Given the increasingly specific and damaging evidence surfacing on a
regular basis now against the President and his Administration, I believe
it is both responsible and essential that we very carefully consider the
matter of impeachment at this time.
I believe in several fundamental premises. First, this is a rogue
administration; consciously and systematically operating outside the bounds
of the laws of this land, and outside the common and historical norms
of political conduct for our country. Second, this President and
his Administration must be held accountable for their misdeeds. If
we in the House of Representatives, as the body charged with oversight
of the executive branch, do not hold him accountable, then we have no legitimate
claim to governing this country. Third, to a large extent, and as
noted recently in the Wall Street Journal, President Clinton enjoys
a relatively high approval rating because he has not yet been held accountable
for his misdeeds. Fourth, this is a most serious matter for consideration
which must be approached knowingly, deliberatively, with an eye toward
both past and future history, with each step weighed very carefully.
I have concluded after very careful and exhaustive research and consideration
of all these matters, that the appropriate step to be taken at this
time is the filing of an Inquiry of Impeachment.
An Inquiry of Impeachment, is not the same in substance
or process as Articles of Impeachment or a Resolution of Impeachment.
This is an important distinction.
For example, as noted in Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual, "[a]
direct proposition to impeach is a question of high privilege in the House
and at once supersedes business otherwise in order." On the other
hand, a "resolution simply proposing an investigation . . . is not privileged"
(Section 604, Jefferson's Manual). This latter directive refers
to an Inquiry of Impeachment, which is one of the five specific "methods
of setting an impeachment in motion" set forth in Section 603, Jefferson's
Manual. The specific language in Section 603 is that an Impeachment
may be set in motion "from facts developed and reported by an Investigating
Committee of the House."
A number of Inquiries of Impeachment were introduced in October
1973, in the 93rd Congress, against President Nixon. (Interestingly,
a number of Members who signed one or more of those resolutions, several
of which were introduced in late October 24 years ago -- remain in
the House today, including the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee,
John Conyers.) I have reviewed all of them.
An Inquiry of Impeachment does not set forth specific grounds
for the Impeachment of the President or such other person sought
to be impeached. However, an Inquiry of Impeachment,
as a Resolution passed by the House, would have the very important and
I believe necessary result of placing this issue squarely where it belongs,
in the Committee tasked with Constitutional matters of high importance:
the Committee on the Judiciary.
When an Inquiry of Impeachment is filed, it is referred to the
Committee on Rules (Section 605, Jefferson's Manual). This
is precisely what transpired in October 1973, when a number
of Inquires of Impeachment resolutions were
introduced against President Nixon.
Following consideration of the Resolution, pursuant to such deliberations
and after receiving such evidence or testimony as it deems necessary, the
Rules Committee would vote out the Inquiry. It would then go to the Full
House where it would be taken up, but not as a privileged matter.
The Inquiry of Impeachment would be voted on by the Full House,
and if passed by majority of the Members thereof (and this
is the operative language), it would provide:
"Whereas, considerable
evidence has been developed from a broad array of credible sources that
William Jefferson Clinton, President of The United States, has engaged
in a systematic effort to obstruct, undermine and compromise the legitimate
and proper functions and processes of the Executive Branch:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary is directed to
investigate and report to the House whether grounds exist to impeach William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. Upon completion
of such investigation, that committee shall report to the House its recommendations
with respect thereto, including, if the Congress so determines, a resolution
of impeachment."
At the heart of this matter is "abuse of office," which is also at
the heart of the notion of Impeachment in our Constitution, and which cannot,
by any measure, be considered in any other form (e.g., oversight
hearings by the Judiciary, oversight or investigative hearings by
the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, any action by the Department
of Justice, or, perhaps most importantly, any action by an Independent
Counsel).
Not one of these other mechanisms has the ability or mandate to
address what Impeachment is explicitly designed to address, and for which
it was expressly placed in our Constitution. Impeachment alone, of
all powers possessed by all three branches of our government, can protect
us against abuse of power, by removing an official from office. It
is designed to deal with "misconduct of public men," or, in other words,
from the abuse or violation of some public trust that is "of
a nature . . . political." (See, Federalist Number
65, Alexander Hamilton; and Constitutional Grounds for Presidential
Impeachment, "Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry," Committee
on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 93rd Congress, Second Session,
February 1974.)
Prosecution of a President by a U.S. Attorney or an Independent Counsel
cannot remove him from office. Action by an Independent Counsel cannot
remove a President from office. The Judiciary Committee cannot, except
through Impeachment (and conviction thereof by the Senate), remove a President
from office. The Government Reform and Oversight Committee cannot,
through any action it takes, remove a President from office. Impeachment
alone, provided as a tool to do precisely this by our Founding Fathers
220 years ago, is the only tool to remove a high civil officer from his
position of trust for abuse of that office.
Impeachment not only does not require conviction of any crime
(felony or misdemeanor in modern terminology) in order to be sustained,
the very notion of Impeachment explicitly was not intended to reach
the same issues as conviction of a crime.
However, notwithstanding this last point, clearly we are seeing evidence
that federal laws have been violated by the Administration. A number
of these were very eloquently set forth in a letter to the Attorney General
dated September 3, 1997, by Henry Hyde and signed by all other Republican
Members of the Judiciary Committee. Recent newspaper accounts support
this conclusion; such as John Fund's article in the Wall Street Journal
of October 22, 1997, Paul Gigot's article also in the Wall Street Journal
of October 17, 1997, and Mark Helprin's eloquent editorial on Impeachment
in the October 10th edition of the Wall Street Journal. Numerous
other recent accounts also clearly set forth evidence of specific
laws that have been broken, such as 18 USC 607(a) (relating to the prohibition
on fundraising from or in a federal office by a federal official); 18 USC
641 (conversion of government property); 18 USC 1505 (obstruction); and
others.
More important, we see a clear pattern of activity that establishes
an intent or scheme to defraud the citizens of the United States
of the honest and faithful services of their President; converting the
Office of the President and the attributes thereof to the personal (i.e.,
campaign) use of the President; circumvention of our federal election laws;
laundering of campaign and labor funds; violation of tax laws (the Buddhist
temple incident, for example); bribery; obstruction of justice in
failing to respond to lawful congressional subpoenas and withholding evidence;
and tampering with evidence. This is but a partial list.
In summary, I believe the vehicle of an Inquiry of Impeachment
provides a measured, interim and fully responsible mechanism to place this
matter squarely where it ought to be, and that is, in that Committee of
the House tasked with addressing matters of a high constitutional nature:
abuse of office by the highest constitutional officer in the land.
This matter, thusly handled, would not necessarily preclude other specific
oversight or investigative efforts by the House. However, it provides
a very necessary vehicle and direction for which and through which to consider
these allegations, mounting evidence of which will be surfacing with increasing
frequency.
