Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 30, 1974 (2/2)
[01.20.56] Mr. MEZVINSKY. And really. the only thing that lends credence whatsoever to the claim that a gift was made prior to the July 1969 change in the law was the fact that the deed on its face said that it was executed in the spring of 1969. But what do we find as a fact? The fact is the IRS ruled that the deed was actually signed in 1970 and was falsely backdated, Now, I know that the White House has argued and some of my colleagues might contend that this pattern of deception which resulted a personal enrichment of the President was really manufactured by his aides and without his personal knowledge. But we know that Mr. Nixon takes, an active interest in his personal financial affairs. We know that he was involved in very detailed fashion and personally executed a deed for a much smaller- gift of papers he made in 1968. We know that. he went over his 1969 tax return page by page and attested to its accuracy before signing on the bottom line, under penalty of perjury. We know that he personally discussed the tax benefits of this one-half million dollar gift with his lawyer. And we know that Mr. Nixon knew that he never signed a deed for the gift. So really what is the question for this committee? We have. to consider whether we can believe that President Nixon, who has told us he has practiced a lot of tax law, did not know the truth about a of over one-half million dollars, the largest gift he has ever given in his life. I think we are all a-ware that some have argued, and this is a key point in our debate, that a President can be impeached only for criminal conduct, and then there are others who contend that this tax matter, although involving criminal conduct, is not an impeachable offense because it involves "unofficial conduct". Now, I think we should take a look at the President's conduct and see whether or not it is impeachable. All of 'is on the committee know that if one of us took an unlawful deduction for a half million dollars on our tax returns, we, would be subject to criminal prosecution. The President's signing of his tax returns may not be an official act but is likely that if it weren't for his official capacity, he, too, would be prosecuted for willful tax evasion. But unfortunately, due to his special position, really only the impeachment process can call the President into account for his actions. We, must also con confront this is evidence as ,in extension of the abuse of IRS. Last, night we, heard members--Walter Flowers, Alabama, Tom Railsback, from Illinois--speak so eloquently about, the abuse of IRS and how it corrodes the system. Well. let. me, say that, I think this falls in that category because we have a, President who, due to his position, could assume that his tax returns were not subject to the, same scrutiny as those of other taxpayers. Rather than taking care to insure that his tax returns complied with the laws, he took advantage of the Presidency to avoid paying his proper tax. And really what is more significant, and this to me is the key, is that this poses a serious threat to our tax system which operates on the premise that everyone is expected to be honest. The reason it works so well is that we expect the laws to be, equally applied to every taxpayer, whether he is a resident of Iowa or Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arkansas or whether he resides in the White House. And when the President of these. United States-, refuses to be bound by the revenue laws and if he. escapes the judgment here as he, evaded his taxes, then it is not just, the treasury that is poorer. The, very integrity of our system of self -government is diminished. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has consumed 10 minutes. Mr. MEZVINSKY. I yield to--does the other side care to take up some time? [01.25.54]