Charles Ruff Quotations

Now you have heard the managers' vision ... But I believe their vision to be too dark... I believe it to be a vision more focused on retribution, more designed to achieve partisan ends, ... Our vision, I think, is quite different, but it is not naive. We know the pain the president has caused our society and his family and his friends, but we know, too, how much the president has done for this country.

Moving targets, ever-shifting theories, each one advanced to replace the last as it has fallen, fallen victim to the facts, ... Empty pots. Attractive containers, but when you take the lid off, you'll find nothing to sustain you.

I did not do those things. I did not touch those parts.

Give the course that these hearings have followed ... and given the special relationship between the legislative and executive branches embodied in our Constitution and our nation's history, we do not believe that it would be appropriate for the president to appear before the committee,

Because we have not been informed what the nature and scope of Mr. Starr's testimony will be, it is difficult to predict with any certainty just how long it will take to conduct a full an fair examination. I understand however that Mr. Starr has been allocated two hours for an uninterrupted presentation, ... We submit that anything less than 90 minutes would unfairly constrain our ability to explore the basis for Mr. Starr's testimony and for any conclusions he may proffer.

What you have before you is nothing more than the product of a rush to judgment, ... How should you respond to the (House) managers' belated plea that more is needed to do justice? You should reject it. You have before you all that you need to reach this conclusion. There was no basis for the House to impeach. There is now, and never will be, any basis for the Senate to convict.

Having admitted that he did wrong, there's still the critical question, 'Do we want to launch the single most serious constitutional process that our system contemplates?' And the answer to that, in my view, is no.

Whatever is in that report ... there is no basis for beginning an impeachment proceeding.

Whatever relevance such evidence may have to prove other elements of plaintiff's case, it does not have anything to do with the issues presented by the president's and Ferguson's motions for summary judgment. I.e., whether plaintiff herself was the victim of alleged quid pro quo or a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, whether the president and Ferguson conspired to deprive her of her civil rights, or whether she suffered emotional distress so severe in nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

that conversations both with the President and among senior advisors, including the First Lady, are protected by executive privilege.

Our last words to you, which are the words I began with: William Jefferson Clinton is not guilty of the charges that have been brought against him, he did not commit perjury, he did not commit obstruction of justice, he must not be removed from office,

I remember when I knew she was going to have to testify in the grand jury and I felt terrible because she'd been through the loss of her sister, this horrible accident at Christmas that killed her brother, and her mother was in the hospital. I was trying to make her understand that I didn't want her to be untruthful to the grand jury and if her memory was different than mine, it was fine, just go in there and tell them what she thought. So that's all I remember.

It is neither necessary nor appropriate for the president to testify.

The president did not urge Ms. Lewinsky to conceal the gifts he had given her, and of course, he did not lie to the grand jury about that subject,

The president has always urged everyone to tell the truth,

We are disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision not to review the D.C. Circuit's ruling that government officials do not have the right to have confidential communications with government attorneys about official business,

We are disappointed that the Court of Appeals has decided that, unlike every other client and attorney in this country, government attorneys and their clients do not enjoy the right to have confidential communications,

We know the pain the president has caused our society and his family and his friends, but we know, too, how much the president has done for this country.

We continue to believe that the attorney client privilege should protect conversations between government officials and government attorneys. The American people benefit from decisions made by government officials, including the President, on the basis of full and frank information and discussion,

The only conduct that merits the drastic remedy of impeachment is that which subverts our system of government or renders the president unfit or unable to govern.

We heard little hints about how Vernon Jordan might be a liar because of what he said about December 11th. And all of a sudden, just five minutes ago, this body heard for the first time, he's not only maybe a liar about the job search, but he's maybe a liar about destroying evidence, ... Words fail me.

We should send a message to the House, please do not bunch up your allegations. Charge each act of wrongdoing in a separate count. Such a change would clarify things and allow for a cleaner vote on guilt or innocence.

Impeachment is not a remedy for private wrongs; its a method of removing someone whose continued presence in office would cause grave danger to the nation.

You go out and obtain from your political allies and friends in the academic world to sign a letter saying that the offenses as alleged in the articles of impeachment do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.

Whether other women may have been subjected to workplace harassment, and whether such evidence has allegedly been suppressed does not change the fact that plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury.

We appreciate the chairman's willingness, and that of his staff, to devote the time and effort to resolve this matter and believe that our agreement ensures that the needs of both the committee and the White House will be met,

Be wary, be wary, of the prosecutor who feels it necessary to deceive the court,

Do you ask the same questions about the trauma the nation suffers when you are removing a judge as when you are removing a president? ... That answer must be stunningly different when you are asked should the president of the United States be removed and the will of the electorate overturned.

Counsel for both the DNC and Clinton/Gore used those (FEC) guidelines to approve every ad to ensure strict compliance with the law. We are hopeful that once the Department has reviewed this matter fully, it will conclude that these ads were proper.

