The issue before the American People this week has been the actions of the President of the United States. It can truly be said that, to the rest of the world, the impression of the President is the impression that will be worn by ALL Americans.

The White House Counsel, in their Preliminary Memorandum Concerning Referral of Office of Independent Counsel (September 11, 1998), argues that there is no cause for the impeachment of the President.

Impeachment, as you know, is nothing more than charging someone with an offense, something done by Grand Juries every day. The determination of innocence, or guilt is to be determined by the Constitutionally proscribed entity (jury, or in cases of impeachment, the Senate of the United States).

The mismanagement of government has been left in the hands of the politicians (attorneys, with their smooth tongues) for far too long. Weigh what the President's Counsel says verses the words of the Founders, and decide, for yourself, whether what the President may have done constitutes "such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order."

The numbered paragraphs are quotes from the Preliminary Memorandum. Other quotes have their source cited.

3. "High crimes and misdemeanors" had a fixed meaning to the Framers of our Constitution - it meant wrongs committed against our system of government. The impeachment clause was designed to protect our country against a President who was using his official powers against the nation, against the American people, against our society. It was never designed to allow a political body to force a President from office for a very personal mistake.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the preexisting factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

4. Remember - this report is based entirely on allegations obtained by a grand jury - reams and reams of allegations and purported "evidence" that would never be admitted in court, that has never been seen by the President or his lawyers, and that was not subject to cross-examination or any other traditional safeguards to ensure its credibility.

5. Grand juries are not designed to search for truth. They do not and are not intended to ensure credibility, reliability, or simple fairness. They only exist to accuse. Yet this is the process that the Independent Counsel has chosen to provide the "evidence" to write his report.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, . . .

Impeachment is a matter of incomparable gravity. Even to discuss it is to discuss overturning the electoral will of the people. For this reason, the Framers made clear, and scholars have long agreed, that the power should be exercised only in the event of such grave harms to the state as "serious assaults on the integrity of the processes of government," or "such crimes as would so stain a president as to make his continuance in office dangerous to public order." Charles L. Black, Impeachment: A Handbook 38-39 (1974). We do not believe the OIC can identify any conduct remotely approaching this standard. Instead, from press reports, if true, it appears that the OIC has dangerously overreached to describe in the most dramatic of terms conduct that not only is not criminal but is actually proper and lawful.