|
Clinton impeachment trial transcripts — January 16, 1999
The following transcript was provided to Court TV by Federal Document Clearing House:
SENATE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT CLINTON
JANUARY 16, 1999
*** Elapsed Time 00:00, Eastern Time 10:01 ***
SPEAKERS: WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, CHIEF JUSTICE, U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. SENATOR TRENT LOTT (R-MS), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES CANADY (R-FL)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN BUYER (R-IN)
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC)
REHNQUIST: The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment.
The chaplain will offer a prayer.
OGILVIE: Gracious God, you have given us magnificent promises to
claim today. You have told us that if we wait on you, we will renew
our strength. You have assured us that you will use our minds to
think clearly in response to your inspiration. Courage is offered,
patience provided and wisdom engendered.
In this quiet moment, grant the Senators your power to persevere,
your peace for equipoise, your judgment for the evaluation of the
facts presented, and your will to guide their decisions. As you have
blessed us with this day, we praise you that you will show the way.
through our Lord and Savior, Amen.
REHNQUIST: The Sergeant of Arms will make the proclamation.
*** Elapsed Time 00:02, Eastern Time 10:03 ***
SERGEANT AT ARMS: Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. All persons are
commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the Senate of
the United States is sitting for the trial of the articles of
impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.
REHNQUIST: The Majority Leader is recognized.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, it is my understanding that the House
managers intend to extend their presentation until approximately 3:00
p.m. with a lunch break at approximately 12:40 or 12:45.
I remind all Senators to remain standing at their desks, each
time the Chief Justice enters and departs the chamber. We want to
maintain the very best decorum.
One other point, we had been scheduled to go from 10:05 straight
through until 12:40 but we will probably take a very short 10 minute
break after the presentation of by Manager Graham.
LOTT: It would be very important that members tend to business
and return promptly to the chamber so that we can complete activity as
early as possible this afternoon.
I yield the floor, Mr. Chief Justice.
REHNQUIST: If there's no objection, the journal of proceedings
of the trial are approved today. Pursuant to the provisions of Senate
Resolution 16, the managers for the House of Representatives have 15
hours and 37 minutes remaining to make the presentation of their case.
The case will now hear you. Rather, the Senate will now hear
you. The presiding officer recognizes Mr. Manager Buyer.
BUYER: I thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
BUYER: Thank the senators, the counsel to the president.
*** Elapsed Time 00:03, Eastern Time 10:04 ***
I am Steve Buyer, a House manager from the 5th District of
Indiana.
I want to thank all of you for your attention the past several
days. It has not been -- it has not been easy for the House managers
to argue from a dry record. I ask for your patience. The House
managers are prepared to call witnesses and offer developed evidence
as the trial proceeds.
This morning, the managers on the part of the House are going to
present why the offenses you have been hearing over the course of the
last several days require the president's removal from office. I will
discuss why the offenses attack the judicial system, which is a core
function of the government, and how perjury and obstruction of justice
are not private acts, these are public crimes and therefore
quintessential impeachable offenses.
*** Elapsed Time 00:05, Eastern Time 10:06 ***
BUYER: For the president's premeditated assault on the
administration of justice must be interpreted as a threat to our
system of government. I will be followed by Mr. Manager Graham of
South Carolina who will discuss the precedence in impeachment cases.
And then he will be followed by Mr. Manager Canady. He will discuss
how the felonies constitute high crimes and misdemeanors as envisioned
by the founding fathers and why they warrant his removal from office.
While this is day three of our presentation, it is important for
the Senate to be fully informed as to the facts, the law and the
consequences. Please indulge me for a quick reiteration of the facts.
On May 27th, 1997, nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States unanimously ruled that Mrs. Jones could pursue her
federal civil rights actions against William Jefferson Clinton. On
December 11th, 1997, United States District Court Judge Susan Webber
Wright ordered President Clinton to provide Mrs. Jones with answers to
certain routine questions relevant to the lawsuit.
*** Elapsed Time 00:05, Eastern Time 10:06 ***
BUYER: Acting under the authority of these court orders, Mrs.
Jones exercised her rights, rights every litigant has under our system
of justice. She sought answers from President Clinton to help prove
her case against him, just as President Clinton sought and received
answers from her.
President Clinton used numerous means then to prevent her from
getting truthful answers.
On December 17, 1997, President Clinton encouraged a witness to
file a false affidavit in the case and to testify falsely if she were
called to testify in this case. Why? Because her truthful testimony
would have helped Mrs. Jones and hurt his case.
On December 23, 1997 he provided under oath false written answers
to Mrs. Jones' questions. On December 18, 1997 President Clinton
began an effort to get the witnesses to conceal evidence that would
have helped Mrs. Jones.
Throughout this period, he intensified efforts to provide the
witness with help in getting a job to ensure that she carried out his
designs.
*** Elapsed Time 00:07, Eastern Time 10:08 ***
BUYER: On January 17, 1998, President Clinton provided under
oath numerous false answers to Mrs. Jones' questions during that
deposition in the civil case.
In the days immediately following the deposition, President
Clinton provided a false and misleading account to another witness --
his secretary, Betty Currie -- in hopes that she would substantiate
the false testimony he gave in the deposition.
All of these unlawful actions denied Mrs. Jones her rights as a
litigant, subverted the fundamental truth-seeking function of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas and
violated President Clinton's constitutional oath to preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution of the United States.
And further, it violated his constitutional duty to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.
Beginning shortly after his deposition, President Clinton became
aware that the federal grand jury empaneled by the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia was investigating his
unlawful actions before and during his civil deposition -- was the
scope of inquiry.
President Clinton make numerous false statements to potential
grand jury witnesses in hopes that they would repeat these statements
to the grand jury.
*** Elapsed Time 00:08, Eastern Time 10:09 ***
BUYER: On August 17, 1998, President Clinton appeared before the
grand jury by video under oath and he provided numerous false answers
to questions asked. These actions impeded the grand jury's
investigation, it subverted the fundamental truth-seeking function of
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and
they also violated President Clinton's constitutional oath to
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and
his constitutional duty as the chief executive officer to take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.
Now, you will hear next week, perhaps from the president's
lawyers, that the offenses charged by the House are not impeachable.
In other words, that even if the allegations as set forth in the
articles of impeachment are true, so what?
You see, the House managers have began to refer this to as the
"so what?" defense. I'm not offended by the "so what?" defense,
because if that's all you have, then try it.
BUYER: You see, there are only a few basic ways that you can
actually defend a case. You can defend the case on the facts. You
can defend the case on the law. You can defend the case on the facts
and the law.
Now here, we hear -- in this case, we hear very often that the
facts are indefensible. And you also hear that if you're not going to
call witnesses on the facts, then I guess you better argue on the law.
So what is the argument on the law.
What you do then in defending of a case if you argue procedure.
You attack the prosecutor. You attempt to confuse those who sit in
judgment on the laws so you don't follow your precedent. You go out
and obtain from your political allies and friends in the academic
world to sign a letter saying that the offenses as alleged in the
Articles of Impeachment do not rise to the level of an impeachable
offense.
*** Elapsed Time 00:10, Eastern Time 10:11 ***
BUYER: You see, this rise to the level has somehow become the
legal cliche of this case. You've all so often heard it, and some of
you have even spoken it.
You see the House Managers chose not to go out into the academic
world and obtain signatures on our own letter that would have said
"why the offenses are impeachable." And then we would have had this
war of dueling academics. They have a letter of 400 signatures. We
get a letter of 400 signatures. They add 500 to it, now they have
900. We go out and get 1000. We chose not to do that.
Do you know why? Because the House Managers have the precedence
of the Senate on our side. We have the precedence of the Senate.
Mr. Manager Graham will discuss those precedents.
Now if I'm prosecuting a defendant of perjury, and obstruction of
justice in White County superior court before a Judge Merslak (ph) in
Monticello, Indiana.
BUYER: And I had this perjury and obstruction of justice case on
a Thursday. And I know that the judge has three other cases. He's
got a case on Monday, he's got a case on Tuesday, and he's got a case
on Wednesday. So I'm watching what the judge is going to do because
I'm curious with regard to the precedent.
So on Monday of that week, Judge Murzelak (ph) tries a case of a
public official for perjury, and I watch what he does. And he
convicts him for perjury.
On Tuesday, he tries a public official for obstruction of
justice, and he convicts him.
On Wednesday, Judge Murzelak (ph) tries a public official for
grand jury perjury, and he convicts him.
My case now comes up on Thursday for a public official for
obstruction of justice and grand jury perjury and perjury on top of
perjury. I would say that based on the precedents, that it's not
looking good for the defendant that I'm about to prosecute.
Now, the White House lawyers are hoping that those of you who
have voted, those of you in this chamber that have voted to remove
federal judges for similar offenses in the past, that you have a
feigned memory.
*** Elapsed Time 00:12, Eastern Time 10:13 ***
BUYER: And if you don't have a feigned memory, then we'll try to
confuse you. They'll attempt to confuse you on the law.
