Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (1/2)
[00.41.29] Mr. HOGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think this is perhaps the most important thing that -we have been debating since these current deliberations began. What is at. issue here is executive privilege. We know that throughout the Constitution there is the running theme of separation of powers, and checks and balances. There are three areas where the President has challenged executive privilege. One is against Congress -where there is a legislative purpose, and clearly he has a valid claim to executive privilege in that instance. He claimed it in the instance of the criminal prosecutions, and the Supreme Court has by a unanimous eight to nothing decision rejected his claim. If the Supreme Court rejected it in that instance, certainly the Supreme Court would reject his claim vis-a-vis the impeachment inquiry by this committee. I would not have. supported this article prior to the Supreme Court decision, but, now that we have it, there is no valid claim on the part of the President to ignore our subpenas. Now, heretofore I have had many discussions with my colleagues, Mr. Conyers of Michigan notably, who felt so very strongly about this and at that time the question of executive privilege was a debatable one. It no longer is. The historical precedent we are setting here is so great because in every future impeachment of a President. it is inconceivable that the evidence relating to that impeachment will not be in the hands of the executive branch which is under his controls. So I agree with the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Seiberling if we do not pass this article today, the whole impeachment power becomes meaningless, Now, my friend from Wisconsin. Mr. Froehlich, says that we. should have gone to court to enforce our subpenas. Perhaps he is correct. Perhaps we should have. But in our system of justice, the individual who is mandated by the subpena has the right and the opportunity and the obligation, if he challenges that subpena, to move to quash the subpena. The President did not do that. He merely ignored it and having ignored it, the compulsion of our lawfully offered subpenas and still he has ignored them. I I would have hoped that, when the Supreme Court decision was handed down a few days ago he would have immediately delivered that Material to the House Judiciary Committee. He did not. So I urge that My colleagues support this article offered by Mr. McClory because if we do not, we will be for all time weakening the House of Representatives' power of impeachment. I yield back the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 3 minutes and, incidentally , the Chair would like to state that its mathematics were not quite, right. The, gentlemen are entitled to 3 minutes and 35 seconds. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, I will yield my 35 seconds to the next speaker in support of the article. The CHAIRMAN. We -will recognize them. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fish. Mr. FISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like at the, outset to say that I was one -who had not made up his mind, had no opinion, when the question -was put for or speaking either in favor of it or against this article. And to help me come to a conclusion, I would like to ask a couple, of questions, first of all, of counsel, and that is, if this-if there were no article III, what would be the effect in a trial in the Senate, of the Senate's ability to obtain the material that we have heretofore subpenaed? ? Mr. JENNER, Congressman--may I, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Jenner. Mr. JENNER. Congressman Fish, the. subpena facts discussed -would be admissible under article I Watergate and coverup, as part of the issue of continued coverup. However, since article I is Watergate and it does not afford an affirmative charge -with respect to the fact that the failure to respond to subpenas is an impeachable offense. In my judgment, if included under article I that would have made that article duplicitous So that if the committee is to recommend to the House an impeachment -with respect to the President's refusal to respond to the subpena, it is necessary that the committee state that in terms of a separate article. Mr. FISH. I thank the gentleman. My next question would be directed at the author, Mr. McCLORY. Mr. McClory, is it your view that if in the course of a trial in the Senate the--or before that, the President should voluntarily come forward with the material that we have heretofore subpenaed, that it would be possible for the managers on the part of the House to drop, this article? Mr. McCLORY. If the gentleman will yield, I will respond by saying emphatically yes. that the President has' been given all kinds of opportunities to come forward and even at that late stage if he came forward with the evidence there, is no reason why we could not drop the article III entirely. Mr. FISH. I thank the. gentleman. [00.47.30]