Former California Republican Rep. James E. Rogan is the author of the new book, “Catching Our Flag: Behind the Scenes of a Presidential Impeachment.”
Rogan, who is now a superior court judge in California, served as one of the lead prosecutors, or House Managers, in the Senate impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.
Rogan recently agreed to answer 8 questions from The Daily Caller about his new book:
1. Why did you decide to write the book?
From my first day on the House Judiciary Committee, I knew if the scandal ever led to impeachment proceedings, future accounts would suffer from faulty memories or faulty motives … After keeping these diaries private for the last dozen years, I now open this archive for both modern readers and for history by telling the inside story on what led a very reluctant House of Representatives to impeach a then-very popular American president.
2. Why do you still maintain that the House impeachment of Clinton was vitally important?
I didn’t vote for impeachment to police Bill Clinton’s personal life. Whether he had one affair or a thousand of them was of no moment to me. I did care deeply about the precedent his conduct set for future chief executives who might later commit the same felonies for reasons weightier than testosterone…
Had the House failed to impeach Clinton just because of the tawdry subject matter underlying his crimes, any future president committing perjury or obstructing justice with far more destructive motives could point to the Clinton Precedent and claim his conduct was not impeachable.
3. Did you ever worry that the impeachment process was diverting the president’s attention from important issues of state?
Defending the rule of law and protecting the Constitution is the primary responsibility of any president. All other matters pale in comparison. Further, any suggestion that the business of government somehow slowed or stopped because of impeachment is without merit.
4. Do you think the Senate should have meted out a more significant punishment? Do you think, for instance, that Clinton should have been removed from office and prosecuted?
The Senate meted out no punishment. In fact, the Senate found Clinton “not guilty” — after precluding the House Managers from calling a single witness or presenting any evidence to prove our case.
Ironically, soon after the Clinton Senate trial ended, the federal judge before whom Clinton testified in the Paula Jones case found him in contempt of court for lying during his deposition…
Later, on January 19, 2001 (his last day as president), in a deal with federal prosecutors to avoid criminal charges, Clinton signed a plea bargain in which he admitted giving false testimony in the Paula Jones case — the same charge for which most Americans believed his vehement denials during the impeachment investigation and trial. Based on the same evidence upon which fifty-five United States Senators rushed to judgment and voted “not guilty”:
- Clinton accepted a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license. This allowed him to avoid the stigma of having the Arkansas Supreme Court vote to disbar him, which they were about to do;
- Clinton agreed to pay an additional $25,000 fine;
- Clinton admitted he violated his ethical obligations as a lawyer under the Rules of Professional Conduct by giving false testimony;
- Clinton agreed not to seek reimbursement for his legal fees; and
- Clinton admitted that his false testimony violated Judge Wright’s discovery order in the Jones case.
After Clinton signed his criminal plea bargain, the United States Supreme Court suspended Clinton’s law license to practice before their Court. Clinton later resigned his U.S. Supreme Court law license to avoid the stigma of having our nation’s highest Court vote to disbar him, which they were about to do. The United States Supreme Court ordered that Bill Clinton’s name “be stricken from the roll of attorneys admitted to the practice of law before this Court.”
5. You say in the book that on the eve of impeachment, House Speaker Newt Gingrich tried to get you to vote against impeachment. Why?
On the eve of the House Judiciary Committee’s impeachment vote, one of the Speaker’s staffers asked me to step out of the committee to see Newt. When we were alone, Newt asked if I had seen the disastrous numbers in my district tracking polls regarding impeachment and my unlikely longevity as a congressman if I voted for it. When I said I had, Newt got to the point: “My job is to bring you home. We have the votes in committee to pass Articles of Impeachment. We don’t need your vote. Everyone will understand.”
Newt never told me to take a dive formally, but the message was clear: he wanted to protect me, and not burn a House seat on a vote that might be personally meaningful, but numerically irrelevant to the result — and potentially fatal to maintaining our slender House GOP majority in 2000.
Newt urged me not to commit an unnecessary sacrifice; I interrupted him by expressing gratitude for his concern, and then chuckled as I thanked him. “OK,” he told me, “I just wanted to make sure you knew how we all felt about it.”
6. Do you have any regrets about the impeachment process?
I have occasional lapses of judgment that cause me to regret that my constituents chose not to reelect me because of my role in impeaching a president who enjoyed a 75 percent approval rating in my district.
7. Have you talked with President Clinton since the end of his presidency? Do you know if he holds any animus toward you?
We have not spoken directly, although we have exchanged several cordial, post-Washington service notes. As for residual animus, you would have to direct that question to him.
8. Do you think the specter of impeachment has been overused since the Clinton impeachment? Liberal partisans during the Bush administration called for the impeachment of George W. Bush and there are some on the right who now push for the impeachment of President Obama.
Having gone through the thermonuclear warfare of a presidential impeachment, I hope future congresses will consider impeachment only as the Founders intended: when a president violates his oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” by committing high crimes and misdemeanors.