Read Sellout, by David Schippers....and just FYI...notes from Congressional Record....
Congressional Record
policy.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Presidential Oath
[Page: S9542]
Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, the oath of office taken by the President of the United States is majestic and simple; as a matter of fact, it is eloquent. The President simply swears that he will faithfully execute the office, the highest office of the land, and that he will preserve, protect and defend the United States Constitution.
In its enumeration of his duties, the Constitution of the United States directs that the President `take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' So the President is directed by the Constitution to `take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' The core values of American self-government are concentrated in the Presidency.
Do we expect the President of the United States to be a patriot? Of course. Not only do we expect that from the structure of our government, we have grown to expect it because that has been established as a precedent by President after President after President.
Do we expect the President to love freedom? To serve the people rather than to serve himself? To act with respect for the rule of law? To uphold the idea in America that there are no kings, that the highest rank in this culture is the rank of citizen? To put the institution of the Presidency above his own personal interests? I think it is fair to say that all of us would respond to those inquiries with a resounding `Yes.' We do expect that. We have high expectations.
Do we expect the President to be truthful? Yes. To keep his solemn oath of office? Yes. Certainly. These are qualities--the love of country, the commitment to public service, the obedience and supremacy of the law--that we expect in the behavior of the President. He or she is to be a national model for honesty, integrity, and respect for the law.
It has been shocking to me that defenders of President Clinton have begun to suggest, however, that such is not the case, that our aspirations are without foundation, that somehow we are dreaming an impossible dream to think that the President would be a model. Indeed, we are told he is not even responsible for telling us the truth. Some of his defenders have begun to suggest that lying under oath can be acceptable conduct in a President or that the President is generally above the law and that the President would not need to honor, for instance, a lawful subpoena to a grand jury--the idea that somehow the President's power is so substantial that the President would not have to respond in the event that he were called.
Jack Quinn, former White House counsel and a friend of many in this Chamber, argues in the pages of the Wall Street Journal that the President simply is not the subject of law in the same way as other citizens in an article entitled `Clinton Can Avoid the Starr Chamber.' He argues that the President does not have to comply with a grand jury subpoena.
As new evidence comes to light, all the President's men work to keep America in the dark. And I believe that is wrong. I believe the concept of self-government carries with it an implicit need of citizens to know what is happening in government, what the circumstances are, what the conditions are. And certainly if a person is called upon by a part of our Government to provide truthful testimony, the failure to do so is a very serious offense.
I believe that perjury is unacceptable conduct and that it is an impeachable offense. How can it be otherwise? It is not possible to--and I am quoting the Constitution--`take care that the Laws be faithfully executed' while deliberately slighting the law against perjury. It is that simple.
I, for one, am fascinated by the prevailing conventional wisdom that Presidential perjury would be harmless error, while suborning perjury or obstructing justice would be much worse and an impeachable offense.
The suggestion is shocking--that somehow it is OK for the President to lie but it would not be OK for him to tell someone else to lie, that the act itself would be OK and permissible, but telling someone else to do it would be an infraction. That is an utterly false dichotomy.
Since when is it worse to try to get someone else to lie than to tell a lie yourself? Is it worse to try to convince someone else to steal than to steal yourself? Is it worse to convince someone else to cheat on their taxes than to cheat on your own taxes?
Being under oath and lying under oath or convincing someone else to tell a lie under oath is criminal in either case and irreconcilable with the President's constitutional oath to take care that the laws of the land be respected, honored, and enforced.
Terrible events appear to be engulfing the Clinton Presidency. The investigation of the President raises fundamental questions about the standards we should expect from a Chief Executive of the United States. If the House of Representatives begins an impeachment inquiry, the momentous machinery of the Constitution will raise the issue of Presidential conduct and misconduct to their highest levels.
Because the prospect of Presidential impeachment seldom troubles this blessed Nation--and we can be grateful for that--there are fundamental questions about the President's standing under the law that have never been answered definitively.
If we had impeachment processes going on every month, month by month, year by year, in virtually every Presidency, we would have a great body of law that told us exactly how things are to be done in this situation. That is how the rules of behavior in the legal system are developed, through precedent and experience. But we really do not have major impeachment experience.
As a matter of fact, there has been one President who has undergone that kind of inquiry in the Senate, and that was well over 100 years ago. Moreover, in more recent times, when this body has considered impeachments for a variety of other, lesser officials, we have not conducted full-scale impeachment proceedings. So there are lots of issues that surround the potential of illegal activity by a President that have not been answered; some probably have not even been asked.
It is time to clarify these issues, I believe, before the House addresses the momentous decision of whether to open a formal inquiry.
I think the questions need to be answered, and I believe that we can begin this important discussion about the President's obligations to comply with the normal criminal process.
I think we can begin to develop an understanding of how this should be conducted by holding hearings over the recess in the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I believe we can invite scholars in to answer questions about whether the President is subject to prosecution; whether, indeed, the President is responsible for appearing before a grand jury in response to a subpoena; what level of conduct the President must compare to; what standard can he be measured by; in the absence of measuring up, are there things that can, should, or ought to be done?
I might point out that very shortly we will be called to reevaluate the independent counsel statute which provides a basis for individuals being investigated when the normal investigatory process would be replete with conflicts of interest.
I noted with interest that the assistant majority leader was on the floor here in the Senate Chamber earlier today talking about the fact that the Attorney General has been implored by the Director of the FBI to appoint an independent counsel to look into, investigate, and prosecute possible violations of the criminal laws regarding political contributions. Not only has she been asked to do that by the Director of the FBI, she has been asked to do that by the person she appointed in the Justice Department to look into the matter. His recommendation to her is, according to the reports is, that she ought to appoint an independent counsel, yet she has refused. I noted that the assistant majority leader indicated that her refusal and her continued refusal would become the basis for her resignation, in his view.
I think all of these serious questions about the accountability of high-ranking executive branch officials beg resolution and they demand discussion. It is important that we resolve them and begin to have a full awareness of these potentials as we move toward the responsibility of reauthorizing or otherwise adjusting or dealing with the concept of the independent counsel's office in the independent counsel statute.
[Page: S9542] |
