Ruff Comes Out Fighting
Makes Fools of David "The Schlepper" Schippers, Asa Hutchinson

Tuesday, January 19, 1999 -- New York -- The Senate resumed the trial of the President at 1 PM. Chief Justice Rehnquist recognized "Mr. Counsel Charles Ruff."

And Ruff began assertively: "William Jefferson Clinton is not guilty of the charges proffered against him." He said that his team "would not match the eloquence of the House Managers" -- a shot at their case, filled with lofty rhetoric and factual flaws which he would reveal in the most embarrassing way.

He first turned his attention to the Paula Jones lawsuit -- and depositions that streamed into the public "with one purpose -- to embarrass the President" and bolster the effort of Jones allies. He detailed the time line which led to Lewinsky being added to the Jones witness list. Some had sought to submit affidavits, he said, that they had no knowledge and would not be useful or relevant to the Jones suit.

He then targeted the Jones lawyers concerning the "propriety and clarity" of their definition of sex, and Judge Wright's decision to use a definition which limited "sex" to intercourse. It's worth pointing out that Ruff himself avoided wording which itself might be salacious (i.e., "intercourse," "oral sex," and so on) -- his presentation was PG-rated at best.

He then brought up a fact the House Managers never brought up: on April 19, the Jones suit was summarily dismissed -- and that a "pattern or practice" of prior behavior was not relevant to Jones' claim of sex harassment. He read the portion of Judge Wright's dismissal decision that dealt with this issue.

Ruff was pulling out factual guns at the outset -- and this was only the first.

Ruff then turned to the matter of Linda Tripp presenting evidence to the Independent Counsel's office in early January -- and Starr's immediate grant of immunity from federal or state prosecution. He detailed the decision to tape a Tripp phone call with Lewinsky and "play a strangely multifaceted role" in the scandal.

It was clear that Ruff and other would return to Tripp; in fact, she would keep turning up like a bad penny in Ruff's presentation.

He then skipped to the Starr referral -- and the 19 boxes of evidence, including the videotape of Clinton's grand jury depo. He mentioned that the House held one committee hearing on the constitutionality of impeachment -- and the House Judiciary Committee called no witnesses yet drafted four articles of impeachment, two of which were defeated.

He then paused on a procedural point -- the House Managers' frequent assertion that only witnesses can settle conflicts. How can they be so certain, he asked? How strong is their case if they need to call witnesses? The House Managers would have you believe that they act as grand jurors and thus there was no need for anything but review of Starr's materials.

"What you have before you is nothing more than a rush to judgment." What should you do? "Reject it... there was no basis for the House to impeach, and there is no and never will be a basis for the Senate to vote guilt."

Ruff then lit into a press assertion by one House Manager that the articles are impeachable -- then pointed out that this conflicts with their own assertion that it is procedural, rings hollow on standards, and arrogates to the House a decision which is the Senate's. "Far be it from me to advise you on your Constitutional role," said Ruff, as he quoted Alexander Hamilton's statement in the Federalist Papers on the dangers of politicization of impeachment subverting the process.

Ruff then turned to the standards of an impeachable offense, and said the current charges do not merit overturning a popular election -- where is the grave danger to the nation?

Ruff then lit into the House Managers, who had mocked hundreds of constitutional scholars who said that the present matter does not warrant impeachment. Is it possible, he asked, that scholars came to this decision because they cared about this country and did not want to see it debased?

Ruff began to address the matter of perjury and the House Managers supporting their argument using the precedent of judges -- yet after all, the House defeated Article 2 and thus rejected the assertion that perjury in a civil deposition warrants impeachment, and judges are a different matter because before deciding whether to remove, the Senate must weigh dramatically different considerations concerning the judge's conduct.

Also, in the case of Judge Nixon, he was already convicted and jailed when he was removed.

Ruff also pointed out the irony of certain House members quoting Gerald Ford out of context, saying the "impeachment is anything the House says it is" -- while omitting the crucial comment that judges must be held to a higher standard than elected officials! He further shattered the House Manager case by discussing the standards that appointed judicial officers who hold their seat for life must be held to.

"The Managers will not walk down the difficult path" of the case's facts because they do not want you to see the facts, said Ruff.

And Ruff also addressed the vagueness of the Articles of Impeachment, calling this an issue of due process -- an important principle of jurisprudence, he said, that the Senate must honor. He mentioned the Hastings and Judge Nixon impeachments again -- why did the House fail to understand that it was crucial to tell the President what he was charged with and what the specific allegations were? And just what are the specific charges? The charges were "empty vessels to be filled with a witches' brew... of charges not filed at all."

He called the charges "void for duplicity" -- another reason for summary dismissal.

