Letters to the Editor

‘Vague allegations’ not impeachable

This letter to the editor is a response to the letters that have been recently printed regarding President Clinton and the Senate impeachment trial. I would first like to state that in a November New York Times article, 430 constitutional law professors and scholars stated that the alleged crimes committed by President Clinton do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

Closer examination of the two Articles of Impeachment passed by the House last month reveal a very weak case against the president. The first article alleges that President Clinton perjured himself before the grand jury last August. However, nowhere in that article has there been evidence presented of even one statement by President Clinton in which he perjured himself before the grand jury.

Similarly, the president has also been accused of obstructing justice in the Paula Jones case. Surprisingly enough, there has not been one single act by the president presented in the Articles of Impeachment to show that he attempted to obstruct justice. What’s more, there is absolutely no mention of even one possible witness whom President Clinton may have attempted to "corruptly influence."

The problem with all of this is the fact that because both of these allegations are vague, the president is unable to prepare a proper defense against the charges. Clearly, this is a violation of the president’s constitutional right to due process.

This entire impeachment trial is a mockery of the Constitution itself. The precedent that this trial will set for future generations could prove to be potentially perilous.

My biggest fear is that this trial will upset the balance of power between the three branches of government. Ultimately, this could give too much power to the legislative branch, in addition to conceding an increased ambiguity to the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors."

My intention, however, is not to condone what President Clinton has done. He, like every American charged with a criminal offense, should have his day in court once he leaves office in January 2001. At this time, Kenneth Starr will still be able to indict Clinton and bring a case against him in a "real" court of law. Only then will we be able to reach a conclusion to the scandal -- one that would not involve the political motivation that currently engulfs this trial.

Steve Smith
president, College Democrats

This is in response to Martin Austermuhle’s letter to the editor "Politician’s always lie to protect the public." Although I agree with his statement that all politicians lie, there is one distinct difference between the lies of other politicians and the lie of President Clinton.

Clinton’s lie was given multiple times under oath, which, if I understand correctly, is perjury. When a president steps into office and takes the oath before our country he promises, among other things, to live by the Constitution drawn up by our forefathers. One of the articles in that Constitution states that perjury, in President Clinton’s case, is a federal offense. A federal offense.

Newt Gingrich did not commit a federal offense. He did not lie in front of a grand jury to cover up his wrong doings. In fact, he actually admitted to his actions, without bringing terms and definitions into the picture. Austermuhle seems to want to jump to conclusions without gathering all of the facts.

Melissa Bopp
Class of 1997

I find it disheartening and unfortunate that we have to start off a new year with more of the same from this Republican-controlled Congress. Instead of working to make our country greater, they continue to ignore the will of the people by pressing forward with this partisan witch hunt that is masquerading as a constitutionally legal impeachment trial. They continue to ignore the real business of this country, such as social security and campaign finance reform, and instead continue to focus on sex and scandal. Not only do the American people want this trial ended, but elder statesmen, former presidents, presidential candidates and even moderate Republicans in the House are calling for this trial to end.

The American people deserve a legislature that is working for them, and so far the Republicans in Congress have not delivered. We must make our voices heard, so I urge you to write to U.S. senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum and let them know that you support a short trial so that Congress can get back to work. It’s time to move on.

Jared S. Cram
freshman-finance

It’s little surprise that President Spanier chose not to extend health benefits to same-sex partners that heterosexual university employees already enjoy.

With a narrow-minded, conservative state legislature in charge of Penn State’s funds, it’s tough to take a stand in the name of fairness. But by refusing to stand up to the legislators, Spanier lets them win. He allows their fear-filled, hate-fueled, misguided prejudices to prevail. He allows a university that has worked hard to create an atmosphere of tolerance become one whose funds are tainted. He puts a price on equality.

Spanier’s silence hurts all gay students and faculty members, as if he were sitting by silently while they died slowly on a Wyoming fence post.

The pressure Spanier faces is nothing to be dismissed quickly, though. Rep. Kerry Benninghoff told the Collegian, "Basically, by passing something like that, we are endorsing that lifestyle." That could mean retribution from the conservatives running the state.

But Spanier shouldn’t have to look far to find a good response to that. In an essay Spanier wrote about diversity -- one he put on Penn State’s own World Wide Web site -- our now quiet president said:

"I intend to lead the way at Penn State. ... What can we do to ensure that the University celebrates diversity? First, we must make such efforts an institutional priority. That’s where leadership is key. Administrators must really care about the University’s students, faculty and staff, and through their policies and their actions they must demonstrate their beliefs to everyone on campus."

Now if only Spanier would remember his own words. Please e-mail him at gspanier@psu.edu and urge him to reconsider. He’s made mistakes before and admitted them. If you act loudly enough, he’ll admit this one, too.

Jason Alt
Class of 1997