Gregory Craig: Notes on White House Special Counsel Arguments
by Hilary A. Thomas
Day Two of defense arguments continue to be weak but we have a lot more details.
There appear to be several major strategies for the defense: If President Clinton didn’t obstruct justice he didn’t commit perjury; fair due process was not given to the President in the Articles of Impeachment; Oath Vs Oath; private Vs official; Separation of Opinion from fact and/or reason; and a continuation of separation of the man from the presidency.
There were many points made by Mr. Craig but, I will highlight a few:
Craig talked in terms of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" as if it were an established fact that this is the measure by which the Senate will rule. Smooth. One point for Craig.
The proposal that if Clinton didn’t obstruct justice he didn’t commit perjury is an intriguing strategy. Most of the obstruction charges (if not all) relate to the Paula Jones case. Craig also emphasized that perjury charges in the Jones case had been thrown out of the House and therefore should not be addressed by the House Managers at this time. Therefore, if Craig can get the "triers" to dismiss the evidence of the Jones case, the obstruction evidence will subsequently be dismissed. If we continue with Craig’s strategy and there is no obstruction of justice there is no perjury. Nice plan. One point for Craig. However, I’m not ready to throw out perjury and obstruction of justice charges at this time.
Throughout his argument there is an attempt to separate Clinton’s opinion from fact and/or reason. If we agree to this separation then Clinton isn’t accountable because it is his opinion and we can not convict anyone for having an opinion. This is, after all, America. Yesterday’s argument separated the man from the presidency where we could condemn the man but not the President. However, since these many statements were merely Clinton’s opinions it looks like we can’t condemn the man either. Nice try but, I happen to believe that people are accountable for their actions, thoughts and yes, even their opinions.
Craig spent a considerable amount of time arguing that due process was not fair for Clinton in that the articles of impeachment were vague and summarized. Given this, President Clinton could not mount an effective defense for he was not provided the information he needed. He furthered his argument by stating that this vagueness gave too much authority to the Senate when it is the responsibility of the House to impeach. I’ll agree with the former part of this argument in that it does have merit but, the latter part of this argument isn’t really germane to the case as it is one of procedure. The Senate does try a President at this stage so the trial really hasn’t been affected by an increase of authority to the Senate. Furthermore, the House did impeach the President and not the Senate so, the argument falls apart at this point.
Craig stated that the Managers covered information not addressed in the House impeachment trial and that this is unacceptable. This is standard practice in legal proceedings. The Managers didn’t go outside the records and both counsels had access to the same materials. It’s call doing one’s homework.
Craig stated that Clinton had been evasive with the Jones deposition but this didn’t count because the House had rejected this case. In his testimony to the Grand Jury he had been truthful. (more about this later)
Craig introduced the idea of Oath Vs Oath stating that the Supreme court had ruled that a case shouldn’t be tried if only based on this. Craig dashed over the word ONLY rather quickly but did stress the words Supreme Court. The evidence of the prosecution does rely heavily on Monica’s testimony but not entirely.
He went on later to say that Oath Vs Oath cases are never tried in the real world. On what planet? He Said, She Said cases fill our courts daily and it is in the court that the truth is determined.
A video of Richard Davis (former Watergate investigator) was shown stating that, and I’m paraphrasing, that perjury charges must not be brought against an individual if only two people are involved basically in a He Said, She said situation. Actually, there are other witness but, if they are not allowed to testify then yes, this would be mostly about two people.
The phrase "on certain occasions" was addressed as not perjurious or a direct lie regarding sexual encounters or telephone calls. Monica also described these as "occasional". Actually, I have to agree with the defense on this one. It was a weak argument by the prosecution. One point for Craig.
The prosecution also claimed the Clinton was lying because he stated that he talked about encounters with Monica in 1996 and 1997 but not in 1995. The significance of 1995 is that is when she was an intern and I suppose the argument has more cache if she is a lowly intern rather than gainfully employed. It is a minor point and I’m even willing to go as far to say that Clinton didn’t remember or whatever.
The issue of friendship was brought up. Craig wrote it off as a frivolous charge but, a three hour acquaintance is not a friendship. This was a misleading statement.
The judicial masterpiece of the day was in the Sex Definition discussion. It was important that Craig get this definition issue cleared. If Monica and Clinton both understood what the definition of sex meant and their understanding was the same then Monica did not submit false statements on her affidavit (still highly debatable but it could be argued as technical correct). If no false statements were made on this affidavit then Clinton did not participate in obstruction of justice in which case there is no perjury. So this definition is an extremely important point to the defense which just goes to prove that it always comes down to sex and money!
Even Craig paused a moment before we are told that there is "some reasonable basis" to support Clinton and Monica’s views on the definition of sex. I would love to know his exact thoughts at that moment. First we are told about a whole array of definitions but that the critical one is Part One of defense article 14. As I understand it, Clinton is asserting that if he had no intention to sexually gratify Monica he didn’t have sex. Now, there’s a lover! Craig stated that Clinton’s activities with Monica didn’t fall within the definition of the defense article. Please, just because part one of defense article 14 didn’t state an intent for sexual gratification for either party this does not clear him of lying. Here we have Clinton’s interpretation - his opinion of the definition. Please, sex is sex and any other man on the planet getting a blow job would know that he just had sex. This was masterful technical wizardry but, that dog just don’t hunt!
The bottom line is that Clinton did have sex with Monica. Monica submitted false statements in her affidavit (and Clinton was involved with this process) and those false statements amounted to obstruction in justice for Paula Jones.
