Made public

Committee should not have released tapes

On friday, during its analysis of the charges leveled against President Clinton by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee voted to make public almost the entire videotape of the President's grand jury testimony. While as much information regarding the alleged misconduct of the president should be available to the public as possible, the release of this testimony to the American people is a poor decision.

The nature of grand jury testimony in criminal proceedings lends itself to be highly confidential. This sort of testimony is only used to establish that there is enough evidence to charge the accused with a particular crime. It is one-sided; although the prosecutor is allowed to make a case for criminal indictment, the accused must wait until the actual trial to be given the opportunity to defend his or herself. Because of this, grand jury testimony is highly prejudicial and generally cannot be used in an actual trial with rebuttal by the defense. Thus, releasing the tapes and transcripts gives the public a biased account of the president's testimony.

While Congress has every legal right to do what it sees fit with the information submitted to it, the release of grand jury testimony to the general public sets a dangerous precedent. Testimony of this sort must legally be kept confidential by all of those involved in the case except the accused, who has the sole right to publicly repeat what he or she might have said under oath to a grand jury. And there is good reason for such strict confidentiality - cases in the past against organized crime and drug kingpins have used the testimony of individuals who later felt compelled to enter the Federal Witness Protection Program due to perceived threats against their safety and the safety of those close to them. In such cases, if grand jury testimony were to have been publicly released, the exposure to potential harm of those who testified would have skyrocketed and consequently, most witnesses would probably choose to remain silent. Thus, for the sake of future cases, the secrecy of grand jury testimony must be preserved. But this act of the committee does nothing but counter such course of action.

Additionally, with the vote on this matter divided along party lines, the stench of Congress playing politics in a system of law and order is strong. The president's testimony includes graphic references of his sexual behavior. Its release causes the President much embarrassment and most likely will significantly affect the standing of the Democratic Party in nationwide elections that are less than seven weeks away. Starr's political sympathies are well-known and any attempts by him to remain ideologically impartial have been fleeting. Consequently, claims of objectivity made by the Republican members of the judiciary committee appear suspect.

The American public has a right to know about matters involving the president. This right becomes even more important if such information may lead to impeachment proceedings against him. Yet in the pursuit of granting the public access to all available knowledge about a particular set of events, it is important not to step on important legal customs that guarantee the viability of the criminal justice system. Releasing the president's testimony threatens these important protocols and may further threaten the future ability of the legal system as a whole to act decisively against those accused of criminal activity.

09-22-98