January 11, 1999

[Partial transcript]

Dr. Keyes: This is Impeachment Central, where, without apology, we unabashedly devote time and attention to thinking through, understanding, discussing the trial of Bill Clinton before the Senate, on the charges that have been brought in the articles of impeachment by the House of Representatives. To help us think about this, I have with me right now, and I welcome with great pleasure and respect, the Chairman of Judicial Watch, Larry Klayman.

Now this is a group that, as you know, has been playing not just a spectator's role, but a very important substantive role in terms of taking steps in the courts that have helped to bring a lot of facts and information to light about some of the abuses that have gone on during the Clinton years. They have done so with great trouble and expense, and I think also--in this day and age, we have to recognize--risk to the parties involved, given the assaults on character, reputation, among other things, that the Clinton folks are capable of.

And therefore I welcome Larry Klayman to this show, with, among other things, Larry, an expression of thanks for the tremendous work that y'all have been doing at Judicial Watch, on behalf of, I believe, the whole people of this country, and on behalf of the truth. And I thank you for taking some time to be with us today. Appreciate it very much, welcome to the show.

Larry Klayman: Thank you, Alan, it's my great honor to be here with you, because you and our clients, we very much admire your work, as well, because if we didn't have people who really understood how to communicate with the American people and teach them, then I think the situation would look a lot more bleak today. But we are making progress.

Dr. Keyes: Well, just given your background, information, and expertise, why don't you just for a second address the general situation that we are in now with the Senate trial. They've come to this so-called agreement about proceeding and so forth. What is the significance of what we're looking at here?

Mr. Klayman: Alan, the agreement that they reached is anything that they make of it. They've yet to really put into effect these procedures. And of course when we were over in the House of Representatives, you heard the Democrats and Clinton supporters, many of them, take to the airwaves each evening with a script that they get from the White House--that's not in dispute--that "how can you impeach anyone in the House of Representatives unless you have witnesses?" Now, of course, the Representatives had a good reason for that. I would have preferred witnesses there, but this was an indictment that they could use grand jury testimony without the ability to cross-examine to get an indictment. That's the way it's done in our criminal system, and in our civil system. But now that we're in the Senate, of course, the Democrats say, "Well, we don't need the witnesses. Gee, what a great record Ken Starr has developed." They've become Ken Starr fans almost overnight.

So there's a great deal of hypocrisy there, and it's clear that if this impeachment proceeding is to succeed, and let's be clear, this President is being impeached and possibly convicted not just for Lewinsky, but really on the basis of everything else he's done in the last six years. There are many subjective factors, in practice that is true. And this is the way to bring about justice. And obviously they'll need witnesses to do that. So really the jury is out, so to speak, on whether we are going to have the means to see justice in this Senate proceeding.

Dr. Keyes: I think you raise a point that I've been putting a particular emphasis on, because we're in a peculiar situation here. Because we have a defendant who, at the trial stage right now, sees it as in his best interest to waive the right to call witnesses; they don't want to call any witnesses. But from the point of view of the overall integrity of the process, I think it would be very bad to establish a precedent that, on its own authority the Senate, or any unruly Senate majority, can simply rule out witnesses. Because if they have that ability--let us say in the future that a President was unjustly charged and a whole false record of depositions and stuff was brought forward. They could by fiat deprive him of the chance to cross-examine those witnesses? Wouldn't that be, just on the face of it, unfair?

Mr. Klayman: It's unfair, and in reality a trial does not start until the first witness takes the stand. There is no trial. What we're going to hear this week, and perhaps part of next week, is a rehash of what we heard in the House of Representatives. In fact, on Clinton's side of the aisle, coming forward are all the same lawyers and law school professors that made the arguments over in the House. In fact, many of these people represent individuals who are under investigation either in our cases or by Ken Starr for actually aiding and abetting the Clinton Administration in some of its illegal dealings. So it's going to be theater of the absurd until we actually see a witness.

Dr. Keyes: I would agree with you, but it does look like they've set things up in such a way in this agreement that there's no guarantee at all that process and witnesses and so forth will be respected, because obviously the President and his political cronies realize that if the testimony is presented, I think they're afraid of the political damage that does.

Mr. Klayman: Well, that's right. With some exceptions, it's still true that many Republicans don't want to impeach and convict this President. They want the matter to go away. Publications like the Washington Post, who ran a story yesterday in the Sunday edition that Republicans are falling in the polls are trying to hasten that impression. Let's not pull any punches here: the Post is basically sympathetic to the Democratic Party and this administration. It reports what it has to. And of course, that's the problem; the Senators know that once they call the first witness, they're going to have to go through in earnest with this trial, and right now most of them would still like to get it off the table, even the Republicans.

Dr. Keyes: Now what do you make . . . I just had a caller at the end of the last hour who was talking about the fact that in the Constitution, the House is given the sole power to impeach. And so then a lot of these Senators are coming forward and talking about the impeachability of his conduct. Isn't that inappropriate for them? I mean, if the power to impeach consists of anything, it consists of the power to make the judgment about what is impeachable, right? So if that is a power solely provided to the House in the Constitution, then shouldn't it be ruled out of order for the Senators to be talking about it?

