Letter to the NYC Congressional Delegation

Dear Congressmember,

I am writing to you regarding the resolution approved by the Judiciary committee authorizing impeachment hearings against the President of the United States. We at ADA strongly oppose the notion of overturning the will of the American people on such flimsy grounds.

The constitutional clause regarding impeachment invokes the standard of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." It is clear to any impartial observer that the crimes the President is being accused of do not meet these standards. Former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl has called this partisan witchhunt "disgusting," and many other international leaders have called for it to end. More importantly, the American people have called for it to end. No matter how pundits spin the polls and deny their validity, there has not been one reasonable analysis that shows more than a partisan minority clamoring for the President's impeachment.

Especially troubling is the legality of the undertaking itself. Starr's investigation, unlike the Watergate investigation, was purely prosecutorial in style, providing only one-sided evidence of wrongdoing, including inappropriate detail of events unrelated to the claim of perjury. The investigation was riddled with leaks to the press, a long-term open-ended meandering path of inquiry, and subpoenas of questionable material (such as Ms. Lewinsky's reading material). A disturbing precedent was set when information from the grand jury, already questionable in its direction and scope, was released to the public in a clear attempt to humiliate the President in a personal manner.

The purported wrongdoing from which all significant claims spring is the claim of perjury in a civil trial that should never have been brought against a sitting President. The other claims relate to his attempt to keep the affair secret, which relate back to the perjury charge. And the charge itself is flimsy; many legal scholars point out that Starr's evidence would not lead to a conviction under ordinary circumstances.

However, even if the claims of perjury and obstruction of justice were shown to be true and provable, they would not merit impeachment. The President's acts may be personally reprehensible, but that is not for us to judge. And no crime with which he has been accused of by Starr meets the standards of severity set by the constitutional clause invoking "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"; nor does it meet the precedent set by the Watergate hearings. I strongly urge you to vote against an inquiry, speak out against it in public, and to vote against impeachment should it come to the floor of the House.

Sincerely,

Marvin Rich