Defense counsel is attempting to isolate events and dismissing them without reference to how these events relate to one another and/or the results of such actions. We do not live in a vacuum. This is an excellent presentation of technicalities but lacks and reasonable thinking process. In fact, we are encouraged not to think at all. Craig’s statement that Clinton and Monica’s understanding of the definition about sex having "some reasonable basis" is only valid in isolated events if, and only if, these events are completely unrelated or have no results or ramifications beyond the event itself - in other words - a vacuum.
Craig did some amazing tap dancing concerning Jennifer Flowers. Clinton did tell about Flowers so why would he be untruthful about Monica? Let’s take a look at Clinton’s truthfulness at play. Apparently since Clinton didn’t say that the information in the Jones deposition was true but rather that it was his best effort to "walk the land mine" that it is okay. In other words, he was truthful in his opinions and interpretation just not in the facts. Additionally, the whole truth seems to be yet another alien concept to Willy. Here we have his interpretation and opinions working again. Please. But, there is more…
Craig basically said that Clinton was not paying attention during his Grand Jury testimony concerning Monica’s affidavit therefore, he didn’t do anything wrong. Clinton was not incapacitated nor had he been deemed unfit to give testimony therefore the "not paying attention" defense doesn’t cut it. He is responsible for his testimony that’s the way if works for everyone.
Defense counsel took exception to the persecution’s argument that when Clinton remained silent about Monica’s affidavit he was committing perjury. Craig asserts that silence is not perjury. We come back to that old whole truth thingy.
Blessed be the *is* is argument. I was waiting for this one. We are first reacquainted with the concept of separating opinion from fact. This concept in conjunction with the separate the man from the presidency has me positively drooling at the mouth to see just how much of Clinton can be cut up and compartmentalized.
The *is* is statement is addressed as a political mistake. I gather that we take separating opinion from fact one more step to separate opinion from any political decision. WOW!!! Is Clinton responsible for anything? Who’s running this darn country?
Yes, Craig states that Clinton made a political mistake in attempting to be his own lawyer. He didn’t commit perjury he committed nit picking and argument. Wha?????? What’s the legal punishment for committing nit picking? I don’t believe I’ve heard of this crime before. Let’s go back to basics - like to tell the whole truth. It is technically true that in that moment when he was given testimony before the Grand Jury he was not having sex with Monica. Clinton explained "generally speaking in the present terms that would be true but, I don’t know what was on Bennet’s mind." Wha???? Clinton didn’t know that questions about a sexual relationship with Monica would be on Bennet’s mind? Please.
Clinton stated that he thought Monica could swear out an honest affidavit (separation of opinion from fact and/or reason). This simply isn’t plausible. The affidavit was a discovery process to determine if there was a pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior by Clinton. This is where a mutual understanding of the definition of sex by Clinton and Monica is critical.
The prosecution arguments of the gifts was addressed as being all conjecture and having no evidence. Craig did make a good point. No one has testified that Clinton told Betty to remove the gifts but since the gifts were moved it was determined that Clinton must have told Betty to do so and therefore he had perjured himself and tampered with evidence. One point for Craig. Gee, IF there is a witness list I don’t think Craig will be adding Betty’s name.
Defense counsel never offers an explanation of how these gifts did get transferred to Betty’s house.
Concerning the various statements made to Betty by Clinton Craig explains that the President clearly asked questions as well as made some declarative statements and that this isn’t perjury or tampering with a witness. Furthermore, Craig goes on to say that "it is plausible" given everything else going on in Clinton’s life that he just didn’t think of Betty as a perspective witness. Given that Clinton is a lawyer; that he was talking against a gag order; that the actual content of what he was saying was false; that he called her to come in on Sunday (her day off); that he called her several hours after his deposition to the Grand Jury; that in that very deposition that he referred to Betty at least six times and on several occasions said that the Grand Jury should ask Betty about these facts, I think that only is this NOT plausible but would, in fact, be a huge cognitive leap to think that she was not a perspective witness.
Craig argued convincingly that what Clinton said to his aides was not perjury and needed to be addressed as obstruction of justice. When Clinton was talking to his aides he was not under oath and I don’t consider this perjury. One point for Craig.
The Framers of the Constitution were once again dusted off in the private Vs official argument. Defense counsel maintains that this is a private matter and that it does not implicate the office and therefore it is not an impeachable offense. He clarifies his point in stating that Clinton the man is not above the law and can be held accountable for his actions after serving his full term but, the President did not abuse Presidential powers. This was masterful. A gold star for Craig. Yes, the man did these things but, the President didn’t. Additionally, this argument holds out the promise of indictment, trial, conviction and punishment for citizen Clinton. The evil twin strategy is really gutsy!
One point for Craig.
However, I happen to think that citizen Clinton and President Clinton are, in fact, the same person and are accountable now for his actions.
Craig’s closing statements were rather patriotic and a nice change from Ruff’s teary reverie of his father. By removing Clinton from office the nasty Republican Senate will overrule the will of the people in their free choice in electing Clinton in a free election. This is a legitimate point in that one party should not have the power to override the will of the people or pull out presidents willy-nilly. One point for Craig for his patriotic fervor.
Craig suggests that since the people placed Clinton in the office that only the people should remove him. Well, let’s just throw out the impeachment proceedings. The impeachment process is a legitimate buffer between the President and the people in the event that the President commits impeachable offensives. This was a stirring speech albeit groundless. One point for Craig for effort.
Unfortunately, I missed Cheryl’s arguments. I hope to catch them tonight.
Hilary
