|
Transcript provided by FDCH |  |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transcript: Judiciary Committee impeachment hearingNovember 19, 1998(continued)HYDE: Will the committee come to order? A couple of little commentaries, if I may. When you watch a football game on Saturday or Sunday, you notice they have a two-minute warning and these scheduled interruptions. Well, now, congressional committees have the same situation. We have to give a two minute warning to the network television, and so, that's why we seem to be suspended up here doing nothing. We're waiting for the appropriate time. The chair would like to announce we're going to finish this evening. Some of you may be wondering how long we're going to go. I have no idea. But rather than come back tomorrow, we're going to do the job today. So I plead with my fellow members, if you have to ask a question, I hope it's a burning issue with you and not something just of idle curiosity. And I'm looking at you, Mr. Delahunt. (LAUGHTER) DELAHUNT: I'm not idly curious -- are we going to take a supper break? HYDE: No, we won't take a supper break. We'll go straight through. We'll keep the jury locked up without food and water, right? (UNKNOWN): We're sequestered, I take it. HYDE: That's right. You may send out for pizza. (LAUGHTER) There will be a meeting -- there will be a meeting after Judge Starr has completed his testimony. We will then have another -- we will have a full meeting of the committee to do so business on subpoenas. So just be advised. FRANK: (OFF-MIKE) on the Mall, will a police officer accompany us? (LAUGHTER) HYDE: If you're walking around the mall, I would want two police officers. (LAUGHTER) It is now, well, a mixed pleasure to ask the senator-elect from the great state of New York and one of our very valuable members whom we will miss, Charles Schumer, to interrogate, question our witness -- for five minutes. SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will miss you and this committee, not so much today, but for many of the other things that we have done together. Today, Mr. Starr, today after nearly five years of investigation, we conduct today's impeachment hearing having just received boxes of new documents from your office concerning Webster Hubbell and have just learned from the chairman that we will be voting on deposing new witnesses involving the Kathleen Willey matter. And Mr. Chairman, I would say this to all of us on this committee. Maybe we should hang a sign outside the Judiciary Committee that says, out to lunch, gone fishing. We were out to lunch because we're so far afield of what the American people want us to do. We've gone fishing because despite a five-year fishing expedition which has yielded nothing more than allegations revolving around a tawdry sex scandal this committee is still trying to bait the hook. What has disturbed me about the twists and turns of this investigation and these proceedings is that instead of seeking justice, too many are intent on winning the war. So when there's not enough evidence for impeachment, you bring in John Huang's name or Kathleen Willey to prop up the case. And I say to my Republican colleagues that the irony is that the harder you try to win the war, the more you lose the hearts and minds of the American people. Now, for Mr. Starr, the OIC has basically made three allegations against the president, three types of allegations -- perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power, all stemming from the president's admitted improper relationship with Monica Lewinsky. To me, as I have said, and you have stated in your report, it's clear that the president lied when he testified before the grand jury, not to cover a crime, but to cover embarrassing personal behavior. And as I have said before, the president's actions deserve to be punished, not as a political denouement, but because what the president has done is a serious matter that cannot go unanswered. However, it is clear to me that if this case, as it seems to be and as it seems clear to me, is only about sex and lying about sex, that it will never be found impeachable by Congress, nor should it be. As I interpret the Constitution and the Federalist Papers -- an interpretation that is diametrically opposed to yours, Mr. Starr -- it's obvious that this does not reach the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors as set forth in the Constitution. The innate and sound wisdom of the American people that lying about an extramarital affair should not lead to the removal of a duly elected president from office is far more in keeping with the founding fathers' visions of impeachment than your legalistic arguments, Mr. Starr. So thus, if it -- it seems to me that if the charges of abuse of power and obstruction of justice lack compelling evidence, then the vast majority of Americans and a strong majority in this House will not vote for impeachment. So I'd like to ask you a few questions on the obstruction charge -- charges. I am not asking you about abuse of power because that has already been rejected as out of hand by even the president's harshest critics