The time of our production had absolutely nothing to do with politics or tactics.

I understood that this was an issue that we needed to address, particularly in the context of the Independent Counsel subpoenas, ... My immediate focus was on the immediate compliance with the independent counsel's subpoenas.

Yes, we didn't do this -- we didn't produce these videotapes on time. My letter to Sen. Thompson made clear we should have found them. But the one thing that is absolutely clear is that the only pattern here is not one of incompetence -- and we don't make an incompetence defense -- the pattern here is one of an ongoing intensive day-to-day effort to try to meet the committee's needs and that is the only pattern a fair reader can see,

The Supreme Court acted appropriately today rejecting Mr. Starr's attempt to bypass the traditional appeals process on the subject of attorney-client privilege, ... Contrary to Mr. Starr's claims, the governmental attorney-client privilege is not a 'new' privilege. It is well established that confidentiality is the cornerstone of all attorney-client communications.

The questions ... were asked in a way that simply did not, and could not, for any fair prosecutor, form the basis for prosecution. The president surely did answer narrowly, answer carefully. The president did not want to reveal to Miss Jones' lawyers, or to the people ... that he had an improper relation with Miss Lewinsky.

Whatever your feelings may be about William Clinton the man, or William Clinton the political ally or opponent, or William Clinton the father and the husband, ask only this: should William Clinton the president be removed from office? ... Are we at that horrific moment in our history when our union can be preserved only by taking the step that the framers saw as a last resort?

There is no secret here when he stood in the Roosevelt Room and said 'I never had sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky,' ... He knew when he said that ... that he was misleading the people who were listening to him.

The president knows what he did was wrong. He's admitted it. He's suffered privately and publicly ... But, Mr. Chairman, the president has not committed a high crime or misdemeanor ... His conduct, although morally reprehensible, does not warrant impeachment.

The president of the United States did not tamper with a witness,

Now, just -- just a few minutes ago, you heard Manager Gekas talk to you about perjury, ... And probably 90 percent of what he talked to you about was perjury in the (Paula) Jones case. It appears to make no difference, though, that the House rejected this charge, for the managers do continue to dwell on it, as though somehow they could show the House from which they came that they'd made a mistake.

The practical result of the court's decision is that the president and all other government officials will be less likely to receive full and frank advice about their official obligations and duties from government attorneys,

the White House remains willing to cooperate with the committee, as we have over the past eight months, and to provide information that is responsive to the committee's legitimate oversight and investigative concerns.

This is a pattern of lawyers and others in the White House busting their backs to do the best work they can to be try to be responsive,

I'm never certain how to respond when an advocate on the other side of a case calls up images of patriots over the centuries who have sacrificed themselves to preserve our democracy,

In the face of the seemingly insurmountable hurdle of Ms. Lewinsky's repeated denials that anyone ever asked or encouraged her to lie, the managers have persisted in arguing and continue to do so that the president did somehow encourage her to lie, even if she didn't know it, ... But neither the fact on which they rely nor their hypothesis was of much help to the managers before Ms. Lewinsky's deposition, and neither, surely, has any force after her deposition.

The attorney-client privilege is the bedrock principle of our legal system, ... The confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship is no less important in government than in every other context where it exists.

Is this still the White House's stated and actual policy?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's nonsense,

But I do know this: My father was on Omaha Beach 55 years ago. If you want to know how he would feel if he were here today, he wouldn't fight -- no one fought for one side of this case or the other. He fought as all those did for our country and our Constitution. And as long as each of us -- manager, president's counsel, senator -- does his or her constitutional duty, those who fought for their country will be proud,

Can you imagine what that little conversation is going to look like, held in the independent counsel's office, with the people there who have the capacity to put Ms. Lewinsky in jail? ... Can we really say that it's just normal, just OK, to have one side using the might and majesty of the independent counsel's office threatening a witness with violation of an immunity agreement if she doesn't fly across the country for this little chat? I think not.

Any suggestion by the Office of Independent Counsel or its public relations advisor that the president should do otherwise is reckless and irresponsible.

The (House) managers spent much of their time last week explaining to you why, if only witnesses could be called, you would be able to resolve all of the supposed conflicts in the evidence,

And Mr. Ruff could have answered that question directly. He did not and his failure to do so speaks a thousand words.

As we have stated before, the attorney general and the secretary of the Treasury have made their decisions on how to proceed in this matter with complete independence, guided by the advice of career law enforcement professionals. They have had only one interest -- to ensure that the Secret Service is able to perform its vitally important duties. Any suggestion to the contrary is without foundation.

They have, in essence, treated these articles as empty vessels to be filled with some witches' brew of charges,

There's a slight problem with the majority counsel's epiphany as it has been passed down to the managers and then to you,