|
|
|
|
The gentleman from...
INGLIS: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. The Counsel
Insofar as judges, we impeach judges for perjury. We impeached Judge Claiborne. I participated in that, all the way through to the Senate floor. We impeached him for perjury. We impeached Judge Nixon for perjury. Now, when you say, "Judges are different; they have a different standard," I direct you to the Constitution, that says, "The president, vice-president, and all civil officers" -- that's judges -- "shall be removed -- shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors." I can tell you, in the Judge Nixon case and in the Judge Claiborne case, it was perjury. Now, if perjury could get a federal judge off the bench, and the country can survive with a corrupt judge here and there, how much more one worries about the one man who is head of the executive department, the whole executive department, commander-in-chief and all of that. So I just think that's a response that I would like to make to the gentleman...
SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the questions that we dealt with was the circumstances underlying the behavior. For example, some of the allegations -- some of the people that were convicted or impeached for perjury, the perjury was lying about bribes and other serious and grievous abuse of their official powers, so I think -- I would like to continue the discussion, which I can't do in 30 seconds, but I think that was the reason we had the hearing: to flush out all of those underlying situations. HYDE: All right, I thank Mr. Inglis. You'll get five minutes. Thank you. INGLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Starr, I have two things to thank you for, and then two things to ask you about. First of all: the two thank yous. As I have read and actually heard some of the things that various political figures have said about you, it makes me wonder why anyone would be willing to accept an appointment like you've accepted.
STARR: Thank you. INGLIS: ... over the years, somehow, all of that is forgotten, of all of these things that have been said about you. I understand people wanting to defend a president, but they needn't attack the attacker. They needn't attack the prosecutor -- the special independent counsel that's appointed here, and as Mr. Canady was saying, that undermines the process, it seems to me. So first of all, thank you for your work. STARR: Thank you. Defender of the Law INGLIS: Second of all thank you for your very passionate defense of the rule of law in the last three paragraphs of your testimony. I think it is just a very eloquent statement that I hope is studied for years to come, in law schools and other schools in our country, because truly it is a great statement and a patient statement in the importance to the rule of law. That gives rise to my questions. We had a hearing here recently and there is some discussion about this point, about what constitutes an impeachable offense in the context of whether there is a violation of the rule of law, and it seems to me the rule of law has at least two components. One is an adherence to due process. And the second adherence to the principle of equal application of law, which is something you expounded on in these last three paragraphs. I know that there are some people who would say that perjury is not an impeachable offense. We heard a rather erudite discussion of that here a week or so ago. There's a very sophisticated view that perjury is not an impeachable offense. Let me ask you -- we -- I think, we know these things about the president. We know who the president is. The question is who are we? We know that the president has admitted to lying. He has admitted to lying under oath. [Where? When?] Now, if he were here, I think he would say that he has not technically committed the crime of perjury because it was an immaterial fact. Now, Mr. Canady, I believe it was, illicited some response -- no, it was Mr. Gallegly possibly, -- illicited some responses from you about the deposition testimony. But let me ask you about the grand jury testimony. In your mind, were those material facts that the president was testifying to in the grand jury testimony, and are the elements of perjury met in the referral on the point of the testimony in the grand jury situation? The Judge & The Jury STARR: Well, Congressman, again, I have been somewhat reluctant to go all the way to say in, light of the purpose of the referral, to say that all elements of a crime have been satisfied. But let me say that, in my own judgment, although this is a jury question -- materiality, the Supreme Court has held is a jury question -- but I certainly think a reasonable person could very reasonably conclude that the elements were, in fact, present in the grand jury testimony, by virtue of, as we have tried to outline in the referral, the number of statements that we believe were knowingly untrue -- that I think that is a reasonable conclusion to reach. Again, our mission, or our responsibility, in submitting this referral, was to say that there is substantial and credible information that an impeachable offense may have been committed. And that, of course, is the state of the record as it comes to you. But, yes, I do think that a reasonable juror could come to that determination. INGLIS: And let me ask, as to the rule of law and the issue of whether -- whether perjury is an impeachable offense, I gather from your testimony, and you would restate here, that in your mind perjury is an impeachable offense. The Constitutional Scholar STARR: Yes. I think with all due respect to scholarly commentary and the like, that perjury is not only an impeachable offense as a matter of theory and doctrine, and as a matter of common law. I think it's demonstrable at common law that it was viewed as a high crime or misdemeanor -- but also as the chairman has indicated, the very practice. The Judge So the common law of the Congress of the United States suggests that it is in fact an impeachable offense because judges have been removed. The offense is the despoiling and the attack on the integrity of the judicial system. The response may be, on the other side, well, we want to find out what the perjury is about and we'll take some perjuries more seriously than others. And that is a view. I will say as a former judge, any judge worth his or her judicial salt would say: "Not in my court. Witnesses tell the truth; it doesn't matter what the underlying subject matter is." Once you're in court under oath, you tell the truth. That's the way judges look at the world, and perhaps that's why no judge, being subjected to impeachment for perjury, has dared suggest: Don't worry about it. It's not an impeachable offense. It is. It's been viewed that way by this very body. |
|
|
... the
gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to yield to me
very briefly. 
