An open letter to Hillary

Dear Mrs. Clinton:

In February 1974 the staff of the Nixon impeachment inquiry issued a
report
produced by a group of lawyers and researchers assigned with developing
a
scholar memorandum setting forth the “constitutional grounds for
presidential impeachment.”

You were a member of that group of lawyers and researchers, barely, I
am
sure, able to conceal your dislike for President Nixon. Within the year,

Nixon would leave office disgraced , having witnessed articles of
impeachment voted against him by the House Judiciary Committee, based in
part on your report.

Relevant Today

I must give you and your colleagues credit. You did not appear to
have let
personal animus influence your work product, at least not the final,
published report. In fact, the report you and your colleagues produced
appears objective, fair, well researched and consistent with other
materials reflecting and commenting on impeachment. And it is every bit
as
relevant today as it was 23 years ago.

I presume — but I must ask whether — you stand by your research and
analysis
today. You said in 1974 that impeachment, as understood by the framers
of
our constitution, reflected the long history of the term used at least
since late-14th-century England: “one of the tools used by the English”
to
make government “more responsive and responsible” (page 4 of your
report).
You also noted then — clearly in response to those who mistakenly
claimed
impeachment as a tool to correct “corruption in office” that “alleged
damage to the state,” was “not necessarily limited to common law or
statutory … Crimes” (page 7)

You quoted James Wilson, who at the Pennsylvania ratification
convention
described the executive (that is, the president) as not being above the
law, but rather “in his public character” subject to it “by impeachment”

(page 12)

You also — quite correctly — noted then that the constitutional
draftsmen chose
the terms describing the circumstances under which a president could be
impeached very carefully and deliberately. You noted that “high crimes
and
misdemeanors” did not denote criminal offenses in the sense that
prosecutors employ such terms in modern trials. Rather, in your
well-researched memorandum, you correctly noted that the phrase “high
crimes and misdemeanors” was substituted for George Mason’s less precise
term in an earlier draft of the Constitution: “Maladministration” (page
12
of your report). Not only that, but your further research led you to
quote
Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in support of your
conclusion that “high crimes and misdemeanors” meant not a criminal
offense
but an injury to the state or system of government (page 12). I applaud
the
extent and clarity of your research. You even note that the U.S. Supreme
Court, in deciding questions of intent, must construe phrases such as
“high
crimes and misdemeanors” not according to modern usage, but according to
what the framers meant when they adopted them (page 12 once again).

Magnificent research!

Even Alexander Hamilton finds a place in your research. You quote
from his
Federalist No. 65 that impeachment relates to “misconduct of public men,
or
in other words, from the abuse or violation of public trust” that is “of
a
nature … POLITICAL [emphasis in original]” (page 13 of your report).

Finally, in bringing your research forward from the constitutional
drafting
documents themselves, you find support for your properly broad
interpretation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in no less a legal
scholar
than Justice Joseph Story. I was in awe of your use of Justice Story’s
“Commentaries on the Constitution” (1833) supporting your proposition
that
“impeachment … applies to offenses of a political character …
[that] must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of
public policy and duty” (pages 16 and 17 of your report). I could not
have
said it better.

You even note that the specific instances on which impeachment has
been
employed in our country’s history “placed little emphasis on criminal
conduct” and were used to remove public officials who had “seriously
undermined public confidence” through their “course of conduct” (page
21).

Clear Basis

Mrs. Clinton, when I first raised the notion last month that the
House
should take but the first step in determining whether impeachment might
lie
against President Clinton for a pattern of abuse of office and improper
administration of his duties, little did I realize your scholarly work
23
years ago would provide clear historical and legal basis and precedent
for
my proposition.

Amazingly, the words you used in your report are virtually identical
to
those I use today. For example, you said in 1974, much as I did in my
March
11, 1997, letter to Judiciary Chairman Hyde, that “[i]mpeachment is the
first step in a remedial process” (page 24 of your report) to correct
“serious offenses” that “subvert” our government and “undermine the
integrity of office” (page 26).

Thank you, Mrs. Clinton, for giving Congress a road map for beginning
our
inquiry.

Sincerely,

Bob Barr (R., GA.)
Member of Congress