|
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 (CONTINUED)
JANUARY 16, 1999
*** Elapsed Time 00:00, Eastern Time 12:11 ***
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)
...in their effect.
CANADY: To conclude, I will discuss the proper role of the
Senate in exercising the removal power, emphasizing three essential
points.
First, that the removal power is designed to preserve, protect
and strengthen our Constitution by setting a standard of conduct for
public officers.
Second, that the Senate should not establish a lower standard of
integrity for the President of the United States than the standard it
has already established for federal judges.
Third, that the Senate should not allow a president who has
violated his constitutional duty, and oath of office and made himself
a notorious example of lawlessness to remain in office.
The president's lawyers have argued that the Constitution
requires proof of official misconduct for impeachment and conviction,
and that removal from office is not proper for crimes that do not
involve an abuse of the power of office.
*** Elapsed Time 00:01, Eastern Time 12:12 ***
CANADY: This view has also been endorsed by various academics
who have signed a letter in support of the president. Now, the Senate
must decide is this interpretation is a proper interpretation of the
Constitution.
In deciding this question, you should be guided by common sense
and good judgment. It is by no means an abstruse and mysterious
matter of constitutional law, nor is it a new question before the
Senate. It has been decided in the recent judicial impeachments which
Mr. Graham has discussed, and it is a question which arose 200 years
ago in the course of the first impeachment trial conducted by the
Senate.
At that trial in January of 1799, as the Senate met in
Philadelphia, an argument was made by counsel for the respondent,
Senator Blount (ph) of Tennessee, that the impeachment power was
properly exercised only with respect to official offenses.
Although Senator Blount (ph) escaped conviction on other grounds,
the response to his claim that only official misconduct could justify
impeachment and removal remains noteworthy today.
*** Elapsed Time 00:02, Eastern Time 12:13 ***
CANADY: Robert Goodlow Harper (ph) of South Carolina, one of the
House managers, and who incidentally subsequently served as a member
of this Senate representing the state of Maryland, refuted that claim
by asking a simple question. He said: "Suppose a judge of the United
States to commit a theft or perjury. Would the learned counsel say
that he should not be impeached for it? If so, he must remain in
office with all his infamy."
Two hundred years to the month after Robert Goodlow Harper posed
that question to the Senate, a very similar question is before the
Senate today. Shall a president, if found guilty of perjury and
obstruction of justice, be removed or must he remain in office with
all his infamy?
Although a judge who commits crimes may be subjected to criminal
penalties and prevented from discharging judicial functions, he can be
divested of his office only by impeachment and removal.
The tenure of a president will necessarily expire with the
passage of time.
*** Elapsed Time 00:03, Eastern Time 12:14 ***
CANADY: But most scholars of constitutional law agree that while
he remains in office he is immune from the processes of the criminal
law. So long as he is president, the only mechanism available to hold
him accountable for his crimes is the power of impeachment and
removal.
Unless that power is exercised, not matter what crimes he has
committed, he must remain in office with all his infamy.
The argument of the president's lawyers that no criminal act by
the president subjects him to removal of office unless the crime
involves abuse of his power is an argument entailing consequences
which upon a moments reflection this body should be unwilling to
accept.
Would a president guilty of murder be immune from the
constitutional process of impeachment and removal so long as his crime
involved no misuse of official power?
Would a president guilty of sexual assault of child molesting
remain secure in office because his crime did not involve an abuse of
office?
CANADY: In support of their position, the president's lawyers
have vigorously argued that a president who committed tax fraud -- a
felony offense not involving official misconduct -- would not be
subject to impeachment and removal.
They erroneously cite the decision of the House Judiciary
Committee rejecting an article of impeachment against President Nixon
for tax fraud. The record of the House proceeding establishes that
the tax
fraud article against President Nixon was rejected due to insufficient
evidence that he was in fact guilty of tax fraud. The House Judiciary
Committee never determined that tax fraud by a president would not be
grounds for impeachment.
But leaving aside the inaccurate characterization of the House
Judiciary Committee's action, the claim of the president's lawyers
that a president could commit tax fraud and remain immune from
impeachment and removal is quite telling. It reveals a great deal
about the sort of standard they would set for the conduct of the
president of the United States.
The claim that tax fraud -- a felony -- does not rise to the
level of a high crime or misdemeanor was, as you have heard,
unequivocally rejected by the Senate in 1986 in the case of Judge
Harry Claiborne, who was removed
from office for filing false income tax returns.
CANADY: Then-Senator Albert Gore, Jr., summarized the judgment
of the Senate that Judge Claiborne should be removed from office. The
comments of Senator Gore bear repeating:
He said, "It is incumbent upon the Senate to fulfill its
constitutional responsibility and strip this man of his title. An
individual who has knowingly falsified tax returns has no business
receiving a salary derived from the tax dollars of honest citizens."
Of course, the rationale expressed by Senator Gore for the
conviction of Judge Claiborne for his criminal tax offenses applies
with equal -- if not greater -- force to similar offenses committed by
a president of the
United States.
Professor Charles Black, Jr., in his essay on the law of
impeachment, recognized the appropriate application of these
principles to the office of the presidency. Professor Black said, "A
large-scale tax cheat is not a viable chief magistrate."
*** Eastern Time 12:17***
CANADY: I would respectfully submit to the Senate that the
argument of the president's lawyers concerning tax fraud by a
president is not a viable argument. Who can seriously argue that our
Constitution requires that a president guilty of crimes such as
murder, sexual assault or tax fraud remain in office undisturbed?
Who is willing to set such a standard for the conduct for the
president of the United States? Who can in good conscience accept the
consequences for our system of government that would necessarily
follow? Could our Constitution possibly contemplate such a result?
What other crimes of a president will we be told do not rise to
the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? These are grave questions
that must be addressed by this Senate. The president's offense
requires that these questions be asked and answered.
Contrary to the claims of the president's lawyers, there is not a
bright line separating official misconduct by a president from other
misconduct of which the president is guilty.
*** Eastern Time 12:19 ***
CANADY: Some offenses will involve the direct and affirmative
misuse of governmental power. Other offenses may involve a more
subtle use of the prestige, status and position of the president to
further a course of wrongdoing. There are still other offenses in
which a president may not misuse the powers of his office, but in
which he violates a duty imposed on him under the Constitution.
Such a breach of constitutional duty, even though it does not
involve an affirmative misuse of governmental power, may be a very
serious matter. It does violence to the English language to assert
that a president who has violated a duty entrusted to him by the
Constitution is not guilty of official misconduct.
Common sense indicates that official misconduct has indeed
occurred whenever a president breaches any of the duties of his
office.
As we have been reminded repeatedly, the Constitution imposes on
the president the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed. The charges against the president in this case involve
multiple violations of that duty.
CANADY: A president who commits a calculated and sustained
series of criminal offenses has, by his personal violations of the
law, failed in the most immediate, direct and culpable manner to do
his duty under the Constitution.
In their defense of the president, his lawyers in essence contend
that a president may be removed for misusing governmental power, but
not for corruptly interfering with the proper exercise of governmental
power. This argument exalts form over substance. It unduly focuses
on the manner in which wrongdoing is carried out and neglects to
consider the actual impact of that wrongdoing on our system of
government.
Whether the president misuses the power vested in him as
president, or wrongfully interferes with the power -- with the proper
exercise of the power vested in other parts of the government, the
result is the same. The due functioning of our system of government
is in some respect hindered or defeated.
There is no principled basis for contending that a president who
interferes with the proper exercise of governmental power, as he
clearly does when he commits perjury and obstruction of justice, is
constitutionally less blameworthy that a president who misuses the
powers of his office.
CANADY: A president who lies to a federal grand jury in order to
impede the investigation of crimes is no less culpable than a
president who wrongfully orders a prosecutor to suspend an
investigation of crimes that may have been committed.
