PowerPoint; The Impeachment Trial

Production and broadcast of PowerPoint is made possible by a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is PowerPoint, an information age clearinghouse for issues affecting the African American community, the nation, and the world. And now, PowerPoint's Kenneth Walker. It was very serious business on Capitol Hill last week as the Senate convened the impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton. The political proceedings played out like a drama with a formal procession and a ritual swearing in of the oath of impartiality. This time, on PowerPoint, we look at the impeachment process and the Republican case for bringing the President, Monica Lewinsky, and others into the well of the Senate, helping us in our exploration the distinguished representative from the 12th District of North Carolina and a member of

the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Mel Wat. We're also joined by Dr. Yvonne Scruggs -Leftwitch, Executive Director of the Black Leadership Forum and from New York City, syndicated columnist, Nat Hentalk, and as always we want to hear from you. And you can make your point by calling the PowerPoint hotline at 1 -800 -989 -8255. That's 1 -800 -989 -8255 PowerPoint special about the future of the Clinton presidency and the Senate impeachment trial begins in a moment. But first, PowerPoint news with Verna Avery Brown. For PowerPoint news and information to empower the community, I'm Verna Avery Brown. Lying under oath is an abuse of freedom, obstruction of justice is a degradation of

law. There are people in prison for such offenses. What in the world do we say to them about equal justice if we overlook this conduct by the President? House prosecutors make their case to impeach the President. A year ago, this weekend, President Clinton rode his limousine to his lawyer's office to answer questions under oath about events stretching back to his days as Governor of Arkansas. What he said that weekend changed the course of history. Yesterday, House Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde, leader of the House prosecutors' team in the Senate impeachment trial of President Clinton, attempted to make the case that the office of the presidency would be permanently damaged if Clinton is not removed from office. Hyde's summation ended three

days of opening statements by House Republicans. Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana says the Republicans in making their case have pushed the ball uphill a bit, but it's a steep hill, he says, and they're not near the top yet. The White House is expected to present its defense on Tuesday. One youth was shot dead by soldiers during a riot in the heart of Nigeria's commercial capital Legos on Saturday, according to witnesses. Troops and paramilitary police used tear gas to disperse protesters who burned car tires and threw stones after a military task force, smash traitors, stalls, and tried to clear youth known locally as area boys from the streets of the center. Legos has experienced an absurd of protest in recent weeks against fuel prices and increases in school fees. Friday would have been the 70th birthday of the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In celebrating his birthday on Monday, President Clinton is urging Americans to honor King not by taking a day off, but by taking a day on, joining a nationwide volunteer campaign. Clinton says he'll ask Congress to increase funding for

his AmeriCorps program. He says thousands of young people who have participated have performed millions of hours of service and learned lessons that will last a lifetime. Historian and scholar Claiborne Carson, the author of the recently published autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr. reminds Americans in this interview with PowerPoint news that King was a religious man. One of the things that many people forget about him Martin these days is that they see him most as a civil rights leader as an orator, but he saw himself primarily as a Baptist preacher. That was his heritage. That was his father had been a Baptist preacher. His grandfather had been a Baptist preacher. His great grandfather had been a Baptist preacher. That was the center of his identity. I think that that's in the end was what gave him the confidence and the security to face constant threats. We have to keep in mind that for 13 years of his adult life, he was faced with

almost constant threats against his life from Montgomery to Memphis. Did you get a sense in gleaning through Dr. King's papers and memoirs and speeches, etc.? Whether or not a single person had more of an influence on his character, his teachings, his philosophy than another, do you think that Mahatma Gandhi might have been that one or were there others? Certainly Mahatma Gandhi was one of the most important influences, but there were so many. One of the things about Martin Luther King is that he wasn't really an original thinker. He was a person who absorbed many ideas from many different sources. His father, Benjamin Mays at Morehouse, Baird Rustin taught him a lot about the nonviolent philosophy. There were Stokely Carmichael when they argued about Black Power during the Mississippi March. These were people who, in various ways, affected Malcolm X because I

think King was not aware of the importance of racial consciousness movement, the psychological dimension, until it was brought to his attention by Malcolm and by Stokely. His ability to grow, I think that that's one of the things that distinguishes Martin Luther King, his ability to change and to evolve over time. Claiborne Carson is a professor of history at Stanford University. Up next on PowerPoint, host Kenneth Walker takes a look at the historic impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton with US Representative Melvin Watts of North Carolina, village voice columnist Nat Hintoff, and Dr. Ivanovsch Grugs left which are the Black Leadership Forum, to add your voice and opinions to the dialogue, call 1 -800 -989 -8255. For PowerPoint news and information, I'm Verna Avery Brown. Welcome back, I'm Kenneth Walker.

