Declaracion sobre los articulos de impeachment

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague Mr. Rangel in thanking you for giving the junior members of this committee the glorious opportunity of sharing the pain of this inquiry. Mr. Chairman, you are a strong man, and it has not been easy but we have tried as best we can to give you as much assistance as possible.

Earlier today, we heard the beginning of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States: "We, the people." It's a very eloquent beginning. But when that document was completed on the seventeenth of September in 1787, I was not included in that "We, the people." I felt somehow for many years that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton just left me out by mistake. But through the process of amendment, interpretation, and court decision, I have finally been included in "We, the people."

Today I am an inquisitor. An hyperbole would not be fictional and would not overstate the solemnness that I feel right now. 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.

"Who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?" "The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men." And that's what we're talking about. In other words, the jurisdiction comes from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

It is wrong, I suggest, it is a misreading of the Constitution for any member here to assert that for a member to vote for an article of impeachment means that that member must be convinced that the President should be removed from office. The Constitution doesn't say that. The powers relating to impeachment are an essential check in the hands of the body of the Legislature against and upon the encroachments of the Executive. The division between the two branches of the Legislature, the House and the Senate, assigning to the one the right to accuse and to the other the right to judge, the Framers of this Constitution were very astute. They did not make the accusers and the judges the same person.

We know the nature of impeachment. We've been talking about it awhile now. It is chiefly designed for the President and his high ministers to somehow be called into account. It is designed to "bridle" the Executive if he engages in excesses. "It is designed as a method of national inquest into the conduct of public men." The Framers confided in the Congress the power if need be, to remove the President in order to strike a delicate balance between a President swollen with power and grown tyrannical, and preservation of the independence of the Executive.

The nature of impeachment: a narrowly channeled exception to the separation-of-powers maxim. The Federal Convention of 1787 said that. It limited impeachment to high crimes and misdemeanors and discounted and opposed the term "maladministration." "It is to be used only for great misdemeanors," so it was said in the North Carolina ratification convention. And in the Virginia ratification convention: "We do not trust our liberty to a particular branch. We need one branch to check the other."

"No one need be afraid" -- the North Carolina ratification convention -- "No one need be afraid that officers who commit oppression will pass with immunity." "Prosecutions of impeachments will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community," said Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, number 65. "We divide into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." I do not mean political parties in that sense.

The drawing of political lines goes to the motivation behind impeachment; but impeachment must proceed within the confines of the constitutional term "high crimes and misdemeanors." Of the impeachment process, it was Woodrow Wilson who said that "Nothing short of the grossest offenses against the plain law of the land will suffice to give them speed and effectiveness. Indignation so great as to overgrow party interest may secure a conviction; but nothing else can."

Common sense would be revolted if we engaged upon this process for petty reasons. Congress has a lot to do: Appropriations, Tax Reform, Health Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, Housing, Environmental Protection, Energy Sufficiency, Mass Transportation. Pettiness cannot be allowed to stand in the face of such overwhelming problems. So today we are not being petty. We are trying to be big, because the task we have before us is a big one.

This morning, in a discussion of the evidence, we were told that the evidence which purports to support the allegations of misuse of the CIA by the President is thin. We're told that that evidence is insufficient. What that recital of the evidence this morning did not include is what the President did know on June the 23rd, 1972.

The President did know that it was Republican money, that it was money from the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, which was found in the possession of one of the burglars arrested on June the 17th. What the President did know on the 23rd of June was the prior activities of E. Howard Hunt, which included his participation in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, which included Howard Hunt's participation in the Dita Beard ITT affair, which included Howard Hunt's fabrication of cables designed to discredit the Kennedy Administration.

We were further cautioned today that perhaps these proceedings ought to be delayed because certainly there would be new evidence forthcoming from the President of the United States. There has not even been an obfuscated indication that this committee would receive any additional materials from the President. The committee subpoena is outstanding, and if the President wants to supply that material, the committee sits here. The fact is that on yesterday, the American people waited with great anxiety for eight hours, not knowing whether their President would obey an order of the Supreme Court of the United States.