The purpose and effect of the personal perjury and of the
wrongful official command are the same.
The laws of the United States are not properly enforced.
Although neither the Senate nor the House has ever adopted a
fixed definition of high crimes and misdemeanors, there is much in the
background and history of the impeachment process that contradicts the
narrow view of the removal power advanced by the president's lawyers.
There is no convincing evidence that those who framed and
ratified our Constitution intended to limit the impeachment and
removal power to acts involving the abuse of official power.
The key phrase defining the offenses for which the president,
vice president and other civil officers of the United States may be
removed -- treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors --
simply does not limit the removal power in the way suggested by the
president's lawyers.
*** Eastern Time 12:22***
CANADY: The truth is, as we have heard already today, that
treason and bribery may be committed by an official who does not abuse
the power of his office in the commission of the offense. A president
might, for example, pay a bribe to a judge presiding over a case to
which the president is an individual party.
Or a judge might commit an act of treason without exercising any
of the powers of his office in doing so. By the express terms of the
Constitution, those offenses would be impeachable. And there is no
reason to impose a restriction on the scope of high crimes and
misdemeanors that is not imposed on treason and bribery. Although
having a means for the removal of officials guilty of abusing their
power was no doubt very much in the minds of the framers, the purpose
of the removal power was not restricted to that object.
CANADY: Now, to properly understand the purpose of impeachment
under our Constitution, consideration must be given to the use of
impeachment by the English parliament. Impeachment in the English
system did not require an indictable crime, but the proceeding was
nevertheless of a criminal nature. Punishment upon conviction could
extend to imprisonment and even death.
It was a mechanism used by the parliament to check absolutism and
to establish the supremacy of the parliament. Through impeachment,
parliament acted to curb the abuses of exalted persons who would
otherwise have free reign.
Impeachment was used by the parliament to punish a wide range of
offenses. Misapplication of funds. Abuse of official power. Neglect
of duty. Corruption. Encroachment on the prerogatives of parliament.
And giving harmful advice to the crown. In the English practice, high
crimes and misdemeanors included all of these.
During the impeachment of Lord Chancellor Macclesfield in 1725,
Sergeant Pengelly summed up the purpose of impeachment. "It was," he
said, "for the punishment of offenses of a public nature which may
affect the nation."
*** Eastern Time 14:24 ***
CANADY: He went on to say that impeachment was also for use in
instances where the inferior courts have no power to punish the crimes
committed by ordinary rules of justice or in cases where the person
offending is by his degree raised above the apprehension of danger
from a prosecution carried on in the usual course of justice. And his
exalted station requires the united accusation of all the Commons.
In the case of Warren Hastings -- which was proceeding at the
time the
Constitution was framed -- Edmund Burke described the impeachment
process
as "a grave and important proceeding essential to the establishment
of the national character for justice and equity."
As the British legal historian Holdsworth has written, the
impeachment
process was a mechanism in service of the "ideal of government in
accordance with law." It was a means by which "the greatest ministers
of
state could be made responsible, like humble officials, to the law."
According to Holdsworth: The greatest services rendered by this
procedure to the cause of constitutional government have been,
firstly, the establishment of the doctrine of ministerial
responsibility to the law.
*** Eastern Time 12:26 ***
CANADY: Secondly, its applications to all ministers of the
crown. And thirdly, and consequently the maintenance of the supremacy
of law overall.
Thus, the fundamental purpose of the impeachment process in
England was the maintenance of the supremacy of law over all. Those
who were impeached and called to account for high crimes and
misdemeanors were those who by their conduct threatened to undermine
the rule of law.
This English understand of the purpose of impeachment serves as a
backdrop for the work of the framers of our Constitution.
Despite some important differences in the functioning of
impeachment in England, and in the United States, the fundamental
purpose of impeachment remain the same -- defending the rule of law.
The records of the proceeding of the Constitutional Convention
also shed light on the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors, and
the underlying the purpose of the impeachment mechanism.
*** Eastern Time 12:27 ***
CANADY: The primary focus of the relevant discussions at the
Convention was on the need for some means of removing the president.
Early in the proceedings with respect to impeachment, the committee as
a whole agreed to make the president removable on impeachment and
conviction of malpractice or neglect of duty, although concerns were
expressed that impeachment would give the legislative branch undue
control over the executive and violate the separation of powers.
In the course of the proceedings, James Madison stated that some
provision was needed to defend the community against the president if
he became corrupt, incapacitated, or perverted his administration into
a scheme of peculation or oppression.
Arguing for a means of removing the president, George Mason said
"No point is of more importance than the right of impeachment should
be continued. Shall any man be above justice? Above all, shall that
man be above it who can commit the most extensive injustice."
Before the Convention settled on the language that was ultimately
adopted, a proposal was considered that would have limited impeachable
offenses to treason and bribery.
CANADY: An effort was made to broaden this proposal by including
maladministration as an impeachable offense. Madison objected. He
objected that the inclusion of a term as vague as maladministration
would result in the president having tenure during the pleasure of the
senate. As a compromise, the term maladministration was dropped and
high crimes and misdemeanors was substituted.
From this course of proceedings, it can reasonably be -- it can
reasonably be concluded that poor administration, at least if it does
not involve corrupt motives, is not a sufficient ground for
impeachment.
In the debate concerning the constitution and the various state
ratification conventions, the grounds for impeachment were with some
frequency said to include abuse or betrayal of trust and abuse of
power. Making a bad treaty was also frequently mentioned as
justifying impeachment. At the Virginia convention, governor Randolph
spoke of misbehavior and dishonesty, and James Madison gave two
examples of impeachable conduct: pardoning a criminal with whom the
president was in collusion, and summoning only a few senators to
approve a treaty.
*** Eastern Time 12:29 ***
CANADY: One of the most extensive recorded discussions of
impeachment occurred at the North Carolina ratification convention in
remarks made by James Iredell (ph). Iredell (ph), who laster served
as a justice of the Supreme Court, spoke of the supremacy of the law
under the system of government proposed by the Constitution.
He said, "No man has an authority to injure another with
impunity. No citizen is better than his fellow citizens, nor can
pretend to any superiority over the meanest man in the country. If
the president does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he
is punishable himself. If he commits any misdemeanor in office, he is
impeachable."
Iredell also expressed the view that impeachment may be used only
in cases where there is some corrupt motive. He said, "When any man
is impeached, it must be for an error of the heart and not of the
head. Whatever mistake a man may make, he ought not to be punished
for it nor his posterity rendered infamous.
*** Eastern Time 12:30 ***
CANADY: But if a man be a villain, and willfully abuse his
trust, he is to be held up as a public offender, and ignominously
punished."
According to these principles I suppose the only instances in
which the president would be liable to impeachment would be where he
had received a bribe or acted from some corrupt motive or other.
Irdell's (ph) comments buttress the view that impeachment is not
to be used as a political weapon to resolve differences of policy
between the legislative branch and the executive branch.
Impeachment is not an appropriate remedy for errors, even serious
errors in the administration of government.
To justify impeachment, there must be some corrupt motive, a
willful abuse of trust, an error of the heart. You will note that
there is nothing in Irdell's (ph) comments to suggest that a president
who has engaged in a corrupt course of conduct by obstructing justice
and committing perjury would be immune from impeachment and removal.
Another major discussion during the debate over ratification
occurs in the Federalist Number 65, to which reference has already
been made in this proceedings.
For Alexander Hamilton describes the impeachment process as "a
method of national inquest into the conduct of public men." And
discusses the power of the Senate in their judicial character as "A
court for the trial of impeachments."
CANADY: Now before I discuss his views on impeachment, I would
like to say a word in defense of Alexander Hamilton who is a widely
acknowledged champion of our Constitution, widely acknowledged as one
of the most eloquent expositors and defenders of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the reputation of Alexander Hamilton has in recent
days been traduced (ph). It is unjust to the memory of this great man
to compare his personal sins with the crimes of President Clinton.
