Transcripts For CSPAN President Bill Clinton Impeachment - Senate Trial 20240713

No television, of course, with Andrew Johnson. What do you remember about what happened and how this all of this transpired over the next month . The senate trial was fascinating because of the idea that it is called a trial, but its not a legal proceeding. It is very political. It had so many interesting dynamic characters involved in it. Robert byrd, senator byrd of was of west virginia, stalwart constitutional scholar. Not a supporter or friend of bill clinton in any particular way. He ended up at one point just throwing up his hands and saying, this should not have even happened. That the trial was misguided. He told his colleagues that he was going to introduce a motion to dismiss the whole thing. So, different senators played different roles. The house managers were fascinated to listen to the president s legal team. He had a strong array of legal representation there. He also tried to sort of add english on the ball. He wanted to represent, he had women as his legal representation. He had his own personal attorney. Chuck ross was the white House Counsel and was representing him. He really relied on them to give this really passionate idea about how log headed this enterprise was, to remove a president for what they were basically arguing was personal failings. And that the president had not failed the American People. That he had worked for them. It really helped the president that he was not in any way denigrating Monica Lewinsky or any of the witnesses. He tried to stay out of that. Even as hotheaded as he was throughout the entire process and the mistakes he had made early on, he played it politically in a different way than we are seeing right now with president trump. And yet, the biography on president clinton, the first paragraph includes, only the second president to face impeachment proceedings in the house and senate. And then in the senate. That is a mark that will be forever part of his presidency. It has been. Absolutely. There are so many unusual things about it. Because bill clinton actually turned to his wife to carry the banner. If you remember, when the articles of impeachment failed, first Lady Hillary Clinton was sitting down in the white house with one of the president s advisers talking about the senate race that she launched in new york, a state she has never lived in. Had never represented or lived in. So bill clinton was counting on the idea of being absorbed by the senate, not convicted. Absolved by the senate, not convicted. He turned to his wife in some ways to present herself to the electorate. He left office more popular than when he came in. As i mentioned, the day that he was impeached in the house, he was at 73 approval. Hillary clinton went on to compete for a seat in the senate and won. And was considered and she found that probably discomforting, because she was considered a feminist. She actually was considered a sympathetic figure and a very accomplished senator when she served. And the role of the chief justice of the United States, i remember seeing him with the black robes and the gold bars. That was his own personal touch in the Supreme Court. He actually was he loved opera. And he had actually borrowed this idea of the gold braid on his robe from one of his favorite operas. He had had them custom made. It was his touch. Like i said, he tried to retreat from the public perspective of being the manager, but the manager is in the constitution. If this goes to the senate, if we are seeing a senate trial, chief Justice John Roberts would be in the chair in the senate managing what would become a trial, the second we have seen. Steve during this time period, there was no other agenda for the senate. This was priority one. And the Supreme Court essentially on hold until the chief justice could return. Alexis absolutely. All of that did not get freed up until february. So i think the chief justice behindthescenes kept up with the paperwork for the Supreme Court and was able to manage behindthescenes. But the actual hearing of cases or any kind of action was on pause. One of the reasons why we are talking about this in a very interesting way now is because we are not exactly sure where this timeline will go, and we are heading into an election. If you are talking about senators serving as jurors, we are talking about five president ial candidates who would be anchored to their chairs in a very interesting time. Steve we will hear in a moment from two key players, congressman Lindsey Graham, republican from South Carolina, and former senator dale bumpers. Set up these two individuals, what their role was, and what you remember. Alexis Lindsey Graham was then the republican from South Carolina in the house. He was one of the managers of the case because he had been on the House Judiciary Committee and one of the 13 managers who presented the case to the senate. He felt very strongly and gave passionate speeches about the idea that the president had violated his oath of office and that impeachment was a way to cleanse the office. There has been much debate from scholars now about the idea that impeachment was not envisioned by the framers to cleanse the office. That is what voters do. But that is what Lindsey Graham felt at the time, and felt very strongly that because of the report from ken starr that had come to the republicans with the details involved and the president s effort to obstruct justice, which he was obviously impeached for, he felt strongly that this needed to move forward. Dale bumpers is a senator from arkansas, a democrat. He was willing to defend the president by arguing that he was many things, that it was despicable, poor judgment. He asked the senators, here are some of my adjectives, and he had a list of very negative pejorative adjectives of what president clinton had done as president of the United States. But he said that it was not impeachable because, he said, whenever you hear someone say it is not about sex, it is about sex. He argued this was a personal behavior, and he said all of us, we are all imperfect. And he looked around the room and scanned the eyes of his peers in the senate. He made a very persuasive case as someone from the same state, a southern state, as someone the senators knew very well over decades, and someone who had left the senate in strong repute just days before, literally. It was 20 something days before he left. Steve this is all playing out on television. You are at the white house. What is president clinton doing . Alexis president clinton was following this very intensively. We look back now and say, thank goodness that social media did not exist because he was not tempted to try he left it to the surrogates to opine about the injury and the injustice of all of this and complain about it. But he felt that a very strong part of his tactic was because he was so popular, his job approval was so high, the economy was doing so well, he kept arguing again and again, look what i am doing. I am traveling around the country, i am still the commander in chief. I am dealing with international affairs. He was trying to persuade the American People that he was doing a good job as president and he had not betrayed them. He may have betrayed his wife, but not them. And he was still doing the job he was elected to do. And he said this after he was acquitted as well, that he would continue to represent their interests until the last hour of the last day. What was interesting, though, is while he left office very popular, it was the case that after impeachment democrats were hamstrung to get more legislation through congress. His final two years may have looked like he was very popular, but it wasnt as if they had enough juice with congress to get a lot of legislation through. Steve we thank you for your perspective, and more from the senate trial, january of 1999. We carried it live on cspan2. Republican Lindsey Graham and democrat dale bumpers of arkansas. Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye. Mr. President and members of the senate, i announce the presence of the managers on the part of the house of representatives to conduct proceedings on behalf of the house concerning the impeachment of William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States. The managers on the part of the house will be received and escorted to the senate. The sergeant at arms will make the proclamation. All persons are commanded to keep silent on pain of imprisonment while the house of representatives is exhibiting to the senate of the United States articles of impeachment against William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States. The managers of the house will proceed. Mr. President , the managers on the part of the house of representatives are here and present and ready to present the articles of impeachment which has been confirmed by the house of representatives against William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States. The house adopted the following resolution, which with the permission of the senate, i will read. House resolution 10 resolves that in continuance of the authority conferred inhouse resolution 614 of the 105th congress, adopted by the house of representatives and delivered to the senate on december 19, mr. Mccollum of florida, mr. Kennedy of florida, mr. Bryant of tennessee, mr. Barr of georgia, mr. Hutchinson of arkansas, mr. Cannon of utah, mr. Rogan of california, and mr. Graham of South Carolina are appointed managers to conduct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States. That a message be sent to the senate to inform the senate of these appointments, and that the managers so appointed may in preparation in the conduct of the trial exhibit the articles of impeachment to the senate and take all other actions necessary, which may include the following. One, employing legal, clerical, and other necessary assistence and expenses that may be necessary to pay under applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable accounts from the house of representatives. Two, sending for persons and papers and filing with the secretaries of senate on the part of the house of representatives any pleadings in conjunction with or subsequent to the exhibition of the articles of impeachment that the managers consider necessary. With the permission of the senate, i will now read the articles of impeachment. House resolution 611 resolved that William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States senate. Articles of impeachment exhibited by the house of representatives by the United States of america in the name of this house and the people of the United States of america against William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States of america, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors, article one. In his conduct while president of the United States, William Jefferson clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and to the best of his ability preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice in that. On august 17, 1998, William Jefferson clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson clinton willfully provided perjurious, false, and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following. One, the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinant government employee. Two, prior perjurious testimony he gave in a federal civil Rights Action brought against him. Three, prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a federal judge in that civil Rights Action. And four, his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil Rights Action. In doing this, William Jefferson clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president , and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and the justice of the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore, William Jefferson clinton by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and his disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States. Article two, in his conduct while president of the United States, William Jefferson clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the constitution of the United States and preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice and has to that end engaged personally and through his subordinants and agents and a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, coverup, and conceal evidence and testimony related to a federal civil Rights Action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceedings, the means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme including one or more of the following acts. One, on or about december 17, 1997, William Jefferson clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a civil Rights Action against him to execute in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false, and misleading. Two, William Jefferson clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a federal civil Rights Action brought against him to give perjurious, false, and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding. Three, William Jefferson clinton corruptly engaged in, encourage, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a federal civil Rights Action brought against him. Four, beginning on or about december 7, 1997 and continuing through and including january 14, 1998, William Jefferson clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a federal civil Rights Action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him. Five, on january 17, 1998, in his deposition in a federal civil Rights Action brought against him, William Jefferson clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false statements to a federal judge, characterizing an affidavit in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge. On or about january 18, january 21, 1998, William Jefferson clinton relayed a false and misleading account of events related to a federal civil Rights Action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness. On or about january 21, 23, and 26, 1998, William Jefferson clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information. In all this, William Jefferson clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the presidency, has betrayed his trust as president , and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. Wherefore William Jefferson clinton by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and just disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States, passed by the house of representatives december 19, 1998. Newt gingrich, speaker of the house of representatives. Mr. President , that completes the exhibition of the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States. The managers request that the senate take order for the trial. The managers now request leave to withdraw. Thank you, mr. Manager hyde. The senate will notify the house of representatives when it is ready to proceed. The senate will come to order. The senators will take their seats. All others will remove themselves from the floor. Under the previous order, 1 00 p. M. Has arrived and a quorum has been established. The senate will proceed to consideration of articles of impeachment against William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States. Mr. President , at this time pursuant to rule four on the senate rules of impeachment and the United States constitution, the presiding officer will administer the oath to william h. Rehnquist, chief justice of the United States. Under the previous order, the Escort Committee will now conduct the chief justice of the United States to the dais administer the oath. Pleased to welcome you. I am joining with you for the purpose of impeachment of the president of the United States, and i am ready to take the oath. Will you place your left hand on the bible and raise your right hand . Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you god . I do. At this time, i will administer the oath to all senators in the chamber, in conformance with article one, section three, clause six of the constitution, and the Senate Impeachment rules. Will all senators now stand and raise your right hand . Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial and impeachment of William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States now pending, you will do impartial justice to the constitution and laws, so help you god . The clerk will call the names and record the responses. We are here to judge our president. Were here to say whether or not hes guilty, to begin with, of some serious offenses. There is absolutely no way to get around that. I know it is uncomfortable to listen to. My father and mother owned a restaurant, a beer joint, is what wed say in South Carolina. I can remember that if you were black, you came to get a beer and had to go because you could not drink it there. That is just what it was, my dad said. I never quite understood that, but my dad and mom were good people. But that is just the way it was. Thats not the way it is now, and were better off for it. In Sexual Harassment cases, it is always uncomfortable to listen to. Thats just the way it is. It used to be in this country, not long ago, there was really no recourse if you were sexually harassed. We have changed things for the better. The reason were here today is not because somebody wanted to look into the personal life of the president for no good reason. Were here today somebody accused him when he was governor of taking them out of a crowd, asking her to come to a hotel room, and, if you believe her, did something very crude and rude you would not want to happen to anybody in your family. Only god knows what happened there. That case has been settled. The parties know and god knows. We will never know. But let me just say this, i am proud of my country, where you as a lowlevel employee can sue the governor of your state. And if that governor becomes president , you can still sue. The Supreme Court said 90, a shutout legally, mr. President , you will stand subject to this suit. And well talk about this private or public conduct. Does this go to the heart of being president , or is this some private matter that can be prosecuted after he gets out of office . Is this really a big deal . I would contend to you, it became a big deal about being president when he raised the defense you cant sue me now because im the president. Im a busy man. I have a lot going on. He used his office, or tried to, to avoid the day in court. But the Supreme Court said, no, sir. You will stand subject to suit under some reasonable accommodations. And we are here today. If i had been on the Supreme Court, i dont know if i would have ruled that way. Theres not much chance of that happening anytime soon. If youre worried about that, i dont think that will be in my future. But i may not have ruled that way, and we in congress, if we dont like the way this has come out, we can change that law. We can change that ruling by law. But that is the rule of the land. What did our president do . He tried to say you cant sue me because im president. He participated in that lawsuit because he was told to. I would argue that we all assumed he would play fair. Now, isnt there a lot of doubt about that . Ladies and gentlemen of the senate, what if he had not shown up . What if he refused to answer any court order . What if he said, i am not going to play that . Im not going to listen to you . The remedy we have to resolve problems like that when president ial conduct gets out of bounds, do you know where that remedy lies . It lies with us, the United States congress. When a president gets out of bounds and does not do as he or she should do constitutionally, and i would argue that every president and every citizen has a constitutional duty not to cheat another citizen, especially the president , and they get out of bounds, it is up to us to put them back in bounds or declare it illegal. And how do we regulate president ial misconduct . When its done in a president ial