[Barbara Jordan Scrapbook, July - September, 1974] Page: 65 of 236
This book is part of the collection entitled: The Barbara C. Jordan Archives and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Texas Southern University.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
A Cross Section of
America' on 'splay
Sunday, July 28, 1974
Debaters Ask:
What Warrants
Impeachment?
What, Is Proof?
By ANTHONY LEWIS
WASHINGTON-A person who has lived through much in
American political life sat watching the House Judiciary
Committee debate and murmured again and again, "Amaz-
ing. Absolutely amazing."
Even after all the turns and surprises of Watergate It was
utterly astonishing to have the fate of the President of the
United States, that most powerful being, debated on televi-
sion. Past and present met in a' civic drama: the rhetoric of
Edmund Burke and James Madison, the record of Richard
Nixon.
The debate'was alternately inspiring and wearying, grand
and petty. After opening on a high constitutional tone, the
committee moved into the characteristic wrangling of the
legislative process. The real issues began appearing-issues
of constitutional meaning, legal procedure, politics. The
answers were effectively given not in words but in the com-
mittee's votes..-and will be given thus again and again as
the impeachment process goes on.
Watching, one felt the uniqueness, of America. Nothing
like it could have happened in any other country.
The uniqueness and the size of America, For another strik-
ing aspect of the proceeding was the way the 38 members of
t*e Judiciary Committee reflected the diversity of this huge
country. There were the voices of Texas and New Jersey,
California and Indiana-black and white, conservative and
liberal, smooth and rough.
"You know, we are the people of the United States," said
Walter Flowers of Alabama. It was one of many genuinely
moving moments. Those in the national audience could see
themselves in that committee: a group of people intensely
American, with all the imperfections and dignity intact.
The members were the more touching because there was
in them none of the consciousness of superstar status that
commonly affects Senators. They seemed ratherhordinary
men and women, but repeatedly they rose above the ordi-
nary to speak with a quiet passion ancd co wi ton.
The chairman, Peter Rodino of New Jersey, set the ele-
vated tone with his opeing statement atitgoathe commit-
tee to proceed "in good will, with honor and decency andWalter Flowers
Democrat
Alabama"And... what if we fail
to impeach? Do we
ingrain forever in the
very faLCs of our
Constitution a standard
of conduct in our
highest office that in
the least is deplorable
and at worst is
impeachable?"with respect for the views of one another." There was little
rancor, though of course some members were forceful and
even caustic in attacking or defending the President.
In the general debate the tone was mostly one of sadness
in performing such a duty. Several members seemed near
tears in the course of their remarks: Republican Tom Rails-
back of Illinois, for one, as he expressed his divided feelings:
"In my opinion Richard Nixon has done many wonderful
things for his country . . . I wish the President could do some-
thing to absolve himself . . . I just-I just am very, very
concerned."
Republicans understandably felt themselves in the more
difficult political posture. Some strongly opposed the im-
peachment, yet condemned the moral tone of the Nixon
White House. Wiley Mayne, Republican of Iowa, put it: "I
certainly deplore the sorry example which was set by the
chief executive . . . in his personal as well as his official con-
duct." Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, was alone in call-
ing Mr Nixon "in many ways the best President" in a
century.
Then, as the committee turned to debating the specific
articles of impeachment, partisan attacks and parliamentary
maneuvers began. Those Republicans opposing impeachment
demanded more "specifics" in the words of the articles.
Their effort was really designed not to improve the form of
words but to divide the proponents over what particulars to
include. The committee majority worked to hold its forces
together, especially the half-dozen Republicans favoring im-
peachment but worried by their colleagues' sniping.
And then, yesterday, the committee returned to a more
amiable and businesslike mood as it went through the lan-
guage of the first proposed article and the supporting facts.
The changes of mood may well have bewildered the tele-
vision audience, but they were all part of the way the House
of Representatives and its committees do their work.
Underneath the emotion and the tactics, the partisanship
and soul-searching, there developed in the week's debates a
number of issues and themes. They are likely to continue as
major points of controversy in the debate on the floor of the
House and then, if it comes to that, in the Senate trial."The law requires that
we decide the case on
the evidence.... Most
of this is just material.
It is not evidence....
Simple theories, of
course, are inadequate.
That's not evidence...."?s
Charles Wiggins
Republican
CaliforniaThe most fundamental question is that of standards: What
grounds and what evidence are required to impeach a Pres-
ident? It is a complicated question, mixing the general with
the particular, the philosophical with the factual.
A first stage in that argument is defining the "high crimes
and misdemeanors" specified in the Constitution as the basis
for impeachment. Mr. Nixon's lawyer, James St. Clair, had
argued that only a serious indictable crime would do. Most
scholarly opinion took the broader view that a grave viola-
tion of the public trust vested in the President should be the
.ccasion for impeachment.
