Timehost: Our guest tonight is Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, to talk about today's acquittal of the President. Welcome Rep. Nadler. Before we take the first question, just give us your overall impression of what happened today in the Senate.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): The Senate finally, thank God, ended this whole ordeal
and acquitted the President,
and I think it was very good that neither article of impeachment
got a majority of the vote, much less the two-thirds needed to convict.
I think that the failure to get even the majority vote is a repudiation
of the very partisan
and improper, I think improper and unwarranted, impeachment by the House of Representatives
in the first place.
And I'm also very glad that they did not censure the President.
talone2 asks: Do you think that Clinton will be put on trial after he leaves office?
Rep. Nadler: I think it is possible
but if it weren't for Ken Starr
I would say unlikely.
No normal, rational prosecutor would indict
the President given the weakness of the evidence, the lack
of persuasive evidence of any crime that we have seen.
But Starr is still there,
and he is vindictive
and it is quite possible that he could indict the President.
Timehost: You mentioned censure a moment ago...
sweet_thang_2002_88 asks: Why do you think the President didn't even get censured???
Rep. Nadler: The reason he didn't get censured is because some of the Republicans,
Phil Gramm in particular, had a number of parliamentary tricks
to prevent censure from coming to a vote.
Even though many Republicans and Democrats wanted it to happen.
So I am glad it did not happen: on this rare occasion, I agree with Senator Gramm.
There are two types of censure you could have:
One would be a censure that declared the President guilty of a crime --
i.e.., We find that the President obstructed justice, or committed perjury.
Sen. Feinstein's motion
said that the Senate finds the President lied under oath and impeded the administration of justice.
Now, she would say that this did not declare the President guilty of a crime.
I think most readers would think it did.
I believe it is wrong and improper
for the Senate and the House, or either one
to declare the President guilty of a crime.
That is the province of the courts.
The President is subject to indictment and prosecution
in the courts
and that is the only venue available for declaring a person guilty of a crime.
You could have a censure motion, such as the one proposed by many Democrats in the House last December
that did not declare the President guilty of a crime.
But then there are only two things you could censure him for:
first, having an inappropriate sexual relationship, which he has admitted;
but I don't think it is the proper role of the Congress to declare
whether sexual relationships are appropriate or not.
Second, you could censure him for lying to the American people, as he clearly did, albeit not under oath.
The problem with that is: why him?
President Reagan clearly lied to the American people about Iran-Contra.
President Bush lied about Iran Contra -- and
Read my lips, no new taxes.
Why , if you are going to start censuring Presidents for lying,
Bill Clinton wouldn't be the only one.
Timehost: We have a number of people who have asked the following question...
Kristen_Black asks: Do you think our children are gonna look up to our future Presidents now after all this LYING....
titlewaveone asks: Why is it okay for a president to lie under oath and a common person cannot?
Rep. Nadler: First, for the first question:
well, I think children will or will not look up to future presidents
depending on the reputation and conduct
of those future presidents.
But I also think it is important to realize that we
elect presidents primarily
to do a job.
To run the country.
To be the steward of the economy.
To propose legislation and to promote the welfare
of the American people.
To command the Armed Forces.
His main job is NOT to be a moral exemplar for our children.
Of course it would be nice if he is,
but that is not his main function.
And we can and should, if necessary, find other
moral exemplars to hold up as examples for our children.
Of course the most important moral examples are their parents.
Children's outlook and conduct are going to be influenced far more
by the conduct and example of their parents
than by that of the President or anyone else.
Now, as for the second question: It is certainly not OK for a President to lie under oath.
The question in the impeachment trial, however,
is not whether it is OK,
but whether the answer to two questions is yes or no.
First:
can you prove -- as you would have to in a court of law --
that the President committed perjury.
In this case, while the President may very well have lied under oath,
the evidence was weak.
Very weak.
And it could not be proven.
Which is why the perjury article got fewer votes than the obstruction article of impeachment.
The second question you have to ask in the trial is:
assuming that there is enough evidence to prove
that the President committed the offenses charged, are those offenses impeachable offenses?
In other words, are they "high crimes and misdemeanors" within
the meaning of the constitutional requirement for impeachment.
In this case,
almost all reputable constitutional scholars
felt --and I agree with them -- that the offenses charged
including lying under oath about a private, consensual sexual affair,
even if they were provable,
are not impeachable offenses.
Impeachment, remember,
was never intended to be a punishment for crimes.
Impeachment was intended to be
a defense
of the Republic and of the Constitution
against
a president who would abuse his presidential power
to try to make himself a tyrant
or to otherwise present
a clear danger to the Republic, to the country.
The proper question, therefore,
is whether the offense charged
is an abuse of presidential power
that would undermine the structure or functioning of government
or would undermine
the constitutional liberty.