Mr. Klayman: You're absolutely right, but of course, they love this opportunity. It's a chance, obviously, to get on TV. There's a certain coterie that do on a weekly basis, some of them don't. So they're taking that opportunity right now, and they should really be quiet. And then, of course, there's the situation of Barbara Boxer, who by marriage is related to the President--she says she's not going to recuse herself. I mean, that's as big a conflict of interest as you'll ever see.

And, given the article that you wrote the other day, Alan, an excellent article, Chief Justice Rehnquist should certainly exercise his authority, the authority which he has to set the rules and procedures to disqualify Barbara Boxer and other Senators who may not be acting appropriately as jurors.

Dr. Keyes: I think one of the sort of imponderables right now in this situation, though, is whether, one, the Chief Justice recognizes the nature of the position the Constitution has put him in, because we're obviously in a kind of unprecedented situation and it requires some real thinking in terms of the principles that the Constitution lays out, and sometimes I think we're kind of lazy about that in terms of thinking through the actual implications for a given situation that doesn't come up very often, of the Constitutional powers. And also, I think, Larry, whether he'll get the opportunity, because to a certain degree right now, things are set up in such a way that he is not going to be able to intervene unless somebody appeals to him, right? And this is what I've been thinking about with the House--if the thing goes against the House and they say, "No, you can't call witnesses," I would think it would be perfectly within their rights to appeal that to the presiding judge.

Mr. Klayman: Absolutely, and that's why your article, I think, was so timely--because he does have the ultimate authority. You laid out the case why under the Constitution the Chief Justice is in charge of these matters, and why it makes sense. Because he's the only one who can break the impasse. He represents the Judicial Branch, and it is this branch in particular, in this case, Alan, which has been defamed, which has had its integrity called into question. So the fact that we have the Chief Justice in this particular impeachment proceeding, that the Framers gave him the authority to make these decisions, to be the ultimate referee, is particularly important, because what we're talking about here is perjury, obstruction of justice, a subversion of the legal system. He has to insure that the integrity of that system is procedurally upheld and that people have all of their due process and equal protection rights.

Dr. Keyes: Yes, I believe that is exactly his position, and that he needs to act with a full awareness of that, and that we as the public need to accord him the proper respect and encouragement for his use of that quite proper authority.

Let's go to a caller in Dennison, Texas. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Thank you, Alan, and you've got my favorite guy on there, too. Larry, I'm a supporter, an active supporter of his. You hit the nail on the head on the Chief Justice. But I'm a little bit confused. I can't understand why a man that holds that kind of power and is astute as he is on the Constitution when he makes rulings every day on the Constitution--why he doesn't assert that? Why doesn't he tell the Senate that, you know, they can only go so far, and he is not going to be denied if he has to make a ruling, and what do we do to get him thinking? Obviously he's not objecting in any way.

Dr. Keyes: A very good question, which I will take up, Larry and I, when we get back here on America's Wake-Up Call. So just hang on, we'll be back with more.

(commercial break)

Dr. Keyes: I'm Alan Keyes, welcome back to America's Wake-Up Call. I have the great honor and pleasure right now of sharing the podium here on the show with Larry Klayman, Chairman of Judicial Watch, which is a group, by the way, that I say from a personal point of view, does excellent work--which if you have a chance, and you do have a chance if you want to take it . . . Anybody who cares about the future of the country, the integrity of the judicial process, and the proper use of that process to defend our rights and liberties as a people and as individuals--you ought to take a serious look at supporting the work of Judicial Watch, and you can do that, they can take support and contributions from you, and if you want further information you can call 1-888-JWETHIC, which translates into numbers, 1-888-593-8442. And in the world we live in, I know Larry, people are always asking me what they can do and what could be effective and how they can somehow help things to move in the right direction. I think that when they get a chance, if they have a little extra spare change, if they have ways in which they can be helpful, certainly a contribution to your group and your work, in my opinion, is one of those things that we ordinary folks can do to try to help make things better in this country.

Mr. Klayman: Thank you Alan, we appreciate that, and what we are doing is very expensive, so it's much considered and appreciated.

Dr. Keyes: Well, to get back to our caller's point, and it's kind of an interesting one, I think, in terms of what one can do in effect to encourage the Chief Justice to play the kind of role that I think the Constitution clearly envisages. How do you see that playing itself out? Because at the moment, I would have to say he does seem to be acting in what I call, sort of derisively, the potted plant interpretation of his role.