He belittled the House Managers for using the excuse of Senate Rule 23, to permit the most effective handling of the questions. He went into a technical argument regarding Rule 23 -- including a quotation from Bob Dole.

Shortly after that, Ruff and Trent Lott called for a 15-minute break.

CNN's Frank Sesno and Jeff Greenfield were a little dismissive of the presentation; Greenfield characterized it as "throat-clearing."

Over on MSNBC, Tom Brokaw was previewing the State of the Union Address, and Lanny Davis said that it was "interesting that he opened with a combination of the Constitution and the facts." Davis pointed out that Ruff addressed the circumstances -- concealing a relationship -- a fact that the House Managers did not address. And while the House Managers were effective in presenting a case that those predisposed against the President might buy, it was clear that Ruff was out to make strong points. Gwen Ifill said that his "soft-spoken" approach masks a strong taking to task of the House Managers and their case -- and that not only is Whoopi Goldberg in the gallery, but lines to get in are twice what they were last week!

Brokaw turned to ADM butt-boy Tim Russert, who said that Ruff took a low-key "monotone" approach with the number 51 in mind -- hold the 45 Dems and get 6 Republicans to dismiss. And Jack Ford said that he believes that the White House team has decided it's okay to go on the attack against the House Managers and the House itself.

Here we think that Ford is only half-right. There's no question that many of the more courtly, mature and moderate Senate GOPers have had it with the "Delta House" of Representatives. Combine that with Russert's "51" analysis and a realistic possibility of a summary dismissal actually looks like a remote possibility.

When the presentation resumed, Ruff (who had been having technical problems with his microphone) apologized -- and offered to go over the first hour's material again, which got a laugh for the Senators and the gallery.

Ruff began his overview of the articles by previewing tomorrow's presentation: Greg Craig will address perjury; Cheryl Mills will address obstruction of justice and tampered with witnesses; David Kendall will address other allegations of obstruction.

Ruff began by discussing the standards of impeachment -- and invited Senators to ask themselves why prosecutors might not fully reveal or might seek to conceal facts.

Ruff then lit into Sensenbrenner misrepresenting an exchange during Judiciary Committee hearings -- and then read the transcript of the exchange. We wish C-Span had turned the cameras on Sensenbrenner, who must have been red as a beet as Ruff said "his error was one of inadvertence, but now the record is clear."

Errors of fact and unfounded speculation were his next topic and before he presented a number of points, he said to the Senate, "Be wary of a prosecutor who seeks to deceive the court."

He addressed the elements of perjury -- and that genuine forgetfulness or a conflict in testimony are not grounds for a perjury charge. He then cited legal experts who had said they would never bring a perjury case against the President. Nobody who saw Clinton's grand jury deposition "would come away with the impression that the President and Ms. Lewinsky engaged in sexual conduct" -- but he did not commit perjury. He was seeking to explain why his answers in the Jones deposition were truthful but misleading (and we would add that this is a hardball legal tactic fully supported by court decisions).

He also called the House Managers' charge that Clinton lied about the beginning of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky baseless and lit into House Managers for charging Clinton with perjury over the use of the words "certain occasions" or "several occasions" when he had 11 encounters and 17 phone conversations with her (this was also an indirect broadside at the House Managers for enumerating Clinton's encounters in a manner meant to embarrass and demean).

Ruff then dropped a subtle but devastating bombshell regarding the agreed-to definition of sex in the Jones depo -- by raising the question of whether the Jones lawyers did this intentionally to allow Starr to use this incident in the darkest possible way.

You can be sure that's what he had in mind, Charlie!

He then fired at Impeachment Article One, calling its absorption of elements of the rejected Article Two "unconstitutional."

Ruff's next topic -- allegations that Clinton lied when he said "I'm not sure I was paying much attention to what Mr. Bennett was saying." Clinton was neither nodding or otherwise acknowledging his attorney, Bob Bennett, or Judge Wright as they made their points -- he ridiculed the move to charge Clinton with perjury over his state of mind when "all they have to prove it is a picture."

We remember this part of the Managers' presentation as one of its silliest and weakest moments.

So-called concealment of gifts was Ruff's next topic. Ruff said that the House Managers built their case "not on pillars but shifting sand castles." He brought up the fact that the House Managers quoted only one of eleven versions of the story regarding her discussion of gifts with the President, that Currie never came up from the President's end, and that Lewinsky was the one to raise the issue in the first place. Add to that the fact that Lewinsky raised the possibility that Currie might hold onto the gifts and you have "prosecutorial fudge -- starting from the premise that Bill Clinton called Ms. Lewinsky and said she had something for her.... the President must have instructed Bill Clinton to pick up the gifts."