So
perjury regarding a plot by the President
or designed to cover up a plot by the President to overthrow Congress
or to get the internal revenue service to harass political opponents
would be impeachable offenses.
Because they would be part of plots
to undermine the structure of government in the first case,
or to undermine constitutional liberty in the second case.
Perjury by the President on his own personal income tax form to cheat on his taxes would be a crime
but would not be an impeachable offense -- as the House Judiciary Committee found it was not in the case of
President Nixon in 1974,
because it is not an abuse of presidential power.
After all, you don't have to be President to perjure yourself on your income taxes:
ANY dishonest taxpayer can do so.
Similarly, perjury regarding a consensual sexual affair
is not an abuse of presidential power (anyone can do it)
and it doesn't undermine the structure or functioning of government, or constitutional liberty.
It is, however, a crime.
And the rule of law, which the Republicans kept invoking,
is maintained by the fact that the President or anyone else
can be indicted and prosecuted, or even convicted and jailed
for that perjury even though it is not an impeachable offense.
It is questionable whether he can be indicted before he leaves office --
but he certainly can be, the day after he leaves office.
Timehost: Congressman Nadler, we have at least one person who disagrees with your comment about the President as role model...
sentinel_9_9 asks: I think that is a wrong way of thinking to say that the President is not a morale exemplar , when in fact he is ...
Rep. Nadler: Well, he should be.
But that is not his main job.
And of course if you think that is an important aspect of his job,
then you should take that into account in deciding who to vote for for president.
And it is certainly a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign.
It is not however
an issue you should properly consider in the impeachment campaign, which
has to be determined by the very narrow question of whether you can prove
that the President committed impeachable offenses.
Love07605_SMR asks: Are you angry about this whole thing?
Rep. Nadler: Yes.
Yes. I am.
I am angry at certain people.
I am angry at the small band of
right-wing zealots
who worked together from the moment this president took office.
Who spent millions of dollars
to find something,
ANYTHING,
without waiting for an election with which to throw him out of office.
They spent millions of dollars searching for dirt in Arkansas --
they called it the Arkansas Project --
they did it with the Paula Jones lawsuit, and turned
it into a political lawsuit.
And finally they found
a human weakness and improper act by the President, namely
the Monica Lewinsky affair,
and combined with a similarly motivated special prosecutor Ken Starr,
turned that into a criminal and impeachable issue.
I am very angry at that.
Remember that he was accused,
the President was accused of every offense under the sun
before this came around:
murders, Filegate,
Travelgate, Whitewater, every kind of thing,
all of it baseless, and all of it taking up time and money.
Timehost: How will you and the House Republicans be able to work together after this?
Rep. Nadler: That is a good question.
I think there are some very raw feelings on all sides in the House.
I certainly believe that the Republicans on the Judiciary committee conducted
a vindictive, vengeful and unfair proceeding
to impeach the President and did not give the President
a fair hearing --
and voted impeachment on an extraordinarily weak case, as we
see that neither article got even a majority vote in the Senate.
And so there are bad feelings on all sides.
But we're going to have to put those feelings aside,
and try to work together for the good of the country.
And whether we can remains to be seen.
bootheelbabes asks: I think Asa Hutchinson from ARK did a great job in his presentation. Didn't you think it a very effective speech?
Rep. Nadler: Well, I didn't watch all of the Senate proceedings.
Once we finished in the House, I had plenty of work to do.
But I did see some of Asa Hutchinson's work,
and I think he is very good, and he was very effective.
Juliet_Capulet_of_Verona asks: What do you think the long term effect of this will be for the Clinton family?
Rep. Nadler: Oh, I don't know.
I think that obviously this has to be very hurtful,
and that the First Lady and Chelsea were very hurt in all of this.
But how they will fare in the long run
I really can't say. I am not part of their family and that is very private.
wendall61462 asks: I wonder what effect if any today's action in the Senate will have on just where this country will be in two years.
Rep. Nadler: It will finally end this thing.
That means the President and Congress can get on to dealing with our real problems:
fixing Social Security and Medicare and the other things
that matter.
So we can get on with business.
But to try to guess at this point what the effect on the next election will be
is pointless: we just don't know at this point.
SLYnjail asks: I wonder if the Republicans will work with the President?
Rep. Nadler: I don't know.
That remains to be seen.
You know the Republicans were led four years after they won the control of the House
by Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich was known for slash and burn politics,
for regarding political opponents as his enemies, and demonizing Democrats in particular.
But he's gone now.
And Mr. Hastert is the leader of the House, and the Republicans in the House --
who says that he wants to work in a more constructive
and bipartisan fashion.
As Democrats, we need to do that too, and see if they are sincere, remembering as President Kennedy said:
Sincerity is always subject to proof.
