Motion to Dismiss the Articles of Impeachment Against William Jefferson Clinton

THURSDAY, JANUARY 28, 1999

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this Senate is the last of the 20th century. We begin this first session of the 106th Congress facing a challenge that no other Senate in over 100 years has been called upon to meet; namely, whether to remove from office the person the American people elected to serve as the President of the United States.

What we do in this impeachment of the President, in terms of the standards we apply and the judgments we make, will either follow the Constitution or alter the intent of the Framers for all time. I have heard more than one Senator acknowledge that in that sense it is not just the President but also the Senate that is on trial in this matter.

The Senate now has an opportunity, as provided in S. Res. 16, to vote on a motion to conclude these proceedings by adopting Senator Byrd's motion to dismiss. I commend Senator Byrd and agree with him that such action is both appropriate and in the best interests of the nation. I do not believe that the House Managers have proven a case for conviction and removal of the President on the Articles of Impeachment sent by the House last year. I further suggest that those articles are improperly vague and duplicitous.

The President's Conduct

We can all agree that the President's conduct with a young woman in the White House was inexcusable. It was deeply disappointing, especially to those who know the President and who support the many good things he has done for this country. His conduct in trying to keep his illicit relationship secret from his wife and family, his friends and associates, and from the glare of a politically-charged lawsuit and from the American public, though understandable on a human level, has had terrible consequences for him personally and for the legacy of his presidency.

Last week Senator Bumpers reminded us of the human costs that have been paid by this President and his family. The underlying lawsuit has now been settled and a financial settlement of $850,000 has been paid on a case that the District Court judge had dismissed for failing to state a claim. The President has admitted terribly embarrassing personal conduct before a Federal grand jury, has seen a videotape of that grand jury testimony broadcast to the entire nation and had excerpts replayed over and over, again. Articles of Impeachment were reported by the House of Representatives against a President for only the second time in our history.

The question before the Senate is not whether William Jefferson Clinton has suffered, for surely he has as a result of his conduct. The question is not even whether William Jefferson Clinton should be punished and sent to jail on a criminal charge, for the Constitution does not confer that authority on this court of impeachment. The question, as framed by the House, is whether his conduct violated federal criminal laws and, if he did, whether those crimes constitute "other high crimes and misdemeanors" warranting his removal from the office of President to which he was reelected by the people of the United States in 1996.

Special Prosecutor Starr

Justice Robert Jackson, when he was Attorney General in 1940, observed that the most dangerous power of the prosecutor is the power to "pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than cases that need to be prosecuted." When this happens, he said, "it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking the man and then . . . putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him." "It is here," he concluded, "that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself."

In the case of President William Jefferson Clinton, things became personal a long time ago. I am not alone in questioning Mr. Starr's conduct. His own ethics advisor felt compelled to resign his position after Mr. Starr appeared before the House Judiciary Committee as the head cheerleader for impeachment. It now appears that Mr. Starr has gone from head cheerleader to the chief prosecutor for impeachment. Over the last week he forced Ms. Lewinsky to cooperate with the House Republican managers as part of her immunity agreement. She must "cooperate" under the threat that Mr. Starr may decide to prosecute her, her mother or her father if he is not satisfied.

The Senate

It is now up to the Senate to restore sanity to this process, exercise judgment, do justice and act in the interests of the nation. We will be judged both today and by history on whether we resolve this case in a way that serves the good of the country, not the political ends of any political party or particular person. I doubt that any Senator can impartially say that the case against the President has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. In this matter, my view is that is the appropriate standard of proof. Here the Senate is being asked to override the electoral judgment of the American people with respect to the person they elected to serve them as the President of the United States.

In this matter the charges have not been established beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

The inferences the House Managers would draw from the facts are not compelled by the evidence. Indeed, the House Managers fail to take into account Ms. Lewinsky's admitted interest in keeping her relationship with President Clinton from the public and out of the Jones case. They ignore the role of Linda Tripp in Ms. Lewinsky's job search and the fact that it was Ms. Tripp who suggested that Ms. Lewinsky involve Vernon Jordan. In light of these and other fundamental flaws in the House Manager's case, I doubt whether many can vote that the articles have been established by clear and convincing evidence.

I know that Republican Senators as well as Democratic Senators have told me that they do not believe there is any realistic possibility that the Senate will convict the President and remove him from office. I agree. Having heard the arguments from both sides and considered the evidence, I do not believe that there is any possibility that the Senate will convict the President on the Articles of Impeachment and remove him from office. That being so, I believe that the interests of the nation are best served by ending this matter now, at the earliest opportunity.

As a consequence of the House's action, the impeachment process is continuing to preoccupy the Congress into this year. This unfinished business of constitutional dimension will necessarily displace the other important business facing the country until it is resolved. I believe this matter should be concluded and we should turn our attention to legislative matters.

History has judged harshly the Radical Republicans who pursued impeachment against President Andrew Johnson. I believe that history will likewise render a harsh judgment against those who have fomented this impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton on the charges brought forward by the House of Representatives. I do not believe those charges have been or can be proven. I do not believe that the House Managers have justified the Senate overriding the 1996 presidential election and ordering the duly elected President of the United States removed from office.

When the Chief Justice as presiding officer sustained objection to the House Managers'mischaracterization of the Senate in this matter, it highlighted the House Managers' misconceptions of the trial. Senators are not merely serving as petit jurors who will be instructed on the law by a judge and are asked to find facts. Senators have a greater role and a greater responsibility in this trial. As the Chief Justice properly observed: "The Senate is not simply a jury; it is a court in this case."

Our job is to do justice in this matter and to protect the Constitution. In that process, I believe we must serve the interests of the nation and fulfill our responsibilities to the American people. I believe that this impeachment trial should have been concluded now and that the Articles of Impeachment should be dismissed.