REP. HENRY HYDE

January 16, 1999
		Rep. Henry Hyde, chief manager of the impeachment case, closed the House's case against the president with a call to protect the "sacred honor" and rule of law.

Full coverage of the impeachment trial. Jan. 8, 1999: Shields and Gigot on the Senate deal. Jan. 7, 1999: Shield and Gigot discuss the impeachment trial. Jan. 6, 1999: Tom Oliphant and David Brooks analyze the beginning of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate. Jan. 6, 1999: Two of impeachment managers on the Senate trial. Jan. 5, 1999: Four former senators discuss the format and duration of the upcoming impeachment trial. Jan. 4, 1999: Senators are wrestling with a proposal for a shortened impeachment trial. Dec. 23, 1998: Four foreign journalists discuss how President Clinton's impeachment played around the world. Dec. 21, 1998: A growing number of voices are calling for a censure alternative. Dec. 21, 1998: A discussion on the vote to impeach President Clinton. Dec. 21, 1998: Some public reaction from Oregon on the impeachment vote. Dec. 17, 1998: Shields & Gigot give analysis of the House's decision to continue with the debate on impeachment despite the military action in Iraq. Dec. 15, 1998: More moderate Republicans came out in favor of impeaching President Clinton. Dec. 15, 1998: Deborah Tannen and Shelby Steele debate the impeachment proceedings of President Clinton. Nov. 27, 1998: President Clinton answers questions about the Lewinsky matter put to him by the House Judiciary Committee. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the White House, Starr Investigation,and Political Wrap.     White House Homepage Jurist Guide to Impeachment The U.S. Senate

Mr. Chief Justice, Counsel for the President and Distinguished Members of the Senate: One of the most memorable aspects of this proceeding was the solemn occasion wherein every Senator in this chamber took an oath to do impartial justice under the Constitution. The President of the United States took an oath to tell the truth in his testimony before the grand jury, just as he had, on two prior occasions, sworn a solemn oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to "faithfully execute the laws of the United States." Despite massive and relentless efforts to change the subject, the case before you Senators is not about sexual misconduct or adultery - those are private acts and none of our business. It is not even a question of lying about sex. The matter before this body is a question of lying under oath. This is a public act. The matter before you is a question of the willful, premeditated deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice, through Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. These are public acts, and when committed by the chief law enforcement officer of the land, the one who appoints the Attorney General and nominates the Judiciary - these do become the concern of Congress. That is why your judgment should rise above politics, above partisanship, above polling data. This case is a test of whether what the Founding Fathers described as "sacred honor" still has meaning in our time: two hundred twenty-two years after those two words - sacred honor - were inscribed in our country's birth certificate, our charter of freedom, our Declaration of Independence. Every school child in the United States has an intuitive sense of the "sacred honor" that is one of the foundation stones of the American house of freedom. For every day, in every classroom in America, our children and grandchildren pledge allegiance to a nation, "under God." That statement, that America is "one nation under God," is not a prideful or arrogant claim. It is a statement of humility: all of us, as individuals, stand under the judgment of God, or the transcendent truths by which we hope, finally, to be judged. So does our country. The Presidency is an office of trust. Every public office is a public trust, but the Office of President is a very special public trust. The President is the trustee of the national conscience. No one owns the office of President, the people do. The President is elected by the people and their representatives in the electoral college. And in accepting the burdens of that great office, the President, in his inaugural oath, enters into a covenant- a binding agreement of mutual trust and obligation - with the American people. Shortly after his election and during his first months in office, President Clinton spoke with some frequency about a "new covenant" in America. In this instance, let us take the President at his word: that his office is a covenant - a solemn pact of mutual trust and obligation - with the American people. Let us take the President seriously when he speaks of covenants: because a covenant is about promise-making and promise-keeping. For it is because the President has defaulted on the promises he made - it is because he has violated the oaths he has sworn - that he has been impeached. The debate about impeachment during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 makes it clear that the Framers of the Constitution regarded impeachment and removal from office on conviction as a remedy for a fundamental betrayal of trust by the President. The Framers had invested the presidential office with great powers. They knew that those powers could be - and would be - abused if any President were to violate, in a fundamental way, the oath he had sworn to faithfully execute the nation's laws. For if the President did so violate his oath of office, the covenant of trust between himself and the American people would be broken. Today, we see something else: that the fundamental trust between America and the world can be broken, if a presidential perjurer represents our country in world affairs. If the President calculatedlyand repeatedly violates his oath, if the President breaks the covenant of trust he has made with the American people, he can no longer be trusted. And, because the executive plays so large a role in representing the country to the world, America can no longer be trusted. It is often said that we live in an age of increasing interdependence. If that is true, and the evidence for it is all around us, then the future will require an even stronger bond of trust between the President and the nation: because with increasing interdependence comes an increased necessity of trust. This is one of the basic lessons of life. Parents and children know this. Husbands and wives know it. Teachers and students know it, as do doctors and patients, suppliers and customers, lawyers and clients, clergy and parishioners: the greater the interdependence, the