Mr. Klayman: (chuckling) He's ambivalent. You have to remember that the Chief Justice is part of the Washington establishment. I have a great deal of respect for this Chief Justice, but his first reaction is to pull back from controversy, and when he's sitting up there on the bench on the Supreme Court, he has eight other judges to either side. Now he's there sitting by himself. It's a role that he has not experienced, perhaps for many years. And he's a good man, but he needs to be encouraged. And there's nothing wrong for the American people to write him a letter and tell him, "Look, we don't trust these politicians, Mr. Chief Justice. Make sure that you represent us, because we need to have a fair and open proceeding that the American people can see. Not witnesses behind closed doors; that brings out the worst in any political system. Let's get it all out in the open and let's have this thing done in the right way." And they can communicate directly with him.

Dr. Keyes: Now, wouldn't he partly as a result of his service on the Supreme Court though, be reluctant to take the initiative? I mean, the Supreme Court, for all of the power that it exercises to a degree in this country, does so in a kind of reactionary way in the literal sense. They react to events and people come and appeal to them. They don't, generally speaking, take initiatives to involve themselves. So wouldn't it then be likely that he's gonna sit back until somebody appeals to him for his judgment?

Mr. Klayman: Well, that's right. He has to understand his historical role, and that's what I would think letters should remind of, and that is that he is here at a crossroads in history, that the judicial system, a name which I used in forming Judicial Watch, to use the courts to watch the other branches of government and to watch the courts as well, that they have a unique position here. And he has to fulfill that position. He cannot sit there as you said, as a potted plant. He has to be pro-active, to use a politically correct term.

Dr. Keyes: One of the things that I have pointed to though, and I'm trying to get this point across in various ways and quarters, is that it would certainly be the case that he could be put on the spot by the process if, say, Chairman Hyde who heads the prosecution team as it were here, were to appeal for his judgment, on the grounds that in a dispute between the Senate and the House the Senate is biased in its own favor, and therefore an impartial judgment is required. Wouldn't that make sense, wouldn't Hyde be perfectly within his rights to ask for that?

Mr. Klayman: That's right, it would be. And I'll tell you where his function also stems Alan, is that the role of the Supreme Court is to be the administrator of the lower courts. Now you have a situation here where Judge Susan Weber-Wright was lied to. False evidence was presented. And if she does not act herself--she should have acted already on a contempt petition--the Supreme Court has the authority to do that on its own. I'm not saying that that enters into this impeachment process, but it shows you his legitimacy on this particular case, to make sure that the courts are respected, he must intervene. If he does not play a proactive role he will be subverting his own judicial system, of which he is the Chief Executive Officer, in effect. So he must play that role. And as you pointed out, he has the legal duty to play that role.

Dr. Keyes: That's right. Thank you for your call, let's go to another caller, Greenwood, Arkansas. Welcome to The Alan Keyes Show.

Caller: Yes, Larry, I'd like to congratulate you on the fine job you've done so far on this. It's a really independent investigation that's going on, that you're doing. If I understood it correctly, Linda Tripp was in Vince Fosters' office on several occasions. She may have even worked there, you can verify that. And she saw these FBI files in there when she was in there, and Janet Reno was in there when those files were in there and she should have seen them, too, and that might explain why maybe this wasn't brought out, Ken Starr didn't ask Linda Tripp any questions about the FBI files, because it would implicate his boss. And the other thing is Janet Reno didn't appoint an independent counsel to investigate Chinagate because I understand she might have been involved in that little deal, too.

Mr. Klayman: Well, that's absolutely right, working backwards. We uncovered a document where Don Saller, who was the co-chairman with Christopher Dodd--isn't it interesting how he's playing such an active role in this impeachment proceeding for the Democrats? They in fact wrote to Janet Reno and asked her to help in the fund-raising in 1996. We have that correspondence. So if she appointed an Independent Counsel, she'd be appointing one to investigate herself.

Dr. Keyes: (chuckling) Isn't that fascinating? I have to confess, Larry, that when I hear things like that, it's one of the reasons that I have always been--on the separate issue of the Independent Counsel Statute--not a fan of the concept. Because it seems to me that it's a poor substitute for the proper role of the Congress in overseeing these things that you should ask the Attorney General to be the one who appoints the Independent Counsels to police the Executive Branch. Isn't that kind of violating the principle of not letting people be the judge in their own causes?

Mr. Klayman: Someday in the future, Alan, we're going to need to pry the Justice Department away from the Executive Branch. I think it's a problem, generally. It may take a Constitutional amendment to do it, undoubtedly will. But we have this problem of conflicts, as you pointed out, which arise in many different ways. And the other conflict in this particular instance is that the Congress itself didn't want to look into campaign finance, because even though the Republicans did very little that was illegal compared to what the Clinton Administration did, they didn't want to investigate some very big companies that give to both political parties. And that's the problem we now find ourselves in, and that's, of course, why we've been active, because we're not worried about the politics.

Dr. Keyes: Do you think, just quickly, that that is part of the reluctance to really go in depth into this China business?

Mr. Klayman: It's exactly the case. One example is Hughes Aerospace gives almost exclusively to the Republicans and that is why Chairman Cox recommended only future remedial measures, not prosecutions. He did not want to recommend one against a big Republican donor.