« PreviousContinue »
cedures, if there is to be any semblance of fair treatment for the President, to the same opportunity afforded Mr. St. Clair.
This issue is of sufficient import to the fair conduct of these proceedings that it should be discussed in detail. We will make ourselves available at your and the Chairman's convenience. Sincerely,
CHARLES F.C. RUFF,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, DC, December 6, 1998. CHARLES F.C. RUFF, Esq., Counsel to the President. GREGORY B. CRAIG, Esq., Special Counsel to the President. The White House, Washington, DC.
DEAR MESSRS. RUFF AND CRAIG: I am in receipt of your two letters of December 4th in which you request that Members forego questions of your presentation and propose to call additional nonfactual witnesses.
In the interests of giving the White House every benefit of the doubt, the Chairman is willing to accommodate your requests, subject to two limitations. First, your requests must comply with the Impeachment Inquiry Procedures that the Committee adopted by voice vote on October 5. Second, the Committee will not undermine its goal of resolving the inquiry this year.
You have consistently ignored the rules adopted by the Committee; rules that you have been aware of for nearly two months. More than seven weeks ago, Committee counsel met with you and explained the privileges that the Committee extended to the White House. Ten days ago, Chairman Hyde reminded the President of the White House's obligation to give the Committee the appropriate notice under those procedures. When your response failed to follow those procedures, you were given an additional two days to respond. Once again, you have failed to comply with Committee procedures and demonstrated contempt for the Committee's process. I am concerned that your recent maneuvers may be little more than an attempt to delay the Committee and turn attention away from the facts before it.
The rules are quite clear. Procedure (A)(3) states: “Should the President's counsel wish the Committee to receive additional testimony or other evidence, he shall be invited to submit written requests and precise summaries of what he would propose to show, and in the case of a witness, precisely and in detail what it is expected the testimony of the witness would be, if called.”
Procedure (B)(3) states that “Committee counsel shall commence the questioning of each witness and may also be permitted by the Chairman or presiding Member to question a witness at any point during the appearance of the witness.” Of course, the members of the Committee who are conducting the impeachment inquiry will be permitted to ask questions of anyone who appears before the
recent empt for omply with two deal to follove The Commestified on the of perjury. Thenally questi
mubject to cut and any t's behalf coco
Committee. I might remind you that this is the fifth time that the Committee has informed the White House of its procedures.
The Committee has already heard from more than thirty witnesses who testified on the constitutional standards for impeachment and the significance of perjury. The Committee has also allowed counsel for the President to personally question the Independent Counsel about any alleged prosecutorial misconduct. Nonetheless, the White House will be permitted to present those witnesses that are approved after you have submitted the names of the proposed witnesses and “written requests and precise summaries of what he would propose to show, and in the case of a witness, precisely and in detail what it is expected the testimony of the witness would be, if called" as required under the Committee's procedures. To preserve the opportunity to present witnesses, you must submit this information by noon on Monday, December 7. You must also submit the name of the counsel that will make a presentation on the President's behalf by noon Monday. The counsel for the President and any approved witnesses that he suggests will be subject to questioning by all of the Members and counsel for the majority and minority.
The White House will be given two entire days to present its case—Tuesday, December 8 and Wednesday, December 9 from 9:00 a.m. to midnight (this gives the White House up to 30 hours to present its case). As the President's counsel prepares his own final presentation to the Committee, please keep in mind that he will need to begin his testimony no later than 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday to allow for questioning by Members and counsel. The presentation by the White House must be completed by Wednesday night so that the Committee can stay on its course to resolve this matter by the end of the year. On Thursday morning, the Committee will hear a presentation by Chief Minority Counsel Abbe Lowell. On Thursday afternoon, Chief Investigative Counsel David Schippers will make a presentation. Opening statements on consideration of articles of impeachment will begin Thursday night, and the debate will continue into Friday. Sincerely,
THOMAS E. MOONEY, Chief of Staff-General Counsel.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, December 7, 1998. THOMAS E. MOONEY, Esq., Chief of Staff-General Counsel, Committee on the Judiciary, House
of Representatives. DEAR MR. MOONEY: Pursuant to Procedure (A)(3), we are writing to provide you with the names of the witnesses we plan to call to testify before the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday and Wednesday this week (December 8-9) as part of the Committee's impeachment inquiry. See the attached schedule. This attachment provides a complete list of the witnesses that we currently intend to call in the two days that have been allocated for the President to present his defense, but we would appeal to the Committee for some flexibility with respect to one matter. We are still communicating with
one potential witness—who would be testifying on Wednesday morning—in an effort to work out scheduling conflicts. If we are successful in this endeavor, we would seek leave of the Committee to provide the requisite information about this witness by the close of business today.
Prior to the testimony of the first panel of witnesses in the proceeding on Tuesday, December 8, Mr. Craig will introduce the panelists whom we have invited to testify and will describe-briefly and generally—the President's legal and factual defense. Mr. Ruff will make a presentation on behalf of the President on Wednesday afternoon, December 9. Sincerely,
GREFORY B. CRAIG,
and Special Counsel.
Counsel to the President.
Vice Presatzenbach willent Clinton would discu
cent of Pation of Postitutisis of
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF WITNESSES
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1998 10:00 a.m.-Gregory B. Craig, Assistant to the President and Special Counsel, will make an introductory statement outlining the President's factual and legal defense and describing the evidence and the testimony that will be presented to the Committee in the course of the next two days. Panel #1: Historical precedents and constitutional standards
The Honorable Nicholas Katzenbach: Former Attorney General of the United States and Under Secretary of State; Retired Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of IBM.
