|
Panelists stand ground, trade barbs — and end where they started
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 (Court TV) — The Battle of the Learned was fought Monday on Capitol Hill.
Members of the House Judiciary Committee brought forth notable legal historians and scholars Monday to preach, in academic detail and at great length, to the choir.
The panel of nineteen witnesses, eight for the Democrats on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution and ten for the Republicans -- plus one brave professor who dared to provide testimony for both sides -- provided debate more suited to a law school symposium than what some might have expected to be an endgame highlight in the now-fading Monica Lewinsky investigation. And many of the invited experts managed to summarize arguments about the scope and definition of impeachment that already had ample exposure on op-ed pages and cable news in the past several months.
The Republican majority and its witnesses argued that President Clinton, as the chief law enforcement officer of the nation, could not be allowed to violate the rule of law. Democrats and their witnesses argued that the presidency would be badly damaged if the bar to impeachment were lowered to include perjury about private life.
Neither side managed to uncover much new ground.
Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., chairman of the subcommittee, wasted no time as he opened the hearing, a potential warm-up for next week's impeachment proceedings, insisted that the question of the president's wrongdoing was far from resolved.
``He must be called to account for putting his selfish personal interest ahead of his oath of office and his constitutional duty,'' Canady insisted.
"If it remains unrebutted," he said, "the evidence before us clearly supports the conclusion that the president is guilty of multiple acts of lying under oath, obstruction of justice and other offenses."
|
|
Charles Canady (R-Fl) presiding over today's proceedings in the House.
| |
Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde laid out what may have been the most eloquent version of the evolving Republican argument: anything that "erodes, taints, corrodes, [or] diminishes" the rule of law must be stopped, he argued. "I really believe that notion that no man is above the law."
Such a belief, Hyde said, is based on the notion that the president has "a peculiar and unique responsibility'' to uphold the rule of law, and he expressed frustration with those who would excuse lying under oath if it was only about Clinton's personal life.
``All of the sophistries that I hear, rationales, justifications, 'everybody does it,' 'it was just about sex,' -- it's perjury,'' Hyde said.
Moreover, Hyde argued, Clinton could have refused to answer questions posed to him about Monica Lewinsky or he could have invoked his Fifth amendment rights.
When Clinton answered falsely, said Hyde, the president "performed a public act." The private, said Hyde, had became public.
Court TV's selection of highlights.
Legal discourse and repeated parsings of Constitutional language were in more than ample supply throughout the day, but seemed to provide few irrefutable truths.
"The word 'other' suggests we need acts of the same magnitude
and the same nature as treason or bribery,'' said University of
Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein. ``This case is not close to
the line."
University of London professor Gary McDowell countered that
crimes such as obstructing the legal process and perjury would
"would have been understood by the founders as constituting high
crimes and misdemeanors."
"Censure would be the coward's way out," he added.
No, said Matthew Holden of the University of Virginia, who argued impeachment is a "caged lion" and should be treated by the House as a powerful, potentially destructive political weapon.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger exhorts the House to keep some perspective.
(9:53)
|
|
|
|
|
Download Realplayer
|
The weapon metaphor was also voiced by Sunstein, who spoke in terms of a retaliatory "arms race." If Clinton is impeached, Sunstein argued, there would be retaliation on both sides, pointing out an inverse example: Democrats agreed not to press for impeachment of President Ronald Reagan as a result of an independent counsel investigation into Iran-Contra. Republicans, Sunstein said, should show the same restraint toward President Clinton.
Presidential historian and Pulitzer-winning author Arthur Schlesinger attempted to serve as a voice of relative moderation, warning that impeachment should have bipartisan support. Richard Nixon's own party supported his impeachment, giving the process legitimacy, said Schlesinger.
Schlesinger argued that House members should consider not just the issue of perjury, but the impact of the lie in question. Schlesinger said that lying about one's sex life is a "venial" sin while lying in order to send someone to the electric chair is a "mortal" sin. "Everyone lies" about their "love life," said Schlesinger.
Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) came right back and called Schlesinger's plea for "a sense of proportion" a "sophisticated" argument suggesting that "sophisticated" gentlemen lie about their sex life. Inglis concluded that if you don't lie, you're not "sophisticated." Perhaps the House should put together a list of "permitted perjuries," Inglis mused.
Surprisingly in a panel split between historians and lawyers, is was two law professors who invoked historical personalities.
Professor Stephen Presser of Northwestern University Law School said Clinton's actions should be held up to the standard of "virtue, honor and integrity" that George Washington spoke of when he left office.
But University of North Carolina law professor Dan Pollit reminded the Committee of the extramarital affairs of Thomas Jefferson and Woodrow Wilson.
The White House, meanwhile, said the Republican leadership struggle in the House could have an impact on the impeachment inquiry. Polls have shown a majority of voters want Clinton to remain in office.
``It could create a better environment for finishing up something that the country so much wants to get behind it,'' presidential spokesman Joe Lockhart said. However, he said, ``What's worrying is that somehow in the battle for votes, that commitments may be made that wouldn't be in the best interests of putting this behind us."
The Associated Press contributed to this report. Reported by Court TV's Aldina Vazao, Kim Khan and Jon Bonné.
| 
Full Coverage