Exactly one year ago today, President Clinton gave his deposition in the sexual harassment lawsuit brought by Paula Jones. What a difference a year makes. As a result of the President's testimony last year, in just two days, the President's lawyers will begin their formal defense of perjury and obstruction of justice impeachment charges being heard by the United States Senate. Just hours before the President will deliver his State of the Union address. But just as the President's defense is set to start, the momentum may be gradually shifting against him. Although the polls say a solid majority of Americans still oppose the President's removal from office just as many Americans seem to have tuned out the impeachment proceedings. And the President's supporters are having a difficult time drumming up support for a series of anti -impeachment rallies this week. And finally, prosecutors from the House of Representatives appear on the verge of winning the battle over whether witnesses should be called in the Senate trial, an unpredictable development that would provide the only opportunity for

bombshells that might decide the impeachment battle. And that's our focus this hour. As always, you can join this discussion by calling the PowerPoint hotline at 1 -800 -989 -8255. That's 1 -800 -989 -8255 to help guide our exploration. We have Congressman Mel Wat from North Carolina, who also served on the House Judiciary Committee that voted the articles of impeachment. Joining him is Dr. Yvonne Scruggs left, which executive director of the Black Leadership Forum, and from New York City, columnist, Nat Hentoff. Welcome, everyone. Welcome to PowerPoint. Thank you. Congressman Wat, if I can begin with you, the consensus at least among the established press seems to be that the House prosecutors did a much better job than anyone expected. As a member of the committee that produced those managers, how would you rate their performance? Well, I expected them to be very prepared, and they're giving this to a new audience of people who have not been

as intune and attentive to what had been going on as the House Judiciary Committee. There was no one there to counter anything that they had to say. So you always make your most persuasive case in the opening arguments, because you can say that the evidence is whatever you want to say the evidence is, and you can say that the issues are whatever you want to say the issues are. And that's what they've done for three days now, without anybody there to refute what they were saying. So what, in your opinion, is the objective that the presidents and lawyers have to meet this week in their response? Well, I think they will, first of all, they will remind the senators that we're operating in a legal and constitutional framework, and that they are not at liberty just to decide that what the president did was was bad, and therefore

impeachable, that they have to apply the standard that the founding fathers set out in the Constitution, and that is a very high standard, and it was set very high for very important reasons so that we would not have ongoing impeachment trials every two years or every year. So they'll start by setting that framework, I'm sure, to try to define what the standard, the appropriate standard is, and then they'll talk about the fact that this simply doesn't measure up to that standard, and they'll give a factual summary that is substantially different, I'm sure, than the summary that the House managers gave, because the House managers, in effect, operate in a

never -never fairy land, as we have quite often found, they just assume certain facts, even though all of the evidence indicates that those facts are not true. Dr. Avon Scrugg's left, which you've been also paying close attention this past week to the so subject, did the House prosecutors make the president's lawyers job tougher, you think? Well, I think they gave the president's lawyers an opportunity to remind the American public what this event is all about. I think that the House managers have been talking to their own agenda, they have not been talking to the senators, they have been talking to the American people, they've been trying to convince the American people that in the final analysis, when they call for witnesses, they're going to be justified, and they've followed a strategy in doing that of trying to confuse people, as Congressman Watts says, about what the facts really are. And so having given having had this opening

foray, I think the president's attorneys will have a good opportunity to come back and take us all back, in fact, to whitewater, which is where this all began, and by so doing to reinforce the reality that this trial is about sex, and no matter how often Henry Hyde or any of the other managers says, no, this is about lying in obstruction of justice, if it is, it is about lying in obstruction of justice, about sex, because if those questions about the president's private sexual behavior had not been very intentionally and insiduously introduced into the star investigation, the president would never have had to address those questions, and we would not be at this point now with his having said things which have subsequently pro proven to be untrue. And I think it does, in fact, give his attorneys the opportunity to help the American people who are, they're not really focusing and listening all day long, but they do periodically go to the

television and go to their favorite program to see what's going on, and I'm sure as they have done that, they've thought, gee, you know, there's a great deal of talk here about Monica Lewinsky and what the president and Miss Lewinsky did, and I wonder if that is a high crime and a misdemeanor. Not hent off the people, as measured by the polls, seem to long ago have come to a judgment on this that seems to have been continuously even still totally ignored. How would you explain that? I'll be going to tell you about that because I think it's largely the fault of, as they say, the media of which I am one, but first I really have to say something about Mel Watt because we're talking about the Constitution. I've said this about him in print. I want to take this opportunity to say it live of all the members of Congress. Mel Watt is easily the most consistent defender of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution. Of course he doesn't have much competition on either side of the aisle, but he has been very

