Edition: U.S. / Global

THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL; From the Prosecution: 'The Rule of Law Should Apply to Everyone'

Published: February 9, 1999
(Page 4 of 8)

Now, I am not going to rehash all of the evidence in this case again. But it is my understanding that some of you may be prepared to vote to convict the President on obstruction of justice and not on perjury. I don't know how you can do that. I honestly do not know how anybody could do that.

If you believe Sidney Blumenthal's testimony that the President told him that Monica Lewinsky came at him and made a sexual demand and that he rebuffed her and that she threatened him and said she would tell people they had had an affair and that she was known as the stalker among her peers, surely you must conclude that the President committed perjury when he told the grand jury that he told his aides, including Blumenthal, nothing but the truth, even if it was ''misleading.''

The exact quotes from the President's grand jury testimony -- people are worried about: ''What are the exact quotes? What are the words?'' I want to give you the words: ''And so I said to them things that were true about this relationship -- so I said things that were true. They may have been misleading. So what I was trying to do was to give them something they could -- that would be true, even if misleading.''

That was even played on television in the White House presentation a few minutes ago. That was perjury. What he told Sidney Blumenthal was not true. It wasn't just ''misleading''; it was not true, and he knew it was not true, and it was perjury in front of the grand jury. . . .

Now, what are the consequences of failing to remove this President from office if you believe he's committed the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice?

What are the consequences of failing to do that? What's the down side? First, at the very least, you will leave a precedent of doubt as to whether perjury and obstruction of justice are high crimes and misdemeanors when impeaching the President. In fact, your vote to acquit under these circumstances may well mean that no President of the future will ever be impeached or removed for perjury or obstruction of justice. Is that the record that you want?

Second, you'll be establishing the precedent that the standard for impeachment and removal of a President is different of that for impeaching and removing a judge or any other official. . . .

Third, if you believe the President committed the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice and that they're high crimes and misdemeanors, but you do not believe a President should be removed when economic times are good and it's strongly against the popular will to do so, by voting to acquit, you'll be setting a precedent for future impeachment trials.

Can you imagine how damaging that could be to our constitutional form of government to set the precedent that no President will be removed from office for high crimes and misdemeanors unless the polls show that the public wants that to happen? Would our founding fathers have ever envisioned that? Of course not. Our Constitution was structured to avoid this very situation.

Fourth, then, there is what happens to the rule of law if you vote to acquit. What damage is done for future generations by a vote to acquit? Will more witnesses be inclined to commit perjury in trials? Will more jurors decide that perjury and obstruction of justice should not be crimes for which they convict? . . .

William Jefferson Clinton is not a king. He is our President. You have the power and the duty to remove him for office for high crimes and misdemeanors. I implore you to muster the courage of your convictions, to muster the courage the founding fathers believed that the Senate would always have in times like these. William Jefferson Clinton has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Convict him, and remove him. . . .

Charles T. Canady

Republican of Florida

The President's defenders have not offered a clear guide to determining what is serious enough to justify removal. Instead, they have simply sought to minimize the significance of the particular offenses charged against the President.

Today we heard an attempt to minimize the significance of perjury. I was somewhat amazed to hear that. There was no mention made of what the first chief justice of the United States, Justice Jay, had to say about perjury being ''of all crimes, the most pernicious to society.'' That was omitted from the President's analysis. . . .

Those who established our Constitution would have understood the seriousness of the misconduct of William Jefferson Clinton. They would have understood that it was the President who has shown contempt for the Constitution, not the managers from the House of Representatives.

They would have understood the seriousness of the example of lawlessness he has set. They would have understood the seriousness of the contempt for the law the President's conduct has caused. They would have understood the seriousness of the damage the President has done to the integrity of his high office.

Those wise statesmen, who established our form of government, would have understood the seriousness of the harm President Clinton has done to the cause of justice and constitutional government. They would have understood that a President who does such things should not remain in office with his crimes. . . .

Ed Bryant

Republican of Tennessee