The Dem's lies and hypocrisy about "partisanship" are exposed:
The Good Old Days of Consensus
By M. Caldwell Butler
Monday, October 5, 1998; Page A21
I was surprised at some of the statements by my friend and former
colleague Rep. John B. Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) in his Sept. 27 op-ed piece,
"Republicans Don't Care to Play Fair," in which he compares the work of
today's House Judiciary Committee with that of its predecessor in the
Nixon impeachment proceedings.
"In sharp contrast to recent events," Conyers writes, "24 years ago,
members from both parties worked together with mutual respect and
devotion to our constitutional duties. . . . There were differences of
opinion, of course. . . . But at every turn we achieved bipartisan consensus
and maintained a deliberative and judicious approach to the task at hand."
As a fellow member with Conyers of that committee, and as a Republican,
I'd like to point out a few shining examples of "bipartisan consensus" from
those days.
Approximately 134 staff positions were authorized for the Nixon
impeachment inquiry, only 12 of which were designated for the Republican
minority staff.
On Oct. 10, 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned his office, and
the Judiciary Committee immediately released a 718-page committee print
titled "Impeachment -- Selected Materials." Work on this document, which
had begun in early August 1973, had not been made known to the
Republicans. The Rodino staff then quietly began work on a second
printing of 900 pages titled "Impeachment -- Selected Materials on
Procedure," which was later released in January 1974.
On Oct. 22, 1973, Speaker Carl Albert convened a meeting with Tip
O'Neill and other top Democrats to discuss their strategy. No Republicans
were included in this meeting, where it was decided to refer any and all
impeachment resolutions to the Rodino committee.
On Oct. 30, 1973, the Rodino committee met to consider the question of
subpoena authority for both the vice-presidential confirmation hearings (on
Gerald Ford as Agnew's replacement) and all resolutions with respect to
any impeachment inquiry. An attempt to give both the chairman and the
ranking minority Republican member joint authority was defeated on a 21
to 17 party line vote. The committee approved the grant of authority to the
chairman alone on another party line vote, 21 to 17.
In November 1973 the Rodino staff continued to gather information from
various congressional committees. House Resolution 702 was passed
giving the committee $1 million to fund continuing projects. Republicans
were not consulted.
On Dec. 11, 1973, Chairman Rodino was asked on television why the
committee wasn't beginning to make some type of formal arrangements.
He responded that he did not think that "these matters should be
formalized" until the committee had chosen a special counsel. On Dec. 20,
1973, John Doar was named special counsel. For the next month and a
half, he and his staff basically operated in secret. Later he was to do much
more in secret, including assigning Hillary Rodham and other staff to make
a study of past presidential abuses. He, his staff and the chairman used the
report, yet the Republicans were never told of its existence.
On Jan. 31, 1974, the Rodino committee met to consider House
Resolution 803 to give the committee the appropriate powers to conduct
an impeachment inquiry. Republican attempts to amend the resolution to
limit the scope of the inquiry and to place a time limit on the inquiry were
defeated, largely along party lines.
On Feb. 21, 1974, the committee released a staff study on the
constitutional grounds for impeachment. Rodino and the committee's
ranking Republican member, Edward Hutchinson, then publicly disagreed
whether or not criminal conduct was required -- Hutchinson in favor,
Rodino opposed.
Partisanship continued throughout the inquiry. For example, traditionally,
each member of a committee is given five minutes to question a witness.
Rodino sought to end the five-minute rule, reserving for himself the right to
decide how long each member should have to ask questions. He declared
that only staff counsel would question, and members would have to pass
their questions in writing to the counsels. Republican David Dennis
ultimately had to seek a resolution before the full House to ensure that the
committee members would retain their right to question witnesses.
The message here is to remind all that impeachment, by design of the
Founding Fathers, is a political process, not a legal one. That is not an
excuse not to use every effort to build consensus on these issues but an
acknowledgment of reality. It is my hope that the Democrats on the
committee leave politics aside and take seriously their constitutional duties.
Which brings me to the second thing that disturbs Conyers: The Post's
suggestion that the Democrats should aspire to be "more than a bloc of
objectors" [editorial, Sept. 21].
I respectfully suggest to my good friend that he reflect a moment on the
fact that this president's disgraceful conduct occurred on the Democratic
watch. The Democrats' position on the Judiciary Committee is not unlike
mine in 1974, as I searched my own conscience for guidance. I had this to
say in my remarks in general debate before the committee in July 1974:
"For years we Republicans have campaigned against corruption and
misconduct in the administration of the government of the United States by
the other party. . . . And, somehow or other, we have found the
circumstances to bring that issue before the American people in every . . .
campaign.
"But Watergate is our shame! Those things happened in the Republican
administration while we had a Republican in the White House. . . . It is we,
not the Democrats, who must demonstrate that we are capable of
enforcing the high standards we would set for them."
I ultimately concluded that President Nixon should be impeached and
voted for the first two Articles of Impeachment, but it was not an easy
thing to do.
washingtonpost.com |