At this point, I would like to juxtapose a few of the impeachment criteria with some of the actions the President has engaged in. Impeachment criteria: James Madison, from the Virginia ratification convention. "If the President be connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter him, he may be impeached."

We have heard time and time again that the evidence reflects the payment to defendants money. The President had knowledge that these funds were being paid and these were funds collected for the 1972 presidential campaign. We know that the President met with Mr. Henry Petersen 27 times to discuss matters related to Watergate, and immediately thereafter met with the very persons who were implicated in the information Mr. Petersen was receiving. The words are: "If the President is connected in any suspicious manner with any person and there be grounds to believe that he will shelter that person, he may be impeached."

Justice Story: "Impeachment" is attended -- "is intended for occasional and extraordinary cases where a superior power acting for the whole people is put into operation to protect their rights and rescue their liberties from violations." We know about the Huston plan. We know about the break-in of the psychiatrist's office. We know that there was absolute complete direction on September 3rd when the President indicated that a surreptitious entry had been made in Dr. Fielding's office, after having met with Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Young. "Protect their rights." "Rescue their liberties from violation."

The Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust." Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the President has engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the President has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case, which the evidence will show he knew to be false. These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray the public trust."

James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution." The Constitution charges the President with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the President has counseled his aides to commit perjury, willfully disregard the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, conceal surreptitious entry, attempt to compromise a federal judge, while publicly displaying his cooperation with the processes of criminal justice. "A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."

If the impeachment provision in the Constitution of the United States will not reach the offenses charged here, then perhaps that 18th-century Constitution should be abandoned to a 20th-century paper shredder!

Has the President committed offenses, and planned, and directed, and acquiesced in a course of conduct which the Constitution will not tolerate? That's the question. We know that. We know the question. We should now forthwith proceed to answer the question. It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Gracias, senor Presidente.

Senor Presidente, me uno a mi colega el senor Rangel en agradecerle por dar a los miembros mas nuevos de este comite la gloriosa oportunidad de compartir el dolor de esta investigacion. Senor Presidente, usted es un hombre fuerte, y no ha sido facil, pero hemos tratado lo mejor posible de brindarle tanta asistencia como fuera posible.

Hoy mas temprano, escuchamos el comienzo del Preambulo de la Constitucion de los Estados Unidos: 'Nosotros, el pueblo.' Es un comienzo muy elocuente. Pero cuando ese documento fue completado el diecisiete de septiembre de 1787, yo no fui incluida en ese 'Nosotros, el pueblo.' Senti de alguna manera durante muchos anos que George Washington y Alexander Hamilton simplemente me dejaron fuera por error. Pero a traves del proceso de enmienda, interpretacion y decision judicial, finalmente he sido incluida en 'Nosotros, el pueblo.'

Hoy soy una inquisidora. Una hiperbole no seria ficticia y no exageraria la solemnidad que siento en este momento. Mi fe en la Constitucion es entera; es completa; es total. Y no voy a sentarme aqui y ser una espectadora ociosa de la disminucion, la subversion, la destruccion de la Constitucion.

'Quienes pueden ser tan propiamente los inquisidores de la nacion como los representantes de la nacion mismos?' 'Los asuntos de su jurisdiccion son aquellas ofensas que proceden de la mala conducta de hombres publicos.' Y de eso estamos hablando. En otras palabras, la jurisdiccion viene del abuso o violacion de alguna confianza publica.

Es incorrecto, sugiero, es una mala lectura de la Constitucion que cualquier miembro aqui afirme que para que un miembro vote por un articulo de impeachment significa que ese miembro debe estar convencido de que el Presidente debe ser removido del cargo. La Constitucion no dice eso. Los poderes relativos al impeachment son un control esencial en manos del cuerpo de la legislatura contra y sobre las extralimitaciones del ejecutivo. La division entre las dos ramas de la legislatura, la Camara y el Senado, asignando a una el derecho de acusar y a la otra el derecho de juzgar, los redactores de esta Constitucion fueron muy astutos. No hicieron que los acusadores y los jueces fueran la misma persona.

