[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 23 (Monday, March 6, 2000)]
[House]
[Page H644]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             SPECIAL ORDERS
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES INJECTS HIMSELF INTO THE DIALLO 
                                VERDICT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I noticed in yesterday's newspaper 
reports that President Clinton has now seen fit to inject himself into 
the case surrounding the Diallo verdict in New York. He has done so in 
a fashion which perpetuates his reputation for political opportunism.
  The obligation of any President is to uphold the rule of law in this 
country, which obligation includes respect for and affirmation of our 
broader justice system. The President also has an obligation to unify 
the disparate peoples and views in our country by calling on ``our 
better angels,'' as Abraham Lincoln once said, seeking to heal the 
wounds that are too often inflicted by citizens and groups against each 
other in the history of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has an obligation to respect our jury 
system, as sometimes imperfect in hindsight it might be, for, to do 
otherwise, enhances cynicism and diminishes the natural conflict in 
criminal cases between the strength of a prosecutor's claim and the 
ability of a defense team to defend prosecutions that lack evidence and 
proof.
  Finally, a President's personal stake in the outcome of a broader 
political contest should not be used as a weapon to gain political 
advantage in order to benefit a political ally and indict the law 
enforcement team of a political opponent in the process.
  Yet, that is exactly what we see being done in creating a racial 
divide by second guessing a jury decision that was litigated as 
provided in our justice system in this country. By such statements, the 
entire police force of New York has been unfairly besmirched, when, in 
fact, the jury foreman happened to be of African American descent and 
publicly stated that racial prejudice had no bearing on the jury 
verdict, but instead, the prosecution was weak.
  Missing an opportunity for judicious comment or healing words or 
affirmation of the rule of law and the verdicts of juries and the 
opportunity for all Americans to recognize that all defendants are 
presumed innocent was something that happened in this case. Their 
criminal guilt must be proved by the high standard of guilt beyond a 
reasonable doubt, not just tipping the scales, but putting the scales 
all the way down.
  Mr. Speaker, I was not at the trial and listened to the evidence; 
obviously, our President was not either. I fear that carelessness in 
this case may prove to be reckless, that those who would divide New 
York on improper grounds have already seized upon the President's 
words.
  It is clear that the President has attempted to exert his personal 
undue influence on the political fortunes of his wife in New York in 
her Senate campaign and give justification for the Justice Department 
to exert itself in a case that was, by all accounts, fairly litigated, 
even though a very difficult outcome, knowing what we know now about 
the facts of the case. However, the jury in this case was the one 
charged with making this decision.
  Had the President used the opportunity to speak against racial 
division in favor of responsible and unbiased police work, in favor of 
respect for all human beings in our country, regardless of religion or 
race or ethnic background, in favor of enhanced police training 
regarding racial sensitivity and restraint in cases of law enforcement 
apprehension so that all criminal suspects are accorded their 
constitutional rights, then this would be a day of admiration and 
respect for this particular Presidential proclamation.
  Mr. Speaker, the risk posed by Mr. Clinton's declarations are not 
worth any political contest in any State, for any candidate, and 
certainly not for the racial and social harmony which is the common 
goal of our country. It is something we ought to strive to reach, not 
seek to divide.




                          ____________________