Senators Spell Out Their Convictions

Here are excerpts of the comments of senators explaining how they plan to vote on the impeachment of President Clinton.

John H. Chafee (R-R.I.)

Will vote against both articles:

I approached this case with grave reservations about removing a president from office. Such action should be undertaken only following severe transgressions by a president, transgressions which affect our republic in extremely adverse fashion. It was clear that the framers set a high standard for conviction when they agreed it would be for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. . . .

Absent the proof that I find necessary to justify the removal of a president, I will vote to acquit on both articles.

Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)

Will vote against both articles:

This case should never have been brought to the United States Senate. In fact, I believe it to be one of the most blatant, political, vindictive actions taken by the House of Representatives since Andrew Johnson’s case was pushed through by the radical Republicans of his time and forced upon the Senate. . . .

At the beginning of the trial I said the House had a heavy burden, given the history and partisanship of the case, to prove Articles I and II and that they rise to impeachable level. They have never met that burden, not on perjury, not on obstruction of justice. When you look, I don’t think the article on perjury will even get one-third of the Senate votes. And on obstruction of justice, that was blown out of the water, quite frankly, by the Monica Lewinsky videotape that we saw on Saturday.

Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)

Will vote against both articles:

Under Scottish law, there are three possible verdicts: Guilty, not guilty and not proved. And I intend to vote not proved as to both articles. That is not to say that the president is not guilty but to specifically say that the charges, in my judgment, have not been proved.

The senators individually and the Senate collectively took an oath to do impartial justice. My view is that the Senate has done partial justice. . . . The Senate declined to hear any live witnesses, which is the essence of a trial. The Constitution is explicit that the Senate has an obligation to conduct a trial, talks about verdicts and about trying cases. And there were only three depositions taken in the case so that only part of the case was, in fact, heard.

Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.)

Will vote against both articles:

Although President Clinton’s shameful behavior in an inappropriate relationship has caused great pain to his family and the nation, the House managers have not proven that he committed high crimes and misdemeanors. His conduct did not threaten our constitutional system and the national interest will not be served by removing him from office.

I hope that my colleagues will reject the articles of impeachment and not weaken the presidency for future generations. These proceedings should not serve as a precedent for using impeachment as a political weapon.

Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.)

Will vote guilty on both articles:

During this trial, I have concluded that the prosecutors have made their case. I will vote to remove President Clinton from office not only because he is guilty of both articles of impeachment but also because I believe the crimes committed here demonstrate that he is capable of lying routinely whenever it is convenient. . . .

His leadership has become diminished because most Americans have come to the cynical conclusion that they must read between the lines of his statements and try to catch a glimmer of truth amidst the spin. His defenders have demeaned public life by contending that “everybody does it” is a defense of why the president has erred so grievously. But every president does not lie to a federal grand jury. Every president does not obstruct justice. The last president to do so was President Nixon, and he had sufficient reverence for the office to resign before the House even voted on the articles of impeachment.

Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.)

Will vote against both articles:

Let us learn that the subject matter of impeachment must be a matter of gravity, calling into question the president’s very ability to lead and endangering the nation’s liberty, freedom, security. Let us learn the case against the president must be a strong and unambiguous one in fact and in law, for even the president deserves the benefit of our reasonable doubts.

The charges against the president do not rise to those levels. And even if they did, the legal case against him is neither strong nor unambiguous. As the defense team has made clear, there are ample grounds for doubt about both the facts and the law surrounding each of the two articles before us. And so, I will vote against them.

James M. Jeffords (R-Vt.)

Will vote against both articles:

The facts and circumstances of this case are low and tawdry, but these same circumstances do not, in my opinion, cause his offenses to rise to the level of impeachable acts. They do not neatly fit into the definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” I am gravely concerned that a vote to convict the president on these articles may establish a low threshold that would make every president subject to removal for the slightest indiscretion or that a vote to convict may imperil every president who faces a Congress controlled by the opposing party.

Slade Gorton (R-Wash.)

Will split his votes on the two articles:

The president has committed a high crime and misdemeanor and should be removed from office. It is clear that he obstructed justice.

I cannot will to my children and grandchildren the proposition that a president stands above the law and can systematically obstruct justice simply because both his polls and the Dow Jones index are high.

Our duty in this case is as unpleasant as it is unsought. The Constitution gave me no other choice.

Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii)

Will vote against both articles:

The record does not contain the level of proof necessary to convict and remove the president. Certain facts are indisputable. The president lied to the American people and to his family about an extramarital affair. He lied to his staff. And he was misleading in his deposition in the Paula Jones civil suit and his grand jury testimony. However, impeachment is not a constitutional means to punish a president when his “conduct gets out of bounds,” as one House manager argued. The constitutional standard is whether high crimes and misdemeanors were committed, and that test has not been met.

Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.)

Will vote against both articles:

The evidence does not prove high crimes but it does prove low character in our highest office--and that matters, it is relevant, it is material. . . . But the president’s conduct, however reprehensible, related to purely personal matters. . . . His actions did not relate to abuse of power. They had nothing to do with his official acts or his capacity to hold office. They did not threaten our Constitution or system of government. Though serious offenses to our American values and decency, they do not rise to the level of constitutional “high” crimes.