|
In final stretch, committee members offer views on impending impeachment vote
Updated Nov. 10, 1998
9:42 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Court TV) — As they drew ever closer to a vote on articles of impeachment, House Judiciary Committee members gave opening statements Thursday evening, providing explanations for their likely votes in the inquiry against President Clinton.
Party lines remained as solid as ever. The statements came after a long day of testimony, during which the committee's lead Republican counsel argued for impeachment and the lead Democratic counsel presented a spirited defense of the president.
[ Read about the testimony from the committee counsel. ]
James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., Bill McCollum, R-Fla., and George Gekas, R-Pa., all expressed desire for impeachment. Each stated with certainty that the President is guilty of the allegations in the four articles of impeachment drafted by Republican committee members.
Barney Frank, D-Mass., stressed fairness. He criticized GOP lead counsel David Schippers for carelessly alluding to other crimes when there has been no substantiation for the additional allegations. It would not be fair to say "there's more out there," he added. Furthermore, he noted that "implicit in that argument is the the acknowledgement that impeachment over a private mistake is unfair."
Frank urged his fellow committee members to choose a censure option. He expressed distress over the current notion that censure is not a real punishment. Recalling what he termed his own "censure" by House members in 1990, Frank reminded the committee that censure is "no triviality." Frank was reprimanded — a punishment less severe than censure — for improperly using his office to help an acquaintance, male prostitute Stephen Gobie.
Rick Boucher, D-Va, also spoke up on behalf of a censure resolution.
But Charles Canady, R-Fla, voiced objection to censure: "Our lives would be more comfortable if we ignored the facts, folded the tent and went home. But we cannot ignore the facts. The constitution does not provide for censure for high crimes and misdemeanors - it provides for impeachment." The president must be impeached and answer for what he has done, Canady added.
Democrats Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and John Conyers, D-Mich., maintained that a continued impeachment process would tie up the government against the will of the American people.
"A vote for impeachment is a vote for another government shutdown," Conyers said. The process will "tie up all three branches [of government] for months and months," added Schumer.
Schumer and Conyers attacked the articles of impeachment. "The abuse of power charge does not pass the laugh test," said Schumer. The President had an affair and lied, Conyers said. "That was wrong, but it doesn't constitute perjury. All lies are not perjury, perjury may or may not be impeachable," Conyers added.
Howard Coble, R-N.C., criticized the "spin" of Capitol Hill. When returning to his home district, he said, "All of a sudden, I am aware of the definition of sex. All of a sudden, I am aware of the meaning alone."
"I know what the word 'is' is," Coble said. "I take no joy in discharging this duty before us but it remains our duty nonetheless."
Howard Berman, D-Calif., employed the oft-quoted words of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart — "I know it when I see it" — in the noted 1964 pornography case Jacobellis v. Ohio.
"This isn't it," said Berman of the perjury charges against Clinton. "In fact, though reasonable people may disagree, I don't think it's a close call."
"Impeachment must not be pursued if the center of gravity of the body politic opposes impeachment, " he added. "The impeachment process must at a minimum pay some deference to the totality of peoples views."
Democrats made frequent reference to apparently weak public support for the impeachment process. "The people elected the president. They still support him," said New York Democrat Jerrold Nadler. "It is not right to overturn their vote."
Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. also admonished the committee for its preoccupation with investigating the opposition against popular opinion. "What remedy do we have for legislative tyranny?" she asked. "For those who are out to get the president, shame on you. But beware, next election the public will be out for you," she warned.
Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., said he had been waiting to hear convincing evidence but was left unsatisfied by more "legal hair splitting." He expressed concern that his colleagues have questioned the severity of the charges against Clinton. "Lying before God and your country after swearing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is very serious," he stressed, accusing the President of undermining the whole judicial system.
But Nadler saw the evidence in a different light. To him, he told his fellow members, the presentation over the last several days was sufficient to avoid impeachment.
Both Nadler and Bobby Scott, D-Va., addressed the framers understanding of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors." Nadler pointed out that the words "against the United States" almost followed "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the constitution. The words were omitted because they were believed to be redundant, he explained.
The strident remained steadfast as the speeches carried on into the evening in what was a marathon day on Capitol Hill. Some 12 hours into the day's proceedings, California Democrat Maxine Waters termed the proceedings a "march to impeachment" and a "right wing assault on our constitution."
"I am here in the name of my slave ancestors," said Waters, to conduct what she framed as a fight to ensure equal treatment under the law. "I can never remain silent in the face of injustice ... If the president can be impeached on these charges, no citizen is safe."
William Delahunt, D-Mass., compared the impeachment process to a novel by Orwell or Kafka, as he also decried what he believed to be an abandonment of the rule of law.
"This has been the most partisan impeachment inquiry since that of Andrew Johnson five generations ago," Delahunt said. "It is a runaway train."
Hearings resume Friday morning, when committee members will begin to debate the first of the four proposed impeachment articles. Votes on all four articles are expected by Saturday.
—Kathryn Rubenstein
Additional reporting by Court TV's Jon Bonné.
| 
Full Coverage