When Hamilton was questioned about his affair, he told the truth. He
took responsibility for his conduct.
There is no evidence that he ever engaged in acts of corruption.
He never lied under oath. He never obstructed justice.
*** Eastern Time 12:32 ***
CANADY: And notwithstanding the efforts of his lawyers,
President Clinton by no means benefits from a comparison with
Alexander Hamilton.
In the Federalist, Hamilton writes of the Senate, "The subjects
of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the
misconduct of public men or in other words from the abuse or violation
of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar
propriety be denominated political as they relate chiefly to injuries
done immediately to the society itself."
Hamilton recognized that the focus of the impeachment power is on
the misconduct of public men or the abuse or violation of some public
trust. Impeachment is a remedy against officials for injuries done to
the society itself.
Despite the claims of the president's lawyers, the comments of
Hamilton do not support the view that a president can be impeached and
removed only for an abuse of power.
*** Eastern Time 12:53 ***
CANADY: The misconduct of public men, and the abuse or violation
of some public trust to which Hamilton refers, are not restricted to
offenses involving the misuse of official power. The misconduct of
public men encompasses a whole range of wrongful deeds committed by
those who hold office when those offenses are committed.
The public trust is violated whenever a public officer breaches
any duty he has to the public. Injuries done to the society itself
similarly may occur as a result of misconduct that does not involve
the misuse of the powers of office.
Now I would submit to the senate that the English precedents, the
records of the constitutional convention debates and the general
principles set forth by Hamilton, Iredell (ph) and others in the
debate over ratification, do not provide a definitive list of high
crimes and misdemeanors. But they do provide broad guidance
concerning the scope of the impeachment power. The theme running
through all these background sources is that the impeachment process
is designed to provide a remedy for the corrupt and lawless acts of
public officials.
*** Eastern Time 12:35 ***
CANADY: Not surprisingly, those who have been on the receiving
end of impeachment proceedings have been quick to argue for a
restrictive meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors. President
Clinton's lawyers follow in that well established tradition. They
attempt to minimize the significance of charges of perjury and
obstruction of justice against the president.
In essence, they argue that treason and bribery are the
prototypical high crimes and misdemeanors and that crimes charged
against the president are insufficiently similar in both tier nature
and seriousness to treason and bribery.
But as the comments of my fellow manager Mr. Buyer have made
clear, the crimes set forth in the articles of impeachment are indeed
serious offenses against our system of justice. They were certainly
viewed as serious offenses by those who drafted and ratified the
Constitution.
CANADY: In his discussion of "offenses against the public
justice," Sir William Blackstone -- whose work James Madison said was
in "every man's hand" during the creation of the Constitution --
listed the offenses of perjury and bribery side-by-side, immediately
after he listed treason.
In 1790, the first Congress adopted, as you have already heard, a
statute entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against
the United States," making perjury a crime punishable as a felony.
Nothing could be clearer: Perjury is a crime against the United
States; it is not a private matter.
As Mr. Chabot noted yesterday, John Jay, the first Chief Justice
of the United States, said that "there is no crime more extensively
pernicious to society" than perjury. According to Jay, perjury
"discolors and poisons the Streams of Justice, and by substituting
Falsehood for Truth, saps the
Foundations of personal and public Rights." He said, "If oaths should
cease to be held sacred, our dearest and most valuable Rights would
become
insecure."
CANADY: Given this understanding that was current at the time
the Constitution was adopted, it is impossible to support the
conclusion that
perjury and the related offense of obstruction of justice are somehow
trivial offenses that do not rise to the same level as the offense of
bribery which is enumerated in the Constitution.
Moreover, perjury and obstruction of justice are by their very
nature akin to bribery. When the crime of bribery is committed, money
is given and
received to corruptly alter the course of official action.
When justice is obstructed, action is undertaken to corruptly
thwart the due administration of justice. When perjury occurs, false
testimony is given under oath in order to deceive judges and juries
and to prevent the just determination of causes pending in the courts.
The fundamental purpose and the fundamental effect of each of these
offenses -- perjury, obstruction of justice and bribery alike -- is to
defeat the proper administration of government.
*** Eastern Time 12:39 ***
CANADY: They are all crimes of corruption, aimed at substituting
private advantage for the public interest. They all undermine the
integrity of the functions of government.
The use of the impeachment process against misconduct which
undermines the integrity of government is a central focus of two
reports prepared in 1974 on the background and history of impeachment.
And I would humbly bring this reports to your attention. I
commend them to you for your consideration.
One of the reports was prepared by the staff of the Nixon
impeachment inquiry. The other was produced by the bar of the city of
New York. Both of these reports have gained bipartisan respect over
the last 25 years for their balanced and judicious approach.
They provide a well informed analysis of the key issues related
to impeachments.
In doing so they stand in stark contrast to the recent
pronouncements by some academics which substitute political opinion
for scholarly analysis.
*** Eastern Time 12:40 ***
CANADY: A review of these two documents from 1974 supports the
conclusion that the articles before the Senate set forth compelling
grounds for the conviction and removal of President Clinton.
Now there has been a great deal of comment on the report on
constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment prepared in
February of 1974 by the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry. Those
who assert that the charges against the president do not rise to the
level of high crimes and misdemeanors have pulled some phrases from
that report out of context to support their position.
In fact, the general principles concerning grounds for
impeachment and removal set forth in that report indicate that perjury
and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors. Consider
this key language from the staff report describing the type of conduct
which gives rise to the proper use of the impeachment and removal
power.
In the report, they said "The emphasis has been on the
significant effects of the conduct undermining the integrity of
office, disregard of constitutional duties and oath of office,
irrigation of power, abuse of the governmental process, adverse impact
on the system of government."
*** Eastern Time 12:41 ***
CANADY: The report goes on to state, "Because impeachment of a
president is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only
upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional
form and principles of our government or the proper performance of
constitutional duties of the presidential office."
Perjury and obstruction of justice, I would submit to you,
clearly undermine the integrity of office. I ask you, if these
offenses do not undermine the integrity of office, what offenses
would?
Their unavoidable consequence is to erode respect for the office
of the president and to interfere with the integrity of the
administration of justice. Such offenses are seriously incompatible
with the president's constitutional duties and oath of office and with
the principles of our government establishing the rule of law.
*** Eastern Time 12:42 ***
CANADY: Moreover, they are offenses which have a direct and
serious adverse impact on the system of government. Obstruction of
justice is by definition an assault on the due administration of
justice, which is a core function of our system of government.
Perjury has the same purpose and effect.a
The second report to which I have referred, the thoughtful report
on the law of presidential impeachment prepared by the Association of
the Bar of the City of New York, in January of 1974, also places a
great deal of emphasis on the corrosive impact of presidential
misconduct on the integrity of government.
The report summarizes the proper basis for impeachment and
removal in this way.
It says "it is our conclusion in summary that the grounds for
impeachment are not limited to or synonymous with crimes. Rather we
believe that acts which undermine the integrity of government, are
appropriate grounds whether or not they happen to constitute offenses
under the general criminal law. In our view, the essential nexus to
damaging the integrity of government may be found in acts which
constitute corruption in or flagrant abuse of the powers of official
position.
*** Elapsed Time 00000, Eastern Time 12:43 ***
CANADY: It may also be found in acts which, without directly affecting
governmental processes, undermine that degree of public confidence in the
probity of executive and judicial officers that is essential to the
effectiveness of government in a free society.
Perjury and obstruction of justice, serious felony offenses against
the United States by a president, or acts of corruption which, without
doubt undermine that degree of public confidence in the probity of the
president that is essential to the effectiveness of government in a free
society. Such acts are high crimes and misdemeanors because they
inevitably subvert the respect for law which is essential to the well-being
of our constitutional system.