greater the necessity of trust; the greater the interdependence, the greater the imperative of promise-keeping. Trust, not what James Madison called the "parchment barriers" of laws, is the fundamental bond between the people and their elected representatives, between those who govern and those who are governed. Trust is the mortar that secures the foundations of the American house of freedom. And the Senate of the United States, sitting in judgment in this impeachment trial, should not ignore, or minimize, or dismiss the fact that the bond of trust has been broken, because the President has violated both his oaths of office and the oath he took before his grand jury testimony. In recent months, it has often been asked - it has too often been asked - so what? What is the harm done by this lying under oath, by this perjury? I think the answer would have been clear to those who once pledged their sacred honor to the cause of liberty. The answer would have been clear to those who crafted the world's most enduring written constitution. No greater harm can be done than breaking the covenant of trust between the President and the people; between the three branches of our government; and between the country and the world. For to break that covenant of trust is to dissolve the mortar that binds the foundation stones of our freedom into a secure and solid edifice. And to break that covenant of trust by violating one's oath is to do grave damage to the rule of law among us. That none of us is above the law is a bedrock principle of democracy. To erode that bedrock is to risk even further injustice. To erode that bedrock is to subscribe, to a "divine right of kings" theory of governance, in which those who govern are absolved from adhering to the basic moral standards to which the governed are accountable. We must never tolerate one law for the Ruler, and another for the Ruled. If we do, we break faith with our ancestors from Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to Flanders Field, Normandy, Iwo Jima, Panmunjon, Saigon and Desert Storm. Let us be clear: The vote that you are asked to cast is, in the final analysis, a vote about the rule of law. The rule of law is one of the great achievements of our civilization. For the alternative to the rule of law is the rule of raw power. We here today are the heirs of three thousand years of history in which humanity slowly, painfully and at great cost, evolved a form of politics in which law, not brute force, is the arbiter of our public destinies. We are the heirs of the Ten Commandments and the Mosaic law: a moral code for a free people who, having been liberated from bondage, saw in law a means to avoid falling back into the habit of slaves. We are the heirs of Roman law: the first legal system by which peoples of different cultures, languages, races, and religions came to live together in a form of political community. We are the heirs of the Magna Carta, by which the freeman of England began to break the arbitrary and unchecked power of royal absolutism. We are the heirs of a long tradition of parliamentary development, in which the rule of law gradually came to replace royal prerogative as the means for governing a society of free men and women. We are the heirs of 1776, and of an epic moment in human affairs when the Founders of this Republic pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor - sacred honor - to the defense of the rule of law. We are the heirs of a tragic civil war, which vindicated the rule of law over the appetites of some for owning others. We are the heirs of the 20th century's great struggles against totalitarianism, in which the rule of law was defended at immense cost against the worst tyrannies in human history. The "rule of law" is no pious aspiration from a civics textbook. The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. The rule of law is the safeguard of our liberties. The rule of law is what allows us to live our freedom in ways that honor the freedom of others while strengthening the common good. The rule of law is like a three legged stool: one leg is an honest Judge, the second leg is an ethical bar and the third is an enforceable oath. All three are indispensable in a truly democratic society. Lying under oath is an abuse of freedom. Obstruction of Justice is a degradation of law. There are people in prison for just such offenses. What in the world do we say to them about Equal Justice if we overlook this conduct in the President? Some may say, as many have said in recent months, that this is to pitch the matter too high. The President's lie, it is said, was about a "trivial matter;" it was a lie to spare embarrassment about misconduct on a "private occasion." The confusing of what is essentially a private matter, and none of our business, with lying under oath to a court and a grand jury has been only one of the distractions we have had to deal with. Senators: as men and women with a serious experience of public affairs, we can all imagine, a situation in which a President might shade the truth when a great issue of the national interest or the national security was at stake. We have all been over that terrain. We know the thin ice on which any of us skates when blurring the edges of the truth for what we consider a compelling, demanding public purpose. Morally serious men and women can imagine circumstances, at the far edge of the morally permissible, when, with the gravest matters of national interest at stake, a President could shade the truth in order to serve the common good. But under oath.... for a private pleasure? In doing this, the Office of President of the United States has been debased...and the Justice System jeopardized. In doing this, he has broken his covenant of trust with the American people. The Framers of the Constitution also knew that the Office of President of the United States could be gravely damaged if it continued to be unworthily occupied. That is why they devised the process of impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate. It is, in truth, a direct process. If, on impeachment, the President is convicted, he is removed from office - and the Office itself suffers no permanent damage. If, on impeachment, the President is acquitted, the issue is resolved once and for all, and the Office is similarly protected from permanent damage. But if, on impeachment, the President is not convicted and removed from office despite the fact that numerous Senators are convinced that he has, in the words of one proposed resolution of censure, "egregiously failed" the test of his oath of office, "violated the trust of the American