So when I hear the so what, well, it is the position of the House
that what the president did does matter, that by his actions, the
president did commit high crimes and misdemeanors. The House is
prepared to establish that President William Jefferson Clinton
willfully and repeatedly violated the rule of law and abused the trust
placed upon him by the American people.
Now let me address how the offenses charged in the Articles of
Impeachment attack the judicial system. The offenses as charged in
the Articles of Impeachment against our system of government are the
core of the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors. You see, perjury
and obstruction of justice are, therefore, quintessential impeachable
offenses.
*** Elapsed Time 00:14, Eastern Time 10:15 ***
BUYER: Indeed, it is precisely their public nature that makes
them offenses.
Acts that are not crimes when committed outside the judicial
realm become crimes when they enter the judicial realm. Lying to
one's spouse about an extra-marital affair is not a crime, it is a
public matter. Excuse me, strike that -- it is a private matter. But
telling that same lie under oath before a federal judge as a defendant
in a civil rights sexual harassment lawsuit is a crime against the
state and is therefore a public matter.
Hiding gifts given to conceal the affair is not a crime. It is a
private matter. But when those gifts are the subject of a court-
ordered subpoena in a sexual harassment lawsuit, the act of hiding the
gifts becomes a crime against the state called obstruction of justice,
and is therefore a public matter.
BUYER: Our law has consistently recognized that perjury subverts
the judicial process. It strikes at our nation's most fundamental
value, the rule of law.
In commentaries on laws of England, Sir William Blackstone
differentiated between crimes that quote "more directly infringe the
rights of the public or commonwealth taken in its collective capacity,
and those which in a more peculiar manner injure individuals or
private subjects."
This book was widely recognized by the Founding Fathers such as
James Madison. He described Blackstone's work at the time as quote "a
book which is in every man's hand."
Blackstone's private category contained crimes such as murder,
burglary, and arson. The public category however he catalogues crimes
that could be understood as an assault upon the state. Within in a
subcategory denominated quote "offenses against public justice," end
quote.
*** Elapsed Time 00:16, Eastern Time 10:17 ***
BUYER: Blackstone included the crimes of perjury and bribery.
In fact, in his catalogue of public justice offenses, Blackstone
placed perjury and bribery side by side.
Now, in the Constitution, Article II, Section 4, when you read
the impeachment clause, the president, vice president, and all civil
officers of the United States shall be removed from office on
impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, -- comma -- or
other high crimes and misdemeanors. So what did they mean when they
thought "other high crimes"?
I would submit to you that perjury, obstruction of justice, fits
in this category of other high crimes. Perjury and bribery are side
by side.
*** Elapsed Time 00:17, Eastern Time 10:18 ***
BUYER: You know, hypothetically -- hypothetically, if when
William Jefferson Clinton sat at the table in the civil deposition in
the Jones versus Clinton case, and, as alleged in the record, that he
perjured himself, speaking hypothetically, if he had then offered
Judge Susan Webber Wright a cash bribe, there would be no question in
this body what you must do.
But what I'm saying unto all of you is that there is no
difference here, and that's the pain of this case. There is no
difference between a cash bribe or sitting before a federal judge and
perjuring one's self, whether it be in the underlying civil deposition
or, in fact, the grand jury perjury. Perjury and bribery are side by
side. Mr. Manager Canady will develop that further.
*** Elapsed Time 00:19, Eastern Time 10:20 ***
BUYER: Mr. Manager Canady will develop that further.
The Constitution also recognizes that truth-telling under oath is
central to the maintenance of our republic.
We're all familiar with the Constitution, in its handwritten
glory; know that the founders, they took such pride in the oath, that
it's mentioned here in the Constitution on five separate occasions,
not the least of the which is the president's own oath to defend the
Constitution.
Article I, Section Three sets forth the requirement that the Senate be
under oath when trying the cases of impeachment. And I witnessed as
that occurred.
Article II, Section One specifically prescribes the oath which
must be taken before a president enter the execution of his office.
The right against self-incrimination under the Constitution
derives in some measure from the republic's interest in preserving the
truth-telling oath.
*** Elapsed Time 00:20, Eastern Time 10:21 ***
BUYER: You see, forced testimony is forbidden because it might
lead to many to violate their most solemn obligations and, over time,
weaken the essential civic norm of the fidelity to that oath --
fidelity.
The framers took significance of the oath very, very seriously.
The crime of perjury was among the few offenses that the first
Congress outlawed by statute as they met, and that affirms the
framers' view of the seriousness.
In 1790, in a statute entitled "An Act For The Punishment Of
Certain Crimes Against The United States," Congress made the crime of
perjury punishable by imprisonment of up to three years, a fine of up
to eight hundred dollars, disqualification from giving future
testimony, standing in the pillory for one hour.
Now today, we don't force individuals convicted of perjury to
stand in the pillory for up to one hour.
*** Elapsed Time 00:21, Eastern Time 10:22 ***
BUYER: Today perjury is punishable by up tot five years
imprisonment in a federal penitentiary if you perjury yourself in the
federal jurisdiction.
Likewise the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted the extent to
which perjury subverts the judicial process and thus the rule of law.
For example, in 1976 in the case of the United States versus
Monduhano (ph), the Supreme Court emphasized quote "the perjured
testimony is an obvious and flagrant affront to the basic concepts of
judicial proceedings. Effective restraints against this type of
egregious offense are therefore imperative. Hence, Congress has made
the giving of false answers a criminal act, punishable by severe
penalties.
In no other way can criminal conduct be flushed into the open
where law can deal with it," end quote.
Moreover, it is obvious that any testimony given to a grand jury
must be truthful, for the grand jury process is in fact a truth-
seeking process of our criminal justice system.
*** Elapsed Time 00:22, Eastern Time 10:23 ***
BUYER: As the Supreme Court stated in 1911 in the case of
Glickstein (ph) vs. the United States, quote, "It cannot be conceived
that there is power to compel the giving of testimony where no right
exists to require that the testimony shall be given under such
circumstances and safeguards as to compel it to be truthful," end
quote.
Indeed, giving false material testimony to a grand jury,
perjuring oneself, totally destroys the value of one's testimony and
interferes with the ability of a grand jury to accomplish its mission,
which, again, is to find the truth.
Perjury before a grand jury is a crime against our system of
government and the American people. And in the case before us, this
is a case of perjury upon perjury.
Before the grand jury, President Clinton testified that the
testimony that he gave in the underlying civil case of Jones vs.
Clinton in his civil deposition that it was truthful.
*** Elapsed Time 00:23, Eastern Time 10:24 ***
BUYER: We submit that that is a lie. So what we have is perjury
on perjury.
You may hear that the president's lawyers remark that the view of
the founders is quaint, not really applicable to these settings today.
Let's look at a few very recent examples to see if the view of the
seriousness of telling the truth under oath, as envisioned by the
founding fathers, has changed any here today.
In the case of the United States versus Landy (ph) in the Eastern
District of Virginia in 1997, the defendant was convicted on two
counts of perjury -- one for lying in a declaration she made during a
civil forfeiture case, and the other for lying to the grand jury in a
related criminal investigation.
Here's what the judge said in this case. "The defendant
committed perjury on two separate occasions. There can be no question
of it being done by mistake. The perjury is perhaps one of the most
serious offenses that can be committed against the court itself.
BUYER: And the court does not believe that it's appropriate to
consider probation in the case of somebody who's convicted of
perjury."
In the second case, the United States vs. Vincent Bono (ph) in
the district of New Hampshire in 1998, the defendant was found guilty
of lying before a grand jury in trying to cover his stepson
involvement in a robbery that the grand jury was investigating.
Here's what the judge had to say about lying before a grand jury.
"As a matter of policy, they" -- meaning Congress -- "they don't
want people lying to grand juries. They particularly don't want
people lying to grand juries about criminal offenses. They
particularly don't want people lying to grand juries about criminal
offenses that are being investigated.
*** Elapsed Time 00:25, Eastern Time 10:26 ***
BUYER: They don't like that and Congress has said we as a people
are going to tell you if you do that you are going to jail, and you
are going to jail for a long time. And if you don't get the message,
we will send you to jail again.
Maybe others will, but we are not going to have people coming to
grand juries and telling lies because of their children, their
mothers, or their fathers or themselves. It is just not acceptable.
The system can't work that way," end quote.
In other case in the United States versus Ronald Blackley (ph),
in the District of Columbia here in 1998, the defendant was the former
chief of staff to the Secretary of the United States Department of
Agriculture. The defendant was found guilty at trial of three counts
of making false statements to the grand jury in connection with his
official duties.
BUYER: Here is what the judge had to say in this case:
"In my view, providing a false statement under oath is a serious
offense. The fact that the proceeding is civil or administrative does
not make the crime less serious. We cannot fairly administer any kind
of system of justice in this country if we do not penalize those who
lie under oath.
"The defendant stands before me as a high-ranking government
official convicted of making false statements under oath. This is
such a serious crime that it demands an even longer term of
imprisonment in this court's view. This court has a duty to send a
message to other high level government officials that there is a
severe penalty to be paid for providing false information under oath.