A similar point is made by a contemporary commentator who has argued,
and I quote, "There are certain statutory crimes that, if committed by
public officials, reflect such lapses of judgment, such disregard for the
welfare of the state, and such lack of respect for the law and the office
the held by the occupants, that the occupants may be impeached and removed
for lacking the minimal level of integrity and judgment sufficient to
discharge the responsibilities of office.
CANADY: Such a lack of the minimal level of integrity necessary
for the proper discharge of the duties of the presidency is evidence
by the commission of the statutory crimes of perjury and obstruction
of justice. Contrary to the claim that has been made by some, the
issue before the Senate is not whether the offenses of this president
will destroy our Constitution. We all know that our system of
government will not come tumbling down because of the corrupt conduct
of William Jefferson Clinton.
Our republic will survive the crimes of this president -- no one
doubts that. Of course, the same could be said of all the other
federal officials who have been impeached and removed from office.
And the same might be said of the crimes, serious as they were, of
President Richard Nixon.
CANADY: But the removal power is not restricted to offenses that
would directly destroy our Constitution or system of government. The
removal power is not so limited that it can be brought into play only
when the immediate destruction of our institutions is threatened.
On the contrary, the removal power should be understood as a
positive grant of authority to the Senate to preserve, protect and
strengthen our
constitutional system against the misconduct of federal officials when
that
misconduct would subvert, undermine or weaken the institutions of our
government. It is a power that has the positive purpose of maintaining
the
health and well-being of our system of government.
This power -- the awesome power of removal vested in the Senate
-- carries with it an awesome responsibility. This power imposes on
the Senate the responsibility to exercise its judgment in establishing
the standards of conduct that are necessary to preserve, protect and
strengthen the Constitution, which has served the people of the United
States so well for more than two centuries.
CANADY: Thus, the crucial issue before the Senate is what
standard will be set for the conduct of the president of the United
States? In this case, the Senate necessarily will establish such a
standard. And make no mistake about it: the choice the Senate makes
in this case will have consequences reverberating far into the future
of our republic.
Will a president who has committed serious offenses against the
system of justice be called to account for his crimes, or will his
offenses be regarded as of no constitutional consequence?
Will a standard be established that such crimes by a president
will not be tolerated, or will the standard be that -- at least in
some cases --a president may remain in office with all his infamy
after lying under oath and obstructing justice?
Regardless of the choice the Senate makes -- whether it acquits
or convicts the president -- a standard will be established, and that
standard will become an important part of our constitutional law of
this nation.
*** Eastern Time 12:47 ***
CANADY: The institutions of our government will either be
strengthened or weakened as a result. And if the Senate acquits this
president, the conduct of future presidents will inevitably be
affected in ways that we can not now confidently predict.
I would now like to take a very few minutes to examine some of
the other specific arguments that have been made that it is not now a
proper case before the Senate for the use of the removal power.
Some have suggested that in setting a standard in this case, the
Senate should be guided by the popularity of the president. It is
urged that a popular president, regardless of the offenses he may have
committed, should not be removed from office. Such a view finds no
support, however, in our Constitution.
On the contrary, the framers understood that a popular president
might be guilty of crimes requiring his removal from office. That's
why they included the power of impeachment removal in the
Constitution.
*** Eastern Time 12:49 ***
CANADY: And that is no doubt why they specifically provided that
an impeached official who was convicted and removed might also be
perpetually disqualified to hold and enjoy any office or honor, trust
or profit under the United States.
The potential threat posed to our institutions by presidential
misconduct would in fact be heightened by the popularity of the
offending president. The harmful influence in example of a popular
president would pose a far greater danger to the well being of our
government than the influence and example of an unpopular president.
Moreover, the very framework of our Constitution establishing a
representative democracy is at odds with the notion that the
institutions of our government should respond mechanically to the
changing tides of public opinion.
The Senate, in particular, was designed to act on the basis of
the long term best interests of the nation rather than short term
political considerations. When he was tried by the Senate 130 years
ago, President Andrew Johnson was overwhelmingly unpopular.
*** Eastern Time 12:50 ***
CANADY: If the Senate had used presidential popularity as a
guide in the Johnson case, there is no doubt that he would have been
convicted and removed from office.
Yet today there is widespread agreement that such action by the
Senate would have been an abuse of the constitutional process and
those who refuse to use presidential popularity as their guide are
hailed as great statesmen and heroes.
Those senators who then stood against the tide of public
sentiment today are revered as champions of constitutional government.
A popular president guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors should
no more remain in office than an unpopular president innocent or
wrongdoing should be removed from office.
Under the standards of the Constitution, popularity is not a
sufficient guide.
Nor should the Senate be swayed by the claims that setting a
standard adverse to this president will weaken the institution of the
presidency.
Describing the role of impeachment under our Constitution, Arthur
M. Schlesinger. Jr., -- who I will candidly admit takes a different
view of the matter today -- wisely observed the genius of impeachment
lay in the fact that it could punish the man without punishing the
office."
CANADY: For, in the presidency, as elsewhere, power
was ambiguous. The power to do good meant also the power to do harm.
The
power to serve the republic also the power to demean and defile it."
Rather than weakening the presidency, the removal from office of
a
president who violated his constitutional duty and oath of office will
re-establish the integrity of the presidency. Setting a standard
against the acts of perjury and obstruction of justice committed by
President Clinton will reaffirm the dignity and honor of the office of
chief executive under our Constitution. That will strengthen -- not
weaken -- the institution of the presidency.
It has even been argued that the impeachment and removal of
President
Clinton would result in the virtual alteration of our system of
government.
It is contended that following the constitutional process in this case
would move us toward a transformation of our Constitution; a quasi-
parliamentary system, with the president serving at the pleasure of
the legislative branch, would replace the framework based on the
separation
of powers.
CANADY: I am frankly reluctant to dignify this argument by
responding to it. President Nixon was driven from office for his
crimes under threat of impeachment and removal. The disruption of the
framework of our government did not ensue. President Clinton may be
removed from office for his crimes. The constitutional system will
remain sound.
Who has so little confidence in the durability of the
institutions of our government that he would allow a president guilty
of perjury and
obstruction of justice to remain in office simply on the basis of a
fanciful and irrational fear of the supposed consequences of his
removal?
The Constitution contains wise safeguards against the misuse of
the
impeachment and removal power.
*** Eastern Time 12:53 ***
CANADY: As a practical matter, as we all know, the requirement of
a two-thirds vote for conviction virtually ensures that the president
will only be removed when a compelling case for removal has been made.
And the periodic accountability to the people of members of both
the House and Senate serves as a check on the improvident use of the
impeachment power for unworthy or insubstantial reasons. Those who
would abuse the power of impeachment and removal will be deterred by
the certain knowledge that they ultimately must answer to the people.
But of course the ultimate safeguard against the abuse of this
power is in the sober deliberation and sound judgment of the Senate
itself. The framers of the constitution vested the removal power and
responsibility in the Senate because, as Hamilton observed, they
thought the senate the most fit depository of this important trust.
The Senate was, in the view of the framers, uniquely qualified to
exercise the awful discretion which a court of impeachment must
necessarily have.
As Hamilton explained, "Where else than in the Senate, could have
been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified or sufficiently
independent?
*** Eastern Time 12:54 ***
CANADY: "What other body would be likely to feel confidence
enough in its own situation to preserve unought (ph) and uninfluenced
the necessary impartiality between an individual accused and the
representatives of the people, his accusers."
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this is the great trust which
the Constitution has reposed in you. It is a trust you exercise not
only for those who elected you, but for all other Americans including
generations yet unborn.
As you carry out this trust, we do not suggest that you hold this
president or any president to a standard of perfection. We do not
assert that this president or any president be called to account
before the Senate for his personal failings or his sins. We will
leave the president's sins to his family and to God.
Nor do we suggest that this president or any president should be
removed from office for offenses that are not serious and grave.
