Transcripts For CSPAN3 President Bill Clinton Impeachment - Senate Trial 20240713

Clinton, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the constitution and laws, so help you god . The clerk will call the names and record the responses. Was january 7, 1990 nine. From the floor of the u. S. Senate, the trial against president bill clinton. Joining us is alexis simendinger. We had never seen anything like this before, because the last trial was back in the 1860s. No television, of course, with Andrew Johnson. What do you remember about what happened and how all of this transpired over the next month . Alexis the senate trial was fascinating because of the idea that it is called a trial, but it is not a legal proceeding and is at its heart very political. But it had so many interesting, dynamic characters involved in it. Robert byrd, senator byrd of west virginia, a stalwart and not aonal scholar supporter or friend of bill clinton in any particular way, he ended up at one point just throwing up his hands and saying that this should not even have happened, that the trial was misguided. Thaten told his colleagues he was going to introduce a motion to dismiss the whole thing. Playednt senators different roles. The house managers were fascinating to listen to. The president s legal team was really interesting. He had a strong array of legal representation there. He also tried to sort of what would you say . To add, to put some english on the ball. His legal representation, he had his own personal attorney at the time. The white House Counsel was representing him. And he really relied on them to give this really passionate idea about how wrongheaded this enterprise was, to remove a president for basically what they were arguing was personal failings, and that the president had not failed the American People, that he had worked for them. It really helped this president he has notnot in in any way try to denigrate Monica Lewinsky or any of the witnesses. He tried to stay out of that, even as hotheaded as he was about the process, the mistakes he made early on about trying to deny it. But he played it politically in a different way than we are seeing right now with president trump. Steve yet, the biography on president clinton, the first paragraph includes only the second president to face impeachment hearings in the house and senate. That is a mark that will forever be part of his presidency. Alexis 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 harry achy, one of the advisors, talking about the senate race she launched in new york, a state she had never represented or lived in. Bill clinton was counting on the absolving, not convicted. He turned to his wife to present herself to the electorate. He left office more popular than when he came in. The day he was impeached in the house, he was at 73 approval, and Hillary Clinton went on to compete for a seat in the senate and won. Actually won some sympathy votes. She saw that probably discomforting because she considers herself such a feminist, but she was considered a sympathetic figure and a very accomplished senator when she served. Steve the role of the chief justice of the United States, william rehnquist, i remember seeing him with the black robe and the gold bars. Alexis that was his own personal touch in the Supreme Court. And heally loved opera, 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. Ifthis goes to the senate, 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. 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. Individuals,two 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. Againstvery strongly passionate speed and gave passionate speeches about the fact 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. 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. Say, thankk now and 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 saw 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, was 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. And democratm, dale bumpers of arkansas. 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. Will maket at arms the pluck relation 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. 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 authorities conferred inhouse resolution 614 of the 105th congress, adopted by the house of representatives and delivered to the senate on december 19, florida, mccollum of mr. Kennedy of florida, mr. Ofant of tennessee, mr. Barr georgia, mr. Hutchinson of arkansas, mr. Cannon of utah, mr. Rogan of california, and mr. Graham of South Carolina are managers to conduct the impeachment trial against William Jefferson clinton, president of the United States. A message be sent to the senate to inform the senate of these appointments, and that the managers so appointed a 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 necessarily insistence and expenses that may be necessary to pay under applicable expense resolutions or from the applicable accounts from the house of representatives. And sending for persons 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 judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice in that. On august 17, 19 98, 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. The the nation and nature and details of his relationship with a government employee. Testimony perjurious 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. Therefore, William Jefferson clinton by such conduct warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office, and his qualification to hold and enjoy any office or profit under the United States. In his conduct while president of the United States, William Jefferson clinton, in violation of his constitut constitutional oath to faithfully implement 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 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 meansal proceedings, the used to implement this course of conduct or scheme including one or more of the following acts. About december 17, 19197 William Jefferson clinton encouraged a witness in a civil Rights Action against him to swear 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 tes testify personally in that proceeding. Clintonilliam jefferson 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. 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. Januaryout january 18, 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. 