people," and "dishonored the office which they entrusted to him," then the Office of the Presidency has been deeply, and perhaps permanently, damaged. And that is a further reason why President Clinton must be convicted of the charges brought before you by the House of Representatives, and removed from office. To fail to do so, while conceding that the President has engaged in egregious and dishonorable behavior that has broken the covenant of trust between himself and the American people, is to diminish the office of President of the United States in an unprecedented and unacceptable way. Senators: please permit me a word on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues of the House. It is necessary to clarify an important point. None of us comes to this chamber today without a profound sense of our own responsibilities in life, and of the many ways in which we have failed to meet those responsibilities, to one degree or another. None of us comes before you claiming to be a perfect man or a perfect citizen, just as none of you imagines yourself perfect. All of us, members of the House and Senate, know that we come to this difficult task as flawed human beings, under judgment. That is the way of this world: flawed human beings must, according to the rule of law, judge other flawed human beings. But the issue before the Senate of the United States is not the question of its own members' personal moral condition. Nor is the issue before the Senate the question of the personal moral condition of the members of the House of Representatives. The issue here is whether the President of the United States has violated the rule of law and thereby broken his covenant of trust with the American people. This is a public issue, involving the gravest matter of the public interest. And it is not effected, one way or another, by the personal moral condition of any member of either house of Congress, or by whatever expressions of personal chagrin the President has managed to express. Senators: we of the House do not come before you today lightly. And, if you will permit me, it is a disservice to the House to suggest that it has brought these articles of impeachment before you in a frivolous, mean-spirited, or irresponsible way. That is not true. We have brought these articles of impeachment because we are convinced, in conscience, that the President of the United States lied under oath: that the President committed perjury on several occasions before a Federal grand jury. We have brought these articles of impeachment because we are convinced, in conscience, that the President willfully obstructed justice, and thereby threatened the legal system he swore a solemn oath to protect and defend. These are not trivial matters. These are not partisan matters. These are matters of justice, the justice that each of you has taken a solemn oath to serve in this trial. Some of us have been called "Clinton-haters." I must tell you, distinguished Senators, that this impeachment is not, for those of us from the House, a question of hating anyone. This is not a question of who we hate, this is a question of what we love: and among the things we love are the rule of law, equal justice before the law, and honor in our public life. All of us are trying as hard as we can to do our duty as we see it...no more and no less. Senators: This trial is being watched around the world. Some of those watching, thinking themselves superior in their cynicism, wonder what it is all about. But others know. Political prisoners know that this is about the rule of law - the great alternative to arbitrary and unchecked state power. The families of executed dissidents know that this is about the rule of law - the great alternative to the lethal abuse of power by the state. Those yearning for freedom know that this is about the rule of law - the hard-won structure by which men and women can live by their God-given dignity and secure their God-given rights in ways that serve the common good. If they know this, can we not know it? If, across the river in Arlington Cemetery, there are American heroes who died in defense of the rule of law, can we give less than the full measure of our devotion to that great cause? I have received a letter last week that expresses my feelings far better than my poor words. [Text of the Letter] Dear Chairman Hyde, My name is William Preston Summers. How are you doing? I am a third grader in room 504 at Chase elementary School in Chicago. I am writing this letter because I have something to tell you. I have thought of a punishment for the president of the Unites states of America. The punishment should be that he should write a 100 word essay by hand. I have to write an essay when I lie. It is bad to lie because it just gets you in more trouble. I hate getting in trouble. It is just like the boy who cried wolf, and the wolf ate the boy. It is important to tell the truth. I like telling the truth because it gets you in less trouble. If you do not tell the truth people do not believe you. It is important to believe the president because he is a important person. If you can not believe the president who can you believe. If you have no one to believe in then how do you run your life. I do not believe the president tells the truth anymore right now. After he writes the essay and tells the truth, I will believe him again. William Summers PS: Dear Representative Hyde, I made my son William either write you a letter or an essay as a punishment for lying. Part of his defense of his lying was that the president lied. He is still having difficulty understanding why the President can lie and not be punished. Bobby Williams Mr. Chief Justice and Senators-On June 6, 1994, the 50th anniversary of the American landing on the beaches of Normandy, I stood among the field of white crosses and Stars of David. The British had a military band of bagpipes playing Amazing Grace. I walked up to one cross to read a name, but there was none. All it said was "Here lies in Honored Glory a Comrade in Arms Known but to God." How do we keep the faith with that comrade in arms? Go to the Vietnam Memorial on the National Mall and press your hands against some of the 58,000 names carved in the wall - and ask yourself how we can redeem the debt we owe all those who purchased our freedom with their lives. How do we keep faith with them? I think I know how, we work to make this country the kind of America they were willing to die for. That's an America where the idea of sacred honor still has the power to stir men's souls. I hope that a hundred years from today, people will look back at what we have done and say they kept the faith.