*** Elapsed Time 00000, Eastern Time 12:56 ***
CANADY: But we do submit that when this president or any
president has committed serious offenses against the system of
justice, offenses involving the stubborn and calculated choice to
place personal interest ahead of the public interest, he must not be
allowed to act with impunity.
Mr. Manager Graham has reviewed the recent precedents of the
Senate establishing the offenses such as those committed by this
president are grounds for removal from office. Those precedents,
which were set in the impeachment trials of federal judges, are
rejected as totally irrelevant by the president's lawyers. They urge
that a lower standard of integrity be established in this case for the
president of the United States than the standard which the Senate has
already established for federal judges.
But the Constitution contains a single standard for the exercise
of the impeachment and removal power. You've heard it before, but I
will repeat, Article II, section 4 provides, "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 or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
*** Eastern Time 12:57 ***
CANADY: And there is nothing in the Constitution suggesting that
criminal offenses which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors if
committed by one federal official, will not be high crimes and
misdemeanors if committed by another federal official.
There is nothing in the Constitution to suggest that the
president should be especially insulated from the just consequences of
his criminal conduct.
Just as Joseph Story warned long ago against "countenancing so
absolute a despotism of opinion in practice which might make that a
crime at one time or in one person, which would be deemed innocent at
another time or in another person."
The Senate should heed the warming of Justice Story and refuse to
arbitrarily establish a different standard for judging William
Jefferson Clinton than the standard it has imposed already on others
brought before the bar of the Senate sitting as a court of
impeachment.
*** Eastern Time 12:58 ***
CANADY: The Senate has never accepted the view that a separate
standard applies to the impeachment and removal of federal judges.
Indeed, the Senate has specifically rejected attempts to establish
such a separate standard for judicial officers. Every judge who has
been impeached and removed from office has been found guilty of
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Contrary to the argument advanced by some, the constitutional
provision that judges shall hold their offices during good behavior
does not establish any authority to remove a judge for misconduct
other than for those offenses involving treason, bribery and other
high crimes and misdemeanors.
Rather than establishing a standard for removal, the good
behavior clause simply provides for a life tenure for all Article III
judges. To accept the good behavior clause, I would caution you to
accept it as a separate basis for the removal of federal judges would
pose a serious threat to the independence of the judiciary under our
Constitution.
Members of the Senate, the integrity of the administration of
justice depends not only on the integrity of judges, but also on the
integrity of the president.
*** Eastern Time 12:59 ***
CANADY: A president who has committed perjury and obstruction of
justice is hardly fit to oversee the enforcement of the laws of the
United States. As professor Jonathan Turley has pointed out, and I
quote, "As chief executive, the president stands as the ultimate
authority over the justice department and the administration's
enforcement policies. It is unclear how prosecutors can legitimately
threaten, let alone prosecute, citizens who have committed perjury or
obstruction of justice under circumstances virtually identical to the
president's. Such inherent conflict will be even greater in the
military cases in the president's role as commander in chief."
It would indeed be anomalous for the senate to now hold the
president of the United States to a lower standard of integrity than
the standard applied to members of the judiciary. There is no
sensible constitutional rationale for such a lower standard.
*** Eastern Time 13:00 ***
CANADY: Who could successfully defend the view that in the
framework established by our Constitution, the integrity of the chief
executive is of less importance than the integrity of any one of the
hundreds of federal judicial officers?
It is the president who appoints justices of the Supreme Court
and all other federal judges. It is the president who appoints the
attorney general. It is the president who appoints the director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is the president who has the
unreviewable power to grant pardons.
The power of the president under our Constitution far surpasses
the power of any other individual under our Constitution. The
authority and discretion vested in him under the Constitution and laws
is great and wide-ranging. The requirement that he act with integrity
and that he be a person of integrity is essential to the integrity of
our system of government.
Soon after the adoption of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton
wrote that "An inviolable respect for the Constitution and laws is the
most sacred duty and the greatest source of security in a republic."
*** Eastern Time 13:01 ***
CANADY: Hamilton understood that respect for the Constitution
itself grows out of a general respect for the law, and he understood
the essential connection between respect for law and the maintenance
of liberty in a republic.
Without respect for the law, the foundation of our Constitution
is not secure. Without respect for the law, our freedom is at risk.
Thus, according to Hamilton, those who set examples which undermine or
subvert the authority of the laws lead us from freedom to slavery.
Early in our own century, a century which is soon coming to its end,
Justice Brandeis spoke of the harm to our system of government which
occurs when officials of the government act in a lawless manner.
Justice Brandeis said "Decency, security and liberty alive demand
that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of
conduct that are commands to the citizens.
*** Eastern Time 13:03 ***
CANADY: In a government of laws existence of the government will
be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good
or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is
contagious. If the government becomes a law breaker, it breeds
contempt for law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself.
It invites anarchy."
To conclude, I would observe that in the case before it now, the
Senate must decide if William Jefferson Clinton as president will be
subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the
citizens.
It is no answer that he may one day after leaving office perhaps
be called to account in a criminal court proceeding somewhere.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Because he has taken and violated the oath as president, William
Jefferson Clinton is answerable for his crimes to the Senate, here and
now.
*** Eastern Time 13:04***
CANADY: Will he, as president, be vindicated by the senate in the
face of crimes for which other citizens are adjudicated felons and
sent to prison? Or will this senate, acting in accordance with the
provisions of the constitution, bring him as president into submission
to the commands of the law? Will the senate give force to the
constitutional provision for impeachment and removal which Justice
Storry (ph) said compels the chief magistrate as well as the humblest
citizen to bend to the majesty of the laws?
For good or for ill, William Jefferson Clinton, teaches the whole
people by his example as president. That is an undeniable fact. The
president is not only the head of government but also the head of
state. As president he has a unique ability to command the attention
of the whole nation. In his words and in his deeds, he represents the
American people and our system of government in a way that no other
American can. Great honor and respect accrue to him by virtue of the
high office he holds.
*** Eastern Time 13:05 ***
CANADY: The influence of his example is far reaching and
profound.
By his conduct, President William Jefferson Clinton has set an
example this Senate cannot ignore. By his example, he has set a
dangerous and subversive standard of conduct. His calculated and
stubbornly persistent misconduct while serving as president of the
United States has set a pernicious example of lawlessness, an example
which by its very nature subverts respect for the law. His perverse
example has the inevitable effect of undermining the integrity of both
the office of president and the administration of justice.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, I humbly submit to you that
this harmful example, this harmful example as president, must not
stand. The maintenance in office of a president guilty of perjury and
obstruction of justice is inconsistent with the maintenance of the
rule of law.
CANADY: In light of the historic purpose of impeachment, the
offenses charged against the president demand that the Senate convict
and remove him. He must not remain in office with all his infamy.
Our Constitution requires that this president who has shown such
disrespect for the truth, such disrespect for the law, and such
disrespect for the dignity of his high office be brought to justice
for his high crimes and misdemeanors. Thank you.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, if there's no objection, I ask the
Court of Impeachment to stand in adjournment for one hour. We will
return at ten minutes after two.
REHNQUIST: In the absence of objection, it is so ordered.
(RECESS)
*** Eastern Time 14:10 ***
REHNQUIST: The Senate will be in order. The Chair recognizes
the Majority Leader.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, I believe we're ready to proceed now
with the next manager. I believe it's Manager Gekas.
REHNQUIST: The Chair recognizes Mr. Manager Gekas.
GEKAS: Mr. Chief Justice, to the president's counsel, to members
of the House who form our group of managers, and to the members of the
Senate, we bring you which now may be the culmination of the work and
effort of the managers and of the House of Representatives for what is
fast closing in to be your final consideration.
And that is true. The moment of truth is fast approaching. That
moment of truth will swoop down on you at some point in the near
future at which time the millions of words that have been spoken thus
far, the thousands of pages of documents and the hundreds of exhibits
and the dozens of individuals that have been involved in the
preparation and annotation and accumulation of all the data and
evidence.
