DOCSLIB.ORG

§ 15. Impeachment Pro- Ceedings Against Presi- Dent

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
§ 15. Impeachment Pro- Ceedings Against Presi- Dent IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 15 House of facts relating to Vice Committee Print, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., President Agnew’s conduct, was Jan. 1974. discharged by unanimous consent on Oct. 10, 1973, and laid on the table.(5) Introduction of Impeachment Charges Against the Presi- dent § 15. Impeachment Pro- § 15.1 Various resolutions were ceedings Against Presi- introduced in the 93d Con- dent Nixon gress, first session, relating to the impeachment of Presi- Cross Reference dent Richard M. Nixon, some Portions of the final report of the Com- directly calling for his cen- mittee on the Judiciary, pursuant to sure or impeachment and its investigation into the conduct of the some calling for an investiga- President, relating to grounds for Pres- idential impeachment and forms of ar- tion by the Committee on the ticles of impeachment, see § § 3.3, 3.7, Judiciary or by a select com- 3.8, supra. mittee; the former were re- Collateral References ferred to the Committee on the Judiciary and the latter Debate on Articles of Impeachment, were referred to the Com- Hearings of the Committee on the Ju- diciary pursuant to House Resolution mittee on Rules. 803, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., July 24, 25, On Oct. 23, 1973, resolutions 26, 27, 29, and 30, 1974. calling for the impeachment of Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, President Nixon or for investiga- President of the United States, Report tions towards that end were intro- of the Committee on the Judiciary, H. duced in the House by their being REPT. No. 93-1305, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., placed in the hopper pursuant to Aug. 20, 1974, printed in full in the Rule XXII clause 4. The resolu- Congressional Record, 120 CONG. REC. 29219-361, 93d Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. tions were referred as follows: 20, 1974. By Mr. Long of Maryland: Impeachment, Selected Materials, Com- H. Con. Res. 365. Concurrent resolu- mittee on the Judiciary, H. Doc. No. tion of censureship without prejudice 93-7, 93d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 1973. to impeachment; to the Committee on Impeachment, Selected Materials on Pro- the Judiciary. cedure, Committee on the Judiciary, By Ms. Abzug: 5. 119 CONG. REC. 33687, 93d Cong. 1st H. Res. 625. Resolution impeaching Sess. Richard M. Nixon, President of the 2167 Ch. 14 § 15 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS United States, for high crimes and H. Res. 632. Resolution to appoint a misdemeanors; to the Committee on Special Prosecutor; to the Committee the Judiciary. on the Judiciary. By Mr. Ashley: By Mr. McCloskey: H. Res. 626. Resolution directing the H. Res. 634. Resolution of inquiry; to Committee on the Judiciary to inves- the Committee on the Judiciary. tigate whether there are grounds for H. Res. 635. Resolution for the im- the impeachment of Richard M. Nixon; peachment of Richard M. Nixon; to the to the Committee on Rules. Committee on the Judiciary. By Mr. Bingham: By Mr. Mazzoli: H. Res. 627. Resolution directing the H. Res. 636. Resolution: an inquiry Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into the existence of grounds for the into and investigate whether grounds impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, exist for the impeachment of Richard President of the United States; to the M. Nixon; to the Committee on Rules. Committee on Rules. By Mr. Burton (for himself, Ms. By Mr. Milford: Abzug, Mr. Anderson of Cali- H. Res. 637. Resolution providing for fornia, Mr. Aspin, Mr. Bergland, the establishment of an Investigative Mr. Bingham, Mr. Brasco, Mr. Committee to investigate alleged Presi- Brown of California, Mr. Boland, dential misconduct; to the Committee Mr. Brademas, Mrs. Chisholm, on Rules. Mr. Culver, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Dellums, Mr. Drinan, Mr. By Mr. Mitchell of Maryland (for Eckhardt, Mr. Edwards of Cali- himself, Mr. Burton, and Mr. fornia, Mr. Evans of Colorado, Fauntroy): Mr. Fascell, Mr. Fauntroy, Mr. H. Res. 638. Resolution impeaching Foley, Mr. William D. Ford, Mr. Richard M. Nixon, President of the Fraser, Mr. Giaimo, and Ms. United States, of high crimes and mis- Grasso): demeanors; to the Committee on the H. Res. 628. Resolution directing the Judiciary.(6) Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into and investigate whether grounds 6. 