|
Transcript provided by FDCH |
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Transcript: Statement of former acting deputy attorney general Edward DennisHouse Judiciary Committee hearing, December 9, 1998EDWARD DENNIS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers, members of the House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, I am opposed to the impeachment of President Clinton. My opposition is grounded, in part, in my belief that a criminal conviction would be extremely difficult to obtain in a court of law. There is very weak proof of the criminal intent of the president. The Lewinsky affair is of questionable materiality to the proceedings in which it was raised. And I believe that a jury would be sympathetic to any person charged with perjury for dancing around questions put to them that demanded an admission of marital infidelity -- that is, unless the case -- the answers were essential to the resolution of a very substantial claim. On another level, I sense an impeachment under these circumstances would prove extremely divisive for the country, inflaming the passions of those who would see impeachment as an attempt thwart the election process for insubstantial reasons. Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious offenses. They are felonies. However, in my experience, perjury or obstruction of justice prosecutions of parties in private civil litigation are rare. Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, I am opposed to the impeachment of President Clinton. My opposition is grounded, in part, in my belief that a criminal conviction would be extremely difficult to obtain in a court of law. There is very weak proof of the criminal intent of the president. The Lewinsky affair is of questionable materiality to the proceedings in which it was raised. And I believe that a jury would be sympathetic to any person charged with perjury for dancing around questions put to them that demanded an admission of marital infidelity -- that is, unless the case -- the answers were essential to the resolution of a very substantial claim. On another level, I sense an impeachment under these circumstances would prove extremely divisive for the country, inflaming the passions of those who would see impeachment as an attempt thwart the election process for insubstantial reasons. Perjury and obstruction of justice are serious offenses. They are felonies. However, in my experience, perjury or obstruction of justice prosecutions of parties in private civil litigation are rare. DENNIS: Rarer still are criminal investigations in the course of civil litigation in anticipation of incipient perjury or obstruction of justice. In such circumstances, prosecutors are justifiably concerned about the appearance that government is taking the side of one private party against another. The oath taken by witnesses demands full and truthful testimony at depositions and in grand jury proceedings -- excuse me, demands truthful testimony at depositions and in grand jury proceedings. Nonetheless, imprecise, ambiguous, evasive and even misleading responses to questions don't support perjury prosecutions, even though such responses may raise serious questions about the credibility of a witness on a particular subject. Proof that a witnesses' testimony is untrue is not sufficient alone to prove perjury and proof that a witness is intentionally evasive or nonresponsive is not sufficient to prove perjury either. Courts are rigorously literal in passing on questions of ambiguity in the questions and the response of witnesses under oath and generally give the accused the benefit of any doubt on possible interpretations of the questions and the meaning of the allegedly perjurious response. Perjury cases are very difficult to win under the most favorable circumstances. I believe the question of whether there were sexual relations between the president and Ms. Lewinsky is collateral to the harassment claim in the Jones case. The president has confessed to an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. The Jones case was dismissed and is now settled. These circumstances simply would not warrant the bringing of a criminal prosecution and a criminal prosecution would most likely fail. Certainly the exercise of sound prosecutorial discretion would not dictate prosecuting such a case. The consequences of the impeachment of the president of the United States are far-reaching. These consequences are grave and they impact the entire nation. Impeachment, in my view, should not serve as a punishment for a president who has admittedly gone astray in his family life, as grave as that might be in personal terms. Where there are serious doubt, as there must be in this case, prudence demands that Congress defer to the electoral mandate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Dennis. |
|
 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MORE STORIES:Tuesday, December 8, 1998
• Poll: Most Americans do not think Clinton will be impeached • White House offers a 184-page defense report • Hearing transcripts from day one of Clinton's defense • As it happens: The president's defense, day 1 • New York Republican gave campaign money to two Democrats • Rep. LaHood may preside over House impeachment debate • A primer on impeachment • Would a House vote carry over to new Senate? • New Hampshire seeks to protect its primary • Grand jury orders Tripp attorney to produce tapes • Let independent counsel statute expire, panel says • IRS sets guidelines for new 'innocent spouse' tax relief • Federal workers to see pay increase beginning next month | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
