the Democratic -National Committee headquarters included both the entry as well as the coverup, and concerning other matters has nothing to do with the Democratic National Committee burglary entry or coverup. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman? Mr. RAILSBACK. Would the gentleman yield? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's 5 minutes have been consumed. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman? ? Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Chairman, I have a perfecting amendment at the desk. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized. The clerk -will read the amendment. The CLERK. [reading] Amendment by Mr. McClory. In the Hungate substitute. strike from subparagraph (4) the word "matters" and insert in lieu thereof the following: "unlawful activities." Mr. McCLORY. 'Mr. Chairman? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. How do we get--- The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. DENNIS. How do we get to such an amendment in order at this time? There is amendment of the gentleman from California pending, and I would submit respectfully that, either that amendment must be offered to the amendment, or an amendment must be offered in the nature of a substitute to the amendment. and I do not believe that a So-called perfecting amendment, which ignores the pending amendment which goes back to the original test is in order. [00.12.23]