119 CONG. REC. 34873, 93d Cong. 1st exist for the impeachment of Richard Sess. M. Nixon; to the Committee on Rules. The first resolution in the 93d ... Congress calling for President Nix- By Mr. Hechler of West Virginia: on’s impeachment was introduced by Mr. Robert F. Drinan (Mass.), on H. Res. 631. Resolution that Richard July 31, 1973, H. Res. 513, 93d M. Nixon, President of the United Cong. 1st Sess. (placed in hopper States, is impeached of high crimes and referred to Committee on the and misdemeanors; to the Committee Judiciary). on the Judiciary. In the 92d Congress, second ses- By Mrs. Heckler of Massachusetts: sion, resolutions were introduced im- 2168 IMPEACHMENT POWERS Ch. 14 § 15 Parliamentarian’s Note: The mittee reported and called resolutions were introduced fol- up as privileged a subse- lowing the President’s dismissal of quent resolution specifically Special Prosecutor Cox, of the Wa- mandating an impeachment tergate Special Prosecution Force investigation and continuing investigating Presidential cam- the availability of funds, in paign activities, and the resigna- tion of Attorney General Richard- order to confirm the delega- son.(7) tion of authority from the House to that committee to Authority for Judiciary Com- conduct the investigation. mittee Investigation On Feb. 6, 1974, Peter W. Ro- dino, Jr., of New Jersey, Chair- § 15.2 Although the House had man of the Committee on the Ju- adopted a resolution author- diciary, called up for immediate izing the Committee on the consideration House Resolution Judiciary, to which had been 803, authorizing the committee to referred resolutions im- investigate the sufficiency of peaching President Richard grounds for the impeachment of M. Nixon, to conduct inves- President Nixon, which resolution tigations (with subpena had been reported by the com- power) within its jurisdiction mittee on Feb. 1, 1974. as such jurisdiction was de- The resolution read as follows: fined in Rule XI clause 13, H. RES. 803 and although the House had Resolved, That the Committee on the adopted a resolution in- Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any tended to fund expenses of subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and the impeachment inquiry by in accordance with the rules of the the committee, the com- committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely peaching the President for his con- whether sufficient grounds exist for duct of the Vietnam conflict. See H. the House of Representatives to exer- Res. 976 and H. Res. 989, 92d Cong. cise its constitutional power to im- 2d Sess. peach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The 7. Comments were delivered in the committee shall report to the House of House on Oct. 23, 1973, on actions of Representatives such resolutions, arti- the President. See, for example, the cles of impeachment, or other rec- comments of Majority Leader Thom- ommendations as it deems proper. as P. O’Neill, Jr. (Mass.), at 119 Sec. 2. (a) For the purpose of making CONG. REC. 34819, 93d Cong. 1st such investigation, the committee is Sess. authorized to require— 2169 Ch. 14 § 15 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS (1) by subpena or otherwise— photographs, reproductions, recordings, (A) the attendance and testimony of tapes, transcripts, printouts, data com- any person (including at a taking of a pilations from which information can deposition by counsel for the com- be obtained (translated if necessary, mittee); and through detection devices into reason- (B) the production of such things; ably usable form), tangible objects, and and other things of any kind. (2) by interrogatory, the furnishing Sec. 3. For the purpose of making of such information; as it deems nec- such investigation, the committee, and essary to such investigation. any subcommittee thereof, are author- (b) Such authority of the committee ized to sit and act, without regard to may be exercised— clause 31 of rule XI of the Rules of the (1) by the chairman and the ranking House of Representatives, during the minority member acting jointly, or, if present Congress at such times and either declines to act, by the other act- places within or without the United ing alone, except that in the event ei- States, whether the House is meeting, ther so declines, either shall have the has recessed, or has adjourned, and to right to refer to the committee for deci- hold such hearings, as it deems nec- sion the question whether such author- essary. ity shall be so exercised and the com- Sec. 4. Any funds made available to mittee shall be convened promptly to the Committee on the Judiciary under render that decision; or House Resolution 702 of the Ninety- (2) by the committee acting as a third Congress, adopted November 15, whole or by subcommittee. Subpenas 1973, or made available for the pur- and interrogatories so authorized may pose hereafter, may be expended for be issued over the signature of the the purpose of carrying out the inves- chairman, or ranking minority mem- tigation authorized and directed by ber, or any member designated by ei- this resolution. ther of them, and may be served by Mr. Rodino and Mr. Edward any person designated by the chair- Hutchinson, of Michigan, the man, or ranking minority member, or any member designated by either of ranking minority member of the them. The chairman, or ranking minor- Committee on the Jucliciary, ex- ity member, or any member designated plained the purpose of the resolu- by either of them (or, with respect to tion, which had been adopted any deposition, answer to interrog- unanimously by the committee, as atory, or affidavit, any person author- follows: ized by law to administer oaths) may administer oaths to any witness.