in the Republican Party. And I'm going to ask you three sets of short questions for you to answer together, and that will be the end of my questioning, so you'll have the rest of the time to answer. First, on August 20th, 1998, Ms. Lewinsky testified that -- quote -- "no one ever asked me to lie and I was never promised a job for my silence" -- unquote. That was in response to a question by a grand juror. Let me ask you again, because I know Mr. Lowell asked this, but I didn't find the answer adequate. Why wasn't this statement directly included in your 455-page referral to Congress -- not in a footnote and not paraphrased? Isn't that relevant -- trenchantly relevant information about what we're doing? And if you are so dispassionate about simply producing the facts, why wouldn't you have included the statement verbatim and in quotes, particularly on a matter as important as impeachment? Second, regarding the Lewinsky job search, if the president and his staff began to find Monica Lewinsky a job some time after December 5th, 1997, the date she first appeared on the witness list, that might lead one to your conclusion that there was an attempt to influence her testimony. But since the job search began more than 18 months prior, doesn't that cast into serious doubt an obstruction argument? You are assuming that once the White House knew of the deposition of Lewinsky, their reason for getting her a job totally changed when it seems at least as logical that the reasons remained the same -- mainly that they wanted to get her away from the White House for the obvious -- same reason that they did before they knew of any deposition. And again, shouldn't we set an impeachment bar high enough so that a 50/50 proposition like this does not set off a constitutional crisis? And third, and finally, on January the 18th, the president had the conversation with Betty Currie. Isn't it true that on that date, she was not listed as a deposition or a trial witness in the Jones case or any other case? For obstruction or subornation, the president would have to know that she was to be called as a witness. There's another logical reason that he didn't want Betty Currie to talk about this. He may not have wanted the press to know. He may not have wanted his family to know. HYDE: Can you wind up, Mr. Schumer? SCHUMER: Yes, this is my last -- and again, given the weighty matter of impeachment, shouldn't there be more evidence than just your surmise that the president knew that Currie would be called as a witness? Your answers, Mr. Starr. STARR: Senator-elect and Congressman Schumer, question one -- we did supply the information. STARR: The reason that you're having, of course, these questions, with respect to the referral, is because we produced everything that was relevant to your assessment of Ms. Lewinsky, and I stand by what we said in page-174 of the referral. I think it's fair, in light of our assessment, but your assessment, of course, may very well be different with respect to that one item. SCHUMER: I asked why you didn't put it in the report, in full, fully quoted? STARR: Because we do not think it is consistent with the truth, and it would be misleading to say, in our judgment, and I understand you may disagree with this, but we specifically said at page-174, not in a footnote: "Ms. Lewinsky has stated that the president never explicitly told her to lie." If one finds that inadequate, then one find its inadequate. It is your judgment. But we were holding nothing back, the referral contains the information, you have, also, the grand jury transcripts. I'll be very brief. With respect to the December 5, 1997, matter -- and again, this is an assessment of facts -- our professional assessment of the facts included such significant things as a great stepping up of the efforts to get her a job, especially once the witness list issued, and the referral speaks to that in fairly elaborate detail, in how Mr. Jordan became very active in that effort. Again, it's our assessment of the facts. SCHUMER: It could reasonable -- assessment the other way, I presume? STARR: Well, I've come to my assessment, based upon my colleagues who are professional prosecutors' assessment of the facts. SCHUMER: Beyond a reasonable doubt? STARR: That's, by no means, is that our standard. SCHUMER: I understand. Thank you. STARR: Because, as you quite rightly note, the question is substantial and credible. And with respect to Betty Currie, I would simply guide the Congress again, the House, again, to the substance of the president's testimony and how she was injected into the matter by the president in his testimony, and we think that does have significant... SCHUMER: With all due respect, sir, that doesn't answer my question, which was not how she was injected or what the substance was? Please, Mr. Chairman, just -- you didn't answer my question directly. But how did you come to realize that the president knew that she would be called as a witness, when there was no mention of it at that time? Is this just surmise, or do you have any factual evidence that the president knew that she would be called as a witness? We understand he wanted her not to tell the truth, but we don't know to whom. Where's your evidence? STARR: The evidence is not that she was on a witness list. You are quite right. She was not on a witness list and we never said she was. What we did say is that the transcripts of the president's January 17, deposition, shows that he was injecting Betty Currie into the matter and saying -- may I finish? -- and saying, specifically, you will have to ask Betty. That raises... SCHUMER: Nothing to do with the legal proceeding, sir, and that's the heart of subornation. HYDE: All right. The gentleman's time has finally expired. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. COBLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Starr, you have become the bull's-eye of the target upon which several aspiring political gunslingers have fired. A recent AP story quoted a Democrat member of this Congress, saying "the House Judiciary Committee Republicans are looking for a way to wiggle out of this mess." Now let me get this straight. President Clinton was involved in an illicit sexual affair -- strike that. Illicit sexual affairs in the White House with a young White House intern of tender years. President Clinton subsequently assured all America that he did not have an improper relationship with that woman. President Clinton, continuing his denial, spoke untruthfully in a deposition, or interrogatory, and before a federal grand jury causing perjury to rear its ugly head. And for all of this, you are the bullseye of the target and the House Republicans are trying to wiggle a way out of the mess. I obviously missed class that day, because as I review my material and notes, common sense and reality are consciously absent. Judge Starr, if one-half of the unfavorable comments leveled at you are proved, you probably should be keelhauled. I'm inclined to dismiss most of them, and as evidenced by your demeanor today, I think most of that trashing was probably just that, trashing. Now I'll admit, I'm not happy with the cost of this investigation. But some of that must be attributed to the president's delaying and deceptive and evasive tactics. Let me go to page 21, Judge Starr. That's (OFF-MIKE) what you were referring to earlier. Whereas it says as the facts suggest the president was attempting to improperly coach Ms. Currie at a time when she was not a potential witness -- shouldn't the word "not" be deleted there? STARR: Yes, thank you, Congressman. And in fact, I think the corrected version, which should have come up this morning, should make it clear that she was a potential witness. COBLE: We're now (OFF-MIKE) that she was a potential witness. STARR: Yes, and I must say because you've been kind enough to raise that, I would just say in response to issues about potential witnesses that federal law is clear that these prohibitions against importuning and coaching a witness do indeed go to a potential witness. COBLE: And I think the word "not" does appear in many of these, of our scripts. STARR: I apologize for that. COBLE: Judge Starr, what evidence did you find to support your conclusion that President Clinton's action involved public misconduct as opposed to private misconduct (a)? And (b) what evidence, if any, is there that President Clinton breached the public trust? STARR: Well, Congressman, I'll be as brief as I can. In terms of the public nature of the conduct, it seemed to me, as I sought to set out both in the referral and this morning, that the key is this is no longer -- and I respectfully disagree, but it's not my judgment that governs here -- I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that this is -- quote -- "lying about a private sexual relationship." Rather this is the integrity of the judicial process. These are courts we're now talking about. These are judges, and a district judge is sitting and presiding. And that is, it seems to me, what made that dimension of it very public. But the other aspect, which we do enumerate in counts or grounds 10 and 11, which are before you, is that in a variety of ways, the president used the powers and influence of the presidency to carry out this continued effort to deny and to delay, including, I believe -- and this goes back to an earlier comment -- when one looks at the pattern of activity that we summarize in grounds 10 and 11, one will see a course of conduct that I believe does in fact go to your point, both of your points. Back | Next |
|
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MORE STORIES:Thursday, November 19, 1998
• Starr says Clinton 'chose deception' • White House lashes out at Starr's testimony • Quick takes from the Impeachment hearing • McDougal jury recesses until Friday morning • Utah congressman's erratic behavior troubles staff members, GOP • As Congress focuses on Lewinsky, GOP governors focus on schools • Bono's widow says prescription drugs contributed to his death • Hearing brings those seeking history, drama and famous people • Officials back rotating regional primaries for president • For now, Clinton won't recommend a Social Security solution | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
