Summer 1999 – Issue 55 - Stanford Lawyer - Stanford University

Cheryl Mills's defense argumentduring the impeachment trialbuoyed a battered Executive,and made her dad proud.N A [V ELY, SHE SAY S now, she assumed nobody would notice. Fouro'clock in the afternoon, a Wednesday, and most people were at work. What differencewould it make that cameras were recording her every word and gesturewhowas watching?She positioned her papers on the lectern in front ofher and stepped back momentarily,lifting her eyes to the Senate gallery. Quickly, she searched the faces andfound her parents. Her father nodded firmly.Then she stepped into the lectern and in a clear, strong, confident voice beganto speak."Ml': Chieffilstice, rnanagct:rfro'm the House ofRepnsentatives, me1nbcJ"S ofthe Smate,good I1fw'noon. My narne is CheryllWills, and I am deputy counsel to the Pnsident. "What happened over the next 45 minutes in the solemnity ofthe Senate chamberwas, depending on one's perspective, a remarkable defense argument by a charismaticperformer, a key event in a historic trial, a prideful moment for black Americans,or all of the above.Across America, in small-town barbershops and in automobiles in the middleof nowhere, people listened, riveted, as Mills '90 meticulously and passionately arguedthat President Bill Clinton, whatever his flaws, was not guilty ofimpeachableoffenses. "IfYOlt love the rule oflaw, you must love it in all ofits applications. You cannotonly love it when itprovides the verdiLtyon seek, you must love itwhen the verdiLt goes againstYOlt as well. liVe cannot uphold the rule oflaw 0111y when it is consistent with our' beliefs, wemust uphold it evm when it protects behavior' that we don't like or is zmattraLtive or' is notlerPHOTOGRAPHS BYBY KEVIN COOLSUSAN RUBINED \UMMII< 1~~9