forthright, and I got to say one glorious thing he did a few years ago. The House was about to kill the exclusionary rule, which says you can't admit unconstitutionally obtained evidence of trial. Mel Watt saw the way it was going. He introduced an amendment. It was word for word the Fourth Amendment, which is the most specific and particular amendment protecting us from the police in the Constitution. Didn't say what it was. The House overwhelmingly, mostly Republican, mostly Republicans, but a good too many Democrats voted against the amendment, which tells us something about Congress and the press, I guess, because very few people wrote about it. Now, this trial, I mean, I've heard this from the beginning. Yes, it is about his personal sexual behavior, but it is also about, and this is where the Republicans have fallen down because they're afraid to go into it because of the backlash they got because that foolish star report started off with all those sexual details, etc. This is about obstruction of justice in

terms of a series of his discarded women who once it appeared to somebody close to the president that they might say something about the affair or might write a book or somehow sell it to a tabloid, they began to get visited, and the visits became threats. For example, Elizabeth Grayson, who was a foreign Miss America, she was told to keep quiet or else, and she was told that if she didn't, there might be an IRS investigation. And lo and behold, last week, the news came out. She, her taxes are being audited. Now, I wonder who with the IRS decided to do that. I was subject to that during the Nixon years. I disappointed my kids. I wasn't on the enemy's list, but it was worse than that. We were audited three times in a row because it was on the enemy's list and the IRS. I can give you a whole list of women to assume that happened. Now, that is obstruction of justice. That is tampering with

witness. Witnesses. Bruce Lindsay has been named by one of them under affidavit as coming to her and saying, you better shut up. And that's the kind of thing that the Republicans have screwed up on because they were afraid if they brought that into this trial, then there'd be more of a backlash. But fortunately, I'm not bound by Senate rules. And I am a newspaper man who was very careful about what I write. I must say, the law of libel is a great deterrent and helps you keep accurate. We're talking with columnist Nat Hentoff, Dr. Yvonne Scruggs, left which is executive director of the Black Leadership Form and Congressman Mel Watt from North Carolina about the impeachment trial of President Clinton. You can join this discussion by calling the PowerPoint hotline at 1 -800 -989 -8255. That's 1 -800 -989 -8255. Congressman Watt, Nat Hentoff's indication of President Clinton's record on libertarian issues actually isn't far from the mark.

And considering that you're one of the people who is the strongest defender of civil liberties in the U .S. Congress, how do you square that with your support for the President in this case? Well, I think if there were substantial evidence, boating in of what Matt Hentoff said, and we had been faced with that in the committee, I would be as concerned about it as Matt is. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the President, I guess none of that evidence is before the committee and none of it is before the Senate. And none of it is likely to be before the Senate. So I'm judging this case on the record that came before us in the committee and in the House. Is that Congressman based on that evidence? Congressman Watt, are these things

that Nat Hentoff mentioned among others, the kind of thing that the House Republicans were urging the Senators look at the private material, the secret material that wasn't on the public record, and then you'll be convinced, is that what they're talking about? Well, there's nothing that is not on the public record that is to be considered in this case, everything that except for some dirty words here and there in the record, everything that was turned over to the committee by the independent council was released to the public. There's nothing else, there's no smoking guns, there's no evidence of this. Now, Nat may have some evidence of it independent of what was before the committee. I'm not questioning that. I mean, he has made that representation, but that evidence is not before the committee and it's not going to be before the Senate because the Senate can only consider

what charges were bought from the House. But Dr. Scrugg's left, which in fact, the House managers who want to call as many witnesses as they'd like, actually are hoping some of this Jane Doe business comes out of the woodwork. I think they're hoping a lot of things, and one of the things that's of great concern to me is that if they felt that they needed witnesses in order to substantiate the articles of impeachment, which the Senate is now considering, they ought to have called those witnesses before they voted on these articles of impeachment. I think that it is certainly not constitutional, and I certainly don't believe that these actors coming out of the House of Representatives are withholding pertinent information that they felt would, in fact, deep six as president, because if there's one thing that is very clear and apparent, it is that the House of Representatives has been held