Ruff turned to a quote from David "The Schlepper" Schippers' conclusion that the President instructed Currie to call Ms. Lewinsky. Ruff turned to the cell phone record itself -- and asked "does the timing fit?"

No, it doesn't -- Ms. Lewinsky asked BEFORE 2 PM for Betty to pick up the gifts.

Ruff showed Lewinsky's story was consistent -- "around 2 PM" on 3 occasions. The prosecutors could have refreshed her memory three times on this point! Worse yet, the cell phone record shows it's a one-minute call, ROUNDED UP! How could the arrangements be made in between one and sixty seconds?

In the background, we thought we heard The Schlepper's head bursting.

As if that weren't enough, Ruff lit into a second prosecution conclusion that this was done "to keep Lewinsky on the team." Ridiculous -- the fact, said Ruff, is that he was not concerned about gifts. He gives a lot of gifts.

As to the matter of Clinton meeting with Currie on that Sunday -- Currie was not even contemplated as a witness in the Jones case -- and Starr's office never asked the Jones lawyers if they intended to call Currie! It was Tripp that triggered the subpoena of Currie. And Clinton was facing his worst fears concerning the Lewinsky flap -- is it any surprise that the matter would come up? He told her it was okay if their memories were different. The President did not tamper with a witness.

Ruff said, "There's no way to get around the denial" by Lewinsky that anyone asked her to lie -- in fact, the only person she said anything about lying to was "the ubiquitous Linda Tripp." He attacked the House Managers "I knew what he meant" theory, the issue of a "false" affidavit, supposedly impeachable denials of an affair and a so-called "effort" to influence testimony -- the only evidence the aides had was the same denial most Americans had.

Finally, Ruff turned to the House Managers ' theory that Vernon Jordan engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, which he characterized as a theory made of "sealing wax and string and spider's webs."

And he proved it -- in a maneer particularly embarrassing to manager Asa Hutchinson.

Once again, he said, Linda Tripp turns up -- "I was reminded of Iago and Desdemona's handkerchief." Lewinsky said that her assertions to Tripp regarding Jordan "were a lie." Ruff went to the heart of the House Managers ' case -- the November 5th meeting followed by her subpoena. Around Thanksgiving, Jordan asked Lewinsky to call him the first week in December, and she called on December 8th. Jordan testified that he had no heightened sense of urgency -- and Ruff turned to "the second example of prosecutorial fudge making." Once again, Schlepper was quoted -- his assertion that Judge Wright's decision concerning discovery on the morning of December 11 started the effort "to keep Monica Lewinsky on the team." He cited Asa Hutchinson's evidence, charts and testimony essentially repeating Schlepper -- a pivotal point in his "critically-acclaimed" presentation.

Ruff then cited Jordan's testimony -- in which he was asked point-blank about whether it was true if he did it because of Judge Wright's order. "I had no knowledge of her order." And then Ruff pulled out the document recording the conference call in which Judge Wright formalized her decision -- at 5:33 PM local time (6:33 EST) on December 11th, at which time Jordan was on a plane for Amsterdam. Wright did not tell the lawyers until after 7 PM that the order was official!!

Blam! Pop! We heard two Hutchinson heads burst a la the David Cronenberg film Scanners.

The order was filed on the 12th -- the prosecutors "have had it wrong."

We think Ruff was too gentle on the Schlepper. He didn't "make fudge." He lied. In the most important case of his life. Under oath as an officer of the House.

Schlepper should have his law license pulled.

"It is not the Manager's suggestion that we bring Miss Tripp before you" concerning her involvement with the Jordan element of the story.

Ruff brought his presentation to a close by saying that the Senate is free to find Clinton's conduct distasteful -- but has he put the government at such risk that he must be removed? Is that the only solution to the present dilemma? He invited the specter of the notion that impeachment is one more weapon in the contest between the legislative and executive branches -- if the Senate finds that the House Managers have proven one of the impeachment points, should he be removed? "Are we at the horrific moment that government may only be maintained by taking that action that our founders provided?"

Ruff had been low-key throughout his methodical destruction of the Managers' case, but he became emotional as he talked about his father, who fought in World War II on Omaha Beach "for our country and our Constitution." And as long as each person present did their Constitutional duty, those who fought for our country would be proud. "We have formed a more perfect Union... We have nurtured it, we cave seen it grow... It thrives despite our shortcomings.... How stands the Union? It stands vibrant, strong, free."

Ruff fought mightily to contain his emotions as he ended saying that Clinton is not guilty on both impeachment counts. He had devastated the Mangers' case.

-- David J. Gonzo