Be Clinton a Villain or Victim, Most Jurors Toeing Party Line

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

Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah)

Will vote guilty on both articles:

Early in the trial I decided that I would not vote to convict under the first article of impeachment. . . . What finally convinced me to vote for Article II was the statement of my good friend, [former Sen.] Dale Bumpers [D-Ark.]. I thought he was magnificent. He told us that the fundamental purpose of the Constitution was to “keep bullies from running over weak people.” I was struck by that. I wrote it down. Then I asked myself: “In this case, who is the bully and who are the weak people?” While publicly posing as a helpless victim of a relentless prosecutor, it was President Clinton and the people in his famous “war room” who were the bullies, using presidential powers and presidential lies to run over the rights of Paula Jones and, if necessary, Monica Lewinsky.

Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

Impeachment was designed by the framers to be a circuit-breaker to protect the republic when “checks and balances” would not contain the darker vagaries of human nature. . . . Impeachment was not, however, devised as an adjunct or independent arm of prosecution. It is not for the United States Senate to find solely whether the president committed statutory violations. Rather, senators have a larger question: whether there is evidence, in my view beyond a reasonable doubt, that the president’s offenses constitute high crimes and misdemeanors that require his removal. . . .

As a citizen of this country, I resent the ordeal he has put this country through. . . . The president’s behavior has damaged the office of the presidency, the nation and everyone involved in this matter.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

What has occurred here is a personal and family tragedy--it is not a national tragedy which should result in the removal of this president from office. Those who appoint themselves as the guardians of moral order in America risk the vices of pride and arrogance themselves. Before we don the armor and choose our side in what manager [Henry J.] Hyde [R-Ill.] calls a “cultural war,” let us not give up on the wisdom and judgment of the people we represent.

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

We should be outraged that William Jefferson Clinton’s personal failings debased himself and his office. But they did not cause permanent injury to the proper functioning of our government. He did not upset the constitutional balance of powers. His acquittal in this impeachment trial is not exoneration.

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)

Will vote guilty on both articles:

I struggled throughout the trial to find a way to acquit the president if possible on both or at least one article. But in the end, the facts, the stubborn facts, kept getting in my way: The stained blue dress. The Dick Morris poll asking whether the president could get away with perjury. Monica in tears in the Oval Office being told that she could not come back to the White House and then being told that it is a crime to pressure the president of the United States. These facts and so many, many others led me to the logical, inescapable conclusion that what began as private indiscretions became public felonies.

Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

As reprehensible as I find the president’s behavior to be, I do not believe that high crimes and misdemeanors, as defined by the framers, have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I will vote to acquit on both articles. My vote to acquit is not a vote to exonerate. While there is plenty of blame to go around in this case, the person most responsible for it going this far is the president of the United States. He behaved immorally, recklessly and reprehensibly. These were his choices. In the final analysis, they do not merit removal but they do merit condemnation.

Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.)

Will vote guilty on both articles:

After reviewing the evidence, listening carefully to the presentations of both the House managers and President Clinton’s legal defense team, I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Clinton committed perjury and obstructed justice. In my mind these offenses do rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and, as [a] result, merit a vote for conviction. . . .

The sworn oath is central not only to our Constitution but also to the administration of justice. Our legal system would not function without it. When President Clinton chose not to “tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” he put himself above the law.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

The “high crimes and misdemeanors” constitutional requirement for removal has not been met--not even close. The Constitution does not say remove the president if he fails to be a role model for our children. It does not say remove the president if he violates the military code of conduct or the Senate ethics code. It does not say remove the president if he brings pain to his family. It says very clearly that the president shall be impeached and removed from office only for committing treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. . . .

We must also reject these articles because there is every reason to doubt the House managers’ case on perjury and obstruction of justice. They have presented not a single shred of direct evidence for their claims, and the details of their circumstantial case have been decimated in many respects.

Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

But is it impeachable conduct? Does it rise to the constitutionally required standard of bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors? I think not. The president’s conduct is boorish, indefensible, even reprehensible. It does not threaten the republic. It does not impact our national security. It does not undermine or compromise our position of unchallenged leadership in international affairs.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

If he is acquitted by this Senate, he will not, as some have suggested, “get off scot-free.” To stand as the only popularly elected president to be impeached will relegate him as the Hester Prynne in the pantheon of our chief executives. Senators should not allow their decision to convict this president to be influenced by the false and ludicrous notion that he will emerge from this national nightmare unscathed if we vote to acquit.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

I do not believe the House managers established beyond a reasonable doubt that this president is guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. Although I deplore the circumstances that have brought us to this point, I do not believe they present a clear and present danger to the functioning of our government, and, therefore, this president, who has been a good president for the people of the United States, should not be convicted and removed from office. . . .

Conviction and removal was not meant to punish an individual. Its intent was to provide one way to free the nation from a president whose high crimes presented a threat to the orderly functioning of government.

Sen. Charles Hagel (R-Neb.)

Will vote guilty on both articles:

Perjury and obstruction of justice are not just federal crimes. When committed by an elected official they are abuses of power. . . . There can be no shading of right and wrong. . . . But after stripping away the underbrush of legal technicalities and nuance, I find that the president abused his sacred power by lying and obstructing justice.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

A majority of the Senate accommodated the desire of the House managers to excessively pursue allegations that were politically damaging to the president. . . . Had members of the House . . . been allowed to consider censure, this matter may never have reached the Senate.

We . . . have come to the end of a long and wearisome road. . . . The journey emanated from the reckless conduct of William Jefferson Clinton. But, the passage has also exposed vicious political partisanship and the relentless exploitation of the powers of the independent counsel.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

It has shaken me that we stood at the brink of removing the president--not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed--but because conditions in late 20th century America have made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him. More troubling are the conditions that allowed this to happen.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

Will vote to acquit on both articles:

The House managers did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion, they didn’t even come close. . . . The House managers have a hunch that his intent was criminal. . . . But hunches are not impeachable, nor should they be. If the evidence required to convict a president in an impeachment trial is allowed to be less than that required in a shoplifting trial, the constitutional foundation for the presidency will disintegrate before our very eyes. That’s something a few future presidents in this body would do well to consider.