bent for election, as my grandmother used to say, to get rid of this president, and I have to believe that if they had more compelling evidence that they would have found a way to have introduced it before they sent this dog to hunt over in the Senate. What about that in that hint off? It seems to me that the things you just said, and that would indicate that the House has left its most important weapons back in the memory. Let me tell you why. By the way, if Mel is interested, this week's Village Voice and next week's Village Voice will have two commas by me in which I cite sources and affidavits naming six of those women, but you're right. They're not going to become deeper in the Senate, even Tom Delay, the exterminator, as he was in private life before, did not have the nerve to say what you ought to look at on the press because they made a terrible mistake when they released that whole trashy stuff about sex in the backlash, almost knocked them off their feet. They are very afraid to introduce this stuff. I would like to ask Mel something though about something constitutional that is

before the Senate, and was before the House. Let me just raise a question. Let me raise a question with you. This whole investigation began with Whitewater. Now, why is it of any interest to the American people, to you or to me, what sexual relationships Bill Clinton had independent of some investigation of Whitewater? I mean, I don't really care about all those people. Because, because in the Paula Jones case, which I'm about to get to on constitutional grounds, in the Paula Jones case, the judge said it was perfectly okay to subtena Monica Lewinsky to show whether there was a patent and practice. Now, Lewinsky was never in Arkansas when he was governor, but if it could be established that he had these, let us say, liaisons with various women, then that was something that made sense. And again, if the Republicans had the courage to bring in the intimidation, that would make more sense. But when he gets back from the break, I want to ask both of you about the Paula Jones trial. No, I really think the Maddie is your relative.

This has to do with the right of a citizen. Oh, come on. This trial without somebody deliberately lying and subverting her right to do process. This has to do with a woman who was set up by a bunch of assassins. It happened. That's the point. It happened. Nobody can force you to lie. That's a rule. Nobody, if you're not asked about it, you're not going to lie. She was set up by a bunch of assassins to get away. They don't believe it. It has to do with the point. It has to do with the white water. Let's try to do it. it one at a time so that our listeners can. I was talking. Okay, we're going to try to keep our guests to one at a time so our listeners can get the full benefit of their discussion. We're talking with Dr. Yvonne Scruggs left, which is executive director of the Black Leadership Forum, syndicated columnist, Nat Hentoff, and Congressman Mel Watt from North Carolina about the impeachment trial of

President Clinton. Let me respond to Nat. Go ahead, I think. Just for a second, because Nat is absolutely right. It is a serious matter if someone lies in the context of any case, whether it's a civil rights case or sex discrimination or sexual harassment, whatever. Those things are important, but I don't think they have any importance or significance on the impeachment. That's really what is being tried now. What Nat is talking about is important. I don't want to minimize the importance of that. Every citizen who walks into a courtroom deserves to have the police tell the truth, and there's a whole long history. We all know that police don't necessarily tell the truth all the time. They, uh, they entitled to have every witness tell the truth when they come into court. But

that's a different issue than if they don't tell the truth, whether it becomes an impeachable offense under the United States Constitution. And, um, I mean, that has the absolute right to write about those other things, but that's a separate issue, and we need to keep reminding ourselves of that. What's going on in the Senate is an entirely different issue that has to do with the balance of power between the executive branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch. And if we don't apply the standards that were set forth in the Constitution to those three branches of government, then we interrupt that balance. We shift that balance. And if we lower the standards that the, uh, founding fathers intended to

apply to impeachment, then we have lowered that standard for the next president, and the president after that. And we will have an impeachment trial every single year. That's the point I'm making. Now, I want to, I want to be absolutely clear. Let the Congressman finish his point. I would be absolutely clear that the point that that is making is a serious point. And if it is true, there will be an opportunity for the, for the president to be tried for that in a separate forum. But that is a different issue than whether impeachment is appropriate. Well, I would inevitably disagree. You know, everybody is trying to get into the minds of the framers. So I would, I would ask Mel this in so far as we, either of us can do that. Do you think that James Madison, George Mason, all those guys envisioned that a, the chief executive officer, the man who is,

is our chief protector of the laws. I'm not going to go into the rest of that rhetoric that if that person, the president of the United States deliberately purge it himself to, you know, do process. We, Mark Douglas said, the history of liberty is the history of do process. God knows the framers knew that because the British troops were, were, were wrecking that do process all the time. So the president of the United States lies to prevent a litigant, whatever you think of her from having a fair trial. We're coming up, we're coming up on, we're coming up on 29 minutes into the hour net, which means that we're going to have to take a break in a few moments. We're talking with columnist Nat Hentoff, Congressman Mel Watten, Dr. Yvonne Scruggs, left which with the Black Leadership Forum about the impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton. 1 -800 -9898255 is our hotline number and you can call it to join the discussion. We'll be right back. Internet services for PowerPoint

