Date: 1998-12-19
Speaker: CHRISTOPHER B. CANNON (republican)
Chamber: H

(RUT). Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by thanking this panel today. This is an important issue. and I think your presence has added weight to the issue. And I appreciate your comments and testimony. I would also like to just point out at the very beginning that. without any parsing of words or equivocation. I agree with my frind Mr. Delahunt and with the comments by Mr. Sullivan. that the essence of the rule of law lies in the technicalities. and the technicalities are very. very important to us here. Now. Id like to refer to some of the things that my good friend Ms. Lofgren commented on earlier. Ms. Lofgren and I are on two subcommittees of this committee. together. and I have the greatest respect for the way she thinks. She said or pointed out that perjury about sex is relevant essentiallyand I am paraphrasingis relevant to this side because its a crime. and then went on to point out some of the technical elements of the crime that may in fact be missing here. And the first is thatthere was the suggestion that the person who administered the oath to the president may not have been authorized to do so. I think that was rebutted fairly effectively by Mr. Buyer. and I agree with his responses. Secondly. she said that the question must be unambiguous. Now. I dont read the statute as requiring an unambiguous question. but I think the perjury ultimately has to be quite clear. Later. Mr. Sullivan. I think in response to some of this questioning. suggested that the president can defend on the basis that the definition was changedthat is. the definition of "sex"-and that the new definition may somehow have excluded a certain act or type of sex. Let me just suggest in response to that. that I have read that definition very carefully. as I think many of the members of this committee have. The president pointed out that he answered the question very carefully. because he answered the question in the context of the definition that he read very carefully. And obviously. minds can disagree on this sort of thing. but I just dont see how you could exclude that particular act from the definition that remained after the striking of the two sentences. Now a lot has been said about whether or not the president could be prosecuted for this crime. where these technical defenses may be relevant. But I think the real potential for understanding the likelihood of a criminal prosecution actually lies in the presidents own actions. He refuses to acknowledge or deny the underlying facts of the case. and its like theres an allergy to the Lword. Mr. Crain. yesterday said. in answer to a question. "No. he deceived. he misled. but he did not lie." Later. "No. he was technically accurate. but he did not disclose information." ThisI mean. I think all the commentators in the editorial pages have pointed out that the president is caught between the Fifth Amendment and coming clean with the American public. And I think its his actions. the fact that he wont deal with the facts of the case. that make it clear to me that there may actually be. in another context. rather than this one. a criminal problem that hes concerned about. But unlike Mr. Wexler. who says that this is about sexuallying about sexual relations -and touching. let me suggest that I believe that thisthat this proceeding is really aboutnot about crimeI believe that its about the goernments ability to secure theRep. [off mike]. Rep. CANNON. I have to protect niy mike frommy compatriot on this side. This is about the governments ability to secure the rights of the governed. And John Jay was quoted yesterday. Let me just repeat part of that quote. "If oaths cease to be sacred. our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure." I know. Mr. Weld. youve actually governed. and youre a person for whom I have the greatest respect. Would you mind responding? What do you think those rights are? And if we can be very particular. because my time is almost up. what are those rights that Mr. Jay is concerned about keeping secure?