ceedings is to assist the Committee in fulfilling its constitutional function. Participation by the respondent's counsel is allowed only at the invitation of the Committee. See Presentation Procedures for the Impeachment Inquiry. Impeachment Inquiry Staff Memorandum, April 3, 1974 ("The issue of participation by the official under investigation has been addressed by Committees as a question of grace, not of right . ."). Please remain mindful of the purpose of these proceedings. H. Res. 581 directed the Committee to "investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America." The rules adopted by the Committee are "applicable to the presentation of evidence in the impeachment inquiry pursuant to H. Res. 581." Therefore, as representatives of the respondent in these proceedings, the scope of your participation should be limited to allegations against the President, and the facts and evidence in question. I appreciate your attention to these matters and look forward to your response. Sincerely, HENRY J, HYDE, Chairman. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CHARLES F.C. RUFF, Esq., COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY Washington, DC, November 17, 1998. The White House, Washington, DC. DEAR MR. RUFF: I am in receipt of your letter dated November 17, 1998, in which you rejected my offer to allow you to question Judge Starr at Thursday's hearing for thirty minutes, but instead requested 90 minutes. You also requested that you, Gregory B. Craig, special counsel to the President, and David E. Kendall, personal counsel to the President, all "wish to question Mr. Starr. You expressed concern about the time allotted between the Majority and the Minority and stated that the "witness and the Majority would have a total of 225 minutes, and the Minority and the President's counsel a total of 170 minutes." You do a great disservice to the Committee's proceedings by adding the Majority's time with the time allotted to Judge Starr and concluding that the Majority will have more time than the Minority. this is not a Republican or Democrat issue-it is an issue of the Committee's discharging its constitutional duty. Furthermore, I take issue with your addition. The witness will be given up to two hours to make a statement. The Members of the Committee will proceed to question the witness under the fiveminute rule. That means that if every Member of the Committee uses his or her allotted time, the Minority members will question Judge Starr for 80 minutes and the Majority members will inquire of Judge Starr for 105 minutes, i.e. 25 more minutes than the Democrats will question. However, the designated White House counsel will question the witness for up to 30 minutes, the Minority counsel will question the witness for up to 30 minutes, and the Majority counsel will question the witness for 30 minutes. Therefore, if I follow your logic and include you with the Minority, the Minority will question Judge Starr for a total of 140 minutes and the Majority will question him for 135 minutes. Hence, the Minority will receive five more minutes to question Judge Starr than the Majority. I don't know how I can be any fairer. As you should know, the job of the House is to build a reliable factual record and to determine whether those facts are evidence of impeachable offenses. This is an opportunity to hear from a summary witness about the facts. Given that I have pledged to move expeditiously, you should be encouraged that Judge Starr is appearing for this purpose. Indeed, our proceedings could move along even faster if you answered our requests for admission that were sent to you on November 5, 1998. You also stated in your letter that because you "have not been informed what the nature and scope of Mr. Starr's testimony will be, it is difficult to predict with any certainty just how long it will take to conduct a full and fair examination." This concern is not credible. I don't think it will be difficult to predict that alleged perjury, subornation of perjury, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power will arise as issues on Thursday. Your letter seems to indicate that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of your role in these proceedings. In my November 16, letter I noted that "your role in these proceedings is to assist the Committee in fulfilling its constitutional function. Participation by the respondent's counsel is a matter of legislative grace. See Presentation Procedures for the Impeachment Inquiry, Impeachment Inquiry Staff Memorandum, April 3, 1974 ("The issue of participation by the official under investigation has been addressed by Committees as a question of grace, not of right. . . .”).” The fact that the Committee approved rules allowing your participation demonstrates the extent to which it wants to be fair to the president. In 1974, this provision met substantial resistance. In fact, Ranking Member Conyers opposed this provision in 1974. See Impeachment Inquiry Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess., Book One, 472 (1974) (“I am disturbed about the rights of counsel of the President in these evidentiary hearings . . ." "I am not going to support any such provision or anything near it."). Rep. Conyers explained that as a civil libertarian, it seems to me that we have gone to great excess in and are probably making a serious mistake that will insure that we never ever emerge from these evidentiary hearings in terms of allowing the President's counsel to take this unlimited and overfull participation in hearings that we are conducting to merely advise the Congress. This is not a trial, and it may be that for one time this committee has been bent over backwards in trying to maintain this theoretical bipartisanship that is going on. Many other Democrats, including Reps. Rangel, Brooks, and Danielson, shared Rep. Conyers' concerns. Rep. Danielson explained: The President and his counsel are here only as a matter of courtesy extended by the committee and not as a matter of right. They have no standing in this hearing whatever except in connection with the courtesy we have granted to them. This is a constitutional, parliamentary proceeding rather than a trial, and the sole power of impeachment being vested in the House of Representatives, I submit that it is probably even unconstitutional for us to permit participation in the actual work of the committee by the official whose activities are subject to the inquiry itself. Id. at 474. Other issues of concern were raised in 1974 of which you should be well aware. For example, Rep. Conyers voted against the President's counsel's ability to make objections during Committee hearings, Id. at 493, and voted in favor of restricting the President's counsel from having the ability to "cross-examine" witnesses, Id. at 505. I raise these issues with you to demonstrate the limited nature of your ability to participate so that you are not surprised should you decide to exercise your rights under the rules. Furthermore, you should remain mindful of the purpose of these