HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017364.jpg
1.54 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal exhibit / manuscript excerpt
File Size:
1.54 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or legal filing (page 277) submitted as evidence (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017364). It contains a first-person narrative by Alan Dershowitz recounting his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment hearings. The text features a transcript of a contentious exchange between Dershowitz, Chairman Henry Hyde, and Rep. John Conyers regarding perjury, partisanship, and the rule of law.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Alan Dershowitz | Witness / Author |
Testifying before a congressional committee; providing first-person narrative commentary in the document.
|
| Henry Hyde | Representative / Chairman |
Questioning Dershowitz; arguing about the rule of law and motives regarding the president.
|
| John Conyers | Representative |
Committee member commenting on the partisan nature of the proceedings.
|
| The President (Bill Clinton) | Subject of Inquiry |
Implied subject of the hearing regarding perjury and sex acts (Clinton impeachment context).
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by footer 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' and the setting of the transcript.
|
|
| Republican Party |
Mentioned by Rep. Conyers regarding committee members.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Late 1998 (Historical Context)
Congressional hearing regarding impeachment/perjury
Washington D.C. (Implied)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned by Rep. Hyde in a rhetorical question about the rule of law.
|
Relationships (2)
Hyde criticizing Dershowitz's view on motives; Dershowitz calling the committee concerns a 'sham'.
Conyers thanking Dershowitz for the interchange and validating his evaluation.
Key Quotes (4)
"I challenge anybody to say that there is no difference between a police officer who deliberately frames an innocent man... and someone who lies to cover up a private, embarrassing sex act."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017364.jpg
Quote #1
"Does the rule of law -- have you been to Auschwitz? Do you see what happens when the rule of law doesn't prevail?"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017364.jpg
Quote #2
"[W]e are split totally down the middle in the most partisan fashion that has ever happened."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017364.jpg
Quote #3
"It's a sham."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017364.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,945 characters)
4.2.12
WC: 191694
WC: 191694
unbelievably wrong-headed statements I have ever heard from a judge, that there is no difference between types of perjury.
I challenge anybody to say that there is no difference between a police officer who deliberately frames an innocent man or woman who he knows is [innocent] and subjects that person to false imprisonment or the electric chair, and someone who lies to cover up a private, embarrassing sex act.
Congressmen Hyde and Conyers replied:
REP. HYDE: I thank you, Professor Dershowitz. I don't thank you for criticizing the motives, saying that we're out to get the president. You haven't the slightest idea of the agony that many of us go through over this question.
[W]e are concerned about the double standard. That may mean nothing to you --
MR. DERSHOWITZ: It means a great deal to me.
REP. HYDE: -- but it means something to us.
REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman?
MR. DERSHOWITZ: It means a great deal to me. (Applause.) [W]hen is the last time this committee has expressed concern about the rights of criminal defendants -- (a chorus of "regular order" from committee members)… It's a sham.
REP. CONYERS: Mr. Chairman?
REP. HYDE: Yes, Mr. Conyers.
REP. CONYERS: And I thank you for this interchange. [W]e are split totally down the middle in the most partisan fashion that has ever happened.
The result is fairly obvious of what's going to happen to anybody with the least understanding of this matter. So for you to be offended by the Dershowitz evaluation strikes me as a little disingenuous. You know what we're going to do here because it's been said repeatedly by every Republican member of the committee! So let's not get offended by the truth at this point in our proceedings.
Congressman Hyde then angrily began to lecture me about the rule of law:
Does the rule of law -- have you been to Auschwitz? Do you see what happens when the rule of law doesn't prevail?
277
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017364
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document