|
|
|
|
Lawyers today I think are all familiar with advice that if the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. And if the law and the facts are against you, just argue like the devil. And I think what we're seeing here...
CANADY: That's a variation on the same theme. And I think what we're seeing here is a desperate attempt to get away from the facts of the case against the president. Now, I understand that, because I find that the facts are particularly compelling. I think your referral sets forth in great detail a pattern of calculated and sustained misconduct by the president of the United States. And I understand why the president's friends would instinctively react to defend him. But what is going on in attacking your investigation is not right. It is not consistent with respect for the rule of law. And I believe that the attacks that have been launched against you are without substance. They don't have merit. And even if we could accept, for the purpose of argument, that some of these attacks had some merit, it's obvious that they do not bear in any way on the reliability or the credibility of the facts of the case against the president. Now, if someone could show me evidence of misconduct that actually went to the credibility of the evidence, if they could show me that the evidence was not reliable because of misconduct, and they could prove the misconduct, I think that would be appropriate for us to consider. But we're not hearing that. What we're hearing here is just a grab bag, anything that occurs to try to undermine your credibility. And, of course, this committee's process has been attacked in the same way. Anytime we come to the point of talking about the facts of the case with respect to the conduct of William Jefferson Clinton, some people cry "Unfair." I think it's fair to talk about his conduct. I think that's what we need to focus on. I think that's our responsibility. And it would be a dereliction of our responsibility if we allowed ourselves to be diverted from that fundamental task that has been given to us by the House of Representatives in the resolution that they adopted. So, that I make by way of a general comment about what's going on. CANADY: I'm struck by the concern that has been expressed about due process. And I think we should all be concerned about due process. I think that's very important. But I must ask: Where is the concern for due process in a person who lies under oath in a deposition? Where is the concern for due process in a person who withholds evidence and attempts to encourage others to withhold evidence? Where is the respect for due process in someone who coaches a potential witness? Where is the concern for due process in the whole course of conduct, which you have outlined in your referral, with respect to the president of the United States? I see a stunning lack of respect for the due process of law in the conduct of the president of the United States, as it is set forth in your referral, and for which we seem to have no rebuttal -- no significant rebuttal offered.
And I felt compelled to say that because this is a process that needs to be on track. And all of us need to focus on the critical questions here. Did the president of the United States lie under oath in his deposition? Did the president of the United States lie to the grand jury? Did the president of the United States obstruct justice? And did the president of the United States engage in an abuse of his office in the way that you have outlined? Now, there's not time for you to respond to that, and that's not really meant as a question to you. It's meant as an observation on where this proceeding should be going, and on the attempts that are being made to divert this proceeding from its proper goal.
HYDE: I thank the gentleman, his time is up. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
Most prosecutors begin their presentations in court with an admonition that what they say and what defense counsel says is not evidence. Evidence will be heard from witnesses. As Mr. Conyers has said in his opening remarks, many of us have questions involving prosecutorial misconduct, illegal leaks, conflicts of interest -- questions which are relevant to our oversight responsibility of the Justice Department and independent counsel, but irrelevant to the question of shall the president be impeached, which is the issue of today's hearing. So I hope we don't have to discuss the unfairness and absurdity of basing an impeachment of the president of the United States on a presentation from the prosecutor and a review of written statements, many of which were not under oath, and none of which were subject to cross examination.
So fairness has always been an issue. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you and Mr. Canady for finally convening a hearing on the history and background of impeachment, so at least we now have a framework in which to review the allegations before us. That hearing was necessary because we heard from 400 historians and received a letter from 400 constitutional authorities; another letter from 200 constitutional law professors, which warned us that not one of Mr. Starr's allegations constituted an impeachable offense. We heard discussion today about the rule of law. At the hearing, we heard that the Constitution restricts our legal authority to impeach the president to those offense which constitute treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. At the hearing, we dealt with issues such as the historic difference between impeachment of judges and impeachment of presidents. We addressed the question of when perjury can constitute an impeachable offense and when it should not constitute an impeachable offense. And we worked to evaluate a standard for impeachment and specifically considered the -- whether commission of a crime which would violate the presidential oath to faithfully execute the laws -- whether that could be an appropriate measure. Remember, as my colleague from Virginia said, that the president will be subject to criminal prosecution after he leaves office. But they all agreed that we do not have the legal authority to remove the president based on Mr. Starr's suggestion that he failed to faithfully execute the laws. And so the rule of law restrains our impeachment authority to consideration of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and that therefore at the hearing, both Democrats and even many Republican witnesses, raised serious questions about our constitutional authority to use any or all of the charges as a basis for presidential impeachment.
For example, Mr. Cooper, a Republican witness said that I do not think that invoking executive privilege, even frivolously, and I believe it was frivolous in this circumstance, but I do not believe that constitutes an impeachable offense. And so some of the -- some said that none were impeachable offenses, but there was a clear consensus that at least some of the allegations are too flimsy to pursue. This sentiment was reflected in majority counsel's presentation last month, which left out some of the allegations. Mr. Chairman's public suggestion that we should focus on two or three allegations, and several Republican members of this committee ...
SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several Republican members of this committee, who have publicly raised questions about some of the allegations.
That's why I joined ranking member Mr. Conyers in a letter requesting that we call an end to the confusion and determine which, if any, of the allegations before us, even if true, might constitute an impeachable offense.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: The -- did -- are you awaiting an answer, or are you -- was that rhetorical? It was rhetorical? SCOTT: It was rhetorical. HYDE: Do you have anything you need to respond to
that do you feel?
|
|
|
SCOTT: Mr.
Chairman, I have to first note that the witness today -- Mr. Chairman, I first have to
note that the witness today is the prosecutor in the case. 