proceedings. H. Res. 581 directed the Committee to "investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America." The rules adopted by the Committee are "applicable to the presentation of evidence in the impeachment inquiry pursuant to H. Res. 581." Therefore, as representatives of the respondent in these proceedings, you shall be confined to allegations against the President, and the facts and evidence in question. You will not be permitted to inquire into other matters not bearing on the question of impeachment. Efforts to utilize these proceedings as a forum to inquire about nongermane matters, such as investigations into the conduct of the investigation that are pending before other bodies, shall not be permitted. I will reiterate my offer. One attorney, either you, Mr. Craig, or Mr. Kendall may question Judge Starr for not more than 30 minutes. Please advise me of your intentions by 12 p.m. on Wednesday, November 18, 1998. Sincerely, HENRY J. HYDE, Chairman. Hon. HENRY H. HYDE, THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, November 17, 1998. Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, Rayburn Office Building, Washington, DC. DEAR CHAIRMAN HYDE: Thank you for your letter of November 16, 1998. Mr. Kendall, Mr. Craig and I will be representing the President at Thursday's hearing and, pursuant to the Impeachment Inquiry Procedures adopted by the Committee, wish to question Mr. Starr in discrete areas, depending on the topics he covers during his presentation and his responses to the Members' questions. Because we have not been informed what the nature and scope of Mr. Starr's testimony will be, it is difficult to predict with any certainty just how long it will take to conduct a full and fair examination. We understand, however, that Mr. Starr has been allocated two full hours for an uninterrupted presentation and the Majority Members 105 minutes for their questions, while the Minority Members will have 80 minutes. We believe, therefore, that it would be fair to grant us 90 minutes for our questions. This would mean that the witness and the Majority would have a total of 225 minutes, and the Minority and the President's counsel a total of 170 minutes. Although your letter notes that counsel for Judge Hastings was allowed to question witnesses for only ten minutes, we believe that the procedures followed by this Committee in 1974 offer a more compelling analogy. The record of the 1974 hearings reflects that Mr. St. Clair questioned certain witnesses (e.g., William Bittman, Charles Colson, and John Dean) at substantial length. Although the record does not state specifically the times at which questioning began and ended, it is evident that the cross-examination of these witnesses ranged from one-and-a-half to more than two hours. See Testimony of William O. Bittman, Hearing Pursuant to H.R. Res. 803 before the Comm. on the Judiciary (Book II), 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 29-55 (1974); Testimony of Charles W. Colson, Hearing Pursuant to H.R. Res. 803 before the Comm. on the Judiciary (Book III), 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 399-445; Testimony of John W. Dean III, Hearing Pursuant to H.R. Res. 803 before the Comm..on the Judiciary (Book II), 93d Cong., 2d Sess., 258–288. As the Members of this Committee fully appreciate, it is the guiding principle of our adversarial system that truth emerges most clearly from the interplay of direct and cross-examination. In light of the fact that the Majority has chosen to call as a witness the person responsible for conducting a wide-ranging, four-year investigation of the President-an investigation that has given rise to serious questions as to its fairness, we submit that anything less than 90 minutes would unfairly constrain our ability to explore the basis for Mr. Starr's testimony and for any conclusions he may proffer. If you have any questions about our request, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CHARLES F.C. RUFF, Counsel to the President. THE WHITE HOUSE, THOMAS MOONEY, ESQ., Washington, November 18, 1998. Chief of Staff and General Counsel, House Judiciary Committee, DEAR MR. MOONEY: This is in response to your letter faxed to me at noon. First, as to your request for exculpatory material, I reiterate the response we gave at our meeting on October 21: it is difficult to provide exculpatory information until we know the allegations to which we must respond. Given the array of charges in the Independent Counsel's Referral and the still different ones presented by Mr. Schippers, as well as all the comments in the past several days about the expansion of the Committee's inquiry, the rampant speculation about the issues to be covered by Mr. Starr at tomorrow's hearing, and the Independent Counsel's delivery to the Committee of several new boxes of materials to which we have not had access, it simply is not reasonable to expect us to rebut allegations that are, at best, in flux. To the extent that the Committee wishes to have our preliminary views on the Referral itself, I direct your attention to the two submissions we have previously made. Second, even in ordinary circumstances, a demand that the President respond on a few hours' notice to 81 questions of the sort the Committee asked less than two weeks ago would be unreasonable, but I know that you will appreciate that the responsibilities that have occupied the President in the days since we received the requests have hardly been ordinary. As I informed the Chairman in the letter I sent to him this morning, the President and his counsel have been working on his responses and expect to submit them in the very near future. Sincerely, CHARLES F.C. RUFF, The Hon. HENRY J. HYDE, Counsel to the President. THE WHITE HOUSE, Washington, November 18, 1998. Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, DEAR CHAIRMAN HYDE: I was sorry to receive your response to my letter, for I believe that my proposal presented a reasonable alternative that would achieve the goal of both the Committee and the President-fundamental fairness in this most serious of proceedings contemplated by our Constitution. I accept the proposition that our role, and indeed the role of all participants, is to assist the Committee in performing its constitutional duty. I submit, however, that, if Mr. Starr is being called "to build a reliable factual record," both the Members and counsel for the President should be given a fair opportunity to test whether the testimony he offers is, indeed, reliable. Our examination of Mr. Starr will be fair; it will not be repetitive; and it will deal directly with that very issue. I agree also that the Committee should proceed expeditiously. Indeed, the President has said from the beginning that all he seeks is a fair, constitutional and expeditious process. He has been working with his lawyers over the less-than-two weeks since receipt of your requests, but you will appreciate that other obligations have intervened. We do anticipate being able to submit his responses in the very near future. |