There is a strong reason to deter such conduct and dispel all of the
nonsense that is being publicly discussed and debated about the
seriousness of lying under oath by government officials.
"A democracy like ours depends on people having trust in our
government and its officials." End quote.
You see, there are many other cases, and you can go to your Lexis
and Westlaw and you can research them.
*** Elapsed Time 00:27, Eastern Time 10:28 ***
BUYER: These three cases make it very clear that lying under
oath is as serious today in the 106th Congress as it was in 1790 in
the 1st Congress when it enacted the perjury statute.
The 1st Congress recognized the seriousness of perjury and its
attack on the judicial system. Now I'd like to discuss Article II
which is the obstruction of justice and how it is an attack on our
judicial system.
In either a criminal or a civil case, obstruction undermines the
judicial system's ability to vindicate legal rights. If it is allowed
to go unchecked, then the system will become a farce and, ultimately,
a test of which side is better at using under-handed methods.
Accordingly, federal courts have called the federal obstruction
justice statute "one of the most important laws ever adopted in that
it prevents the miscarriage of justice."
*** Elapsed Time 00:28, Eastern Time 10:29 ***
BUYER: This is Black's Law Dictionary. Black's Law Dictionary
defines obstruction of justice as impeding or obstructing those who
will seek justice in a court or those who have duties or powers of
administering justice therein. It's very clear.
Not only is obstruction of justice in its own a crime in the
federal code, but in addition, the federal sentencing guidelines. The
federal sentencing guidelines increase the sentence of a convicted
defendant who has willfully obstructed -- who has willfully obstructed
or impeded or attempted to obstruct or impede the administration of
justice during the investigation, prosecution or sentencing of his
offense.
*** Elapsed Time 00:30, Eastern Time 10:31 ***
BUYER: The commentary on the guidelines specifically list as
examples of obstructions the House alleges that President Clinton has
committed, including committing, suborning, or attempting to suborn
perjury, destroying or concealing or directing, procuring another
person to destroy or conceal evidence that is material to an official
investigation or judicial proceeding.
And yesterday you learned from Mr. Manager McCollum of Florida
when he discussed that perjury and obstruction of justice is punished
more severely in the federal sentencing guidelines than bribery.
And again as I stated earlier, Blackstone put bribery and perjury
side by side.
At a hearing on the background on the history of impeachment as
part of the House impeachment inquiry, we were privileged to have the
testimony of Judge Griffin Bell, an individual who has highly
distinguished himself in public service.
*** Elapsed Time 00:31, Eastern Time 10:32 ***
BUYER: Judge Bell was appointed to the federal bench by
President John Kennedy and he served as the United States attorney
general under President Carter.
Judge Bell said that, quote, "I have thought about this a great
deal. This is a serious matter. Trifling with the federal courts is
serious, and I guess I am biased because I used to be a federal judge,
but I cannot imagine that it wouldn't be a serious crime to lie in a
federal grand jury or to lie before a federal judge, and that is where
I come down."
Judge Bell went on to say, quote, "And all the civil rights cases
that I was in in the South depended on the integrity of the federal
court and the federal court orders and people telling truth and
fairness."
*** Elapsed Time 00:32, Eastern Time 10:33 ***
BUYER: Truth and fairness are the two essential elements in a
justice system. And of all the statutes I mentioned, perjury,
tampering with a witness, obstruction of justice all deal in the
interest of truth. If we don't have truth in the judicial process and
in the court system in our country, we don't have anything. We don't
have a system.
As you can see according to Judge Bell, truth and fairness are
two cornerstones of our judicial system. President Clinton violated
both of these bedrock principles. Finally, Judge Bell spoke to the
issue if a president ever was convicted of a felony.
Judge Bell stated, "If a president were indicted and convicted of
a felony such as perjury or obstruction of justice or witness
tampering before impeachment proceedings began, would anyone argue
that he should continue to be president?
*** Elapsed Time 00:33, Eastern Time 10:34 ***
BUYER: I don't think so. If the president were subsequently
indicted and convicted of a felony, which Judge Bell believes the
Constitution clearly allows, he went on to say "would anyone argue
that he should continue to be president? I don't think so."
And he stated this, he said "a president cannot faithfully
execute the laws if he himself is breaking them."
Judge Bell hit it right on the head. Judge Bell said "a
president cannot faithfully execute the laws if he himself is breaking
them."
If -- strike the word if -- the statutes against perjury,
obstruction of justice, and witness tampering rest on vouchsafing (ph)
the element of truth of judicial proceedings Judge Bell stated.
BUYER: He went on to say that "civil and criminal cases in
particular and also the grand jury allegations of this kind are grave
indeed." End quote.
To borrow the words of constitutional scholar Charles J. Cooper,
the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice, like the crimes of
treason and bribery, are quintessentially offenses against our system
of
government, visiting injury immediately on society itself, whether or
not
committed in connection with the exercise of official government
powers.
I believe all of you should haven these charts at your table.
In a society governed by the rule of law, perjury and obstruction
of justice simply cannot be tolerated because these crimes subvert the
very judicial process on which the rule of law so vitally depends.
It is no exaggeration to say that our Constitution and the
American
people entrust to the president singular responsibility for the
enforcing of the rule of law.
*** Elapsed Time 00:35, Eastern Time 10:36 ***
BUYER: Perjury and obstruction of justice strike at the heart of
the rule of law. A president who has committed these crimes has
plainly and directly violated the most important executive duty. The
core of the president's constitutional responsibilities is his duty to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
And because perjury and obstruction of justice strike at the rule
of law itself, it is difficult to imagine crimes that more clearly or
directly violate this core presidential constitutional duty. When
President Clinton had the opportunity to personally uphold the rule of
law, to uphold the truth-seeking function of the courts, to uphold the
fairness in a judicial proceeding, he failed.
Far from taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, if a
president is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, he himself
faithlessly subverted the very law that the rest of us are called upon
to obey.
*** Elapsed Time 00:38, Eastern Time 10:39 ***
BUYER: You may hear arguments that perjury and obstruction don't
really have much consequence in this case because it was a private
matter, and therefore not really a serious offense. I'd like to arm
you with the facts. The courts do not trivialize perjury and
obstruction of justice.
According to the United States Sentencing Commission, in 1997,
182 Americans were sentenced in federal court for committing perjury.
Also, in 1997, 144 Americans were sentenced in federal court for
obstruction and witness tampering. In state jurisdictions all across
this country, they take the matter very seriously. I've chosen on
state -- the state of California. They brought 4,318 perjury
prosecutions in 1997.
*** Elapsed Time 00:38, Eastern Time 10:39 ***
BUYER: There are now at least 115 persons serving sentences for
perjury in federal prisons.
Where is the fairness to these Americans if they stay in jail and
the president stays in the Oval Office?
If the allegations in the independent counsel's referral were
made against a sitting federal judge, would not the Senate convict?
If William Jefferson Clinton were a sitting judge instead of the
president, would not the Senate convict?
While my colleague Mr. Manager Graham will look into this
further, let's look briefly at precedent for the moment. When we
bring up the issues regarding the impeachment of former federal judges
Mr. Claiborne and Mr. Nixon, one standard was used: high crimes and
misdemeanors. The Senate said one standard that applies to the
president and vice president will also apply to these federal judges
and other civil officers.
You see, in the defense of Judges Claiborne and Nixon, the
defense lawyers at the time in the trial here in the Senate argued
that federal judges should be treated differently from the president.
BUYER: That they could not be impeached for private misbehavior
because it was extra-judicial. The Senate rejected that proposition
as incompatible with common sense and the orderly conduct of
government. You rejected that argument, the very same argument that
we will about to hear perhaps from the White House defense team.
And I believe this Senate will uphold your precedent, the
precedent that federal judges and bathe president should be treated by
the same standard, impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Also, do not be tempted to believe the argument that lying under
oath about sex doesn't matter, that it's private.
*** Elapsed Time 00:40, Eastern Time 10:41 ***
BUYER: I covered that earlier, but I want to bring to your
attention, as some of the House managers did yesterday, about American
law. It makes rape a crime, domestic violence a crime, sexual
harassment a civil rights violation, libel a compensable offense.
Without the protections of perjury and obstruction, none of the rights
of the victims of such cases could be vindicated. That's why the
courts takes these matters so seriously.
If the president's lawyers try to tell you that this case is
simply about an illicit affair, I believe that it demeans our civil
rights laws. If indeed the president is successful in trying to make
everyone believe that this case is only about an illicit affair, what
will the message be in this hallowed body to those who've in the past
been passionate advocates of our civil rights laws, whether it be by
race, gender, religion, disability.
BUYER: If the evidence gathering process is unimportant in
federal civil rights sexual harassment lawsuits, remember that was the
underlying basis of this case, what message does that send to women in
America?
There are some important questions we need to ask.
Are sexual harassment lawsuits, which were designed to vindicate
legitimate and serious civil rights grievances across America, now
somewhat less important than other civil rights?