fashion. Through the laws and powers of impeachment. That is why were here today. Its going to take teamwork on our part to get this right, because i will argue to you and in a moment that the president of the United States, through his conduct, flouted Judicial Authority and decisionmaking over him. When he chose to lie, when he chose to manipulate the evidence, the witnesses against him, and get his friends to lie for him, he vetoed that decision. Its worse than if he hadnt shown up at all. Is that out of bounds . Thats what were going to be talking about today. We have got some guidance as to what is in or out out of bounds for high Government Officials. Whats a high crime . How about if an important person hurts somebody of low means. Its not very scholarly. But i think its the truth. I think thats what they meant by high crimes. Just when you start using your office and you are acting in a way that hurts people. Youve committed a high crime. When you decide that a course of conduct meets the high crimes standard under our constitution, for the president , what are we doing to the presidency . I think were putting a burden on the presidency, and you should consider it that way. That if you determine the conduct and the crimes in this case are high crimes, you need to do so knowing that you are placing a burden on every future occupant of that office and the office itself, so do so cautiously, because one branch of the government should never put a burden on another branch of the government thats not fair and they cant bear. Ladies and gentlemen of the senate, if you decided that the conduct of this president to hence forth any officeholder who occupies the office of president will have this burden to bear, let me tell you what it is. Dont lie under oath to a federal grand jury when many in the country are begging you not to. Can the occupant bear that burden . I voted against article ii, which was the deposition, perjury allegations against the president standing alone. I think many of us may have thought we did not know about the tapes, that he and ms. Lewinsky thought they had a story that was going to work, and he got caught off guard and he started telling a bunch of lies that maybe i would have lied about, because it is personal. To have to talk about intimate things and our human nature is to protect ourselves and our family. That is just human nature. But, ladies and gentlemen, what he stands charged of in the senate happened eight months later. After some members of this body said, mr. President , square yourself with the law. Mr. President , if you go into that federal grand jury room and you lie again, you are risking your presidency. People in this body said that, legal commentators said that, professor dershowitz and i probably do not agree on a lot, that would be one thing we would agree on. Hes a very smart, passionate man. I like passionate people even if i dont agree with him. Even he said that if you go to a grand jury and you lie as president , that ought to be a high crime. So the context in which you are going to decide this case has to understand human failings, because if you dont do that you are not being fair. I know you want to be fair. Human failings exist in all of us. Only when it gets to be so premeditated, so calculated, so much my interest over anybody elses or the public be damned, should you really, really start getting serious about what to do. That happened in august in my opinion, ladies and gentlemen. After being begged not to lie to a grand jury and in this matter he chose to lie. That is the burden you would be placing on the next president. Dont do that. Dont lie under oath when you are defending in a lawsuit against an average citizen. Have the courage to apply the law in a fair manner to yourself. He talked about values and courage. Let me Say Something about president clinton that i believe. I believe he does embrace civil rights for our citizens. I believe he has been an articulate spokesman for civil rights for our citizens. I believe that maybe one of the hallmarks of his presidency. Im not here to tell you that he doesnt. Im here to tell you that when it was his case, when those rights had to be applied to him, he failed miserably. Its always easy to talk about what other people ought to do. The test of character is the way you judge people you disagree with. Dont cheat in a lawsuit by manipulating the testimony of others. Dont send Public Officials and friends to tell your lies before a federal grand jury to avoid your legal responsibilities. Dont put your legal and political interests ahead of the rule of law and common decency. If you find that these are high crimes, that is a burden you are placing on the next officeholder. If they cannot meet that burden, this country has a serious problem. I dont want my country to be the country of the great equivocators and of thementalizers next century and that is what this case is about. Equivocation and compartmentalizing. What i have described to you as the conduct of the president being a high crime is just his job description. Were asking no more of him than to be the chief Law Enforcement officer of the land. Follow your job description. A determination that this conduct is a high crime is no burden that cannot be beared by future occupant. Who did i talk about constitutional teamwork . I am a child of the south. The civil rights litigation and matters that came out the 1960s were threefold. There was legislation passed in congress. There were judicial decisions that were rendered and the executive branch came in to help out. Remember when governor wallace was standing at the doors at the university of alabama . Remember how he was told to get aside . What went on . It was a constitutional dance of magnificent proportions. You had litigation that was resolved for the individual citizens so they could go in and acquire the rights and full benefits of the citizen of the state. You had legislation coming out of this body and you had defiance against a federal government from the state level. You had the president and executive branch federalizing the National Guard and governor wallace stepped aside. When it was 90 that bill clinton had to be a participant in a lawsuit and he chose to cheat in every manner you can cheat in a lawsuit, his conduct needs to be regulated and it needs to be brought to bear under the constitution, and if you put him in jail after his office, that would not solve the constitutional problem he created. The constitutional conduct exhibited by the executive when he was told by the Judicial Branch you have got to participate in a lawsuit was so far afield of what is fair, what is decent that it became a high crime. And it happened to be against a person. The senate has spoken before about perjury and obstruction of justice. And how it applies to high Government Officials when those Government Officials were judges. Before we start this analysis, it is important to know, and some of you know this better than i will ever hope to know. The history of the senate and how it works and why it works. That when a judge is impeached in the United States of america, the same legal standard, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, is applied to that judges conduct as it is to any high official just like the president. Were comparing apples to apples. In judge claibornes trial, they seized upon the language that judges shall hold their office during Good Behavior. And the defense was trying to say, unlike the president and other Government Officials, high Government Officials, the impeachment standard for judges is Good Behavior. Thats the term. Its a different impeachment standard. You know these cases better than i know these cases. And you said, wrong. The Good Behavior standard doesnt apply to why you will be removed. Its just a reference for how long you will have your job. Our president is two terms. A judge is for life, conditioned on Good Behavior. What gets you out of office is whether or not you violate the constitutional standard for impeachment, which is treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors. As i talk to you about these cases and what you did, understand were using the same legal standard. Not because i said so, but because you said so. Judge claiborne, convicted and removed from office by the senate 907, for what . Filing a false income tax return under penalties of perjury. One thing they said in that case was, well, im a judge. And filing false income tax returns has nothing to do with me being a judge. And i ought not lose my job unless you can show me or prove that i did something wrong as a judge. They were saying cheating on your taxes has nothing to do with being a judge. You know what the senate said . It has everything to do with being a judge. And the reason you said that is because you didnt buy into this idea that the only way you can lose your job as a high Government Official under the constitution is to engage in some public conduct directly to related to what you do every day. You took a broader view. Next slide, please. You took a broader view, and im certainly glad you did, because this is not a country of high officials who are technicians. This is a country based on character. This is a country based on a set of standards that others will follow willingly. This is manager fitch. Judge claibornes actions raise fundamental questions about Public Confidence in and the publics perception of the federal court system. They serve to undermine the confidence of the American People in our judicial system. Judge claiborne is more than a mere embarrassment. He is a disgrace, an afront to the Judicial Office and the branch he was appointed to serve. That is very strong language. 