*** Eastern Time 14:11 ***
GEKAS: All of that will be funneled into that last moment that
you will have right before you cast that final vote. And that's an
awesome moment in the history of this chamber, and in the personal
history of your own careers in public service, and of your own life as
well, your personal life, your surroundings, your family, all that
means anything and everything to you.
That moment of truth encompasses all of that in one fell swoop at
that final time that is upon us.
And we would not have even had to contemplate -- nor you would
have had to, if very early on in the factual situation that arose in
this case, if early on, President Clinton has faced his moment of
truth.
*** Eastern Time 14:13 ***
GEKAS: As I pointed out yesterday, that first moment of truth
that faced the president in the legal proceedings that were to engulf
him at a later point, was his answers, the answers that he affixed to
that first set of interrogatories under oath.
The moment of truth was staring him right in the face. And if he
would have acknowledged it, that moment, had paid faith and allegiance
to that moment, we would not be arguing here today, nor would we have
even heard of a possible impeachment inquiry. But the president chose
to sweep away that moment of truth which was at hand and proceeded
down that course which has led us to this moment.
In the words of our colleagues, who made magnificent
presentations of the facts and laws to you, the words truth and
fairness were some of the strongest and most profound that we heard in
various degrees and touching upon various subjects that were important
to our presentation.
GEKAS: And when I heard my colleagues emphasize those words, it
dawned on me that that element of fairness is something which I submit
to you and certify to you that these members are members of the
committee who prepared this case exalted in making certain it would
apply to their endeavors and to all that we would present to you --
fairness.
When the record of the independent counsel, the referral reached
our doorsteps back in September of '97 (sic), and we first read the
details and the allegations that were contained therein.
*** Eastern Time 14:15 ***
GEKAS: We did not, as some people began to accuse and to orate,
adopt 100 percent everything that the Independent Counsel said were
the allegations and accept them as fact and then move on to that and
to skip from September to this moment, not having used our intellect,
our sympathies, our sense of right, our sense of wrong, our sense of
fairness, our elements of truth, our experience, our own intellect,
our own conscience.
We didn't set all of those aside and take the referral of Kenneth
Starr and make that the final moment that precedes your moment of
truth. Everyone should know that, but it's not recognized. We have
been pilloried many times over the course of these proceedings on the
notion that we simply adopted that referral and walked with it into
the Senate chambers.
One thing that has to be said right at the outset.
GEKAS: When I saw in those allegations of the independent
counsel one that was encompassed around the question of executive
privilege in which the allegation was that the assertion by the
president, by President Clinton, of executive privilege in the context
of all that has transpired in this case, that that constituted in that
allegation by Judge Starr an abuse of power, I must tell you that that
hit me right between the eyes. I could not by even reading it, just
reading it, accept it at face value.
And from that moment until this, I had serious, grave doubts that
we should embark upon a course in which we would somehow denigrate the
issue and the privilege known as the executive privilege.
As I worried about this and as I moved on through the process
trying to do my duty, along with everyone else, there came a time in
the deliberations of our committee, of our managers group, that we
felt, and we acted on that feeling, that executive privilege is
something that is owed to President Clinton that we cannot fairly
strip that away from him or in any way diminish the power and the
usability of executive privilege.
GEKAS: We felt that was a trapping and a power of the executive,
of the President of the United States, which no matter it's exerted or
thereafter possibly set aside by the court which is always a
possibility and history has shown that has occurred, nevertheless, the
exertion of it, the assertion of it, the use of it, the feel for it
that the President of the United States must have and should have in
the first instance, to assert it, should not be a part of our
criticism, our projection of this case.
We felt pretty strongly about it.
GEKAS: And we took action on that front by deciding among
ourselves that one of the proposed articles, which was bound to reach
you if we had not acted as we did, we decided that we were going to
remove that from the allegations in any of the articles of impeachment
and not refer to it, except to it in the context in which I'm
referring to it -- that is, reporting to you what happened with that
particular issue.
We did that in the face of the knowledge that, in all our
readings and all our literature, we noted that when President Nixon
attempted to use executive privilege, he was soundly criticized, and
part of the impeachment process carried his alleged abuse of executive
privilege as one of the tenets of that proceeding.
And the report shows executive privilege as being ill-used by
President Nixon. But here is the point.
*** Eastern Time 14:19 ***
GEKAS: The managers and I, every member of the Senate, every
individual who is with us here today reveres the office of the
presidency. We respect the office of the presidency. The presidency
is we. The presidency is America. The presidency is the banner under
which we all work and live and strive in this nation.
We revere the presidency. Any innuendo or any kind of impulse
that anyone has to attribute any kind of motivation on the part of
these men of honor who have prepared this case for you today on any
whim on their part other than to do their constitutional duty should
be rebuffed at every conversation, at every meeting, at every writing
that will ultimately flow from the proceedings that we have embarked
upon.
GEKAS: We revere the presidency. And, as a matter of fact, when
next week we face the prospect of the president of the United States
entering the House of Representatives to deliver his State of the
Union message, we will greet the president. We will accord him the
respect for the office which he holds. He is our president, he
occupies the presidency and we will honor that. As so, and so should
we all.
But, we are capable of, and must in the face of the solemn duty
that we have, compartmentalize in the purest sense in greeting the
president and applauding his entrance into the State of Union message,
as we will accord him that privilege, we do not set aside the
impeachment inquiry.
GEKAS: We do not set aside the serious charges that are hoisted
against him at that juncture, because we will resume the consideration
of them in due course. But in the meantime, we've compartmentalize
ourselves as Americans, recognizing that he holds the most powerful,
most respected and most admired office on the face of the globe.
That is part of our duty, as it is our duty to impart our
knowledge, our work our theories, our analysis to the impeachment
proceedings which are at hand.
These are times that try men's souls -- someone said -- and it
was not my mother. And it is true. But anyone who can feel that the
final vote that will take place on the part of each individual member
of the Senate that a vote for conviction based on a distaste for Bill
Clinton, hatred of Bill Clinton, that kind of vote for conviction
should never be recognized or countenanced and history will condemn
any individual who does that.
GEKAS: And if a vote at the last moment that this moment of
truth is based on an admiration of President Clinton, a friendship
with President Clinton, a deep tie to and with the president on family
and community and national matters, a vote of acquittal should not be
based on that.
But only the Senate and each individual conscience will determine
how that final vote is cast. We cannot account for the friendship or
emnity (ph) that might exist with and for President Clinton.
GEKAS: All we can do is to do the job that was thrust upon us,
that was placed in our hands by a statute that this Congress created,
that independent counsel statute. The Congress said that we had to
listen to the referral, to accept the referral. The Congress said
that we must look towards whatever recommendations might be contained
in that. It was the Congress, our Congress, many of you voted for
that statute, which mandated that we consider all of this.
We did not simply walk around one day and then seize upon a
moment of deep though and said: Let's impeach the president, let's
find something upon which we can base a full six months inquiry into
the president's actions in front of a court.
This was a duty, much as it is your duty to stay here and listen
to what I am saying, the duty that I have of presenting it to you and
speaking to you is born of the same statute and of the same process
and of the same constitutional background tat we all share.
So it worries me and us that any awkward motivation can be
attributed to any one of us or collectively to us.
GEKAS: And once you render your vote, I'm not going to question
whether it was done out of blind loyalty or enmity or friendship with
the president, or enmity with the president. I'm going to judge it as
an American citizen, a member of the House of Representatives, a
member of Congress, an interested community leader, and last but not
least, as a pure American citizen eager to do one's duty.
As the moment of truth approaches, there's only one speaker left
for us in the Senate's chambers here to contemplate, and that is the
summation to be given by the esteemed chairman of our committee.