Which of our civil rights laws will fall next? Will we soon
decide that the evidence gathering process is unimportant with respect
to vindicating the rights of the disabled under the Americans with
Disabilities Act? Will the evidence gathering process become
unimportant with respect to vindicating the voting rights of those
discriminated against based on race or national origin?
BUYER: Who will tell the hundreds of federal judges across the
nation that the evidence-gathering process is these cases is now
unimportant?
Consider postal worker Diane Parker (ph) who was convicted of
perjury and sentenced to 13 months in prison for making a false
material declaration during the discovery deposition in a sexual
harassment lawsuit.
Judge Lacey Collier (ph) said "one of the most troubling things
in our society today his people who raise their hands, take the oath
to tell the truth, and then fail to do that. This is I hope,
sufficient punishment for you," the judge stated. The judge went on
to say "but more importantly I hope that it is a deterrence to others
so your story can be taken far and wide to demonstrate to others the
seriousness of the responsibility of telling the truth in court
proceedings."
The Senate must now determine whether it is acceptable or whether
it is appropriate to set a precedent to have an individual serve as
President of the United States when that individual has committed --
has alleged to have committed serious offenses against our system of
government while holding that office.
*** Elapsed Time 00:44, Eastern Time 10:45 ***
BUYER: While we've been discussing how perjury and obstruction
of justice are attacks on our judicial system, we must recognize how
the judicial system is a core function of the government. When Mr.
Manager Henry Hyde speaks of the rule of law protecting us from the
knock on the door at 3:00 a.m., what exactly was he referring to.
Well, in totalitarian societies, rulers may drag the rule off to
prison at any time for any reason. Our system differs because we
require our leaders to go through a judicial procedure before they put
someone in prison or otherwise violate their individual rights.
The president's offenses assault the administration of this
judicial procedure.
*** Elapsed Time 00:46, Eastern Time 10:47 ***
BUYER: As such, they constitute an assault on a core function
of the government and repudiate our most basic social contract. A
core
function of the government derives its role from the social contract
that
our civilized society has under the fundamental exchange of rights
that takes place between those of us as individuals and unto the
government.
We give up our individual rights to exercise brute force to
settle our personal disputes. That's a situation where chaos reigns
and the strongest most often prevails.
Instead, we submit to the power delegated to the state under
which the individual then submits to the governmental processes as
part of the social contract. Indeed, when conflict arises in our
society, we as individuals are compelled via the social contract to
take disputes to our third branch of government: the courts.
*** Elapsed Time 00:46, Eastern Time 10:47 ***
BUYER: The judicial branch then peacefully decides which party
is entitled to judgment in their favor after a full presentation of
the truthful evidence.
Now, implicit in the social contract that we enter as a civilized
society is the principle that the weak are equally entitled as the
strong to equal justice under the law. Despite the tumbling tides of
politics, ours is a government of laws, not of men.
It was the inspired vision of our founding fathers that the
judicial, legislative and executive branch of government would work
together to preserve the rule of law. The United States Constitution
requires the judicial branch to apply the law equally and fairly to
both the weak and the strong.
Once we as a society, and particularly our leaders, no long
submit to the social contract and no longer pay deference to the third
branch of government, which is equally as important as the legislative
and executive branches of government, we then begin to erode the rule
of law and begin to erode the social contract of the great American
experiment.
BUYER: That, I believe, is why Judge Bell had stated that "A
president cannot faithfully execute the laws if he himself is breaking
them."
The administration of justice is a core function of the
government
precisely because of the importance we place on the fair resolution of
disputes and on whom and for how long a person will be denied liberty
for
violating our criminal laws.
Any assault on the administration of justice must be interpreted
as a threat to our system of government. Our president, who is our
chief executive and chief law enforcement officer and who alone
is delegated the task of our Constitution to take care that the laws
be
faithfully executed, cannot and must not be permitted to engage in
such an
assault on the administration of justice.
*** Elapsed Time 00:48, Eastern Time 10:49 ***
BUYER: The Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House of
Representatives established an abuse of public trust and of betrayal
of the social contract that the president is alleged to have
repeatedly his personal interests above the public interest and
violated his constitutional duties.
For if he is allowed to escape conviction by the Senate, you
would allow the president to set the example for lawlessness. We
would allow our president to serve as an example of the erosion of the
concept of the social contract embraced and embodied in our
Constitution. I don't believe the Senate will allow that to happen.
As you undertake your examination of the facts, the law and your
precedence, the Senate must weigh carefully its judgment for the
consequences are deeply profound not for the moment, but for the ages.
BUYER: Should the Senate chose to acquit, it must be prepared to
accept the lower standard, a bad precedent, and a double standard.
However, should the Senate chose to convict, it will be
reinforcing the high standards for high office, maintain your existing
precedents and uphold the principle of equal justice under the law.
I think it is important here to pause and reflect upon the
constitutional duties of the President of the United States.
I would agree with the defense argument that this has not been
alleged as a dereliction of a president's exercise of executive
powers.
*** Elapsed Time 00:50, Eastern Time 10:51 ***
BUYER: So let me talk about his executive duties. The president
is reposed with a special trust by the American people. The president
is a physical embodiment of America and the hope and freedom for which
she stands.
When the president goes abroad, he is honored as a head of a
sovereign nation. Our nation is acknowledged -- not just the
individual who occupies the office of the presidency. When he walks
into a room and he receives a standing ovation, the ovation is not
that of the individual. It is for the nation for whom he represents.
The president has a constitutional role as commander in chief.
The president plays the unique and indispensable role in the chain of
command. In Federalist 74, Alexander Hamilton stated that "Of all the
cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most procurely
demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a
single hand."
It is universally agreed that the president in his role as
commander in chief is not an actual member of the military. However,
as the single hand that guides the actions of the Armed Services, it
is incumbent that the president exhibit sound, responsible leadership
and set a proper example when acting as the commander in chief.
*** Elapsed Time 00:51, Eastern Time 10:52 ***
BUYER: That leadership is also at the core of the issue before
us. In order to be an effective leader and an effective military
leader, the president must exhibit the traits that inspire those who
must risk their lives at his command. These traits include honor and
integrity and accountability.
Admiral Thomas Moore, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of
staff, submitted testimony to the House impeachment inquiry, and
Admiral Moore stated it this way, quote: "Military leaders also serve
as role models for honorable and virtuous conduct," end quote.
You see, veracity and truthfulness are important components of a
leader's character. In order to have the trust of their subordinates,
military leaders must have honor and be truthful in all things.
That trust, that bond between the leaders and the led, is an
essential element of any successful military organization. The
president's own self-inflicted wounds have called his credibility into
question.
*** Elapsed Time 00:53, Eastern Time 10:54 ***
BUYER: While a president's decisions are always critiqued, a
president receives the benefit of the doubt in the decision-making
process, that he always places the interest of the nation above his
own.
But William Jefferson Clinton's present diminished veracity, he
has now forfeited the benefit and has invited doubt into the decision-
making process.
The lack of trust in the president's motives, his veracity, his
judgment is inherently corrosive and can only be detrimental on the
effect of our military and credibility overseas.
This corrosion is difficult to measure for it cannot be
quantified easily in some readiness report, or training exercise.
*** Elapsed Time 00:54, Eastern Time 10:55 ***
BUYER: But in the squad bays and war rooms around the world and
at bases here in the United States, there can be heard the whispers
and conversations of those who know that had they merely been accused
of the same offense, their careers would have ended long ago.
This is an intangible effect that the president's actions have
had on the military. We cannot ignore the fact that the commander-in-
chief's conduct sets a poor example to the men and women of the
military. Worse, we cannot ignore the idea that to acquit the
president would create a double standard.
The Constitution directs this body to provide advice and consent
to the president's nominations for military officers. It is your
singular responsibility to set high standards of conduct for these
officers, and you have done that.
The Senate has in the past -- and you will likely again do so in
the future -- reject those whose moral and legal misconduct make them
unsuitable to be officers in the military. Now let me indulge in a
hypothetical.
BUYER: An officer is nominated by the president from promotion
to the rank of major. After the list is submitted, but before the
Senate's confirmation, an investigation of the individual's background
results in a report that mirrors the allegations of the Office of
Independent Counsel's referral.
After a very careful review of the Code of Military Justice, this
captain, if having been committed similar offenses in the Independent
of Independent Counsel referral, could be charged with Article 105 --
false swearing, face up to three years; be charged in Article 107 --
false official statement, be charged up to 5 years; be charged with
Article 131 -- perjury -- probably several times -- face up to 5
years; charged with Article 133 -- conduct unbecoming of an officer;
charged with Article 134 -- prevent seizure of property -- up to one
year imprisonment; Article 134 -- soliciting another to commit an
offense -- face a penalty for up to five years imprisonment; charged
with Article 134 -- subornation of perjury -- face confinement for up
to five years; Article 134 again -- obstructing justice -- face five
years.
*** Elapsed Time 00:56, Eastern Time 10:57 ***
BUYER: And I could probably come up with about four others, but
I won't get into the salacious details.