are provided by World African Network, offering news, information, sports and entertainment, or African and African American communities through broadband and new media technologies. The web address is www .wanonline .com. You're listening to Public Radio and this is PowerPoint with Kenneth Walker. Welcome back. Once again,

we're talking about the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton and the PowerPoint hotline is 1 -800 -9898255. We're going to go to the phones now and speak with Greg. He's in Washington listening at WPFW. Welcome to PowerPoint Greg. What does it say about the reliability of democracy, the balance of power and the separation of power? When one party in a two -party system can organize itself to impeach a president because they dislike that president contrary to the will of a 70 percent majority of the people. Matt, can I have that? Go right ahead. You know, if we went by majority, the whole idea of the Bill of Rights, by the way, and other parts of the Constitution, like habeas Corpus, is that the majority does not always have the power to decide fundamental constitutional issues. If we've had a national plebiscite in 1954 before the court decided brown versus board of education, I think it's fair to say the majority

of the people would say no segregated schools are just fine, just upgrade them a little. If we've had a plebiscite among the people in 1857, the Dred Scott decision, which said that black people slave or free had no rights, what do you think the majority people would have said? Can't go entirely by majority rule, I think, with all respect that that's a species argument. Sure, the people are behind them. The people can be wrong. The Constitution is a protection against us. I don't think that's what Greg as the caller has asked really. I think that he is asking about a strategic effort by a political partisan group to remove a president who was duly elected from office, which has in other venues been called hijacking and election. Let us suppose that. No, let me finish. Let me finish that. No, let me finish. Let Dr. Skragg left to finish your point and then we can finish. Now I think the question that

Greg raises is one that is of great moment to a lot of Americans who are watching this process, and it is very frightening to think in fact that because a group of people have a fundamental class dislike for a person, in this case, the president, that they are justified in banding together and saying that they are acting out their conscience, which they are empowered to act out as elected officials to carry out a very personal agenda. It is undermining to the Constitution. It certainly undermines the American confidence in the political process and it certainly is deleterious to the separation of powers which the Constitution recalls. I am a solitary person. I am not a Republican. I have been a life -long Democrat until I must say 1992, but even then I voted Democrat across the board. But we are talking about the Constitution and there is another approach.

Let me stipulate you are right about this. I will call it a conspiracy, but whether the facts are there are important and you also have to remember in context. This president, William Jefferson Clinton, has done more harm to the Constitution than any president in this century. His 1996 anti -terrorism, effective death penalty act, this eviscerated habeas corpus, the right to have a federal court review a state trial, as a result there are men on death row and some women now since 1996 who will be executed because they didn't have more than a year together hearing. If he is the guy who pushed through with great Republican support, I must add, part of that bill which says that if you are an alien, if long term resident alien, you cannot see the evidence against you nor can your attorneys before you deport you. Greg, we want to thank you for the call in the question, but we really have to move on. Our switch board is kind of lit up here. The best to you in Washington. Let's talk to George. He's in Baltimore and listening at station WEAA. Welcome to PowerPoint, George.

You with us, George? Guess not. Let's talk to Robert. He's in Philadelphia listening at station WHYY. Welcome to PowerPoint, Robert. The Republican managers have accused President Lincoln of President Clinton repeatedly that he's lied repeatedly under oath. Doesn't it matter that he's been responding repeatedly to variations of the very same question? The question was, did you have sexual intercourse with that woman? Have he asked this question a thousand times? And the president is obstinate? Will he be considered as having lied a thousand times? Thank you. Thanks so much, Robert for the comment and the call. And let's talk to Barry. He's in Houston and listening at station WKTSU. Welcome to PowerPoint, Barry. Hey, Belay, have I knew you to the host? Due to you. To the guest. Two questions, briefly. One, we have some federal judges, a Nixon and LC Hastings, ousted for lying under

oath and a watermelon Nixon lied for a federal grand jury about a civil case. And the same senator who voted for his ouster and now changing course and trying to defend Clinton. I've got a problem with that. I want the power to address that lying is lying regardless of who does it. And we're in lies all this blind black support for President Clinton. I mean, I personally don't see anything he's done. I'll ask in a second, Dr. Scruggs left to take that part, but Congressman, what on the question of prior impeachments against judges, leaving aside for the fact that judges are appointed for life and presidents or not, how would you respond to the difference in advocated treatment here? Well, there are two differences. First of all, judges are appointed during a term of good behavior and presidents serve only for a four year term subject to the good behavior they are appointed for life. So you could argue that there's a different standard, but I'm not even going to go off on that

