Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's nonsense.
Give the course that these hearings have followed ... and given the special relationship between the legislative and executive branches embodied in our Constitution and our nation's history, we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the president to appear before the committee.
The president knows what he did was wrong. He's admitted it. He's suffered privately and publicly ... But, Mr. Chairman, the president has not committed a high crime or misdemeanor ... His conduct, although morally reprehensible, does not warrant impeachment.
I submit, is simply flat-out wrong.
The president has always urged everyone to tell the truth.
Any suggestion by the Office of Independent Counsel or its public relations advisor that the president should do otherwise is reckless and irresponsible.
We are disappointed that the Court of Appeals has decided that, unlike every other client and attorney in this country, government attorneys and their clients do not enjoy the right to have confidential communications.
The practical result of the court's decision is that the president and all other government officials will be less likely to receive full and frank advice about their official obligations and duties from government attorneys.
This is a pattern of lawyers and others in the White House busting their backs to do the best work they can to be try to be responsive.
that conversations both with the President and among senior advisors, including the First Lady, are protected by executive privilege.
Is this still the White House's stated and actual policy?
We heard little hints about how Vernon Jordan might be a liar because of what he said about December 11th. And all of a sudden, just five minutes ago, this body heard for the first time, he's not only maybe a liar about the job search, but he's maybe a liar about destroying evidence, ... Words fail me.
Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such evidence has allegedly been suppressed does not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury.
We should send a message to the House, please do not bunch up your allegations. Charge each act of wrongdoing in a separate count. Such a change would clarify things and allow for a cleaner vote on guilt or innocence.
The president of the United States did not tamper with a witness.
Be wary, be wary, of the prosecutor who feels it necessary to deceive the court.
They have, in essence, treated these articles as empty vessels to be filled with some witches' brew of charges.
Whatever your feelings may be about William Clinton the man, or William Clinton the political ally or opponent, or William Clinton the father and the husband, ask only this: should William Clinton the president be removed from office? ... Are we at that horrific moment in our history when our union can be preserved only by taking the step that the framers saw as a last resort?
Now, just -- just a few minutes ago, you heard Manager Gekas talk to you about perjury, ... And probably 90 percent of what he talked to you about was perjury in the (Paula) Jones case. It appears to make no difference, though, that the House rejected this charge, for the managers do continue to dwell on it, as though somehow they could show the House from which they came that they'd made a mistake.
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.
Do you ask the same questions about the trauma the nation suffers when you are removing a judge as when you are removing a president? ... That answer must be stunningly different when you are asked should the president of the United States be removed and the will of the electorate overturned.
[Ruff said Clinton has every right to have confidential communications with Lindsey, the deputy White House counsel.] That's not shielding, ... That's a principle of law that all lawyers understand.