20or about january 20 1, three, and 26, 19 98, 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 qualification 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 managers 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. Order, 1 00evious p. M. Has arrived and a quorum has been established. We 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 officer will administer the oath to william h rehnquist, chief justice of the United States. Order, thee Previous Committee will now conduct the chief justice of the United States to administer the oath. You. Eased to welcome 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 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 admit 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. We are here to say whether or not he is guilty. With, of 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 we say in South Carolina. That if you were black, you came and got 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. That is not the way it is now, and we are better off for it. In Sexual Harassment cases, it is always uncomfortable. To listen to that is 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. Today isn we are here not because somebody wanted to look into the personal life of the president for no good reason. Somebodyre today 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 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. If that governor becomes president , you can still sue. , a Supreme Court said 90 shut out legally, mr. President , you will stand subject to this suit. And we will 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 i am the president. I am 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. Suitill stand subject to 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. There is not much chance of that happening anytime soon. If you are worried about that, i dont think that will be in my future. 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. That is the rule of the land. What did our president do . He tried to say, you cannot sue me because i am 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 you had not shown up . What if he refused to answer any court order . What if he said, i am not going to play that . I am not going to listen to you . The do you know the remedy we have when president ial conduct its 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 e should do constitutionally and i would argue that every president and citizen has a constitutional duty not to cheat another citizen in, especially the president , and they get out of bounce it is up to us to put them back in bounds or declare it illegal. 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. It is going to take teamwork on our part to get this right, because i will argue to you and 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 . Ere 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. It is not very scholarly. But i think it is the truth. I think that is what they meant by hihggh crimes. When you start using your office and you are acting in a way that hurts people. You committed a high crime. When you decide that a course of conduct meets the high crimes standards 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. Conduct andmine the 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 it self, oneo so cautiously, because 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 officeholderny that 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 argument there that burden . I voted against article ii, which was the deposition, perjury arguments against the president standing alone. I think many of us may have thought he 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 lites ies that maybe i would have lied about, because it is personal. To have to talk about intermittent 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 up and 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 commentator 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 do not agree with him. Even he said that if you go oto a grand jury and you lie as president , that should be a high crime. Which you aret in 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. Ofan failings exist in all 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. Lie under oath when you are defending in a lawsuit against an average citizen. Have the courage to apply the lie to 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 may be one of the hall marks 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, h e failed miserably. It is always easy to talk about what other people outghght to d. 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 lies before a grand jury to avoid your legal responsibilities. Dont put your legal and political interests ahead of the rule of law. If you find that these are high crimes, that is a burden you are on the next officeholder. If they cannot meet that burden, this country has a serious problem. I dont want my country to be that country of the great equivocate is for the next century and that is what this case is about. Equivocation and compartmentalizing. 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 Law Enforcement officer of the land. Follow your job discussion. A determination that this conduct is a high crime is no burden that cannot be beared by future occupant. I talk about constitutional teamwork . I am a child of the south. The civil rights litigation and matter sick him and out the 1960s were threefold. There was legislation passed in congress. Decisions that were random 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 n be regulated to 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 cost of National Problem he created. Conducttitutional exhibited by the executive when he was told by the Judicial Branch you have got to participate in a lawsuit was so far a field of what is fair, what is decent, that it became a high crime. Happened to be against a person. Has spoken before about perjury and obstruction of justice. And how it applies to high Government Officials when th ose Government Officials were judges. 