90 of you voted to throw him out. What did he do . Cheated on his taxes. By making false statements under oath. Well talk more about public versus private. Senator, about this idea of public versus private. It is my opinion that the impeachment power as not as narrow as judge claiborne suggest. There is no reason to believe that the framers of the constitution sought to prohibit the house from impeaching the officer from the United States who had committed treason or any other high crime and misdemeanor which is a serious offense against the government of the United States in which indicates the official is unfit to exercise public responsibilities, but which is an offense which is technically unrelated to the officers particular job responsibilities. This hits it headon. Impeachable conduct does not have to occur in the course of the performance of an officers official duties. Evidence of misconduct, high crimes and misdemeanors can be justified upon ones private dealings as well as ones exercise of public office. That, of course, is the situation in this case. Next chart. It would be absurd to conclude that a judge who had committed murder, mayhem, rape, or perhaps espionage in private life could not be removed from office by the u. S. Senate. The point you made so well was that were not buying this. If youre a federal judge and you cheat on your taxes and lie under oath, its true it had nothing to do with your courtroom, in a technical sense, but youre going to be judging others. Theyre going to come before you with their fate in your hands and we dont want somebody like you running our courtroom. Because people wont trust the results. Lets go to judge nixon. Try to get you out. So we all can have lunch here. Judge nixon. Judge walter nixon, convicted and removed from office, for what . Perjury before a grand jury. What was that about . He tried to fix a case for a Business Partners son in state court. He went to the prosecutor, who was in the state court, and tried to fix the case. When they investigated the matter, he lied about meeting with the prosecutor. He lied about doing anything related to trying to manipulate the results. He was convicted and he was thrown out of office by the United States senate. I guess you could say whats that got to do with being a federal judge . It was not even in his court. Its got everything to do with being a high public official, because if he stays in office, what signal are you sending anybody else that you send to his courtroom or anybody elses courtroom . The question becomes if a federal judge can be thrown out of office for lying and trying to fix a friends sons case, can the president of the United States be removed from office for trying to fix his case . Thats not a scholarly word, but thats what happened. He tried to fix his case. He turned the judicial system upside down. He lied for himself. Anytime any relevant question came up, he just lied and dug a hole. Im not going to go over the facts again because you have been bombaded with the facts, but if you believe that he obstructed justice, the reason he did it was to fix his case. And you have got some records which you can rely upon. Judge hastings. This federal judge was convicted and removed from office by the United States senate. But you know whats interesting about this case to me . He was acquitted before he got here. He was accused of conspiring with another person to take money to fix results in his own court. He gave testimony on his own behalf. He was acquitted. You know what the United States senate and the house said . We believe your contact is out of bounds and we are not bound to that acquittal. We want to get to the truth. And we dont want federal judges we have a reasonable belief about that are trying to fix cases in their court. The point im trying to make is, you do not even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic. If this body determines that your content is a public official is clearly on the bounds in your role. Thank god you did that. Because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office. A remedy of prosecuting William Jefferson clinton has no affect on the problems we are facing here today, in my opinion. Now, every case was tried before it got here with different results. Two of them were convicted and one was acquitted. You had a factual record to go upon. I urge you, ladies and gentlemen of the United States senate, that that cannot happen in this case unless we have a trial in its true sense of the word. The evidence is compelling and overwhelming. But its only been half told. To learned counsel for the president will have their chance, and they are excellent lawyers. If this is a Football Game we are almost a halftime. Please, please wait, because i have sat where they have sat dying to Say Something. I know the things they want to tell you about what we said that may put this in a different light. Thats coming and it ought to come. But theres another thing you will have to decide. Has the factual record been developed enough that we can acquit and remove with good conscious . In these judge cases, there was a fullblown trial before it got here. Because we cant prosecute the president , because we cant do the things that happen in the judges cases, we do not have that record. I would just commit that to you for your wisdom. None of this matters unless you believe he committed the offense, and im not going to go over that again. You know the facts pretty well, and if theres any doubt, call witnesses and lets develop them and leave no doubt on the table, and lets make sure that history will judge us well. That everybody, the house and the president , had a fair shot at proving their case, that these things occurred, they are high crimes, and the hard question now, because i do not believe, ladies and gentlemen, that when you look at the totality of what the president did the prior president s of the senate, the fact he was told by the Supreme Court to go into this litigation matter and he cheated so badly the we consider these not to be high crimes because youre not placing a burden on his office this office cant bear. I think that will be resolved, i hope and pray, in a bipartisan fashion. If we can do nothing else for this country, lets say clearly this conduct is unacceptable by any president. These are in fact high crimes. They go to the core of why were here. The rule of law. He was told to abide by the rules of law and he cheated. And you got to put him back in bounce. Remove him. Back in bounds. Determining it is a high crime puts it back in bounds. This is a hard question. I am not going to tell you it is not. I do not want to be where you are sitting. I think the evidence will be persuasive that hes guilty. The logic of your past rulings and just fundamental fairness and decency and helping the Supreme Court enforce the rulings if nothing else will lead you to a high crime determination. But were asking you to remove the president. I dont know why all this occurred, and we have a popular president. I know this. That the American People are fundamentally fair. And they have an impression about this case from just tons and tons and tons and tons of talk. Tons and tons of spin. That one in five, they tell me, are paying close attention to this. The question you must ask if every american were required to do what i have done, listen to the evidence, would it be different . You are their representatives. They will trust you. This is a cynical age, but i am an optimist. That no matter what you do, this country will get up and go to work the next day. They will feel good no matter what it is. To set aside an election is a very scary thought in a democracy. I do not agree with this president on most major policy initiatives. I did not vote for this president. But he won. He won twice. To undo that election is tough. Let me give you some of my thoughts. How many times have you had to go to a child, a grandchild, somebody who works for you, and give them a lecture that goes along the lines, dont do as i do, do as i say . Isnt that a miserable experience . The problem with keeping this president in office in my opinion is that these crimes cant be ignored by anybody who looks at the evidence. They can be explained away, they can be excused, but they have farreaching consequences, far reaching consequences for the law. And in his role of chief Law Enforcement officer of the land, how can we say to our fellow citizens that this will not be 20 months of do as i do, dont dont do as i do, do as i say . What effect will that have . I think it will be devastating. This case is the butt of a thousand jokes. This case is requiring parents and teachers to sit down and explain what lying is about. This case has created confusion. This case has hit america far harder than america knows it has been hit. And it is tempting to let the clock tick. But i would suggest to you, ladies and gentlemen of the senate, that if you believe he is a perjurer, he obstructed justice in a civil rights lawsuit, the question is not should he stay. What if he stays . If you believe this president committed perjury before a grand jury when he was begged not to, and people in this body telling him do not do it because your career is at stake, if you believe he obstructed justice in a civil rights lawsuit, dont move the bar anymore. We have moved the bar for this case a thousand times. Remember how you felt when you knew you had a perjurer as a judge, when you knew you had somebody who had fundamentally ran over the law that it was forced to uphold or responsible for upholding . Remember how you felt when you knew that judge had gotten so out of bounds you couldnt put him back in court, even though it was unrelated to his court because it would be doing a disservice to the citizens that would come before him . A judge has a duty to take care of the individuals fairly that come before the court. The president , ladies and gentlemen of the senate, has a duty to see that the law applies to everyone fairly. A higher duty. A higher duty in the constitution. You couldnt live with yourself knowing that you were going to leave a perjuring judge on the bench. Ladies and gentlemen, as hard as it may be, for the same reasons, cleanse this office. The Vice President will be waiting outside the doors of this chamber. Our constitutional