The St. Clair view had little explicit support on the Judi-
ciary Committee. Most members who discussed the subject
took the prevailing historical view of the nature of an im-
peachable offense. The committee's two articles of impeath-
ment were cast in terms of the President violating his oath
of office, first by obstructing justice and second by abuse of
power, and then enumerated specifics-some criminal in
nature, some not.
But Mr. St. Clair's approach still had important echoes in
the committee deliberations. They appeared in the discussion
of the "specifics" and of the evidence.
The argument made most forcefully by Republican oppo-
nents of impeachment was that there was not enough evi-
dence linking Mr. Nixon personally to either the alleged
obstruction of justice or the various abuses of power listed.
Thus the man generally reckoned Mr. Nixon's ablest de-
fender, Charles Wiggins of California, used his opening time
for a detailed and skillful argument that "there were mis-
deeds," such as attempts to misuse the I.R.S., but ones trace-
able only to John Dean or H. R Haldeman or some otherBarbara Jordan
Democrat
Texas"My faith in the
Constitution is whole,
it is complete, it is
total, and I am not
going to sit here and be
an idle spectator to
the diminution, the
subversion, the
destruction of the
Constitution.aide-not to the President himself
"There were lots of crimes committed by lots of people,"
- said another vigorous Nixon defender, Charles Sandman of
New Jersey. "But were they placed at the door of the Presi-
dent? I do not think so."
Similarly, some Republicans complained of lie'9ofli' bf
"circumstantial" evidence, not direct testimony. David Den-
nis of indi na dismissed it as mostly "hearsay" that "will
not do" at senate trial.
Those who favored impeachment, of course, disputed the
claim of insufficient evidence. William Cohen, Republican of
Maine, said all criminal lawyers knew that circumstantial
evidence was as good as any other: If a man woke up and
saw snow covering the ground, he knew it had snowed al-
though he had not actually seen the snow fall. John Seiberling,
Ohio Democrat, put it: "I know of corporate executives who
have pied nity and in Sne cacs3 h;a\ g: to il ja en
there was only a small fraction of the evidence of their com-
plicity that is before us in this case."
Proponents of impeachment mentioned such particulars
as Mr. Nixon's promise to Harry Petersen of the Justice De-
partment that he would keep grand jury secrets to himself-
followed immediately by his disclosing them to a prime sus-
pect, H. R. Haldeman, and then by his giving Mr. Haldeman
tapes to hear. Again, there was much mention of Mr. Nixon's
listening with apparent approval to tales of how the Internal
Revenue Service was being pressured to get the President's
"enemies."
But a further point, never exactly articulated, was that the
standard of evidence required might well. differ if one looked
at this proceeding as measuring abuses of public trust. For
then it would be enough if the President knew of crimes or
abuses and failed to see to their legal correction. It was
enough for Republican M. Caldwell Butler of Virginia, for
example, to conclude that Mr. Nixon had "condoned and en-
couraged" misuse of the I.R.S.
As the impeachment process continues, it seems likely
that Mr. Nixon's defenders will continue to talk in the nar-
rowest posssible terms of criminal cases, criminal standards
of proof, criminal responsibility. The other side will main-Charles Sandman
Republican
New Jersey"Now . . . maybe I
overlooked something.
Maybe there is a tie-in
with the President....
Give me that
information. Give it
to 202 million
Americans. Because
up to this moment,
you haven't."tain that those standards are amply met-but will also, to a
degree, argue James Madison's view that a President is re-
sponsible for wrongdoing all around him, at least on the
massive scale found by the committee in this case.
A second issue of importance is political in the large
sense-whether removing Mr. Nixon, whatever his wrongs,
will be good for the country.
"Any prosecution [in the Senate] is going to divide this
country," Mr. Dennis said. Mr. Mayne argued that past
Presidents had done bad things, too, and had not been im-
peached.
To that Lawrence Hogan of Maryland, a Republican favor-
ing impeachment, replied that other Presidents may have
erred, "but I was not in a position where I had to take a
stand, where I approve or disapprove of blatant wrong-
doing." Mr. Butler said a failure to impeach would have
"frightening implications for the future" because it would
have set so low a standard of conduct for Presidents. A third
Republican for impeachment, Harold Froelich of Wisconsin,
put it: "Past misconduct cannot logically justify more of the
same."
It may have seemed somewhat unfair to the Northern
liberal Democrats on the committee that so much attention
focused on their Republican and Southern Democratic col-
leagues. But the latter did have the harder struggle of politics
and conscience, and their views could have great influence
now in the full House and Senate.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
[Barbara Jordan Scrapbook, July - September, 1974], book, 1974; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth616583/m1/65/?rotate=90: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Texas Southern University.