argument. The real difference is that in both of those cases, those people were engaged in things related to their official or allegedly engaged in things related to their official duties. And as much as some people would like for this to be the case, the president simply was not engaged in any official conduct. And the cover of the engagement of structure of justice. Well, you can't say that, Mark, but that evidence is not in front of us. I think it is. I've already talked about that one time before, and you may publish bad evidence in the police force next week, but it's not in front of us. I want Dr. Scrugg's left to respond to Barry's other question about what he calls blind black support for President Clinton. That has come up a number of times as the African -American community has

taken very strong positions about this process. And I've said before, and I repeat, this is not support blind or otherwise for President Clinton. This is the recognition of a process which has very often been the experience of African -Americans, which is to say beginning at one point and very quickly escalating to another level based on the determination of the pursuers to get the query. And I think that there is a full clear recognition. You've heard it from many members of Congress during the House hearings. You have heard it, and it has been written a number of times that African -Americans know unfairness when we see it. And that certainly is part of the answer. The other part of the answer is when we look at the people who are the most vociferous and determined and obsessive pursuers of this President, we look at enemies to our own issues. Let me tell you what I mean by that in quantifiable terms.

All of the managers who are presenting this case to the Senate on the report card which the NAACP prepared on 11 critical policy issues which were voted on in the House of Representatives last year. And they rated each member of the House from on a scale of 1 to 0 to 100. These managers got no more than a score of 20 and most of them got a 0 and many of them got a score of 8 or 13, which means on all the issues that are important to the African -American community, the people who symbolize the pursuit of Bill Clinton are all the way on the other side of the continuum. Very, very, very thanks for the call and questions and the best you and Houston. In responding, not do this. Does it not concern you at all that the majority leader in Senate Trent lot and one of the House prosecutors Bob Barr have this strong identification with light supremacist organizations? Well, sure. I mean, Trent lot is he's absolutely connected. I think Barr has some

explanations to do, but it's Trent lot who's in sure that bothers me. But again, we're dealing with facts here. Let's talk about things that are of interest not only to the African -American community, but anybody who cares about human rights. We are not here bound by Senate rules. I'm going to tell you that when the President was in Africa, last year, early last year, he did not say one word about the Sudan with slavery of black Christians and animists in the South has been going on for years. Families have been destroyed. Women have been made concubines. Kids are forcibly inculcated into the Muslim religion. And then in the same trip, he goes to Kilgali, which is the capital of Rwanda and says he apologizes because he didn't know about the terrible Holocaust that went on in 1994. The State Department told him that month before there was intelligence reports. And yet he and Madame Albright and Kofi on on two was head of peacekeeping at the UN then did nothing, nothing to intervene. Now, I wonder. And again, this is an impeachable, but I'm talking about let's take the full context here. This man has done

a lot of very bad things. But I know you were talking about discarded women. I think if you read my column on the Washington Post yesterday, what he did not do in Rwanda is absolutely out right now. But the question is as compared to what? And at least he was in Rwanda. At least he was in Africa. Why do you always talk over me? He was there and the African -American community recognizes that this is the first president in that this is the first president who has taken a major interest in Africa and has himself been involved on the country. Let's talk. Let's talk to Barbara. She's in Philadelphia and listening to station WHY. Welcome to PowerPoint, Barbara. Oh, okay. Now, thank you, Ken, and all there. I honestly have no blind support for the president, but what I do have is an open -eyed view on the people who are pursuing

this in impeachment. As the smart lady there said, if we do have to look at the people in America who have been after ousting this president since 1992 and we have to be clear as to what they absolutely want. They are no friends of hours. They are no friends of all people working in America. You know, but the deal is I have honestly got a question because I too have been really watching these, you know, like the hearings going on. And I keep hearing us told that no, we are not in a democracy. We are in a republic, if I'm good,

but then how come troops from this nation are used to go overseas as we are told to either restore democracy or to implement it when we here in America are not in a true democracy. Good question, Barbara, and enough for people to chew on. Thanks for the call, the observation, and the best of you in Philadelphia. Let's talk to Jay. He's in Montgomery, Alabama, listening at station WVAS. Welcome to PowerPoint, Jay. Hello, how are you doing? Okay. One of your guests, I think his name is Ned. Nat Hinton. I've chimed in on a call of question black support, the president Clinton. Right. And he said it was blind support. I charged that it's not blind support. I consider it very intelligent support given the comparison of the Republican

