I just finished watching the opening defense arguments by White House Counsel Charles Ruff. All I can say is if Ruff were my lawyer I’d be shaking in my boots now.
I don’t think Clinton will be removed from office so, he need not worry too much about his defense. It is disappointing though that a stronger case (at least so far) hasn’t been made in Clinton’s defense. On the other hand, it’s becoming abundantly clear (IMHO) that the Senators are pretty much siding along party lines and if the voting is similar Clinton will stay in office.
I found the first segment of Mr. Ruff’s argument disjointed and confusing. I was in and out of the room for the first 15 minutes so, I did miss how he was going to outline his presentation. I know that an overview requires touching down on many points but, there didn’t seem to be a concurrent thread and it was hard to establish his overall strategy. I’m sure part of this confusion was in the fact that I did not see the first part of his speech.
For the most part, I found Ruff’s arguments weak. I will highlight a few things. Of necessity, defense counsel needs to address each and every arrow shot at Clinton during by the prosecution. That’s standard and I expected the litany of charges and side comments to be addressed. I’m not going to go over all of this - it’s just too many details and I’d be writing till next year if I did.
There was an argument to separate the man from the presidency with the idea that you can condemn the behavior of the man and still keep the presidency intact. This is actually a pretty good argument in that it gives everyone a back door. So, Ruff definitely gets a golden star for this one.
Ruff disputed the position that if judges were impeached for perjury than so should the President by stating that the presidency is very different from the position of a judge. He backed this up with 3 explanations: 1) there is only one president; 2) judges are in office for life where as an election every four years will automatically "clean house" of any corrupt President and 3) that as there is only one president removing him from office will negatively impact society whereas you can remove any number of judges (there being so many of them) without negatively impacting society. I agree with all of these statements however, they are not germane to the case.
Ruff stated that the phrase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" as applied to impeachment is not vague and in fact is clearly defined. He never did provide that definition though he did state that perjury and obstruction of justice is not part of the definition. Good attempt but, it didn’t get by me!
Ruff stated that perjury in the Paula Jones case was already voted down by the house as a reason to impeach. I didn’t follow the House rulings. If it was decided that the Senate would not follow up on this and if the Senate agreed not to follow up on this issue then it was inappropriate for the prosecution to go into this area. I don’t know the rulings and decision on this matter.
Ruff asserted that this is an issue of perjury on a private matter (more separation of man from the presidency) and that a removal from office is not a proper response. I take the position that perjury under oath before a Grand Jury is not a private matter. So, I see it differently from our good Mr. Ruff.
Mr. Ruff suggested that determination be raise to "Beyond a reasonable doubt." This is a good strategy. Another point for Mr. Ruff.
Mr. Ruff did address an interesting technical point in terms a having a fair due process. He felt that the articles were a summary rather than a detailed accounting. Without a detailed accounting Clinton wouldn’t be properly informed of what he was being charged with and therefore that charges should be dropped. Now, I’m not a lawyer but, I didn’t have any problems understanding the articles of impeachment. He also stated that the charges were listed as multiple offenses which lead to duplicity ( I think he said duplicity but, for some reason I understood repetition - it’s a point I’m not clear on).
If Ruff is proposing that because there were too many charges (reasons) for impeachment and that these charges were listed more than once I don’t feel this a valid reason to drop the charges. That’s like say, "because he shot 10 people instead of just one, the charges should be dropped."
I do agree that the insertion of the phrase "one or more" is vague and that this could and probably should have read more accurately. Basically, this is an argument of due process with the understanding that the phrasing of the articles left Clinton possibly in doubt of why he is being impeached. Good try, but I don’t doubt Clinton is able to follow the ball on this one.
Ruff did bring up a good point about his testimony. The prosecution stated the Ruff was evasive (I’m not remembering the actual phrasing here) when asked if Clinton had told the truth. Ruff read from the record, "He surely did." This is a clear statement. If this is the part of the record that the prosecution was referring to then they did make a misleading and false statement.
As a woman, one argument that I found uncomfortable was Ruff basically said that this boils down to a situation of He Said, She Said (with Clinton and Monica being the key players here) and implies that in this type of situation that we should, of course, believe The President of The Untied States.
I loved that part where Ruff clarified how the president wasn’t dissembling but that he was being serious about the definitions presented to him and that after he seriously thought about it he decided that he did indeed have a relationship with Jennifer Flowers. WOW! What a breakthrough! Please, this is a pathetic argument.
Another very weak argument: Clinton was after all NOT paying attention during the deposition and therefore he did not commit perjury concerning Monica’s affidavit.
Re: the gifts. Ruff asserted that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the President Clinton tried to hide the gifts. If you listen to Ruff’s argument step by step here we are left to believe that nothing actually happened to the gifts as he never really explains how they are spontaneously removed from Monica’s house. He threw up a lot of smoke screens here but, he never offered an explanation of any sort let along one that made sense of why the gifts would suddenly be removed. I consider this a weak argument (with lots of pieces) but no thinking or actions outlined.
I found his argument about Clinton rattling off those various statement to Betty unconvincing. There was no logical explanation offered but we do get some pretty nifty wild cards. This is basic lawyer stuff 101. If you are going to shoot down an explanation you need to fill in the void with a really plausible reason. He said that Clinton didn’t commit witness tampering because Betty was not a perspective witness. I’m gonna have to side with the prosecution on this one. I think they argued well that she was a perspective witness and, if fact, didn’t have to be one. Now, the explanation that Ruff does offer for why Clinton said all of this to Betty really is a stretch. Basically, Clinton had just "faced his worst nightmare" of his life and therefore reached out to Betty. Next he states that Clinton reached out to Betty because of all the recent tragedies in her family and so he (Clinton) wanted her to know that she needs to tell the truth. First, we have Clinton "reaching out" for two very different reasons. But, more importantly, this is where Ruff shoots himself in the foot.
Clinton knows the statements were false so, truth wasn’t the issue here and more importantly, 2) he clearly contradicts himself. If Betty needs to tell the truth it is understood that she is a perspective witness. Ruff really screwed up here.
Re: tampering of witness with Clintons aides. I can’t believe it but Ruff actually offered a Quantity Vs Quality strategy here and like many of his other strategies it lacks any reasonable thinking. Ruff basically said that since Clinton had lied to the entire population on TV is was okay to say these things to his aides. To strengthen this argument he suggested that after all Clinton, "had to tell them something."
Ruff did argue the Vernon Jordan/ Monica/job time table scenarios very well. In fact, I now have serious doubts as to what the prosecution put together and their time table. I very much want to hear a rebuttal on this issue.
Just some thought I had on the opening arguments.
Hilary
