‘He Was Not Going to Let the . . . System Stand in His Way’

These are excerpts from opening statements by Republican House managers at the impeachment trial of President Clinton.

Henry J. Hyde (Ill.)

You are here seated in this historic chamber not to embark on some great legislative debate, which these stately walls have so often witnessed, but to listen to the evidence, as those who must sit in judgment.

To guide you in this grave duty you have taken an oath of impartiality. With the simple words “I do,” you have pledged to put aside personal bias and partisan interest and to do “impartial justice.” Your willingness to take up this calling has once again reminded the world of the unique brilliance of America’s constitutional system of government. We are here, Mr. Chief Justice and distinguished senators, as advocates for the rule of law, for equal justice under the law and for the sanctity of the oath.

The oath. In many ways the case you will consider in the coming days is about those two words, “I do,” pronounced at two presidential inaugurations by a person whose spoken words have singular importance to our nation and to the great globe itself.

More than 450 years ago, Sir Thomas More, former lord chancellor of England, was imprisoned in the Tower of London because he had, in the name of conscience, defied the absolute power of the king. As the playwright Robert Bolt tells it, More was visited by his family, who tried to persuade him to speak the words of the oath that would save his life, even while, in his mind and heart, he held firm to his conviction that the king was in error. More refused. As he told his daughter, Margaret, “When a man takes an oath, Meg, he’s holding his own self in his hands. Like water. And if he opens his fingers then--he needn’t hope to find himself again . . . “

Sir Thomas More, the most brilliant lawyer of his generation, a scholar with an international reputation, the center of a warm and affectionate family life which he cherished, went to his death rather than take an oath in vain.

Members of the Senate, what you do over the next few weeks will forever affect the meaning of those two words “I do.” You are now stewards of the oath. It’s significance in public service and our cherished system of justice will never be the same after this. Depending on what you decide, it will either be strengthened in its power to achieve justice or it will go the way of so much of our moral infrastructure and become a mere convention, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (Wis.)

In his Third Annual Message to Congress on Dec. 7, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt said, “No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.”

We are here today because President William Jefferson Clinton decided to put himself above the law, not once, not twice, but repeatedly. He put himself above the law when he engaged in a multifaceted scheme to obstruct justice during the federal civil rights case of Paula Corbin Jones vs. William Jefferson Clinton. He put himself above the law when he made perjurious, false and misleading statements under oath during his grand jury testimony on Aug. 17, 1998. In both instances, he unlawfully attempted to prevent the judicial branch of government--a co-equal branch--from performing its constitutional duty to administer equal justice under law.

The primacy of law over the rule of individuals is what distinguishes the United States from most other countries and why our Constitution is as alive today as it was 210 years ago.

The House concluded the president made perjurious, false and misleading statements before the grand jury, which the House believes constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor. Our entire legal system depends upon the courts being able to find the truth. That’s why witnesses must raise their right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That’s why there are criminal penalties for perjury and making false statements under oath. The need for obtaining truthful testimony in court is so important that the federal sentencing guidelines have the same penalties for perjury as for bribery.

The Constitution specifically names bribery as an impeachable offense. Perjury is the twin brother of bribery. By making the penalty for perjury the same as that for bribery, Congress has acknowledged that both crimes are equally serious. It follows that perjury and making false statements under oath, a form of perjury, be considered among the “high crimes and misdemeanors” the framers intended to be grounds for impeachment.

The three judicial impeachments of the 1980s were all about lies told by a federal judge. Judge [Harry] Claiborne was removed from office for lying on his income tax returns. Judge [Alcee] Hastings was removed for lying under oath during a trial, and Judge [Walter L.] Nixon was removed for making false statements to a grand jury. In each case, the Senate showed no leniency to judges who lie. Their misconduct was deemed impeachable and more than two-thirds of the Senate voted to convict them.

If the Senate is convinced that President Clinton lied under oath and does not remove him from office, the wrong message is given to our courts, those who have business before them, and to the country as a whole.

Ed Bryant (Tenn.)

None of us present today in these hallowed chambers relishes the task before us. But we did not choose to be involved in that reckless misconduct, nor did we make those reasoned and calculated decisions to cover up that misconduct which underlies this proceeding. However, this collision at the intersection, if you will, of the president, Ms. Jones and Ms. Lewinsky, is not in and of itself enough to bring us together. No. Had truth been a witness at this collision and prevailed, we would not be here.

But when it was not present, even under an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a judicial matter, the impact of our Constitution must be felt. Hence, we are here together today to do our respective duties.

By voting these articles of impeachment, the House is not attempting to raise the standard of conduct to perfection for our political leadership. Such a person does not walk the world today. Everyone falls short of this mark daily. But political life is not so much about how an individual fails, but rather how that person reacts to that failure. For example, a person campaigning for political office admits wrongdoing in the past and says he will not do that again. Most people accept that commitment. He is elected.