Silver0se asks: There were some Democrats saying that they were going to cross party lines and vote against the President.. But yet they were no Democrats doing so today.. What's up with that?
Rep. Nadler: I don't recall any Democrats in the Senate saying that they would vote against the President
on any of the articles of impeachment.
There were five Democrats in the House who voted against the President
on one or more articles of impeachment.
But I don't' recall any Democrats in the Senate saying they would.
And I'm glad they did not.
imegaman asks: Why has the House lost its authority? The Senate seems to run everything...
Rep. Nadler: The House has not lost its authority.
Remember in an impeachment process,
the House can only PROPOSE that the President be removed.
The Senate's role is to decide whether to remove him from office or not.
So they run the show at that point.
Of course, they cannot decide to remove him from office
unless the House decides that is necessary first.
And outside of impeachment, no action of any kind -- aside from congratulating the Yankees for winning the World Series
or something like that -- no action of any kind can be done by one House
without the cooperation of the other -- with two exceptions:
under the Constitution the Senate
approves or
rejects
Presidential nominees for the Supreme Court and other judgeships and
for cabinet posts and other positions.
And the Senate approves or does not approve treaties with other
countries proposed by the President.
The House has no role in either of those instances.
Other than those instances, the three -- the House, the Senate and the President --
must agree in order for something to happen.
Timehost: There's been lots of talk about Linda Tripp today -- especially with her new round of interviews...here's a question about her...One of the members of our online audiences asks whether you think Linda Tripp was a spy for the opposition?
Rep. Nadler: I don't know that.
I mean, Linda Tripp
will go down in history
on a lower level
but in a similar category as Benedict Arnold
as a great betrayer of her friend.
I think her motive was hatred for the President.
But as to whether she was working with someone,
or decided to do this on her own,
I don't know -- it
hasn't been shown yet.
bootheelbabes asks: What do you think of Mrs. Clinton's chances if she runs for the Senate seat from NY?
Rep. Nadler: I think she would have the Democratic nomination
without much if any opposition.
And I think she would win.
I hope she runs.
I think she would make a great Senator.
Juliet_Capulet_of_Verona asks: Do you think this will change the way America choose their future presidents?
Rep. Nadler: For a while, at least,
a couple of elections probably,
the character of the candidates will probably be subject to
more public discussion than in the last few elections,
but other than that, I don't think so.
BROADWAY_J asks: How do you think the laws will change after this impeachment if they will change at all
Rep. Nadler: Clearly the only law that will really be affected by this at all is the
independent counsel statute.
There is a general consensus
the democrats say it out loud,
and the Republicans don't, but they agree in their heart of hearts,
that Ken Starr has shown that the independent counsel statute is not working as it should.
It is clear that the statute
can be very dangerous,
that there is no real check on the power of the independent counsel
that there is an inherent incentive
for the counsel to "get" his target
on SOMETHING
and that this poses a great danger to justice and to liberty.
I think there is a consensus that the independent counsel statute
must either be allowed to expire in or, at the least, be radically restricted and rewritten.
Psycho_Chihuahua_53 asks: Do you believe that Starr can charge Clinton while he is still in office?--constitutionally I mean.
Rep. Nadler: I don't know.
The consensus of most constitutional scholars
has been that a sitting President cannot be indicted.
But some believe he can.
This has never been tested in court,
so we don't know.
I certainly hope that Starr will not seek to indict the President
and keep this trauma for the country going on longer.
First of all, the country should put this behind it at this point.
But second, it is clear that unless there is a LOT of evidence that we don't know about,
that was not included in his report to the Congress,
that it would be a futile prosecution,
that no jury would convict on the basis of the evidence we have seen.
And prosecutors should not indict
if they do not have the evidence to get a conviction.
Timehost: We're going to have to wrap things up, but let me boil down a question that lots of people have been asking online all day -- Is this thing really over?
Rep. Nadler: I certainly hope so.
It is over.
Unless Starr tries to indict the President.
And that would certainly re-ignite it.
But I hope he is not that vindictive,
or that stupid.
Timehost: Thank you very much for joining us tonight...any closing thoughts?
Rep. Nadler: I am very glad that the Senate acted as it did.
It vindicated the constitutional structure that we live with.
If the President had been impeached on these charges, and on this evidence,
it would have converted the impeachment process into a weapon
that would be used anytime you had a Congress that was
really hostile to the current President.
And that would have changed our government for the worse.
And I'm glad the Senate repudiated the action of the House,
and showed a much broader vision of the Constitution
and of the welfare of the country.
Timehost: Again, thanks for joining us.
Rep. Nadler: You are quite welcome.
TIME.com Special Report: The President On Trial
Copyright © 1999 Yahoo! Chat and TIME. All rights reserved.