system is simple and its genius all at the same time. If that Vice President is asked to assume the mantle of chief executive officer of the land, chief Law Enforcement officer of the land, it will be tough, it will be painful, but we will survive. And we will be better for it. Thank you. The chair recognizes mr. Counsel bumper to continue the presentation of the case for the president. Mr. Chief justice, my distinguished house managers from the house of representatives, colleagues, i have seen the look of disappointment on many faces because i know a lot of people thought you were rid of me once and for all. And ive taken a lot of ribbing this afternoon, but i have seriously negotiated with some people particularly on this side by an offer to walk out and not deliver this speech in exchange for a few votes. I understand three have it under active consideration. It is a great joy to see you. And it is especially pleasant to see an audience which represents about the size of the cumulative audience i had over 24 years. [laughter] i came here today for a lot of reasons. One was that i was promised a 40foot cord. Ive been shorted 28 feet. Chris dobbs said he didnt want me in his lap. And i assumed he arranged for the cord to be short. I want to especially thank some of you for your kind comments in the press. I received some publicity that i would be here to close the debate on behalf of the white House Counsel and the president. I was a little dismayed by senator bennetts remarks. He said, yes, senator bumpers is a great speaker. But he was never persuasive with me because i never agreed with him. I thought he couldve done better than that. You can take some comfort in the fact im not being paid. And when im finished, you will probably think the white house got their moneys worth. I have told audiences that over 24 years that i went home almost every weekend and returned usually about dusk on sunday evening, and you know the plane ride into national airport. When you can see the magnificent Washington Monument and this building from the window of the airplane, i told these students at the university in a small liberal arts school at home, after 24 years of that, hundreds of times ive never failed to get goosebumps. Same thing is true about this chamber. I can still remember as though it were yesterday the awe i felt when i first stepped into this magnificent chamber so full of history, so beautiful. And last tuesday, as i returned, after only a short threeweek absence, i still felt that same sense of awe that i did the first time i walked in this chamber. Colleagues, i come here with some sense of reluctance. The president and i have been Close Friends for 25 years. We fought so many battles back home together in our beloved arkansas. We tried mightily all of my years as governor and his and all of my years in the senate when he was governor to raise the Living Standards in the delta area of mississippi, arkansas, and louisiana, where poverty is unspeakable, with some measure of success. Not nearly enough. We tried to provide health care for the lesser among us. For those who are welloff enough they cannot get on welfare, but not making enough to buy health insurance. We have fought above Everything Else to improve the educational standards for a state that for so many years was at the bottom of the list or near the bottom of the list of income. And we have stood sidebyside to save pristine areas in our state from environmental degradation. We even crashed a twinengine beech bonanza trying to get to the Gillette Coon supper. A political event that one misses at his own risk. And we crashed this plane on a snowy evening in a rural airport off the runway, sailing out across the snow. Jumped out. Jumped out and ran away unscathed, to the dismay of everybody in arkansas. [laughter] the president and i have been together hundreds of times. At parades, dedications, political events, social events, and in all of those years and all those hundreds of times we have been together, both in public and in private, i have never one time seen the president conduct himself in a way that did not reflect the highest credit on him, his family, his state, and his beloved nation. The reason i came here today with some reluctance, please dont misconstrue that, it has nothing to do with my feelings about the president as i have already said. But it is because we are from the same state and we are friends. I know that diminishes the effectiveness of my words. So if bill clinton, the man, bill clinton, the friend, were the issue here, im quite sure i would not be doing this. But it is the weight of history on all of us, and it is my reverence for that great reverence for that great document u. S. Heard me rail about for 24 years that we call our constitution. The most sacred document next to the holy bible. These proceedings go right to the heart of our constitution where it deals with impeachment. The part that provides the greatest punishment for just about anybody, the president. Even though the framers said we are putting this in to protect the public, not to punish the president. Colleagues, you have such an awesome responsibility. My good friend, the senior senator from new york, has said it well. He says, a decision to convict holds the potential for destabilizing the office of. E presidency and those 400 historians, and i some have made light of that, are they just friends of bill . Last evening, i went over that list of historians, many of whom i know, among them woodward. In the south, we love him. He is the preeminent southern historian in the nation. I promise you, he may be a democrat. He may be even a friend of the president. When you talk about integrity, he is the walking personification, exemplification of integrity. Colleagues, i have heard so many adjectives to describe this gathering and these proceedings. Historic. Memorable. Unprecedented. Awesome. All of those words, all of those descriptions, are apt. And to those, i would add the word dangerous. Dangerous not only for the reasons i just stated, but because it is dangerous to the political process. And its dangerous to the unique mix of pure democracy and republican government. Madison and his colleagues so brilliantly crafted. And which has sustained us for 210 years. Mr. Chief justice, this is what we lawyers call this cost you nothing, this is extra. But the more i study that document, those four months in philadelphia in 1787, the more awed i am. You know what madison did . The brilliance was in his simplicity. He simply said, mans nature is to get other people to dance to their tune. Mans nature is to abuse his fellow man sometimes. And he said, the way to make sure that the majorities dont abuse the minorities, and the way to make sure the bullies do not run over the weaklings is to provide the same rights for everybody. And i had to think about that a long time, before i delivered my first lecture at the university of arkansas last week. It made so much sense to me. But the danger, as i say, is to the political process. And dangerous for reasonss ard reasonss reasons speared by the framers about legislative control of the executive. That word was debated for the entire four months of the constitutional convention. Dangers is notangerou mine. It is Alexander Hamiltons. Brilliant, goodlooking guy. Rough quoted extensively on tuesday afternoon in his brilliant statement here. He quoted Alexander Hamilton precisely. It isnt easy to understand. If i may, at the expense of being repetitious, let me paraphrase what hamilton said. He said, the senate had a unique role in participating with the executive branch in appointments. And two, it had a role, it had a role in participating with the executive in the character of a court for the trial of impeachments. But he said, and i must say this, and you all know it, he said, it would be difficult to get what he called a well constituted court from wholly elected members. He said passions would agitate the whole community. And divide it. Between those who were friendly and those who had a knuckle interest to the accused, animicables interest to namely the present. He said, and these are his words, the greatest danger is that the decision would be based on the comparative strength of the parties rather than the innocence or guilt of the president. You have a solemn oath. You have taken a solemn oath to be fair and impartial. I know you all. I know you as friends and i know you as honorable men, and i am perfectly satisfied to put that in your hands under your oath. This is the only caustic thing i will say in these remarks this afternoon. But the question is, how did we come to be here . Were here because of a fiveyear relentless, unending investigation of the president. 