Thereafter, he repeats this wrongdoing and is confronted again. What does he do? He takes steps to cover up this wrongdoing by using his workers and his friends. He lies under oath in a lawsuit which is very important to the person he is alleged to have harmed. He then takes a political poll as to whether he should tell the truth under oath. The poll indicates the voters would not forgive him for lying under oath, so he then denies the truth in a federal grand jury. If this person is the president of the United States, the House of Representative would consider articles of impeachment. It did, and voted to impeach this president.

But do not let it be argued in these chambers that we are not electing saints, we are electing a president.

Rather, let it be said that we are electing people who are imperfect and who have made mistakes in life, but who are willing to so respect this country and the office of the president that he or she will now lay aside their own personal shortcomings and have the inner strength to discipline themselves sufficiently that they do not break the law which they themselves are sworn to uphold.

Asa Hutchinson (Ark.)

I learned to love and respect the law trying cases in the courtrooms of rural Arkansas, and the scene is different in this historic chamber with the chief justice presiding, but what is at stake remains the same. In every case heard in every courtroom in this great country, it is truth, justice and the law that are at stake. . . .

The evidence will show that a scheme was developed to obstruct the administration of justice, and that is illegal. Obstruction of justice is a serious threat to the integrity of our nation when committed by the chief executive of our land--the president of the United States.

The obstruction started on Dec. 5, 1997, when the witness list from the Paula Jones case was faxed to the president’s lawyers. At that point the wheels of obstruction started rolling and they did not stop until the president successfully blocked the truth from coming out in a civil rights case.

These acts of obstruction included attempts to improperly influence a witness in the civil rights case; the procurement and filing of a false affidavit in the civil rights case; unlawful attempts to influence the testimony of a key witness, Betty Currie; the willful concealment of evidence under subpoena in the civil rights case; and illegally influencing the testimony of witnesses before a federal grand jury of the United States. . . .

Now, there is nothing wrong with helping someone get a job, but we all know there is one thing that is forbidden in public office--the quid pro quo. This is for that. But Vernon Jordan testified that he kept the president informed on the status of the false affidavit, the job search, and the status of Ms. Lewinsky’s representation. Why? Is this just idle chatter with the president of the United States or are these matters the president is vitally interested in and, in fact, coordinating? Mr. Jordan answers this question himself in his grand jury testimony: I “knew the president was concerned about the affidavit and whether or not it was signed. He was obviously. . . .”

How can you as jurors determine who is telling the truth? I’ve pointed to the corroborating evidence, the circumstantial evidence, and common sense to support the testimony of Monica Lewinsky. Let me ask you two questions: First, can you convict the president of the United States without hearing personally the testimony of the key witnesses? Second, can you dismiss the charges under this strong set of facts and circumstances without hearing and evaluating the credibility of the key witness? . . .

[The] pillars of this obstruction case were personally constructed by the president of the United States. It was done with the intent that the truth and evidence would be suppressed in a civil rights case pending against him. The goal was to win, and he was not going to let the judicial system stand in his way. . . .

James E. Rogan (Glendale)

In a judicial proceeding, a witness has a very solemn obligation to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth. Perjury is a serious crime because our judicial system can only succeed if citizens are required to tell the truth in court proceedings.

If witnesses may lie with impunity for personal or political reasons, justice is no longer the product of the court system, and we descend into chaos. That is why the United States Supreme Court has placed a premium on truthful testimony and shows no tolerance for perjury.

More than 20 years ago, the Supreme Court addressed this very concept of perjury and its dangerous effect on our system of laws. . . . That is the framework under which the House of Representatives acted in impeaching the president, and now respectfully urges this body to call the president to constitutional accountability.

The key to understanding the facts of this case is to understand why the president was asked, under oath, questions about his private life in the first place. Despite the popular spin, it wasn’t because members of Congress, or lawyers at the Office of the Independent Counsel, or a gaggle of reporters suddenly decided to invade the president’s privacy.

No. This all came about because of a claim against the president from when he was still governor of Arkansas. During the discovery phase of the Paula Jones sexual harassment case against the president, Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright ordered him to answer questions under oath relating to any sexual relationships he may have had, while governor and president, with subordinate female government employees.

Those orders are common in similar cases, and questions posed to President Clinton are routinely asked in sexual harassment cases each day around the country.

During the president’s deposition in the Paula Jones case, he was asked questions about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The judge allowed these questions because they possibly could lead Mrs. Jones to discover if there was any pattern of conduct to help prove her case. The president repeatedly denied he had a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

A few days later, the story about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky broke in the press. A criminal investigation began to determine whether the president perjured himself in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, and obstructed justice by trying to defeat Mrs. Jones’ claim against him by corrupt means.

On the afternoon of August 17, 1998, President Clinton raised his hand and took a oath before the grand jury in their criminal investigation. . . . When the president made that solemn pledge, he was not obliging himself to tell the “partial” truth. He was not obliging himself to tell the “I didn’t want to be particularly helpful” truth. He was not obliging himself to tell the “this is embarrassing so I think I’ll fudge on it” truth.

He was required to tell the truth. The whole truth. And nothing but the truth. And he swore to do it in the name of God.