Opening Statement:
Congressman Lamar Smith
House Constitutional Law Subcommittee Hearing
11/9/1998
In light of the subject of today’s hearing, I think it is important that we hear from the legal experts. But there are two experts who are not here who have made insightful observations about what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" and who have unique perspectives.
Barbara Jordan, a distinguished member of this Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment proceedings, made this statement:
The South Carolina ratification convention impeachment criteria: those are impeachable "who behave amiss or betray their public trust."
Beginning shortly after the Watergate break-in and continuing to the present time, the president engaged in a series of public statements and actions designed to thwart the lawful investigation by government prosecutors. Moreover, the president has made public announcements and assertions bearing on the Watergate case which the evidence will show he knew to be false.
These assertions, false assertions, impeachable, those who misbehave. Those who "behave amiss or betray their public trust."
James Madison again at the Constitutional Convention: "A president is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution."
The Constitution charges the president with the task of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, and yet the president has counseled his aides to commit perjury…
Leon Jaworski, the special prosecutor during the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote a book titled, The Right and the Power about his experience. This is what he said:
No government office, not even the highest office in the land, carries with it the right to ignore the law’s command, any more than the orders of a superior can be used by government officers to justify illegal behavior…
The President—a lawyer—coached Haldeman on how to testify untruthfully and yet not commit perjury. It amounted to subornation of perjury. For the number-one law enforcement officer of the country it was in my opinion, as demeaning an act as could be imagined.
President: Just be damned sure you say I don’t remember. I can’t recall. I can’t give any honest…an answer that I can recall. But that’s it.
There was evidence that the President conspired with others to violate 18 U.S.C. 1623—perjury—which included the President’s direct and personal efforts to encourage and facilitate the giving of misleading and false testimony by aides.
In the end, Nixon was forced to resign because the people had lost confidence in him. He had lied too often. The members of the House Judiciary Committee realized this, and that is why they concluded unanimously that he had been guilty of obstructing justice.
As we hear from our witnesses today, I think it would also be interesting to know whether they agree with Bill Clinton’s definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" when he was a law professor. He said then:
I think that the definition should include any criminal acts plus a willful failure of the president to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. [Another] factor that I think constitutes an impeachable offense would be willful, reckless behavior in office…
President Clinton’s conduct in office raises several grave questions. Did the president lie under oath in a court of law? Did he stand in the way of the judicial process? Did he abuse the powers of his public office? Did the president violate his public trust? Did he violate the Constitution and his oath of office? These are the questions that go to the heart of a government of laws, not persons.
My constituents often remind me that if any business executive, military officer, professional educator, or anyone in a position of authority had acted as President Clinton may have, their career would be over. So a question that needs to be addressed today is, Should the president be held to a lesser standard?
##
Contact: Allen Kay
202-225-4236 (O)
301-990-3749 (H)