You see, needless to say, the Senate would insist on this
hypothetical officer's removal from the promotion list. You would do
that. And the services would certainly relieve him of his duties.
In every warship, every squadbay and every headquarters building
throughout the United States, those of you who have traveled to
military bases, you have seen the picture of the commander in chief
hang in the apex of the pyramid that is the military chain of command.
You should also know that all over the world, military personnel look
at the current picture and know that if accused of the same offenses
as their commander in chief, they would no longer be deserving of the
privilege of serving in the military.
*** Elapsed Time 00:58, Eastern Time 10:59 ***
BUYER: Some would say that what I've just talked about doesn't
matter. But in the military they live under different standards, they
live under these high standards. They say words like "duty," "honor,"
"country," they're instilled with core values and core virtues. But
that really doesn't matter in this case, that the president really
doesn't have to follow those types of high standards. That if he
violates some form of high standards and stands accused of high
crimes, they're really not high crimes, it was about a private matter,
they don't rise to the level needed to remove the president from
office.
I'd like to remind you of General Douglas MacArthur. In his
farewell address at West Point, General Douglas MacArthur stated when
he referenced the words I spoke of duty and honor and country and the
high principles, he said, quote, "The unbelievers will say that they
are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase and every
pendant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every trouble
maker, and, I'm sorry to say, some others of an entirely different
character will try to downgrade them to the extent of mockery and
ridicule."
*** Elapsed Time 01:00, Eastern Time 11:01 ***
BUYER: The ideal object must be held high, even though we
recognize that as humans we are not perfect. No matter how great we
aspire, we're human and we will occasionally fail. But there must be
the pursuit of such high ideals. We cannot degrade our standards as a
people.
By a conviction in the Senate of the president of the United
States, you will be upholding a high and lofty standard not only for
America, but, in particular, for those military leaders.
BUYER: Let me turn to the president's responsibility to see that
the laws be faithfully executed. According to scholar Philip B.
Curlan (ph), it was probably George Washington rather than the
Constitution that is responsible for our hierarchy of cabinet offices.
It's been taken for granted over the years and we refer to the
president as the chief law enforcement officer of the land and you
can't find it in the Constitution. So we have to give credit to
George Washington and how he put together the cabinet and we've
accepted it over time.
So, it's been accepted by practice, custom and legislation that
the executive branch is an entity for which the president is
responsible both to Congress and to the public.
*** Elapsed Time 01:01, Eastern Time 11:02 ***
BUYER: Mr. Curland (ph) stated, quote, "The whole of the
executive branch acts subordinately to the command of the president in
the administration of federal laws so long as they act within the
terms of those laws. There offices confer no right to violate the
laws, whether they take the form of constitution, statute, or treaty,"
end quote.
The president's Departments of Treasury of Justice seek to bring
to account those who disturb our domestic tranquility. And those who
seek to disturb our domestic tranquility, whether they be the drug
pushers or Unabombers, gangsters, mobsters, church arsonists,
violators of individual rights, dedicated men and women of the FBI,
DEA, Customs, Secret Service, BATF, INS, the United States Marshal's
Office, they all pursue them, methodically, thoughtfully firmly,
doggedly, applying the law while risking their lives to uphold the
rule of law for our peace and security. They seek to ensure equal
justice under the law for everyone.
*** Elapsed Time 01:02, Eastern Time 11:03 ***
BUYER: In the book, "The Imperial Presidency," Professor Arthur
Schlesinger, Jr. -- he states "The continuation of a law breaker as
the chief magistrate would be a strange way to exemplify law and order
at home or to demonstrate American probity before the world."
By a conviction, the Senate will be upholding the high calling of
law enforcement in protecting the rule of law and equal justice under
the law.
BUYER: Equal justice under the law -- that principle so embodies
the American constitutional order, that we have carved it in stone on
the front of the Supreme Court building, right across the street. The
carving across the street shines like a beacon from the highest
sanctum across to us here in the Capitol, the home of the legislative
branch. And it shines right down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White
House, the home of the executive branch.
It illuminates our national life and reminds those other branches
that despite the tumbling tides of politics, ours is a government of
laws not of men. It was the inspired vision of our founders and
framers, again that the judicial, legislative and executive branches
would work together to preserve the rule of law.
But equal justice under law accounts to much more than a stone
carving.
*** Elapsed Time 01:05, Eastern Time 11:06 ***
BUYER: Although we can't see it or hear it, this living,
breathing force has very real consequences in the lives of every
citizen every day in America. It allows Americans to claim the
assistance of the government when someone has wronged us, even if the
person is stronger or wealthier or more popular than we are.
In America, unlike other countries, when an average citizen sues
the chief executive of our nation, they stand equal before the bar of
justice. The Constitution requires the judicial branch of our
government to apply the law equally to both. That is the living
consequence of equal justice under the law that shines brightly across
our country.
The president of the United States must work with the judicial
and the legislative branch to sustain that force.
BUYER: He is the temporary trustee of that office. But
unfortunately and sadly, William Jefferson Clinton worked to defeat it
and to bring darkness upon that grand illumination. When he stood
before the bar of justice, he acted without authority to award
himself.
Even if he believed in his heart that the case against him was
politically motivated, he singularly assumed unto himself that he had
by virtue of his power special privileges, that he could be clever,
create own definitions of words in his own mind, create what C.S.
Lewis called the verbicide, and he murdered -- he murdered the plain
spoken English language so he could come up with these definitions in
his own mind, state them, and then say, well, I never committed
perjury because this is what I meant by this word, even though it
fails the reasonableness test and is absurd that no one would believe
his own definitions.
You see, he assumed these special privileges and then lied and
obstructed justice to gain advantage in a federal civil rights action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern district of
Arkansas.
BUYER: And he did so then again when a federal grand jury began
to investigate that lawlessness. And he did it for the grand jury in
the United States district court for the District of Columbia.
His resistance brings us to this unmost (ph) unfortunate juncture
for which you sit in judgment. So, equal justice under law, lies at
the heart of this matter.
It rests on three essential pillars -- an impartial judiciary, an
ethical bar, and a sacred oath.
If litigants profane the sanctity of the oath, equal justice
under law loses its protective force.
*** Elapsed Time 01:09, Eastern Time 11:10 ***
BUYER: The House, as does the Senate, has the responsibility to
uphold the Constitution. We have all taken our oaths to defend the
Constitution. The founding fathers created a system of checks and
balances, a system of accountability between the functions of
government.
You see, I believe, as I'm sure you do, that the founding fathers
knew the nature of the human heart. That as sometimes, as much as we
try, at times we fail, and that the human heart does in fact struggle
at times between good and evil.
We recognize that no person has perfect virtue and that we each
have our human failings. And the founders could foresee a time when
corruption could invade the institutions of government, and they
provided the means to address it. And the impeachment proceeding is
one such means.
*** Elapsed Time 01:10, Eastern Time 11:11 ***
BUYER: We are just seeking to defend the rule of law. America,
again, is the government of laws, not of men. What protects us from
that knock on the door in the middle of the night is the law. What
ensures the rights of the weak and the powerless against the powerful
is the law. What provides the rights to the poor against the rich is
the law.
What upholds the rightness of the minority view against the
popular but wrong is the law. As former President Andrew Jackson
wrote, "The great can protect themselves, but the poor and the humble
require the arm and shield of the law."
When our nation began its journey in history over 200 years ago,
the United States was nearly unique in depending on the rule of law as
opposed to, at that time, the rule of kings and czars and chieftains
and monarchs. Now that our unique grand American experiment has
proved unto the rest of the world the success, others now seek to
follow us.
BUYER: They seek to follow and we have seen in the crumbling of
the Soviet Union and now the infant former Soviet republics -- these
former Soviet nations, now infant republics, they look and they turn
to us. They turn to us, a government ruled by law. For the sake of
ourselves, and the sake of generations yet unborn, we and in
particular you, who sit in judgment here in the Senate, must preserve
the rule of law.
I will leave you with the words of the first president of the
Senate, and the second president of our nation John Adams.
He said "facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our
wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence."
BUYER: I believe John Adams was right. Facts and evidence --
facts are stubborn things. You can color the facts, you can shade the
facts, you misrepresent the facts, you can hide the facts, but the
truthful facts are stubborn. They won't go away. Like the Telltale
Heart, they keep pounding and they keep coming and they won't go away.
And what's also stubborn are the precedents of the Senate.
I will now yield the floor to Mr. Manager Graham of South
Carolina to discuss the precedents of the Senate.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice?
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.
LOTT: I sense the need for a 10 minute break. But, my
colleagues, please tend to your business and return promptly so that
we can get started with the proper quorum.
REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.
(RECESS)
*** Elapsed Time 01:27, Eastern Time 11:28 ***
REHNQUIST: Chair recognizes the majority leader.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we are ready to begin with
Manager Graham. I've been asked about any changes in the schedule.
It would depend on how things move forward. I would ask for consent
to changes depending on how things develop from this point, Mr. Chief
Justice. I yield the floor.