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Watergate. Documents from the National Archives. INSTITUTION National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 395 848 SO 025 673 TITLE Watergate. Documents from the National Archives. INSTITUTION National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC. REPORT NO ISBN-0-8403-7401-1 PUB DATE [82] NOTE 49p.; Some print face may be difficult to read. AVAILABLE FROMKendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 2460 Kerper Boulevard, P.O. Box 539, Dubuque, IA 52004-0539. PUB TYPE Guides General (050) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Government Libraries; Instructional Materials; Library Collections; Material Culture; *Modern History; National Libraries; *Presidents of the Uniteu States; Realia; *United States History IDENTIFIERS National Archives DC; *Nixon (Richard M); *Watergate ABSTRACT The documents in this package focus on the three basic questions raised by Watergate:(1) Should President Nixon have been impeached?;(2) Should he have been prosecuted?; and (3) Should he have been pardoned? These documents do not begin to tell the whole story of Watergate, but they do suggest some of the issues involved. "Suggestions for Further Reading" will help readers sharpen their understanding of Watergate. The documents in this series include: (1) Richard M. Nixon's letter of resignation, August 9,1974;(2) House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Report on Impeachment of Richard M. Nixon, August 20, 1974;(3) Transcript excerpts from Hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, June 23, 1972;(4) Memorandum by Vernon Walters, Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, June 28, 1972;(5) Memorandum from Carl B. Feldbaum and Peter M. Kreindler to Leon Jaworski about factors to consider in prosecuting Nixon, August 9,1974;(6) "Washington Post" article about Watergate public opinion, August 26, 1974;(7) Memorandum from Philip A.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of the Records That Petitioners Seek Is Attached to the Petition, Filed Concurrently Herewith
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PETITION OF STANLEY KUTLER, ) AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, ) Miscellaneous Action No. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, ) and SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS. ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD M. NIXON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF JUNE 23-24, 1975, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OF THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE Professor Stanley Kutler, the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists petition this Court for an order directing the release of President Richard M. Nixon’s thirty-five-year- old grand jury testimony and associated materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.1 On June 23-24, 1975, President Nixon testified before two members of a federal grand jury who had traveled from Washington, DC, to San Clemente, California. The testimony was then presented in Washington, DC, to the full grand jury that had been convened to investigate political espionage, illegal campaign contributions, and other wrongdoing falling under the umbrella term Watergate. Watergate was the defining event of Richard Nixon’s presidency. In the early 1970s, as the Vietnam War raged and the civil rights movement in the United States continued its momentum, the Watergate scandal ignited a crisis of confidence in government leadership and a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of executive power and the mettle of the democratic process. “Watergate” was 1A list of the records that petitioners seek is attached to the Petition, filed concurrently herewith.
    [Show full text]
  • John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific Cgem Orge School of Law
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2010 The akM ing of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Legal Biography Commons, and the President/Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation 41 McGeorge L. Rev. 311 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Book Review Essay The Making of the Attorney General: John Mitchell and the Crimes of Watergate Reconsidered Gerald Caplan* I. INTRODUCTION Shortly after I resigned my position as General Counsel of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department in 1971, I was startled to receive a two-page letter from Attorney General John Mitchell. I was not a Department of Justice employee, and Mitchell's acquaintance with me was largely second-hand. The contents were surprising. Mitchell generously lauded my rather modest role "in developing an effective and professional law enforcement program for the District of Columbia." Beyond this, he added, "Your thoughtful suggestions have been of considerable help to me and my colleagues at the Department of Justice." The salutation was, "Dear Jerry," and the signature, "John." I was elated. I framed the letter and hung it in my office.
