[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 138 (Tuesday, October 6, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H9648-H9649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SHOULD PRESIDENT CLINTON BE IMPEACHED?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, we have, all of us, heard the salacious and 
speculative words being thrown around by the press and by partisans 
posturing both in this House and across the country, but this is too 
important, far too important. This is a crisis to our constitutional 
government, it seems to me, and therefore I believe it is important to 
hear from real experts.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote and read from a letter 13 
constitutional scholars with no political ax to grind sent to the 
Speaker of the House. This is signed by 13 professors of law, and I am 
going to read this letter.

       Dear Mr. Speaker,
       Did President Clinton commit high crimes and misdemeanors 
     for which he may be properly impeached? We, the undersigned 
     professors of law, believe that the misconduct alleged in the 
     independent counsel's report does not cross that threshold. 
     We write neither as Democrats nor as Republicans. Some of us 
     believe the President has acted disgracefully, some that the 
     independent counsel has. This letter has nothing to do with 
     any such judgment. Rather it expresses the one judgment of 
     which we all agree, that the independent counsel's report 
     does not make a case for presidential impeachment. No 
     existing judicial precedent binds congress' determination of 
     the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors, but it is clear 
     that Members of Congress would violate their constitutional 
     responsibilities if they sought to impeach and remove the 
     President merely for conduct of which they disapproved. The 
     President's independence from Congress is fundamental to the 
     American structure of government. It is essential to the 
     separation of powers. It is essential to the President's 
     ability to discharge such constitutional duties as vetoing 
     legislation he considers contrary to the Nation's interest.

  They go on to say some of the charges laid out in the independent 
counsel's report fall so far short of the high standard that they 
strain good sense. For example, the charge that the President 
repeatedly declined to testify voluntarily or press a debatable 
privilege claim that was later judicially objected. These offenses are 
not remotely impeachable. With respect, however, to other allegations, 
the report requires careful consideration of the kind of misconduct 
that renders a President constitutionally unfit to stay in office.
  When a President commits treason, he exercises his executive powers 
or uses information obtained by virtue of his executive powers 
deliberately to aid an enemy. When a President is bribed, he exercises 
or offers to exercise his executive powers in exchange for corrupt 
gain. Both acts involve the criminal exercise of presidential power, 
converting those awful powers into an instrument either of enemies' 
interest or purely personal gain.
  We believe that the critical distinctive feature of treason and 
bribery is

[[Page H9649]]

grossly derelict exercise of official power. Nonindictable conduct may 
rise to this level. For example, a President might be properly 
impeached if, as a result of drunkenness, he recklessly and repeatedly 
misused executive authority. The misconduct for which the President is 
accused does not involve the derelict exercise of executive powers. 
Most of this conduct does not involve the exercise of executive powers 
at all. If the President committed perjury regarding his sexual 
conduct, this perjury involves no exercise of presidential power as 
such. If he concealed evidence, this misdeed too involved no exercise 
of executive authority.

                              {time}  1630

  By contrast, if he sought wrongfully to place someone in a job at the 
Pentagon, or lied to subordinates hoping they would repeat his false 
statements, these acts could have involved a wrongful use of 
presidential influence, but we cannot believe the President's alleged 
conduct of this nature amounts to the grossly derelict exercise of 
executive power sufficient for impeachment.
  Perjury and obstructing justice can without doubt be impeachable 
offenses. A President who corruptly used the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation to obstruct an investigation would have criminally 
exercised his presidential powers. Moreover, covering up a crime 
furthers or aids the underlying crime. Thus a President who committed 
perjury to cover up his subordinates' criminal exercise of executive 
authority would also have committed an impeachable offense.

                          ____________________