GEKAS: And you should know, as we all feel, that the most
stringent duty that he ever performed, the gentleman from Illinois,
was to manage the managers. But he did that just as well and as
profoundly as he has approached every single facet of this case.
As he sums up, know for a certainty that he brings to the podium
our collective thoughts, our collective emotions, our passions for our
work and our duty, and with an eye toward serving you as we serve as
we serve our constituents, as we serve the Congress, as we serve
America.
We are 20 minutes closer now to that moment of truth. Keep in
mind your own histories, the history of your relationship to your
colleagues in the Congress, and above all, the duty to the United
States.
GEKAS: Mr. Hyde.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes Mr. Manager Hyde.
HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.
Mr. Chief Justice, counsel for the president, distinguished
members of the Senate, 139 years ago -- 136 years ago at a small
military cemetery in Pennsylvania, one of Illinois' most illustrious
sons asked a haunting question: Whether a nation conceived in liberty
and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal can
long endure.
America is an experiment never finished; it's a work in progress.
And so, that question has to be answered by each generation for
itself, just as we will have to answer whether this nation can long
endure.
HYDE: America is an experiment never finished. It's a work in
progress. And so that question has to be answered by each generation
for itself just as we will have to answer whether this nation can long
endure.
This controversy began with the fact that the president of the
United States took an oath to tell the truth in his testimony before
the grand jury, just as he had on two prior occasions, sworn a solemn
oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to
faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
One of the most memorable aspects of this entire proceeding was
the solemn occasion wherein every senator in this chamber took an oath
to do impartial justice under the Constitution. But I must say,
despite massive and relentless efforts to change the subject, the case
before you, Senators, is not about sexual misconduct, infidelity,
adultery. Those are private acts and are none of our business.
*** Elapsed Time 00000, Eastern Time 14:30 ***
HYDE: It's not even a question of lying about sex. The matter
before this body is a question of lying under oath. This is a public
act. The matter before you is a question of the willful,
premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice
through perjury and obstruction of justice.
These are public acts. And when committed by the chief law
enforcement officer of the land, the one who appoints every United
States district attorney, every federal judge, every member for the
Supreme Court, the attorney general, they do become the concern of
Congress. And that's why your judgment, respectfully, should rise
above politics, above partisanship, above polling data.
This case is a test of whether what the founding fathers
described as "sacred honor" still has meaning in our time 222 years
after those two words, "sacred honor," were inscribed in our country's
birth certificate, our national charter of freedom, our Declaration of
Independence.
HYDE: Every school child in the United States has an intuitive
sense of the sacred honor that is one of the foundation stones of the
American house of freedom, for every day in every classroom in
America, our children and grandchildren pledge allegiance to a nation
under God.
That statement is not a prideful or arrogant claim. It's a
statement of humility. All of us as individuals stand under the
judgment of God or the transcendent truths by which we hope finally to
be judged. So does our country.
The presidency is an office of trust. Every public office is a
public trust, but the Office of the President, is a very special
public trust. The president is the trustee of the national
conscience. No one owns the Office of the President -- the people do.
The president is elected by the people and their representatives
in the electoral college. And accepting the burdens of that great
office, the president in his inaugural oath enters to a covenant, a
binding agreement of mutual trust and obligation with the American
people.
HYDE: Shortly after his election and during his first few months
in office, president Clinton spoke with some frequency about a new
covenant in America. In this instance, let's take the president at
his word that his office is a covenant, a solemn pact of mutual trust
and obligation with the American people. Let's take the president
seriously when he speaks of covenants, because a covenant is about
promise making and promise keeping.
For it's because the president has defaulted on the promises he
made, it's because he has violated the oaths he has sworn, that he has
been impeached. The debate about impeachment during the
constitutional convention of 1787 makes it clear that the framers
regarded impeachment and removal from office on conviction as a remedy
for a fundamental betrayal of trust by the president.
HYDE: The framers had invested the presidential office with
great powers. They knew that those powers could be and would be
abused if any president were to violate in a fundamental way the oath
he had sworn to faithfully execute the nation's laws.
For if the president did so violate his oath of office, the
covenant of trust between himself and the American people would be
broken. Today, we see something else that the fundamental trust
between America and the world can be broken if a presidential perjurer
represents our country in world affairs.
If the president calculatedly and repeatedly violates his oath,
if the president breaks the covenant of trust he's made with the
American people, he can no longer be trusted. And because the
executive plays so large a role in representing our country to the
world, American can no longer be trusted.
It's often said we live in an age of increasing interdependence.
If that's true -- and the evidence for it is all around us, then the
future will require an even stronger bond of trust between the
president and the nation, because with increasing interdependence,
comes an increased necessity of trust.
HYDE: This is one of the basic lessons of life. Parents and
children know it; husbands and wives know it; teachers and students
know it; as do doctors, patients, suppliers, customers, lawyers,
clients, clergy and parishioners.
The greater the interdependence, the greater the necessity of
trust.
The greater the interdependence, the greater the imperative of
promise-keeping.
Trust, not what James Madison called the parchment barriers of
laws, is the fundamental bond between the people and their elected
representatives; between those who govern and those who are governed.
Trust is the mortar that secures the foundations of the American
house of freedom. And the Senate of the United States, sitting in
judgment on this impeachment trial should not ignore or minimize or
dismiss the fact that that bond of trust has been broken, because the
president has violated both his oaths of office and the oath he took
before his grand jury testimony.
*** Eastern Time 14:35 ***
HYDE: In recent months, it's often been asked: so what? What is
the harm done by this lying under oath, by this perjury?
Well, what is an oath? An oath is an asking almighty God to
witness to the truth of what you're saying. Truth telling, truth
telling, is the heart and soul of our justice system. I think the
answer would have been clear to those who once pledged their sacred
honor to the cause of liberty. The answer would have been clear to
those who crafted the world's most enduring written constitution.
No greater harm can come -- can come than breaking the covenant
of trust between the president and the people, between the three
branches of our government, and between our country and the world, for
to break that covenant of trust is to dissolve the mortar that binds
the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice.
And to break the covenant of trust by violating one's oath is to do
grave damage to the rule of law among us.
HYDE: That none of us is above the law is a bedrock principle of
democracy. To erode that bedrock is to risk even further injustice.
To erode that bedrock is to subscribe to a divine right of kings
theory of governance in which those who govern are absolved from
adhering to the basic moral standards to which the governed are
accountable.
We must never tolerate one law for the ruler and another for the
ruled. If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill
Lexington, Concord to Flanders Fields, Normandy, Hiroshima, Pan Wan
Jon (ph), Saigon and Desert Storm.
Let's be clear -- the vote you are asked to cast is in the final
analysis a vote about the rule of law. The rule of law is one of the
great achievements of our civilization for the alternative to the rule
of law is the rule is the rule of raw power.
We here today are the heirs of 3000 years of history in which
humanity slowly and painfully, and at great cost, evolved a form of
politics in which law not brute force, is the arbiter of our public
destinies.
HYDE: We're the heirs of the ten commandments and the mosaic law,
moral code for a free people, who having been liberated from bondage,
saw in law a means to avoid falling back into the habits of slaves.
We're the heirs of Roman law, the first legal system which peoples of
different cultures, languages, races and religions came to live
together to form a political community.
We're the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the free men of
England began to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal
absolutism. We're the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary
development in which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal
prerogative as the means for governing a society of free men and free
women.
Yes, we're the heirs of 1776 and of an epic moment in human
affairs when the founders of this republic pledged their lives, their
fortunes and yes, their sacred honor to the defense of the rule of
law.
HYDE: Now we're the heirs of a tragic civil war which vindicated
the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning others. We're
the heirs of the 20th century's great struggles against
totalitarianism in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost
against the worst tyrannies in human history.
The rule of law is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook.
The rule of law is what stands between us and the arbitrary exercise
of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our
liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in
ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common
good.