REHNQUIST: Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Graham.
GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice. I think I broke the code
there. When I hear stomachs growling I know it will be time to wrap
this up.
This is an unbelievable occasion for all of us. I'm Lindsey
Graham from South Carolina. And we'll talk a lot about civil rights.
I'm a child of the South and I will give you my views on civil rights
and how we've progressed in this country.
But I'm going to talk to you a bit about some decisions this body
has made regarding the crime of perjury and obstruction of justice and
the impeachment clause in the Constitution as it applies to federal
judges. And I'm not so presumptuous to tell you I know more about
what you did than you did. I'm going to try to highlight some of the
things that you did I think have served this country well in this
area.
But before we get there, a couple of observations. As I was
walking over through the rotunda today, there were a group of Japanese
tourists there. And I stopped and talked.
*** Elapsed Time 01:29, Eastern Time 11:30 ***
GRAHAM: And my dad who's now deceased was a World War II
veteran. And it struck me 50 years plus how resilient this world is.
My dad's generation, I don't think, would have ever envisioned 50
years ago that his son -- one would be a Congressman which is a great
thing about this country, would be stopping and talking to Japanese
tourists in the capital of the United States.
So when we talk about the consequences of this case, no matter
what you decide, in my opinion this country will survive. If you
acquit the president, we will survive. If you convict him, it will be
traumatic. And if you remove him, it will be traumatic, but we will
survive.
And this has been billed as a constitutional drama by some of the
pundits that's called a snoozer, and I can understand that a little
bit. I'm the twelfth lawyer you've had to listen to, and I think my
colleagues have done a very good job.
*** Elapsed Time 01:30, Eastern Time 11:31 ***
GRAHAM: But it's a very long tedious process in many ways, and
it's hard to sit here and listen to 12 lawyers talk to you but you've
done a wonderful job I think. I'm very proud of the United States
Senate. You've paid great attention.
But the fact that people call this boring is not a bad thing to
me. I think it shows the confidence we've achieved in 200 years as a
republic that people can go on about their business -- and they're
upset -- I know my phone rings a lot and your phones ring a lot about
what to do, but there's a calmness in this country in the midst of
something so important like this, that tells me we've done it right
for a long time.
How many countries would love the chance to be bored when their
government is in action? How many countries fear that the government
won't work for them, that to get it right, you got to pick up a gun?
That happens everyday throughout this world and the fact that we
can come together and talk about something so important and the
country can go on and people not be anxious about their personal lives
and their freedoms and their properties and their jobs, is a
compliment to every generations who has ever served this republic.
*** Elapsed Time 01:31, Eastern Time 11:32 ***
GRAHAM: And Tom Brokaw's got a book out called "The Greatest
Generation," and I recommend it to you to read because we will be
talking about values in a moment. But let's talk about some of this
country's imperfections.
Mr. Buyer talked about very eloquently the rule of law and how it
makes us so different, and how it's something that people literally do
die for and have died for.
But let me tell you as a lawyer it is not a perfect legal system.
If you're a poor person and you're charged with a crime, you're likely
to get a public defender right out of law school, and hopefully that
public defender will do the best he can or she can. But it's not a
perfect system. Don't ever think it is.
Civil rights have been advanced a lot in my lifetime, but we've
got a long way to go in South Carolina.
*** Elapsed Time 01:32, Eastern Time 11:33 ***
GRAHAM: I think we got a long way to go in this nation.
In my lifetime, I started school with no black person in my
class. By the sixth grade, I think it was the sixth grade,
integration hit in my area. And I can remember my mom and dad being
scared to death about what it would do and what it would mean. But we
made it, and we're better off as a country.
So we're here to judge our president. We're here to say whether
or not he's guilty, to begin with, of some serious offenses that are
colored by sex. And there's absolutely no way to get around that.
And I know it's uncomfortable to listen to.
My father and mother owned a restaurant, a beer joint I guess is
what we'd say in South Carolina. I can remember that if you were
black you came and you had to buy the beer and you had to go because
you couldn't drink it there. That's just the way it was, is what my
dad said.
*** Elapsed Time 01:33, Eastern Time 11:34 ***
GRAHAM: I always never quite understood that. But my dad and
mom were good people. But that's just the way it was.
Well that's not the way it is now and we're better off for that.
In sexual harassment cases, it's always uncomfortable to listen
to. That's just the way it is.
It used to be in this country not long ago, there was really no
recourse if you were sexually harassed. We've changed things for the
better.
The reason we're here today is not because somebody wanted to
look into the personal life of the president for no good reason.
We're here today because somebody accused him when he was governor, of
picking them out of a crowd, asking her to come to a hotel room, and
if you believe her, did something very crude and rude that you
wouldn't want to happen to anybody in your family.
Now only God knows what happened there. That case has been
settled. The parties know and God knows.
*** Elapsed Time 01:34, Eastern Time 11:35 ***
GRAHAM: We'll never know.
But let me just say this. I'm proud of my country where you as a
low level employee can sue the governor of your state. And if that
governor becomes president, you can still sue. The Supreme Court said
9-to-0, a shut out legally, Mr. President, you will stand subject to
this suit.
And we're going to talk about is this private or public conduct.
Does this go to the heart of being president, or is this just some
private matter he could be prosecuted after he gets out of office. Is
this really a big deal about being president.
I would contend to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, it
became a big deal about being president when he raised the defense you
can't sue me now because I'm the president. I'm a busy man. I've got
a lot going on. He used his office -- or tried to -- to avoid the day
in court. But the Supreme Court said, no sir, you will stand subject
to suit under some reasonable accommodations.
And we're here today. If I had been on the Supreme Court, I
don't know if I would have ruled that way. There's not much chance of
that happening any time soon if you're worried about that.
*** Elapsed Time 01:36, Eastern Time 11:37 ***
GRAHAM: I don't think that's going to be in my future, but...
(LAUGHTER)
I may not have ruled that way. And we in Congress, if we don't
like the way all this has come out, we can change that law, we can
change that ruling by law. But it's the law of the land because the
chief justice and his colleagues said so.
What did our president do? He tried to say, you can't sue me
because I'm president. Well, he participated in that lawsuit because
he was told to. And I would argue, ladies and gentlemen, that we all
assumed he would play fair. Now, isn't there a lot of doubt about
that?
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, what if he had not shown up?
What he had refused to answer any court order? What if he had said,
"I'm not going to play, that's it; I'm not going to listen to you,
judicial branch"? You know the remedy we have to resolve problems
like that, when presidential conduct gets out of bounds? You know
where that remedy lies? It lies with us, the United States Congress.
*** Elapsed Time 01:38, Eastern Time 11:39 ***
GRAHAM: When a president gets out of bounds, and doesn't do as
he or she should do, constitutionally -- and I would argue that every
president and every citizen has a constitutional duty not to cheat
another citizen, especially the president -- and they get out of
bounds, it is up to us to put them back in bounds or declare it
illegal.
And how do we do that? How do we regulate presidential
misconduct when it's done in a presidential fashion? Through the laws
and powers of impeachment. That is why we're here today.
It's going to take teamwork on our part to get this right,
because I will argue to you in a moment that the president of the
United States through his conduct flouted judicial authority and
decision-making over him.
When he chose to lie, when he chose to manipulate the evidence,
the witnesses against him and get his friends to go lie for him, he,
in fact, I think, vetoed that decision.
*** Elapsed Time 01:38, Eastern Time 11:39 ***
GRAHAM: That's worse than if he hadn't shown up at all. Is that
out of bounds? That's what we're going to be talking about today.
And we've got some guidance as to what really is in or out of
bounds for high government officials.
What's a high crime? How about if an important person hurts
somebody of low means? It's not very scholarly. But I think it's the
truth. I think that's what they meant by high crimes. Doesn't even
have to be a crime.
It's just when you start using your office and you're acting in
a way that hurts people, you have committed a high crime.
When you decide that a course of conduct meets the high crimes
standard, under our Constitution, by the president, what are we doing
to the presidency?
I think we're putting a burden on the presidency and you should
consider it that way.
*** Elapsed Time 01:39, Eastern Time 11:40 ***
GRAHAM: That if you determine that the conduct and the crimes in
this case are high crimes, you need to do so knowing that you're
placing a burden on every future occupant of that office and the
office itself. So do so cautiously because one branch of the
government should never put a burden on another branch of the
government that is not fair and they can't bear.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, if you decided from the
conduct of this president that henceforth any office holder who
occupies the office of president will have this burden to bear, let me
tell you what it is. Don't lie under oath to a federal grand jury
when many in the country are begging you not to. Can the occupant
bear that burden?
I voted against Article II in the House which was the deposition
perjury allegations against the president standing alone. I think
many of us may have thought that he didn't know about the tapes, that
he and Ms. Lewinsky thought they had a story that was going to work.
*** Elapsed Time 01:40, Eastern Time 11:41 ***
GRAHAM: And he got caught off guard and he started telling a
bunch of lies that maybe I would have lied about. Maybe you would
have lied about. Because it is personal to have to talk about
intimate things. And our human nature is to protect ourselves, our
family, that's just human nature.