Mr. Katzenbach will testify about the adverse impact that the impeachment of President Clinton would have on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. He will discuss the dangers to the Constitution and to the institution of the presidency posed by impeaching a president on the basis of a party-line vote and in the face of a public opinion opposed to impeachment.
Professor Bruce Ackerman: Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University and author of Volume 2. “We the People” which includes an historical and legal analysis of the impeachment of Andrew Johnson.
Professor Ackerman will argue that, under the constitutional standards adopted by the founding fathers, President Clinton's conduct-however one might view it legally-does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. Professor Ackerman will also argue that the constitutional force of any bill of impeachment approved by this House expires on January 3, 1999, and under the precedents of the Andrew Johnson impeachment, such a bill of impeachment would be open to a motion to quash to be adjudicated by the Chief Justice of the United States before trial in the Senate.
Professor Sean Wilentz: The Dayton Stockton Professor of History and Director of Program and American studies at Princeton University. Professor Wilentz is an expert and teacher of American history from the American Revolution through Reconstruction. He is
He wars who testified evidence that was the Constitution impeach
the author of six books and numerous articles and, in recognition of his scholarship, has been awarded the Albert J. Beveridge Award by the American historical Association and the Frederick Jackson Turner Award by the Organization of American Historians.
Professor Wilentz will testify about the standards for impeachment as elaborated by the framers of the Constitution and will point out important evidence that was ignored or glossed over by scholars who testified before the Subcommittee on the Constitution. He will also discuss the politics of impeachment and the danger that, by politicizing the process, the institution of the presidency will suffer permanent damage. Finally, he will argue that a vote to impeach President Clinton would represent a far more serious attack on the rule of law than would a vote against impeachment.
Professor Samuel H. Beer: Professor Beer is the Eaton Professor of the Science of Government, Emeritus at Harvard University. He has written and lectured and taught about the genius of the American system of government for over sixty-five years.
Professor Beer will testify that the term "high crimes and misdemeanors” referred to the use of presidential power to attack some fundamental process of the constitutional scheme. That standard is not satisfied by Mr. Starr's allegations against Mr. Clinton. To impeach President Clinton on the basis of these allegations would create a weapon that could be wielded in the future by members of Congress hostile tu a future president. This would result in a fundamental change in the American political system, weakening the institution of the presidency and moving to a parliamentary system of government. 2:00 p.m. Panel # 2: Abuse of power
The Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman of New York.
Three former members of the House of Representatives who served as members of the Judiciary Committee during the 1974 impeachment proceeding will testify about abuse of power as the constitutional basis for impeaching a president. They will compare the facts and circumstances relating to the conduct of President Nixon with the facts and circumstances alleged with respect to the conduct of President Clinton. They will testify about the standard of proof—what facts must be established and to what level of certainty—that should be satisfied before articles of impeachment are approved, and they will discuss the idea that impeachment is tantamount to a “constitutional censure.” 6:00 p.m. Panel # 3: How to evaluate the evidence
James Hamilton: Mr. Hamilton is a member of the Washington, D.C. Law firm of Swidler Berlin Shereff & Friedman. He served as Assistant Chief Counsel in the Senate Watergate Committee and is author of "The Power to Probe: A study of Congressional Investigations.” He is former Chairman of the Legal Ethics Committee of the D.C. Bar.
Mr. Hamilton will testify about the evidentiary standards applied to the facts and circumstances relating to allegations of abuse of
able ElizabetJ. Drinant Utah.e of Repreing the 1
he come evidenixon yearguing is
power in the Watergate investigation in 1974 compared with the facts and circumstances of the current investigation. He will put both of these impeachment inquiries into an historical and constitutional context, arguing that the evidence of abuse of power during the Nixon years warranted impeachment while the comparable evidence against President Clinton under consideration by the Committee at the moment does not.
Richard Ben-Veniste: Mr. Ben-Veniste served as an Assistant United States Attorney and Chief of the Special Prosecutions Section in the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. He was also Assistant Special Prosecutor and Chief of the Watergate Task Force from 1968–1973. More recently he served as Minority Chief Counsel to the Senate Whitewater Committee during 1995–96. He has also served as Special Counsel to the Senate Subcommittee on Government Operations and as Special Counsel to the Senate Subcommittee on District of Columbia Appropriations.
Mr. Ben-Veniste's presentation to the Committee will compare the methods of gathering and transmitting evidence during the Watergate investigation to Mr. Starr's inquiry and transmittal of evidence to the House Judiciary Committee. He will discuss the importance of public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the Independent Counsel and will address the questions of proportionality, ethical standards and substance associated with the inquiry now before the House Committee.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1998 9:30 a.m.—Prosecutorial standards for obstruction of justice and
perjury A group of lawyers experienced in the criminal justice system, primarily as prosecutors—will testify about prosecutorial standards under which evidence would be evaluated and cases of perjury and obstruction of justice would be brought. They will argue that the facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct of President Clinton fall short of meeting those standards and, in their judgment, would not result in his criminal prosecution.
Thomas P. Sullivan, Esq: Mr. Sullivan is the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. Sullivan is a senior partner at Jenner & Block and has practiced with that firm for the past 44 years. Mr. Sullivan specializes in civil and criminal trial and appellate litigation, and he has served as an instructor at Loyola Law School and for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
Richard J. Davis, Esq: Mr. Davis is a partner with the New York law firm of Weil, Gotschal & Manges. He clerked for USDC Judge Jack B. Weinstein (1969–70). He served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York (1970–73) and was Task Force Leader for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force (1973–75). From 1977–81, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Enforcement and Operations.
Edward S.G. Dennis, Jr., Esq: Mr. Dennis is a partner in the Litigation Section of the Philadelphia law firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius. He joined the firm after 15 years with the Department of