    [Show full text]
  • JAMES A. BAKER, III the Case for Pragmatic Idealism Is Based on an Optimis- Tic View of Man, Tempered by Our Knowledge of Human Imperfection
    Extract from Raising the Bar: The Crucial Role of the Lawyer in Society, by Talmage Boston. © State Bar of Texas 2012. Available to order at texasbarbooks.net. TWO MOST IMPORTANT LAWYERS OF THE LAST FIFTY YEARS 67 concluded his Watergate memoirs, The Right and the Power, with these words that summarize his ultimate triumph in “raising the bar”: From Watergate we learned what generations before us have known: our Constitution works. And during the Watergate years it was interpreted again so as to reaffirm that no one—absolutely no one—is above the law.29 JAMES A. BAKER, III The case for pragmatic idealism is based on an optimis- tic view of man, tempered by our knowledge of human imperfection. It promises no easy answers or quick fixes. But I am convinced that it offers our surest guide and best hope for navigating our great country safely through this precarious period of opportunity and risk in world affairs.30 In their historic careers, Leon Jaworski and James A. Baker, III, ended up in the same place—the highest level of achievement in their respective fields as lawyers—though they didn’t start from the same place. Leonidas Jaworski entered the world in 1905 as the son of Joseph Jaworski, a German-speaking Polish immigrant, who went through Ellis Island two years before Leon’s birth and made a modest living as an evangelical pastor leading small churches in Central Texas towns. James A. Baker, III, entered the world in 1930 as the son, grand- son, and great-grandson of distinguished lawyers all named James A.
    [Show full text]
  • UME Nt H EA RIN G SUBCOMMITTEE on CRIMINAL
    AUTHORITY TO ISSUE FINAL REPORT GOVERN MEN BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR Storage n > U M E nt o AUG9 ,975 H E A R IN G i "'H E L I B R A R Y B E FO R E T H E Ka n s a s s ta te u n iv e r s it y SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIM INAL JUSTICE OF T H E COMMITTEE ON TH E JUD ICIARY HOUSE OF REP RESEN TATIV ES NINETY -FOU KTI I CONGRESS FIR ST SE SS IO N ON TO PR OVID E TH E O FFIC E OF TH E W ATE RG ATE SP ECIA L PR OS EC UT IO N FO RC E W IT H THE AUTHORIT Y TO IS SU E A FU LL AN D CO MPL ET E FINAL REPO RT ON IT S IN VEST IG A­ TION IN TO WAT ER GA TE AN D REL ATE D MAT TE RS JANU AR Y 30, 1075 Serial No. 9 P ri nte d for th e use of th e Com mitt ee on th e Ju dic ia ry U.S. GOVER NM ENT PR IN T IN G O FFIC E 52-901 W ASH IN GTO N : 1975 h. V I", *5 ■*- COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PE T E R W. R OD INO, J r., New Jersey, Chairman JA CK BRO OK S, Texas EDWA RD HU TC HI NS ON , Michigan RO BER T W. K AST EN M EI ER , Wisconsin RO BER T MCCLORY, Illinois DON EDWA RDS, California TOM RA ILSBAC K, Illinois WILL IAM L.