party. If I could accommodate a story to you that I had. If it's quick, if it's very quick and brief. Okay, very quick and brief. Once Bob Doe, when he was running against President Clinton, was on a talk show that you can't have used the co -host with Barry Lee and I was able to get a call through. And the subject of the show was how President Clinton, this was after his first term, how he had broken all his campaign promises. I said, what about his promise to elect a cabinet that looked more like America? Bob Doe's comment was as they cut me off the air was maybe more like after. Interesting. Here's my question. Here's my point to Ned. I don't understand Ned. Not. Not. N -A -T. Not is. It's not. Go ahead. Alabama. Yes. And we've had a trace of racism here from every second. Remember I'm 42 years old. And I know

it when I see it. I know it when I smell it. This man is being railroaded. And when I look at the people who are bringing the charges behind him, there's some of the most racist, some of the most hateful people. And it bothers me that out of all the issues, these people hold themselves up as being moralistic and virtuous. And they attack Clinton because he had an extra marital affair. But these say people who are making charges against them, they find it acceptable to be associated with white supremacist groups. And the people like yourself and other people in the media don't ever call them on that. Right. Jay. Jay, that's an excellent point. But at that, as Jay points out there, there's the rub, isn't it? Interesting. I've been in Montgomery several times. One of the times I went to see Reverend Ralph Abernathy, who, as you know, is Martin Luther King's chief, chief advisor, assistant and friend. And he's just been bombed. And the cab driver wouldn't take me there. So I walked and I couldn't even get in except I had a pass from by at Rustin. You're not talking

here to some kind of white citizen's counsel guy. You think it's this? The thing is this. I didn't say blind support. Somebody else said that. I don't have to worry. Listen, I don't stereotype any group. That's foolish. There are plenty of white liberals who at light and many African -Americans who are the legitimate fear of what happens if we have a Republican in the White House, a Republican Congress, and then who's going to be on the Supreme Court is Tom Delague going to keep going after judges, called him activist judges, wanted to impeach them because they're for the Bill of Rights. I know all that. What I'm saying is if this guy is not thrown out of office for what he has done an obstruction of justice, then you can figure out impeachment and make it happen. Okay, Jay. No, we have to move on. Jay, we have to move on. I want to thank you, though, for the call and a good question and the best to you in Montgomery. Let's talk to Mel. He's in Washington, D .C. listening at station WPFW. Welcome to PowerPoint, Mel. Yeah, thank you very much. I've followed this somewhat and I've got an observation

and a question. President Clinton is being charged with committing perjury, which is not the same thing as lying under oath. I saw his deposition that was televised, and from what I saw, he did not purge himself. I don't, and I'm not seeing this really be addressed by the so -called House Managers or prosecutors. They give these litany of speeches about his moral conduct and degrading the presidency and whatnot, but I don't see them addressing the central issue, which is perjury. Okay, Mel. Park of Thurman lied under oath, but he wasn't prosecuted for perjury. We all know that he lied. Okay, Mel. Thanks for the call. The best to you in Washington. We're talking with Congressman Mel Wat from North Carolina, Dr.

Yvonne Scruggs -Left, which executive director of the Black Leadership Forum, syndicated columnist, Nat Hintoff. 1 -800 -989 -8255 is the PowerPoint hotline, and you can call it to join this discussion. Our conversation will continue when we come back. Still ahead on PowerPoint. In our tool PowerPoint, we continue our discussion about the impeachment trial with Time Magazine's Jack White and Amy Goodman, host of Pacific Radio's Democracy Now program. Stay tuned. This is Public Radio, and you're listening to PowerPoint. Our program will continue in just a moment. Welcome back. I'm Kenneth Walker. Congressman Wat, coming off Mel's question from

Washington on the vagaries of perjury. In the House Judiciary Committee, did you, when you voted against the articles of impeachment, not believe that it had been proven that the president committed perjury and was guilty of obstruction of justice, or you did not believe they rose to the level of impeachable offenses? Well, I think a combination of the two things, there certainly was not any proof of perjury in the technical legal sense, and we made quite a to -do about that because the Republicans insisted on adding the word perjury into the impeachment charge when it was quite clear that the president's conduct, even if you believed everything that was alleged, didn't add up to perjury. You can only have perjury where it affects the outcome of a trial and

his material, and it certainly didn't affect the outcome of the Paula Jones trial, whatever his testimony might have been, whether he might have... What about before the grand jury, which is actually what the House voted to approve? I'd like to answer this by the way. After the Congressman. Go ahead, Mel. Well, to the extent that it's based on the same allegations that in the Paula Jones case, I just don't think you can get there indirectly that way either. So, I mean, I just... I did not see the perjury. I think it is absolutely acceptable for people to pause words in legal context. People do it every day, and if you're talking about the