50 billion, hundreds of f. B. I. Agents fanning across the nation , examining in detail the microscopic lies of people. Maybe the most intense investigation not only of a president , but of anybody ever. I feel strongly about this because of my state and what we have endured. So youll have to excuse me. But that investigation has also shown that the judicial system in this country can and does get out of kilter unless its controlled. Because there are innocent people, innocent people who have been financially and mentally bankrupt. One woman told me two years ago that her legal fees were 95,000. She said, i dont have 95,000, and the only asset i have is the equity in my home, which just happens to correspond to my legal fees of 95,000. And she says, the only thing i can think of to do is to deed my home. This woman was innocent. Never charged. Testified before the grand jury a number of times. And since that time, she has accumulated an additional 200,000 in attorneys fees. Javerts pursuit in Les Miserables pales by comparison. I doubt that there are few people, maybe nobody in this body who could withstand such scrutiny. And in this case, those summoned were terrified not because of their guilt but because they felt guilt or innocence was not really relevant. But after all of those years and 50 million, of whitewater, travelgate, filegate, you name it, nothing, nothing. The president was found guilty of nothing, official or personal. Were here today because the president suffered a terrible moral lapse. An infidelity, not a breach of the public trust, not a crime against society, the two things hamilton talked about in federalist paper number 65. I recommend it to you before you vote. But it was a breach of his marriage vows. It was a breach of his family trust. It is a sex scandal. H. L. Mencken said one time when you hear somebody say this is not about money, its about money. [laughter] sen. Bumpers and when you hear somebody say this is not about sex, its about sex. You pick your own adjective to describe the president s conduct. Here are some that i would use. Indefensible, outrageous, unforgivable, shameless, i promise you the president would not contest any of those or any others. But theres a Human Element in this case that has not even been mentioned. And that is the president and hillary and chelsea are human beings. This is intended only as a mild criticism of our distinguished friends in the house. But as i listen to the presenters, to the managers make their opening statements, they were remarkably well prepared and they spoke eloquently, more eloquently really than i had hoped. But when i talk about the Human Element, i talk about what i thought was on occasion unnecessarily harsh and pejorative descriptions of the president. I thought that the language should have been tempered somewhat to acknowledge that he is the president. To say constantly that the president lied about this and lied about that, as i say, i thought that was too much for a family that has already been about as decimated as a family can get. The relationship between husband and wife, father and child, has been incredibly strained, if not destroyed. Theres been nothing but sleepless nights, mental agony for this family for almost five years. Day after day, from accusations of having assassinated or had vince foster assassinated on down. It has been bizarre. But i didnt sense any compassion. And perhaps none is deserved. The president has said for all to hear that he misled, he deceived, he did not want to be helpful to the prosecution. And he did all of those things to his family, to his friends, to his staff, to his cabinet, and to the American People. Why would he do that . Well, he knew this whole affair was about to bring unspeakable embarrassment and humiliation on himself, his wife, whom he adored, and a child that he worshipped with every fiber in his body. And for whom he would happily have died to spare her this or to ameliorate her shame and her grief. The house managers have said shame and embarrassment is no excuse for lying. Well, the question about lying, thats your decision. But i can tell you, you put yourself in his position, and youve already had this big moral lapse as to what you would do. We are none of us perfect. Sure, you say he should have thought of all that beforehand. And indeed he should. Just as adam and eve should have. Just as you and you, and you, and you, and millions of other people who have been caught in similar circumstances should have thought of it before. As i said, none of us are perfect. I remember, chaplain the chaplain is not here, is he . Its too bad. He ought to hear this story. [laughter] bumpers this evangelist was holding this great revival meeting, and at the close of one of his meetings, he said, is there anybody in this audience who has never known anybody who ever comes close to the perfection of our lord and savior jesus christ . Nothing. He repeated the challenge and finally a little bitty guy in the back of the audience held up his hand and said are you saying youve known such a person . Stand up. Tell us, share it with us. Who was it . He said, my wifes first husband. [laughter] sen. Bumpers make no mistake about it. Removal from office is punishment. It is unbelievable. Punishment even though the framers didnt quite see it that way. And where did high crimes and misdemeanors come from . It came from the english law. And they found it in english law under a category which said distinctly political offenses against the state. Let me repeat that. They said high crimes and misdemeanors was to be because they took it from english law where they found it in the category that said offenses distinctly political against the state. So colleagues, please, for just one moment, forget the complexities of the facts and the tortured legalisms. And weve heard them all brilliantly presented on both sides, and im not getting into that. But ponder this. If high crimes and misdemeanors was taken from english law by george mason, which listed high crimes and misdemeanors as political offenses against the state, what are we doing here . If, as hamilton said, it had to be a crime against society or a breach of the public trust, what are we doing here . Even perjury, concealing or deceiving, an unfaithful relationship does not even come close to being an impeachable offense. Nobody has suggested that bill clinton committed a political crime against the state. So colleagues, if you honor the constitution, you must look at the history of the constitution and how we got to the impeachment clause. And if you do that, and you do that honestly according to the oath you took, you cannot you can censure bill clinton. You can hand him over to the prosecutor for him to be prosecuted. But you cannot convict him. And you cannot indulge yourselves the luxury or the right to ignore this history. Theres been a suggestion that a vote to acquit would be something of a breach of faith with those who with those who lie in bunker hill and gettysburg and wherever. I didnt hear that. I read about it. But i want to say and incidentally, i think it was chairman hyde who alluded to this and said those men fought and died for the rule of law. I can remember a cold november 3 morning in my little hometown of charleston, arkansas. I was 18 years old. I just gotten one semester in at the university when i went into the marine corps. And so i was to report to little rock to be inducted. My, it was cold. The drugstore was the bus stop. I had to be there by 8 00 to be sworn in. And i had to catch the bus down to the drugstore at 3 00 in the morning. So my mother and father and i got up at 2 00 and got dressed and went down there. Im not sure i can tell you this story. And the bus came over the hill. I was rather frightened, anyway, about going, and i was quite sure i was going to be killed. Only slightly less frightened that betty would find someone else while i was gone. And the bus came over schoolhouse hill. And my parents started crying. I had never seen my father cry. I knew i was in some difficulty. [laughter] bumpers now, as a parent, at my age, i know he thought he was giving not his only begotten son, but one of his begotten sons. Can you imagine you know that scene. It was repeated across this nation millions of times. And then, happily, i survived that war and saw no combat, was on my way to japan when it all ended. I have never had a terrible problem with dropping the bomb, though thats been a terrible moral dilemma for me, because of the estimates were that we would lose as many as a million men in that invasion. But i came home to a generous government who provided me under the g. I. Bill an education and a fairly Prestigious Law School which my father could never have afforded. And i practiced law in this little town for 18 years, loved every minute of it. But i didnt practice constitutional law. And i knew very little about the constitution, but when i went into law school, i did study constitutional law, though, mr. Chief justice, it was fairly arcane to me. And trying to read the federalist papers and de tocqueville and all of those things law students are expected to do, that was tough for me. I confess. So after 18 years in law practice, i jumped up and ran for governor, and i served for four years, and i still i guess i knew what the rule of law was. But i still didnt really have much reverence for the constitution. I just did not understand any of the things i just got through telling you. No. My love for that document came day after day and debate after debate right here in this chamber. Some of you perhaps read an oped piece i did a couple of weeks ago when i said i was perfectly happy for my legacy of a 24year senator to be i never voted for a constitutional amendment. And it isnt that i wouldnt. I think they made a mistake in not giving you fellas four years. [laughter] sen. Bumpers youre about to cause me to rethink that one. [laughter] bumpers and the reason i developed this love of it is because i saw madisons magic working time and time again, keeping bullies from running other weak people, keeping majorities from running over minorities. And i thought about all the unfettered freedoms we had, the oldest organic law in existence made us the envy of the world. And mr. Chairman, weve also learned that the rule of law includes president ial elections. Thats the part of the rule of law in this country. We have an event, a quadrennial event in this country which we call president ial elections. And thats the day when we reach across this aisle and hold hands, democrats and republicans, and we say win or lose, we will abide by the decision. It is a solemn event, president ial elections. And it should not they should not be undone lightly. Or just because one side has the clout and the other one doesnt. And if you want to know what men fought for in world war ii, for example, or in vietnam, ask senator inouye. He left an arm in italy. He and i were at normandy on the 50th anniversary. But we started off in anzio, senator domenici, were you with us . It was one of the most awesome experiences ive ever had in my life. Certified war hero. I think his relatives were in an interment camp, so ask him, what was he fighting for . Or ask bob kerrey. Certified medal of honor winner. What was he fighting for . Probably