But, ladies and gentlemen, what he stands charged of in this
Senate happened eight months later. After some members of this body
said, Mr. President, square yourself with the law. Mr. President, if
you go into that federal grand jury and you lie again, you're risking
your presidency. People in this body said that. Legal commentators
said that.
Professor Dershowitz and I probably don't agree on a lot. I
think he would probably agree with that statement. That's be one
thing we'd agree on. He said -- and he's a very smart, passionate
man, and I like passionate people even if I don't agree with them --
even he said that if you go to a grand jury and you lie as president
that ought to be a high crime.
GRAHAM: So the context in which you're going to decide this case
has to understand human failings, because if you don't do that, you're
not being fair. And I know you want to be fair.
Human failings exist in all of us. Only when it gets to be so
premeditated, so calculated, so much my interest over anybody else or
the public be damned, should you really, really start getting serious
about what to do. That happened in August, in my opinion, ladies and
gentlemen.
After being begged not to lie to a grand jury and end this
matter, he chose to lie.
That's the burden you'd be placing on the next president. Don't
do that. Don't lie under oath when you're a defendant in a lawsuit
against an average citizen. Have the courage to apply the law in a
fair manner to yourself.
Mr. Buyer talked about values and courage. Let me say something
about President Clinton that I believe. I believe he does embrace
civil rights for our citizens.
*** Elapsed Time 01:43, Eastern Time 11:44 ***
GRAHAM: I believe he's been an articulate spokesman for civil
rights for our citizens. I believe that maybe one of the hallmarks of
his presidency, and I'm not here to tell you that he doesn't. I'm
here to tell you that when it was it his case, when those rights had
to applied to him, he failed miserably.
As always easy to talk about what other people ought to do. The
test of character is the way you judge people you disagree with.
Don't cheat in a lawsuit by manipulating the testimony of others.
Don't sent public officials and friends to tell your lies before a
federal grand jury to avoid your legal responsibilities. Don't put
your legal and political interests ahead of the rule of law and common
decency.
If you find that these are high crimes, that is the burden you're
placing on the next office holder. If they can't meet that burden,
this country has a serious problem.
I don't want my country to be the country of great equivocators
and compartmentalizers for the next century.
*** Elapsed Time 01:44, Eastern Time 11:45 ***
GRAHAM: And that's what this case is about -- equivocation and
compartmentalizing. What I have described to you as the conduct that
the president being in a high crime I think is just his job
description. We're asking no more of him than to be the chief law
enforcement officer of the land. Follow your job description.
A determination that this conduct is a high crime is no burden
that can't be beared in a reasonable fashion by future occupants. Now
what did I talk about constitutional team work.
I am a child of the South. The civil rights litigation in
matters that came about in the '60s were threefold. There was
legislation passed in Congress. There were judicial decisions that
were rendered, and the executive branch came in to help out.
Remember when Governor Wallace was standing in the doors of the
University of Alabama? Remember how he was told to get aside? What
when on?
*** Elapsed Time 01:45, Eastern Time 11:46 ***
GRAHAM: It was a constitutional dance of magnificent
proportions. You had litigation that was resolved for the individual
citizen so they could go in and acquire the rights and full benefits
of a citizen of that state. You had legislation coming out of this
body. And you had defiance against the federal government from the
state level. And you had the president and the executive branch
federalizing the National Guard and Governor Wallace stepped aside.
When it was nine to nothing that Bill Clinton had to be a
participant in a lawsuit and he chose to cheat in every manner you can
cheat in a lawsuit, his conduct needs to be regulated and it needs to
be brought to bear under the Constitution. And if you put him in jail
after his office, that would not solve the constitutional problem he
created.
The constitutional conduct exhibited by the executive when he was
told by the judicial branch, You've got to participate in a lawsuit,
was so far afield of what's fair, what's decent, that it became a high
crime.
*** Elapsed Time 01:46, Eastern Time 11:47 ***
GRAHAM: And it happened to be against a lower person.
The Senate has spoken before about perjury and obstruction of
justice and how it applies to high government officials and those
government official were judges.
Before we start this analysis, it's important to know and some of
you know this better than I will ever hope to know, the history of
this Senate, the history of this body, and how it works and why it
works. That when a judge is impeached in the United States of
America, the same legal standard -- treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors -- is applied to that judge's conduct as it is
to any high official just like the president.
So, we're comparing apples to apples.
*** Elapsed Time 01:48, Eastern Time 11:49 ***
GRAHAM: Now, in Judge Claiborne's trial, they seized upon the
language "judges shall hold their office during good behavior." And
the defense was trying to say, unlike the president and other
government officials -- high government officials -- the impeachment
standard for judges is good behavior. That's the term; it's a
different impeachment standard.
You know these cases better than I know these cases, and you
said, wrong. The good behavior standard doesn't apply to why you will
be removed, it's a just a reference to how long you will have your
job.
Our president is two terms. A judge is for life, conditioned on
good behavior. What gets you out of office is whether or not you
violate the constitutional standard for impeachment, which is treason,
bribery or other crimes or misdemeanors.
So as I talk to you about these cases -- and what you as a body
did -- understand we're using the same legal standard, not because I
said so, but because you said so.
*** Elapsed Time 01:48, Eastern Time 11:49 ***
GRAHAM: Judge Claiborne, convicted and removed from office by
the Senate 90-to-7, for what? Filing a false income tax return under
penalties of perjury. One thing they said in that case was, well, I'm
a judge, and filing false income tax returns has nothing to do with me
being a judge. And I ought not to lose my job unless you can show me
or prove that I did something wrong as a judge.
They were saying cheating on your taxes has nothing to do with
being a judge. You know what the Senate said? It has everything to
do with being a judge. And the reason you said that is because you
didn't buy into this idea that the only way you can lose your job as a
high government official under the Constitution is to engage in some
type of public conduct directly related to what you do every day.
*** Elapsed Time 01:49, Eastern Time 11:50 ***
GRAHAM: You took a little broader view.
Next chart please.
You took a little broader view, and I'm certainly glad you did,
because this is not a country of high officials who are technicians,
this is a country based on character, this is a country based on
having to set a standard that others will follow willingly.
This is Manager Fish (ph). "Judge Claiborne's actions raise
fundamental questions about public confidence in and the public's
perception of the federal court system. They serve to undermine the
confidence of the American people in our judicial system. Judge
Claiborne is more than a mere embarrassment, he is a disgrace, an
affront to the judicial office and to the judicial branch he was
appointed to serve." That's very strong language.
Apparently you agreed with that concept because 90 of you voted
to throw him out. And what did he do? Cheated on his taxes by making
false statements under oath.
And we'll talk more about public versus private.
GRAHAM: Senator Mathias (ph), about this idea of public versus
private. It is my opinion that the impeachment power is not as narrow
as Judge Claiborne suggests. There is neither historical nor a
logical reason to believe that the framers of the Constitution sought
to prohibit the House from impeaching an officer of the United States
who had committed treason or bribery or any other high crime or
misdemeanor which is a serious offense against the United States and
which indicates that the official is unfit to exercise public
responsibility, but which is an offense which is technically unrelated
to the officer's particular job responsibilities.
This hits it head on. Impeachable conduct does not have to occur
in the course of the performance of the officer's official duties.
Evidence of misconduct, misbehavior, high crimes and misdemeanors can
be justified upon one's private dealings as well as one's exercise of
public office.
*** Elapsed Time 01:52, Eastern Time 11:53 ***
GRAHAM: That, of course, is the situation in this case. Next
chart.
It would be absurd to conclude that a judge who committed murder,
mayhem, rape or perhaps espionage in his private life, could not be
removed from office by the U.S. Senate.
The point you made so well was that we're not buying this. If
you're a federal judge and you cheat on your taxes and you lie under
oath, it's true that it had nothing to do with your courtroom in a
technical sense. But you're going to be judging others and they're
going to come before you with their fate in their hands and we don't
want somebody like you running our courtroom, because people won't
trust the results.
GRAHAM: Let's go to Judge Nixon. Try to get you out so we can
all have some lunch here. Judge Nixon.
Judge Walter Nixon, convicted and removed from office, for what?
Perjury before a grand jury. What was that about? He tried to fix a
case for a business partner's son in state court. He went to the
prosecutor, who was in state court, and tried to fix the case.
When they investigated the matter, he lied about meeting with the
prosecutor. He lied about doing anything related to trying to
manipulate the results. He was convicted and he was thrown out of
office by the United States Senate.
I guess you could you say, what's that got to do with being a
federal judge, it wasn't even in his court? It has got everything to
do with being a high public official. Because if he stays in office,
what signal are you sending anybody else that you send to his
courtroom or anybody else's courtroom?
*** Elapsed Time 01:55, Eastern Time 11:56 ***
GRAHAM: The question becomes, if a federal judge can be thrown
out of office for lying and trying to fix a friend's son's case, can
the president of the United States be removed from office for trying
to fix his case?