president being subject to the same rules that everybody else is, if you and I walked into a court room, we would have the ability to insist on people asking... the lawyers ask us questions and allowing us to answer them directly, not help the defendant, not help the lawyers on the other side. That's just something that happens every day, and I saw it happen for 22 years in the practice of law. So, if you're going to have the president be subject to the same rules that everybody else, not above the law, not below the law, then you apply those same standards to the president. Go ahead, Matt. Okay, I think if the president would be a lot better off, if Mel wants, has not been on the judiciary committee, and then instead been part of his legal staff. That man was under oath. The man said he never had sexual

relations with that woman. He'd said that on television, but he said it in essence in the trial. He also said he never was alone with her. He said a lot of things. Now, his very effective counsel, Charles Ruff, who I really thought he did a very good job before the judiciary committee. He said at one point that a reasonable prison, that mythical prison in the field of law, a reasonable prison might well conclude that the president crossed the line and lied. Now, for us, you know, us laymen, us non -lawyers lying in perjury, particularly again and again, I would say even if he wanted to sue me for defamation, that the president is a multiple perjurer. I want to get in our closing moments from each of you starting. I'm happy that Matt's not on the jury and me too. Congressman, starting with you, can you give us some sense of how you think this is all going to wind up? Well, I think the Senate will, at some point, come to the conclusion that they simply are not going to go to what it would take to

pursue this matter and they will respond to the American public and put this matter behind us. I suspect it will be put behind us with some kind of essential resolution and that will allow the 30 -35 percent of the people who think that the president is guilty to continue to say that he's guilty and will allow the 65 percent of the people who think this matter should be put behind us. You got a timeline here? Yeah, I think probably 30 -60 days. Okay, Nat. I'll tell you, I think the question is still open. I think the odds are against us being convicted, but I do know what the first line of his obituary is going to be. No question about that. He was impeached. Yes, sir. Yeah. Well, on that being the case, it seems to me that since I agree with Congressman Watt that this is going to conclude without the removal from office, I

have moved from the position of feeling that he probably ought to have a center to feeling that given the way that the Republican pursuers have driven this case into the very skin of the American people and have made their point at ad nauseam that they've gotten their pound of flesh. And in fact, he has been impeached. That will always be the case, but I think he's also been punished sufficiently. And I would urge the Senate to not remove him off from office, but also I'd urge his partisan supporters not to push for essentially. And we don't know whether it'll be acquitted by history or not. In about 10 or 15 seconds, Congressman, can you imagine that the bipartisan harmony so far prevailing in the Senate will continue? No, I think it's already beginning unravel and I think it will continue to unravel. I want to thank Congressman Mel Watt from North Carolina. He was on the House Judiciary Committee and Nat Hentall,

a syndicated columnist out of New York City. And Dr. Yvonne Scruggs left which for this fascinating discussion on the impeachment trial before the United States Senate of President William Jefferson Clinton. I am Kenneth Walker. This is PowerPoint. If you would like a tape or transcript of this or any past edition of PowerPoint or to make listener comments or program suggestions, please call PowerPoint toll free at 1 -888 -682 -6500. That's 1 -888 -682 -6500. Here's what's coming your way next week on PowerPoint. They are legendary stars of stage and screen cherished not only for

their artistic gifts, but also for their commitment to human rights and family values. Next time on PowerPoint, a special conversation with Aussie Davis and Ruby D. All that and PowerPoint used with Verna Avery Brown. Join us. The creators of PowerPoint include senior producer Tony Regusters, producer director Debbie Williams, news anchor Verna Avery Brown, and associate producer Tom Woodwood. PowerPoint's phone producer is Kay Marshall. Our broadcast production assistant is Eric Lewis. PowerPoint's NPR broadcast technical director is Neil Tevolte. Legal affairs for PowerPoint are handled by Theodore Brown. Our program announcer is Candy Shannon. PowerPoint's theme is from the CDF stops by Craig Harris. The executive producer is Reggie Hicks. I'm Kenneth Walker. Thanks for listening. PowerPoint is made possible by a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's radio program fund. This is PowerPoint, a production of Hicks and Associates.

This is Kenneth Walker in Washington, D .C., inviting you to stay tuned. This PowerPoint continues exploring the issues before the Senate in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. And you have the power to make your point by calling the PowerPoint hotline at 1 -800 -989 -8255. Stay tuned, there's more PowerPoint just ahead. Production and broadcast of PowerPoint is made possible by a grant

from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is PowerPoint, an information age clearinghouse for issues affecting the African -American community, the nation, and the world. And now, PowerPoint's Kenneth Walker. Production and broadcast of PowerPoint

is made possible by a grant from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. This is PowerPoint, an information age clearinghouse for issues affecting the African -American community.