Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory (R - Illinois).
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 4 minutes and 20 seconds. And after the gentleman from Illinois has consumed his time, there is no further time. The gentleman from Ohio was he seeking recognition for some, purpose other than Representative Bob Latta (R Ohio). Apparently the Chairman did not put my name down earlier in the day but I will not raise an objection. Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). I regret, but the list that was given to me did not include the gentleman's name. Bob Latta (R Ohio). May I respectfully suggest to the Chair that at I could poll members around here that could say that I raised my hand but I will not do so.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Peter Rodino (D - New Jersey). The gentleman from Illinois. Robert McClory (R Illinois). Mr. Chairman, this committee has urged the President to provide us with the necessary and relevant information to conclude and do a thorough and complete inquiry. We ve issued the subpoenas. He has rejected those. Following the rejection of our subpoenas we warned the President, ill a letter of May 30th that if he did not respond we would consider this as a ground of impeachment. The President's counsel has urged and I think that he has urged appropriately that charges against the President should be in separate and specific articles. This is a separate and specific article and it is a separate type of charge, it seems to me. I hope myself that the additional evidence which will be presented, if it is presented in the Senate or at any other time would exculpate and exonerate the President. And I kept urging that during these weeks that I have been urging the President to respond favorably to our subpoenas. That same urging of the President has been directed by the Vice President and by the Republican leader of the House.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Now, what did the President turn over in response to our request? He turned over nothing. If it were not for the fact that we got materials from the Special Prosecutor we wouldn t have evidence upon which to operate, to conduct our inquiry. As a matter of fact it would be entirely appropriate in response to the gentleman from Alabama to vote this as a sole and separate and distinct article of impeachment if we d received all that we had received from the President, and through the President, which is virtually nothing. So what we are considering here, the evidence we have, we didn t get from the President. We got it elsewhere.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Now, its pure speculation that by going to the Court that we would be able to get some kind of remedy. As a matter of fact, this committee has taken the position definitely and over and over again we did not want to subject ourselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. In the arguments which just took place in the case of US against Nixon, the question was asked of Mr. St. Clair and he responded quite correctly that the Congress had the sole jurisdiction of the subject of impeachment and this was not a justiciable subject before the Supreme Court. The Courts are excluded from our consideration of this. The House has the sole power of impeachment and we have expressed that.
Impeachment Hearings. House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974. Statement of Representative Robert McClory
Now, it seems to me that the other process that we could have gone through of contempt would be quite unacceptable and we did not want to go through that. I suggested that some months ago, but I was deterred in that by leaders from both sides of the aisle and with the prospect that we would take this up when it came to the consideration of an Article of impeachment. And that is what we are doing at this time. It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate that we should tell the President, and this will be a guide for future Presidents or future impeachments, that if there is no response, or if the response is inadequate to the requests that we make, if our subpoenas are defied, why then, the Congress is going to take this kind of decisive action. Contempt, of course, is a strong action. You can have summary contempt in a court and imprisonment and all kinds of strong penalties, so this is decisive action. This is firm action. But it seems to me that it is the only kind of action we can take under the circumstances and I urge a favorable vote on this Article III.