    [Show full text]
  • Stage 3: Congressional Hearings in March 1973, Judge Sirica Sentenced Liddy, Hunt, and Four of the Burglars to 20, 35, and 40 Years in Prison, Respectively
    Student Handout 23A Stage 3: Congressional Hearings In March 1973, Judge Sirica sentenced Liddy, Hunt, and four of the burglars to 20, 35, and 40 years in prison, respectively. McCord admitted just before the sentencing that there was more information to be shared. Thus Sirica delayed sentencing him. Soon thereafter, L. Patrick Gray, the acting director of the FBI, admitted to having destroyed Watergate evidence. He then resigned. In May, North Carolina Senator Sam Ervin, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Activities, con- vened televised hearings on Watergate. Many Americans watched the hearings with great fascination. In June, John Dean, whom Nixon had fired as White House counsel in April, testified before the Senate Select Committee. He revealed that the former attorney general, John Mitchell—who had become Nixon’s 1972 pres- idential campaign manager—had ordered the Watergate break-in. Dean explained that the White House was covering up its involvement. He also testified that the president had authorized payments of hush money to the burglars to keep them quiet. Nixon’s aides vehemently denied this charge. On July 16, White House aide Alexander Butterfield testified. He revealed startling information—that Nixon had had a taping system installed in the White House to automatically record all conversations there. Only a hand- included 350,000 angry telegrams sent to Congress and ful of people had known about the system. Now, the the White House. The president responded by appointing hearing’s key questions—what did the president know, another special Watergate prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, and and when did he know it—could be answered by listening then turning over the subpoenaed tapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Howard Baker Files: Series I Subject File: Box 3: Folder 15 Judge
    Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Baker, Howard H. Jr: Files Folder Title: Judge Bork, Nomination of (4) Box: 3 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing "Balance" on the Supreme Court In raising concerns about the nomination of Judge Robert Bark to be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, some have suggested that, whatever the nominee's other qualifications, it might be appropriate for a Senator to oppose Judge Bark's nomination on the ground that it would affect the "balance" on the Supreme Court. This is a theme developed by Professor Laurence H. Tribe of the Harvard Law School. This novel argument is at odds with the history of Supreme Court appointments since the beginning of the Republic. The United States Constitution nowhere specifies that any particular "balance" is to be permanently maintained on the Supreme Court. Opposing a particular nominee because the nominee would alter the "balance" on the Court is merely a veiled way of saying that one disagrees with the philosophical direction in which a nominee would move the Court. Whatever the propriety of opposing a nominee because of philosophical differences, this should not be confused with an objection of "imbalancing" the Court. The constitutional reason for rejecting this so-called "balance" test is clear: If the Senate tried to preserve the narrow balances of the present Court on, e.g., criminal procedure or administrative law, it would undermine the constitutionally-guaranteed independence of the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • United States History
    UNITED STATES HISTORY For each multiple choice question, fill in the appropriate location on the scantron 1. Which impact did Title IX had on educational institutions 8. The Watergate Scandal is appropriately described by in the United States? which statement? A. use of quotas for enrollment A. It concerned the Nixon’s’ administration attempt to B. creation of standardized testing goals cover up a burglary at the Democratic National C. equal funding of men’s and women’s athletics Committee headquarters D. government-funded school vouchers B. It involved the illegal establishment of government agencies to set and enforce campaign standards 2. What event during the 1970s resulted in the United C. It involved the choice of the Reagan Administration States increasing its regulation of nuclear power plants? to secretly supply aid to the Contra rebels in A. the signing of the SALT treaty Nicaragua B. North Korea’s announcement that it had nuclear D. It concerned the secret leasing of federally-owned weapons oil rigs to western ranches C. the incident at Three Mile Island D. restrictions created by the UN Atomic Energy 9. Nixon’s name for the many Americans who supported the Commission government and longed for an end to the violence & turmoil of the 1960s was the 3. Which US president regarded universal health care as a A. counterculture major issue for the federal government to resolve? B. hippies A. Jimmy Carter C. silent majority B. Ronald Reagan D. détente C. George H.W. Bush D. Bill Clinton 10. President Jimmy Carter was instrumental in creating a peace accord known as the 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Long-Secret Watergate 'Road Map' May Soon Be Public
    Pick Your NPR Station There is at least one station nearby NATIONAL SECURITY NEWSCAST LIVE RADIO SHOWS Long-Secret Watergate 'Road Map' May Soon Be Public. Could It Guide Mueller's Team? October 15, 2018 · 5:00 AM ET CARRIE JOHNSON Houston attorney Leon Jaworski spoke with newsmen after being named Watergate special prosecutor on Nov. 1, 1973. His long-secret "road map" may soon become public. AP One of the last secrets from the Watergate scandal could soon be revealed. A federal judge in Washington has ordered the National Archives to review key documents that have remained under seal for 44 years and prepare for their release. Those papers, known as the "road map," helped advance the impeachment effort aimed at then-President Richard Nixon. They've been under wraps since then but scholars say they're newly relevant today as President Trump faces down a different investigation. Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor who investigated Nixon, told an interviewer in 1977 that preparing the road map amounted to one of the most critical moments of his probe. EUROPE U.S. Charges 7 Russian Intelligence Officers With Hacking 40 Sports And Doping Groups "We succeeded, which was the first [time] in history, to get the courts to permit the grand jury report to go to the House Judiciary Committee because the committee would have had real difficulty in doing its work. Way behind. It hadn't gotten off the ground," Jaworski said. The document was a detailed list of evidence his investigators had gathered. "We called it a road map in our office because it was just that," he added.