That's not a scholarly word, but that's what happened. He tried
to fix his case. He turned the judicial system upside down, every way
but loose. He sent his friends to lie for him. He lied for himself.
As (ph) any time any relevant question come up, instead of take
honorable way out, he just lied and he dug hole, and we're all here
today because of that.
And I'm not going over the facts again because you have been
bombarded with the facts. But if you believe he committed perjury and
you believe he obstructed justice, the reason he did it was to fix his
case.
*** Elapsed Time 01:55, Eastern Time 11:56 ***
GRAHAM: And you've got some records which you can rely upon to
see what you ought to do with somebody like that -- Judge Hastings.
This federal judge was convicted and removed from office by the United
States Senate. But you know what's interesting about this case to me?
He was acquitted before he got here.
He was accused of conspiring with another person to take money to
fix results in his own court. He gave testimony on his own behalf.
The conspirator was convicted, but he was acquitted. And you know
what the United States Senate and the House said? We believe your
conduct is out of bounds, and we're not bound by that acquittal. We
want to get to the truth, and we don't want federal judges that we
have a strong suspicion or reasonable belief about that are trying to
fix cases in their court.
*** Elapsed Time 01:56, Eastern Time 11:57 ***
GRAHAM: So, the point I'm trying to make is you don't even have
to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional
republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public
official is clearly out of bounds in your role.
Thank God you did that.
Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is
about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and
integrity to the office. The remedy of prosecuting William Jefferson
Clinton has no affect on the problem you are facing here today in my
opinion.
Now every case was tried before it got here with different
results. Two of them were convicted; one of them was acquitted. You
had a factual record to go upon.
I urge you ladies and gentlemen of the United States Senate that
that cannot happen in this case unless we have a trial in its true
sense of the word.
*** Elapsed Time 01:57, Eastern Time 11:58 ***
GRAHAM: The evidence is compelling and overwhelming, but it's
only been half told. The learned counsel for the president will have
their chance, and they are excellent lawyers. If this is a football
game, we're almost to halftime. Please, please wait, because I have
sat where they have sat, dying to say something. I know there are
things they want to tell you about what we've said that may put this
in a different light, and that's coming, and it ought to come.
But there's another thing that you'll have to decide: Has the
factual record been developed enough that I can acquit with good
conscience, that I can convict and remove with good conscience? In
these judge cases there was a full blown trial before it ever got
here.
Because we can't prosecute the president criminally, because we
can't do the things that happened in the judges' cases, we don't have
that record. So I would just commit that to you for your wisdom.
*** Elapsed Time 02:00, Eastern Time 12:01 ***
GRAHAM: None of this matters unless you believe he committed the
offense, and I'm not going to go over that again. You know the facts
pretty well, and if there's any doubt, call witnesses, and let's
develop them fully, and let's leave no doubt on the table. And let's
make sure that history will judge us well, and everybody -- the House
and the president -- had a fair shot at proving their case that these
things occurred, they're high crimes.
And the hard question now because I don't believe, ladies and
gentlemen, that when you look at the totality of what the president
did, the prior precedents of the Senate, the fact that he was told by
the Supreme Court to go into this litigation matter and he cheated so
badly that you would consider these not to be high crimes because
you're not placing a burden on this office that the office can't bear.
I think that will be resolved, I hope and pray, in a bipartisan
fashion.
If we can do nothing else for this country, let us say clearly
this conduct is unacceptable by any president. These are in fact high
crimes. They go to the core of why we're all here as a nation, the
rule of law. And he was told to abide by the rules of litigation, and
he cheated, and you've got to put him back in bounds.
GRAHAM: Remove him. Determining that it's a high crime puts it
back in bounds.
This is a hard question. I am not going to tell you it is not.
I do not to be where you're sitting.
I think the evidence will be persuasive that he's guilty. The
logic of your past rulings and just fundamental fairness and decency
in helping the Supreme Court enforce their rulings, if nothing else,
will lead you to a high crime determination.
But we're asking you to remove a popular president.
I don't know why all this occurred and we have a popular
president. I know this: That the American people are fundamentally
fair. And they have an impression about this case from just tons and
tons and tons and tons of talk; tons and tons and tons of spin.
*** Elapsed Time 02:01, Eastern Time 12:02 ***
GRAHAM: And that one in five they tell me are paying close
attention to this. The question you must ask if every American were
required to what I have done, is sit silently, listen to the evidence,
would it be different?
You are their representatives. They will trust you. This is a
cynical age, but I'm an optimist, that no matter what you do, this
country will get up and go to work the next day, and they will feel
good no matter what it is.
To set aside an election is a very scary thought in a democracy.
I do not agree with this president on most major policy initiatives.
I did not vote for this president. But he won.
He won twice. To undo that election is tough.
Let me give you some of my thoughts. How many times have you had
to go a child, a grandchild, somebody that works for you and give them
a lecture that goes along the lines "don't do as I do, do as I say?"
*** Elapsed Time 02:02, Eastern Time 12:03 ***
GRAHAM: Isn't that a miserable experience?
The problem with keeping this president in office, in my opinion,
is that these crimes can't be ignored by anybody who looks at the
evidence. They can be explained away and they cn be excused, but they
have far reaching consequences, far reaching consequences for the law.
And in his role of chief law enforcement officer of the land, how can
we say to our fellow citizens that this will not be 20 months of "do
as I do" -- "don't do as I do, do as I say"?
What effect will that have? I think it will be devastating.
This case is the butt of a thousand jokes. This case is requiring
parents and teachers to sit down and explain what lying's all about.
This case has created confusion. This case is hitting America far
harder than America knows it's been hit.
*** Elapsed Time 02:04, Eastern Time 12:05 ***
GRAHAM: And it is tempting to let the clock tick. And I would
suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, that if you
believe he's a perjurer, and did obstruct the justice in a civil
rights law suit, the question is not should he stay -- what if he
stays?
If you believe this president committed perjury before a grand
jury when he was begged not to, and people in this body telling him
don't do it because your political career's at stake. If you believe
he obstructed justice in a civil rights lawsuit, don't move the bar
any more. We have moved the bar for this case a thousand times.
Remember how you felt when you knew you had a perjurer as a
judge? When you knew you had somebody who had fundamentally ran over
the law that he was forced to uphold, or or responsible for upholding?
GRAHAM: Remember how you felt when you knew that judge had
gotten so out of bounds that you couldn't put him back in court even
though it was unrelated to his court because you'd be doing a
disservice to the citizens that would come before him?
A judge has a duty to take care of the individuals fairly that
come before their court. The president, ladies and gentlemen of the
Senate, has a duty to see that the law applies to everyone fairly. A
higher duty. A higher duty in the Constitution.
You couldn't live with yourself knowing that you were going to
leave a perjuring judge on the bench. Ladies and gentlemen, as hard
as it may be for the same reasons, cleanse this office. The vice
president will be waiting outside the doors of this chamber. Our
constitutional system is simple and it's genius all at the same time.
GRAHAM: If that vice president is asked to come in to assume the
mantle of chief executive officer of the land, chief law enforcement
officer of the land, it will be tough, it will be painful, but we will
survive and we will better for it.
Thank you.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Canady.
CANADY: Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished counsel, and ladies and
gentlemen of the Senate, I'm Representative Charles Canady of the 12th
district of Florida.
*** Elapsed Time 02:07, Eastern Time 12:08 ***
CANADY: And I rise now to conclude the argument that my two
fellow managers have begun and to address the fundamental question now
before the Senate.
Do the offenses charged against the president rise to the level
of high crimes and misdemeanors under our Constitution?
Are these crimes -- perjury before a federal grand jury and
obstruction of justice -- offenses for which the president has
properly been impeached by the House and for which he may now properly
be convicted by the Senate?
Or are these serious felonies offenses for which a chief
executive may not constitutionally be called to account by either the
House or the Senate?
To properly answer these questions must be understood, as my
fellow manager Mr. Buyer has argued, that perjury and obstruction of
justice are serious offenses against the system of justice.
To properly answer these questions, it must also be understood,
as my fellow manager Mr. Graham has just discussed, that the Senate
has already that as a serious offense against the system of justice,
perjury is proper grounds for removal from office.
CANADY: There are several additional points that I now ask you
to consider as you deliberate on the momentous issue you are called on
to decide.
First, I will argue that restricting the impeachment process to
crimes involving the abuse of presidential power is contrary to common
sense. This is a key point in this case. The president's case hinges
to a large extent on his claim that the offenses charged against him
do not involve official misconduct.
I will then review the history and purpose of the impeachment
process to show that its fundamental object is to maintain the
supremacy of law against the misconduct of public officials. After
reviewing the background of the impeachment process, I will briefly
discuss the prevailing views on the seriousness of perjury at the time
the Constitution was adopted and show that perjury and obstruction of
justice are akin to bribery both in their purpose and in their effect.
More testimony
COPYRIGHT 1999 BY FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR
RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF
FEDERAL DOCUMENT CLEARING HOUSE, INC.
| 
Full Coverage