Two Opposing Views of Justice

Excerpts from Monday’s closing arguments in President Clinton’s impeachment case:

For the prosecution:

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.):

“This trial is not about the president’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. It is about the perjury and obstruction of justice he committed during the . . . lawsuit filed against him and the subsequent independent counsel investigation.

”. . .To conclude that perjury and obstruction of justice are acceptable, if committed by a popular president during times of peace and prosperity, sets a dangerous precedent which sets America on the road back to an imperial presidency above the law. To keep a president in office whose gross misconduct and criminal actions are a well-established fact will weaken the authority of the presidency, undermine the rule of law and cheapen those words which have made America different from most other nations in the earth: ‘Equal justice under law.’ ”

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio):

“President Clinton . . . refuses to admit what all of us know is true. To this day, he continues to deny and distort, he continues to dispute the undeniable facts that are before the Senate and before the American people. The president’s attorneys have done their best to disguise the truth as well.

”. . . But if you look through the smoke and the mirrors employed by these very able lawyers, you will see the truth. The truth is that President Clinton lied to a federal grand jury. He lied about whether or not he had committed perjury in a civil deposition, about the extent of his relationship with a subordinate federal employee, about his coaching of his secretary, Betty Currie, and about countless other matters.”

Rep. James E. Rogan (R-Glendale)

“It is the oath of office and not public opinion polls that give life and legitimacy to a presidency. . . . The evidence shows the president repeatedly violated his oath of office. Now the focus shifts to your oath of office. The president hopes that in this chamber the polls will govern. On behalf of the House . . . we entreat you to require that the Constitution reign supreme. For if polls matter more than the oath to uphold the law, then yet another chip out of the marble has been struck.”

Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.)

“There is a visibility factor in the president’s public acts. And those which betray a trust or reveal contempt for the law are hard to sweep under the rug, or under the bed for that matter. They reverberate, they ricochet, all over the land and provide the worst possible example for our young people. As that third-grader from Chicago wrote to me, ‘If you can’t believe the president, who can you believe?’

” . . . There’s no denying the fact that what you decide, it will have a profound effect on our culture as well as on our politics. A failure to convict will make a statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious. Perhaps we can explain this to those currently in prison for perjury. We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the president.”

For the defense:

Counsel Charles F.C. Ruff:

“We know the pain the president has caused our society and his family and his friends. But we know, too, how much the president has done for this country. And more importantly, we know that our primary obligation, the duty we all have, is to preserve that which the [founding fathers] gave us. And we can best fulfill that duty by carefully traveling the path that they laid out for us. Now you have heard many speeches over the past few weeks about ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.’ As I look back on the arguments and the counter-arguments, it seems to me that really very little can be gained by repeating them, for when all is said and done, what they mean is this: The framers [of the Constitution] chose stability. They made impeachment and removal constitutional recourses of last resort.

“The question that the managers appear to have asked . . . is whether perjury or obstruction of justice in the abstract are impeachable offenses. That is not the question you must answer. Nor must you assume, as the managers appear to, that because judges are removed for having committed perjury, a president must be removed as well. That is not what the law--the rule of law--requires. The rule of law--and evenhanded justice--is something more than a simple syllogism. You must decide whether, on these facts, arising out of these circumstances, this president has so endangered the state that we can no longer countenance his remaining in office.

”. . . It is important to understand, as I fear the managers do not, that the framers full well understood what they were doing when they drafted the impeachment provisions of the Constitution. They consciously chose not to make all misconduct by the president a basis for removal. They chose, instead, only that conduct that they viewed as most serious, as most dangerous to our system of government. As I said, I think in their hearts the managers recognize the force of this, for they’ve argued to you that perjury and obstruction really should be treated as the equivalent of treason and bribery in the danger that they pose to our society. . . . Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the president in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit.

”. . . We are . . . weavers of a constitutional fabric in which all of us now are clothed and generations will be clothed for millennia to come. We cannot leave even the smallest flaw in that fabric, for if we do, one day someone will come along and pull a thread, and the flaw will grow and it will eat away at the fabric around it, and soon the entire cloth will begin to unravel. We must be as close to perfect in what we do here today as women and men are capable of being. And if there is doubt about our course, surely we must take special care, as we hold the fabric of democracy in our hands, to leave it as we found it, tightly woven and strong.

” . . . And now our last words to you, which are the words I began with: William Jefferson Clinton is not guilty of the charges that have been brought against him. He did not commit perjury. He did not commit obstruction of justice. He must not be removed from office.”

Compiled by Times staff writers Judy Lin and Heidi Sherman.