    [Show full text]
  • An Original Model of the Independent Counsel Statute
    Michigan Law Review Volume 97 Issue 3 1998 An Original Model of the Independent Counsel Statute Ken Gormley Duquesne University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, President/ Executive Department Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Ken Gormley, An Original Model of the Independent Counsel Statute, 97 MICH. L. REV. 601 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol97/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ORIGINAL MODEL OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE Ken Gormley * TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 602 I. HISTORY OF THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL STATUTE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • • • • 608 A. An Urgent Push fo r Legislation . .. .. .. .. 609 B. Th e Constitutional Quandaries . .. .. .. .. 613 1. Th e App ointments Clause . .. .. .. .. 613 2. Th e Removal Controversy .. ................ 614 3. Th e Separation of Powers Bugaboo . .. 615 C. A New Start: Permanent Sp ecial Prosecutors and Other Prop osals .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 617 D. Legislation Is Born: S. 555 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 624 E. Th e Lessons of Legislative History . .. .. .. 626 II. THE FIRST TWENTY YEARS: ESTABLISHING THE LAW'S CONSTITUTIONALITY • . • • • • . • • • . • • • • . • • • • . • • • 633 III. REFORMING THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL LAW • • . • 639 A. Refo rm the Method and Frequency of App ointing In dependent <;ounsels ..... :........ 641 1. Amend the Triggering Device .
    [Show full text]
  • Special Prosecutor (5)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R
    The original documents are located in Box 61, folder “Special Prosecutor (5)” of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. r Digitized from Box 61 of the Philip Buchen Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library .,,- .. OFFICE OE THE DEPUTY ATIORNEY GENERAL Returned without review by Deputy Attorney General. - THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON Sept. 19, 1974 To: Mr. Silberman From: Phil Areeda We have the original. This is the only copy. And perhaps it should not be copied further. We have not sent any copy to Miller and probably should not until we all have a chance to talk. LAW OFFICES tLLJi;H, CASSIDY, LARROCA 8c LEwn "'--" 1,20 19TH STREET. N.W. • SIJITE ?100 WASHINGTON. D. C. 2.0035 - AREA CODE 202 Till.IEPHONI!; 2a3.e400 UUIERT .J. Ml\.1.ER, .JR. .JOSEPH &. MCCARTHY :lli"I JOSEPH CASSIDY COURTNEY A. £v1'.N5 "YMONO G. LARROCA 01' COUNSEi.
    [Show full text]
  • No Person Above the Law
    courts of the district of columbia circuit No Person Above The Law Because of their location and responsibilities, the Courts of the District of Columbia Circuit have a special role when those entrusted with faithful execution of federal laws are accused of breaking those laws. The Watergate Burglary At 2:00 a.m. on June 17, 1972, five men were arrested as they attempted to burglarize the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate complex. The case was heard before District Court Judge John Sirica. Five defendants pled guilty. Two, G. Gordon Liddy and James McCord, were convicted of conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping after trial. Shortly before sentencing, McCord advised Judge Sirica that he was being subjected to political pressure to accept the blame and remain silent. Following those revelations, a Special Prosecutor, former Solicitor General Archibald Cox, was appointed to investigate; McCord began cooperating G. Gordon Liddy, who was accused with the Special Prosecutor. of planning the Watergate break- in, arrives at District Court in January 1973. The Nixon Tapes Senate hearings revealed that President Nixon had an extensive tape- recording system throughout the White House. After the President refused to turn the tapes over voluntarily, Special Prosecutor Cox obtained a subpoena for them. The President agreed to turn over everything except the tapes, invoking executive privilege. Judge Sirica rejected the claim of privilege, and ordered the President to produce the tapes. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The President did not at that point seek Supreme Court review. Instead, he ordered that Cox be fired. When Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General Ruckelshaus refused, President Nixon fired them.
    [Show full text]