Lying under oath is an abuse of freedom. Obstruction of justice
is a degradation of law. There are people in prison for such
offenses. What in the world do we say to them about equal justice if
we overlook this conduct by the president?
*** Eastern Time 14:40 ***
HYDE: Some may say, as many have in recent months, that this is
to pitch the matter too high. The president's lie, it is said, was
about a trivial matter; it was a lie to spare embarrassment about
misconduct on a private occasion.
The confusing of what is essentially a private matter and none of
our business with lying under oath to a court and a grand jury has
been only one of the distractions we've had to deal with.
Senators, as men and women with a serious experience of public
affairs, we can all imagine a situation in which a president might
shade the truth when a great issue of national interest or national
security is at stake. We've been all over that terrain.
We know the thin ice on which any of us skates when blurring the
edges of the truth for what we consider a compelling, demanding public
purpose.
Morally serious men and women can imagine the circumstances at
the far edge of the morally permissible when, with the gravest matters
of national interest at stake, a president could shade the truth in
order to serve the common good.
But under oath for a private pleasure?
HYDE: In doing this, the office of the president of the United
States has been debased and the justice system jeopardized. In doing
this, he's broken his covenant of trust with the American people.
The framers also knew that the office of the president could be
gravely damaged if it continued to be unworthily occupied. That's why
they devised the process of impeachment by the House and trial by the
Senate.
It is in truth a direct process. If on impeachment the president
is convicted, he's removed from office and the office itself suffers
no permanent damage. If on impeachment the president is acquitted,
the issue is resolved once and for all and the office is similarly
protected from permanent damage.
But, if on impeachment the president is not convicted and removed
from office despite the fact that numerous senators are convinced that
he has, in the words of one proposed resolution of censure,
"egregiously failed the test of his oath of office, violated the trust
of the American people, and dishonored the office by which they
entrusted to him," then the office of the presidency has been deeply
and perhaps permanently damaged.
HYDE: And that is a further reason why president Clinton must be
convicted of the charges brought before you by the House and removed
from office. To fail to do so, while conceding that the president has
engaged in egregious and dishonorable behavior, that has broken the
covenant of trust between himself and the American people, is to
diminish the office of president of the United States in an
unprecedented and unacceptable way.
Now, Senators, permit me a word on my own behalf and on behalf of
my colleagues in the House. I want to clarify an important point.
None of us comes to this chamber today without a profound sense of our
own responsibilities in life and of the many ways in which we have
failed to meet those responsibilities to one degree or another. None
of us comes to you claiming to be a perfect man or a perfect citizen.
*** Eastern Time 14:44 ***
HYDE: Just as none of you imagines yourself perfect, all of us,
members of the House and Senate know we come to this difficult task as
flawed human beings under judgment. That is the way of this world --
flawed human beings must, according to the rule of law, judge other
flawed human beings.
But the issue before the Senate of the United States is not the
question of its own members' personal moral condition, nor is the
issue before the Senate the question of the personal moral condition
of the members of the House of Representatives.
The issue here is whether the president has violated the rule of
law and thereby broken the covenant of trust with the American people.
This is a public issue involving the gravest matter of public
interest. And it's not affected one way or another by the personal
moral condition of any member of either House of Congress or by
whatever expressions of personal chagrin the president has managed to
express.
HYDE: Senators, we of the House don't come before you today
lightly, and if you will permit me it is a disservice to the House to
suggest that it has brought these articles of impeachment before you
in a mean spirited or irresponsible way. That is not true.
We have brought these articles of impeachment because we're
convinced in conscience that the President of the United States lied
under oath, that the president committee perjury on several occasions
before a federal grand jury. We have brought this articles of
impeachment because we are convinced in conscience that the president
willfully obstructed justice and thereby threatened the legal system
he sworn a solemn oath to protect and defend.
These are not trivial matters. These are not partisan matters.
These are matters of justice, the justice that each of you has taken a
solemn oath to serve in this trial.
Some of us have been called Clinton-haters. I must tell you
distinguished Senators, that this impeachment trial is not for those
of us from the House, a question of hating anyone.
HYDE: This is not a question of who we hate, it's a question of
what we love.
And among the things we love are the rule of law, equal justice
before the law and honor in our public life. All of us are trying as
hard as we can to do our duty as we see it; no more and no less.
Senators, the trial is being watched around the world. Some of
those watching thinking themselves superior in their cynicism wonder
what it's all about.
But others know, political prisoners know, that this is about the
rule of law, the great alternative to arbitrary and unchecked state
powers. The families of executed dissidents know that this is about
the rule of law, the great alternative to the lethal abuse of power by
the state. Those yearning for freedom know this about the rule of law
-- the hard, one structure by which men and women can live by their
God-given dignity and secure their God-give rights in ways that serve
the common good.
If they know this, can we not know it?
*** Eastern Time 14:47 ***
HYDE: If across the river in Arlington Cemetery there are
American heroes who died in defense of the rule of law, can we give
less than the full measure of our devotion to that great cause?
I wish to read you a letter I recently received that expresses my
feelings far better than my poor words.
"Dear Chairman Hyde, my name is William Preston Sommers (ph).
How are you doing? I am a third grader in room 504 at Chase (ph)
Elementary School in Chicago.
"I'm writing this letter because I have something to tell you. I
have thought of a punishment for the president of the United States of
America. The punishment should be that he should write a 100-word
essay by hand. I have to write an essay when I lie.
"It is bad to lie because it just gets you in more trouble. I
hate getting in trouble. It's just like the boy who cried 'wolf' and
the wolf ate the boy. It is important to tell the truth.
"I like to tell the truth because it gets you in less trouble.
If you do not tell the truth, people do not believe you. It is
important to believe the president because he is a (sic) important
person. If you cannot believe the president, who can you believe? If
you have no one to believe in, then how do you run your life?
HYDE: I do not believe the president tells the truth any more
right now. After he writes the essay and tells the truth, I will
believe him again." William Sommers (ph).
Then there's a P.S. from his dad. "Dear Representative Hyde, I
made my son William either write you a letter or an essay as a
punishment for lying. Part of his defense for his lying was that the
president lied. He's still having difficulty understanding why the
president can lie and not be punished."
Mr. Chief Justice and Senators, on June the 6th, 1994, it was the
50th anniversary of the American landing at Normandy, and I went
ashore at Normandy and walked up to the cemetery area where, as far as
the eye could see, there were white crosses, Stars of David. And the
British had a bagpipe band scattered among the crucifixes, the
crosses, playing Amazing Grace with that pierceful, mournful sound
that only the bagpipe can make.
HYDE: And if you could keep your eyes dry you were better than I.
But I walked up to one of these crosses marking a grave because I
wanted to personalize the experience. I was looking for a name. But
there was no name. It said, "Here lies in honored glory a comrade in
arms known but to God."
How do we keep faith with that comrade in arms? Well, go to the
Vietnam memorial and the national mall and press your hands against
the 58,000, a few of the 58,000 names carved into that wall and ask
yourself how we can redeem the debt we owe all those who purchased our
freedom with their lives. How do we keep faith with them?
I think I know. We work to make this country the kind of America
they were willing to die for. That's an America where the idea of
sacred honor still has the power to stir men's souls.
HYDE: My solitary, solitary hope is that 100 years from today
people will look back at what we've done and say, "they kept the
faith."
I'm done.
REHNQUIST: The chair recognizes the majority leader.
LOTT: Mr. Chief Justice, pursuant to the previous consent
agreement, and I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under that order.
REHNQUIST: Without objection, it's so ordered.
The Senate, under a previous order, stands adjourned until 9:30
a.m. Tuesday, January 19, at which time it will reconvene in
legislative session. Under that same order, the Senate will next
convene as a court of impeachment on Tuesday, January 19, at 1:00 p.m.
The Senate stands adjourned.
Transcript index
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