Conocemos la naturaleza del impeachment. Hemos estado hablando de ello por un tiempo. Esta disenado principalmente para que el Presidente y sus altos ministros de alguna manera rindan cuentas. Esta disenado para 'embridar' al ejecutivo si incurre en excesos. 'Esta disenado como un metodo de investigacion nacional sobre la conducta de hombres publicos.' Los redactores confiaron al Congreso el poder, si fuera necesario, de remover al Presidente para lograr un delicado equilibrio entre un Presidente hinchado de poder y vuelto tiranico, y la preservacion de la independencia del ejecutivo.

La naturaleza del impeachment: una excepcion estrechamente canalizada a la maxima de separacion de poderes. La Convencion Federal de 1787 dijo eso. Limito el impeachment a delitos graves y faltas menores y descarto y se opuso al termino 'mala administracion.' 'Solo debe usarse para grandes faltas,' asi se dijo en la convencion de ratificacion de Carolina del Norte. Y en la convencion de ratificacion de Virginia: 'No confiamos nuestra libertad a una rama en particular. Necesitamos una rama para controlar a la otra.'

'Nadie debe temer' -- la convencion de ratificacion de Carolina del Norte -- 'Nadie debe temer que los funcionarios que cometan opresion pasaran con impunidad.' 'Los procesos de impeachment rara vez dejaran de agitar las pasiones de toda la comunidad,' dijo Hamilton en los Documentos Federalistas, numero 65. 'Nos dividimos en partidos mas o menos amigables o hostiles hacia el acusado.' No me refiero a partidos politicos en ese sentido.

El trazado de lineas politicas apunta a la motivacion detras del impeachment; pero el impeachment debe proceder dentro de los confines del termino constitucional 'delitos graves y faltas menores.' Sobre el proceso de impeachment, fue Woodrow Wilson quien dijo que 'Nada menos que las ofensas mas graves contra la ley clara del pais bastara para darles velocidad y efectividad. Una indignacion tan grande como para sobrepasar el interes partidista puede asegurar una condena; pero nada mas puede hacerlo.'

El sentido comun se revolveria si nos embarcaramos en este proceso por razones mezquinas. El Congreso tiene mucho que hacer: presupuestos, reforma fiscal, seguro de salud, reforma del financiamiento de campanas, vivienda, proteccion ambiental, suficiencia energetica, transporte masivo. La mezquindad no puede interponerse ante problemas tan abrumadores. Asi que hoy no estamos siendo mezquinos. Estamos tratando de estar a la altura, porque la tarea que tenemos ante nosotros es grande.

Esta manana, en una discusion de la evidencia, se nos dijo que la evidencia que pretende respaldar las acusaciones de mal uso de la CIA por parte del Presidente es debil. Se nos dijo que esa evidencia es insuficiente. Lo que ese recuento de la evidencia esta manana no incluyo es lo que el Presidente sabia el 23 de junio de 1972.

El Presidente sabia que era dinero republicano, que era dinero del Comite para la Reeleccion del Presidente, que fue encontrado en posesion de uno de los ladrones arrestados el 17 de junio. Lo que el Presidente sabia el 23 de junio eran las actividades previas de E. Howard Hunt, que incluian su participacion en el allanamiento del consultorio del psiquiatra de Daniel Ellsberg, que incluian la participacion de Howard Hunt en el asunto Dita Beard ITT, que incluian la fabricacion de cables por parte de Howard Hunt disenados para desacreditar a la Administracion Kennedy.

Ademas se nos advirtio hoy que quizas estos procedimientos deberian aplazarse porque ciertamente habria nueva evidencia del Presidente de los Estados Unidos. No ha habido siquiera una indicacion ofuscada de que este comite recibiria materiales adicionales del Presidente. La citacion del comite esta pendiente, y si el Presidente quiere suministrar ese material, el comite esta aqui sentado. El hecho es que ayer, el pueblo estadounidense espero con gran ansiedad durante ocho horas, sin saber si su Presidente obedeceria una orden de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos.