got a quite different answer. Or senator chafee, one of the finest men ever to grace this body. And certified marine hero of guadalcanal. Ask him. And senator mccain, a genuine hero. Ask him. You dont have to guess. Theyre with us and theyre living. And they can tell you. And one who is not with us here in the senate anymore, robert dole. Ask senator dole what he was fighting for. Senator dole had what i thought was a very reasonable solution for this whole thing. They would handle it fairly and expeditiously. The American People, now and for some time, have been asking to be allowed a good nights sleep. Theyre asking for an end to this nightmare. It is a legitimate request. Im not suggesting that you vote for or against the polls. I understand that. Nobody should vote against the polls just to show their mettle and their courage. I have cast plenty of votes against the polls, and its cost me politically a lot of times. This has been going on for a year, though. And in that same oped piece, i talked about meeting harry truman my first year as governor of arkansas. Spent an hour with him. An indelible experience. People at home kid me about this because i very seldom make a speech that i dont mention this meeting. But i will never forget what he said, put your faith in the people. Trust the people. They can handle it. They have shown conclusively, time and time again, that they can handle it. Colleagues, this is easily the most important vote you will ever cast. If you had difficulty because of an intense dislike for the president , thats understandable. Rise above it. He is not the issue. He will be gone, you wont. So dont leave a precedent from which we may never recover and almost surely will regret. If you vote to acquit, mr. Leader, you know exactly whats going to happen. Youre going to go back to your committees and get on this legislative agenda and start dealing with medicare and social security, and tax cuts, and all those things which the people of this country have a nonnegotiable demand that you do. If you vote to acquit, you go immediately to the peoples agenda. But if you vote to convict, you cant be sure whats going to happen. James g. Blaine was a member of the senate when Andrew Johnson was tried in 1868, and 20 years later, he recanted, and he said, i made a bad mistake. And he says, as i reflect back on it, all i can think about is having convicted Andrew Johnson would have caused much more chaos and confusion in this country than Andrew Johnson could ever conceivably have tried. And so it is with William Jefferson clinton. If you vote to convict, in my opinion, youre going to be creating more havoc than he could ever possibly create. After all, hes only got two years left. So dont, for gods sakes, heighten peoples alienation that is at an alltime high toward their government. The people have a right, and they are calling on you to rise above politics, rise above partisanship. Theyre calling on you to do your solemn duty. And i pray you will. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. The chair reminds the senate that each senator, when his name or her name is called, will stand in his or her place and vote guilty or not guilty, as required by rule 23 of the senate rules on impeachment. The chair also refers to article one, section three, clause six of the constitution regarding the vote required for conviction on impeachment. Quote, no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of 2 3 of the members present. The question is on the first article of impeachment. Senators, how say you . Is the respondent, William Jefferson clinton, guilty or not guilty . A roll call vote is required. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Abraham. Guilty. Mr. Abraham, guilty. Mr. Akaka. Not guilty. Mr. Akaka, not guilty. On this article of impeachment, 45 senators having pronounced William Jefferson clinton president of the United States guilty as charged, 55 senators having pronounced him not guilty, two thirds of the senators present not having pronounced him guilty, the senate adjudges the respondent , William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the first article of impeachment. The question is on the second article of impeachment. Senators, how say you . Is the respondent, William Jefferson clinton, guilty or not guilty . The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Abraham. Guilty. Mr. Abraham, guilty. Mr. Akaka. Mr. Akaka, not guilty. On this article of impeachment, 50 senators have pronounced William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States, guilty as charged. 50 senators have pronounced him not guilty. 2 3 of the senators present not having pronounced him guilty, the senate adjudges that the respondent, William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States, is not guilty as charged in the second article of impeachment. The chair directs judgment to be entered in accordance with the judgment of the senate as follows the senate having tried William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States, upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the house of representatives, and 2 3 of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson clinton be and he hereby is acquitted of the charges in the said articles. The chair recognizes the majority leader. Mr. Chief justice, theres an order at the desk. The clerk will read the order. Ordered, that the secretary be directed to communicate to the secretary of state as provided by rule 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate when sitting on impeachment trials and also to the house of representatives, the judgment of the senate in the case of William Jefferson clinton and transmit a Certified Copy of the judgment to each. Without objection, the order will be entered. The chair wishes to make a brief statement without objection, i trust. [laughter] more than a month ago, i first came here to preside over the Senate Sitting as the court of impeachment. I was a stranger to the great majority of you. I underwent the sort of Culture Shock that naturally occurs when one moves from the very structured environment of the Supreme Court to what i shall call, for want of a better phrase, the more freeform environment of the senate. [laughter] i leave you now a wiser, but not a sadder, man. Ive been impressed by the manner in which the majority leader and the minority leader have agreed on procedural rules in spite of the differences that separate their two parties on matters of substance. I have been impressed by the quality of the debate in closed sessions on the entire question of impeachment as provided for in the constitution. Agreed upon procedures for airing substantive divisions must be the hallmark of any great deliberative body. Our work as a court of impeachment is now done. I leave you with the hope that our several paths may cross again under happier circumstances. The majority leader. Mr. Chief justice, we thank you for your comments, and i send a resolution to the desk. The clerk will read the resolution. Senate resolution 37, to express gratitude for the service of the chief justice of the United States as presiding officer during the impeachment trial. Mr. Chief justice, i ask that it be considered as having been read in its entirety. The clerk will without objection read it in its entirety. And i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 37 introduced earlier today by senator lott and senator daschle, and that the resolution be adopted. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to in the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and any statements that senators wish to make on this be printed at this point in the record. Mr. Chief Justice Without objection, so ordered. On behalf of myself and the entire United States senate, we want to offer you our thanks and the gratitude of the American People for your service to the nation and throughout this impeachment court, to this institution as our presiding officer during most of the last five weeks, you have brought to our proceedings a gentle dignity and an unfailing sense of purpose and sometimes a sense of humor. The majority leader realized when it was time to take a break and not to take a break when the chief justice said lets go forward. By placing duty above personal convenience, and many other considerations, youve taught us a lesson in leadership, presence in the chair, the president of the senate, following the direct ives of our constitution, gave comity to this chamber and assurance to the nation. I would like to close with our traditional mississippi party. You all come back soon. [laughter] sen. Lott but i hope thats not taken the wrong way. And not for an occasion like this one. So instead, as you return to your work on the court and the great marble temple of the law right across the lawn from this capitol, we salute you, sir, with renewed appreciation, and esteem for a good friend and good neighbor. And now, mr. Chief justice, if the democratic leader will join you, we have a small token of our appreciation. We have a tradition in the senate that after you have presided over the senate for 100 hours, we present you with a golden gavel award. And im not sure it quite reached 100 hours. But its close enough. [laughter] [applause] some of the highlights of the senate trial of president bill clinton in january, early february of 1999. And alexis simendinger, as you look back, what stands out . Alexis by the time the vote was taken at the end of a monthlong trial, it seemed to have lost the suspense about where it was going to go, because the hurdle in the constitution is pretty high. 2 3 of those present would need to vote in favor of articles of impeachment to actually remove a president from office. So by the time we had watched a lot of this debate, the discussion about the articles, and the vote, there was a lot of anticipation that there were moderate republicans who were willing to cross over and acquit the president. There was actually some agitation that there were poll numbers showing that this was so unpopular, the impeachment was dragging on so long that there were Senate Republicans who wanted to get this over with, that they wanted to move out of it, even if the house managers were determined. And there was a sense that there was not necessarily as much suspense, right . There was it was sort of a foregone conclusion that the president was going to be acquitted. So by the time we got to the end, the question was, what were the numbers going to be as opposed to what was the outcome going to be . And so if youre going to ask me next, steve, what the vote was steve that is my next question. Two articles and let me check my notes, for perjury, 45 voted guilty. The president was guilty. 