[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1493-1494]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



MOTION TO DISMISS THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST WILLIAM JEFFERSON 
                                CLINTON

 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

[[Page 1494]]

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.




                          ____________________