En este punto, me gustaria yuxtaponer algunos de los criterios de impeachment con algunas de las acciones en las que el Presidente ha participado. Criterio de impeachment: James Madison, de la convencion de ratificacion de Virginia. 'Si el Presidente esta conectado de alguna manera sospechosa con alguna persona y hay motivos para creer que lo protegera, puede ser sometido a impeachment.'

Hemos escuchado una y otra vez que la evidencia refleja el pago de dinero a los acusados. El Presidente tenia conocimiento de que estos fondos estaban siendo pagados y estos eran fondos recaudados para la campana presidencial de 1972. Sabemos que el Presidente se reunio con el senor Henry Petersen 27 veces para discutir asuntos relacionados con Watergate, e inmediatamente despues se reunio con las mismas personas que estaban implicadas en la informacion que el senor Petersen estaba recibiendo. Las palabras son: 'Si el Presidente esta conectado de alguna manera sospechosa con alguna persona y hay motivos para creer que protegera a esa persona, puede ser sometido a impeachment.'

El juez Story: 'El impeachment' esta dirigido -- 'esta destinado a casos ocasionales y extraordinarios donde un poder superior que actua en nombre de todo el pueblo se pone en operacion para proteger sus derechos y rescatar sus libertades de violaciones.' Sabemos del plan Huston. Sabemos del allanamiento de la oficina del psiquiatra. Sabemos que hubo una direccion absoluta y completa el 3 de septiembre cuando el Presidente indico que se habia realizado una entrada subrepticia en la oficina del Dr. Fielding, despues de haberse reunido con el senor Ehrlichman y el senor Young. 'Proteger sus derechos.' 'Rescatar sus libertades de violaciones.'

El criterio de impeachment de la convencion de ratificacion de Carolina: son sujetos de impeachment aquellos 'que se comporten mal o traicionen su confianza publica.' Comenzando poco despues del allanamiento de Watergate y continuando hasta el presente, el Presidente ha participado en una serie de declaraciones publicas y acciones disenadas para frustrar la investigacion legal por parte de los fiscales del gobierno. Ademas, el Presidente ha hecho anuncios publicos y afirmaciones sobre el caso Watergate, que la evidencia mostrara que el sabia que eran falsos. Estas afirmaciones, falsas afirmaciones, sujetas a impeachment, aquellos que se comportan mal. Aquellos que 'se comportan mal o traicionan la confianza publica.'

James Madison nuevamente en la Convencion Constitucional: 'Un Presidente es sujeto a impeachment si intenta subvertir la Constitucion.' La Constitucion encarga al Presidente la tarea de velar por que las leyes sean fielmente ejecutadas, y sin embargo el Presidente ha aconsejado a sus asistentes a cometer perjurio, ignorar deliberadamente el secreto de los procedimientos del gran jurado, ocultar entradas subrepticias, intentar comprometer a un juez federal, mientras mostraba publicamente su cooperacion con los procesos de la justicia penal. 'Un Presidente es sujeto a impeachment si intenta subvertir la Constitucion.'

Si la disposicion de impeachment en la Constitucion de los Estados Unidos no alcanza las ofensas aqui imputadas, entonces quizas esa Constitucion del siglo dieciocho deberia ser abandonada a una trituradora de papel del siglo veinte!

Ha cometido el Presidente ofensas, y planeado, y dirigido, y consentido un curso de conducta que la Constitucion no tolerara? Esa es la pregunta. Lo sabemos. Conocemos la pregunta. Debemos ahora sin demora proceder a responder la pregunta. Es la razon, y no la pasion, la que debe guiar nuestras deliberaciones, guiar nuestro debate y guiar nuestra decision.

Devuelvo el resto de mi tiempo, senor Presidente.