55 not guilty. So that didnt even come close to the 67 you would need to remove the president. Obstruction of justice, the vote was 5050. And you might consider that close. But it wasnt close to 67. So that wasnt suspenseful, either. And what was interesting is there were four republicans at the end who went back and forth. But they voted for acquittal. And that was chafee, collins, jeffords, and snow. So the president s case attracted some moderate republicans to acquit. And so the numbers actually gave the president the vindication in some ways that he was looking for. And then two years later, in the senate, Hillary Clinton of new york would join as a colleague of these senators who basically had the fate of the Clinton Presidency in their hands in january and february of 1999. She was elected in 2000. Alexis and she was not only elected there was a lot of drama that went into her senate race, which was interesting. Because as we all know, she was going to succeed in a state that she hadnt represented and had not lived in. And she got Daniel Patrick moynihan to endorse her. He was not super fond of the clintons. He endorsed her. I remember covering the beginning of her senate campaign. Steve at the farm. Alexis Daniel Patrick moynihan had a beautiful, beautiful farm in new york where he would spend every summer, and i remember going into his beautiful he had a beautiful kind of cabin kind of thing on his property where he wrote a book every summer and did research. And it was just idyllic, beautiful. And there was Hillary Clinton. And he gave her a full endorsement and helped her to win in the state. And when she arrived in the senate, she became very popular among her colleagues because she was known as a work horse, not a show horse. And she really tried to dig down and do the work of the senator, and she enjoyed it. She definitely enjoyed it. And had a good relations with her colleagues and worked across the aisle, actually, very effectively. She did if she had any misgivings about those in the senate who had wanted to prosecute the president and find him guilty, she didnt show it. She moved on. How did president clinton respond after the senate vote . Well, after the senate vote, he came out and gave a speech. I should also add one other thing. We forget now that right after the vote, the president s acquitted, there was an effort to censure him. There was actually a motion to censure him, and that would have needed 67 votes and that failed as well. But the president understood that was going to happen. He came forward in the rose garden, actually, and he spoke by himself. He didnt come out with a flotilla of democrats. There was no cheering section. And he bit his lip a lot and talked a lot about how very briefly, he spoke about how he wanted the forgiveness of the American People. He again said he was very sorry for what he had put the country through. Pres. Clinton i want to say again to the American People how profoundly sorry i am for what i said and did to trigger these events and the great burden they have imposed on the congress, and on the American People. I also am humbled and very grateful for the support and the prayers i have received from millions of americans over this past year. And he talked about repairing the breach and said that he wanted to see the American People come together. He wanted to forge some sort of unity or reliance and work across the aisle and he promised the American People again that he would work until the last minute or last hour of the last day, and that he would serve honorably. And then he went back, started to go back into the oval office. And so we remember very well, Sam Donaldson barked out, can he forgive . In your heart, sir, can you forgive and forget . And he decided to take that question. And he came back to the microphone. Pres. Clinton i believe any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it. He walked back with his head down into the oval office and continued to govern. Two final points to try to put this into perspective. Today in the me too generation, we look back at bill clinton and the allegations involving his personal life through a different prism, do we not . Oh, yes, absolutely. And weve seen that come up again and again. One of the things that we look back on, Hillary Clinton played an Important Role in getting her husband toward acquittal in that she was very angry they didnt speak for a long period of time after she learned that he had lied to her about Monica Lewinsky and the relationship. But she did step forward to tell senate democrats, House Democrats at key moments that she loved her husband, that she forgave him, that she felt that he was a good president. That he should continue to be president. And, of course, they stayed married. And she played an Important Role. People talked the lawmakers talked about how important it was and how painful it was in some ways to see the shock and the sorrow that she had gone through and that then she had stepped forward to try to defend her husband. And that it had been very important for the American People to see that she did defend him. Today, we look back on this, and we see the string of cases that had been put forward against president clinton from women who accused him of everything from Sexual Harassment to rape. And we dont take we have a whole movement now of younger women and women voters who are entirely intolerant for that kind of thing. Weve seen the house adopt rules about how to the offices have to handle cases of Sexual Harassment and complaints. Weve seen lawmakers resign, more recently because of allegations that they have harassed subordinates. And so we have a less Tolerant Society for that. And, of course, the one thing republican and democratic lawmakers, women, are trying to encourage is more women to run for office and join the house and the senate. And how important they feel that it is and how important they feel that their influence on the legislative branch has been to taking Sexual Harassment seriously. Well, first i want to say thank you for putting all of this into perspective and into context. More than 20 years ago. My final question is this the politics of impeachment. What are the lessons . Well, one of the things that kind of has taken me aback is we talked about the politics of personal destruction back in 1998 and 1999. Partisanship and politician of personal destruction have only gotten worse. When president clinton was acquitted, he tried to encourage the idea that this should end, even though he had himself been one of the purveyors of the techniques of personal destruction. And were seeing politics now that is so hyperdivided, an electorate thats so divided, the idea that voters can get their information wherever they want, that theyre catering to information that supports their point of view, their support for politicians. And i think that this is one of the things that has worried political scholars and scientists as well as lawmakers themselves, that if it only took us two decades to get to impeachment again, were going to see the concern is that were going to see impeachment used as a political weapon again much sooner than it took from 1868 to 1974 to 1998. Alexis simendinger of the national journal. We appreciate your time. Alexis thank you so much. The impeachment of president trump. Continue to follow the process on cspan, leading to a senate trial. Live, unfiltered coverage on cspan, on demand at cspan. Org impeachment, and listen on the free cspan radio app. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] cspans washington journal. Morning, ahursday discussion on efforts to combat climate change. Adam wilson talks about the challenges facing Law Enforcement in the u. S. And the state of policecommunity relations. Watch live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern thursday morning. Join the discussion. Cspans Live Campaign 2020 coverage continues, live thursday at 1 30 p. M. Eastern, with democratic president ial candidate senator cory booker from the university of New Hampshire law school. Watch live on cspan, online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. On friday, the d. C. Circuit court of will hear two cases, the first on whether don mcgahn needs to comply with a congressional subpoena to testify, and the second on congresss access to the mueller grand jury testimony. 9 30argument begins at a. M. Eastern, and we will have those live on cspan 2. 2020. Paign watch our continuing coverage of the president ial candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. Watch our live coverage of the Iowa Caucuses on monday, february 3. Cspans campaign 2020, your unfiltered view of politics. The u. S. Chamber of commerce recently looked into the future of the space economy. In this portion, nasa and Space Command Officials Join contractors on what it will take to get people willing to work on mars or other locations in space. Please drew warned, associate director of policy, office of the Vice President of the United States. [applause] thank you so much. I am excited to speak to this. First off, i would like to say that space is a top priority of this administration. Through the leadership of the president and the Vice President , we have seen remarkable progress in this critical area. The united ste