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, traso or other high crimes and misdemeanors as applied to that judges conduct as it is to any official just like the present. Ident. We are comparing apples to apples. Trial, theyibornes 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. It is a different impeachment standard. You know these cases better than i know these cases. And you said, wrong. Standardbehavior 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 and misdemeanors. As i talk to you about these cases and what you did, understand we are using the same legal standard. Not because i said so, but because you said so. [clears throat] 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. Ot lose my job unless you can show me or proved that i did something wrong is 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 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 as more than a mere embarrassment. He is a disgrace, and a front, 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. , about this idea of public versus private. It is my opinion that the impeachment par is not power as not as narrow as judge claiborne suggest. There is no reason to believe that the framers of the constitution sought to for him at 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 head on. Impeachable conduct does not have to occur in 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 and mayhem and rape or perhaps espionage and 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 want somebody like you running our courtroom. Because people will trust the results wont trust the results. Lets go to judge nixon. Try to get you out. So we all can have lunch here. Judge nixon. Nixon, convicted and removed from office for what . Perjury before a grand jury. What was that about . A tried to fix a case for 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, what his 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 sent 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 . A scholarly word but that is what happened. He trie d to fix his case. He turned the judicial system upside down. He lied for himself. Any time 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 bartered 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 record stuff 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 bounce, and we are not bound to that acquittal. We want to get to the truth. And we dont want federal judges belief a reasonable 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. Restoringt is about honor and integrity to the office. Of prosecuting William Jefferson clinton has no affect on the problems we are facing here today, in my opinion. Was tried case 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, 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. Theearned counsel for president will have their chance, and they are excellent lawyers. If this is a Football Game we are almost a halftime. 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 there is another thing you will have to decide. Has the factual record been enough been developed enough that we can acquit and remove with good conscious . Judge cases, there was a fullblown trial before it got here. Theuse we cannot prosecute president , because we cannot 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. 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 there is any doubt, call witnesses and lets 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 fact he was told by the Supreme Court to going to 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. Resolved, i will be hope and pray, in a bipartisan fashion. Let us say clearly this conduct is unacceptable by any president. These are in fact high crimes. They go to the core of why we re here. The rule of law. 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 helping the Supreme Court in force the rulings if nothing else, will lead you to a high crime determination. Were asking you to remove the president. Thist know why all 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 the, are paying close attention to this. The question you must ask of every chimeric 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. Me give you some of my thoughts. Times have you had to go a child, a grandchild, somebody who works for you, and give them a lecture that goes 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 far reaching consequences, far reaching consequences for the law. As chief lawle enforcement officer of the land, how can we say to our fellow beizens that this will not dontths of do as i do, dont do as i do, do as i say . What effect will that have . I think it will be dus devastating. This case is the butt of 1000 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. Is tempting to let the clock tick. 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 stay. On is not should he what if he stays . If you believe this president committed perjury before a grand not, when he was begged 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 1000 times. Youmber how you felt when knew you had a perjurer as a judge, when you knew you had somebody who had fundamentally r an 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 she would be doing a disservice to the citizens that would come before him . To take care duty 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. Yourselfnt live with 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. Is askedice president to assume the mantle of chief executive officer off the land, chief Law Enforcement officer of the land, it will be tough. It will be painful. But we will survive. We will be better for it. Thank you. The chair recognizes mr. Counsel to continue the presentation of the case for the president. Mymr. Chief justice, distinguished house managers from the house of , iresentatives, colleagues 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. Ribbing taken a lot of this afternoon but i have seriously negotiated with some people particularly on this side by an offer to walk out and not delivered the 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 accumulative audience ii had over 24 years. [laughter] bumpers i came here today for a lot of. Reasons one was that i was promised a 40 foot 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 hshort. 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. Byas a little dismayed 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 could have done better than that. You can take some comfort in the fact im not being paid. When im finished you will probably think they got their moneys worth. I have told audiences that over homears that i went almost every weekend and returned usually about dusk on sunday evening and you know the plane Ride International airport. The magnificent Washington Monument and this building. 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. Is true about this chamber. I can still remember as though felts yesterday the awe i 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. I come here with some sense of reluctance. Have beenent and i Close Friends for 25 years. We fought so many battles back home together in our beloved arkansas. 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 and the delta area of mississippi, arkansas, and louisiana where poverty is unspeakable with some measure of success. Not nearly enough. To provide health care for the lesser among us. For those who are well off enough they cannot get on welfare but not making enough to buy health insurance. Above Everything Else to improve the educational standards for a state that for so many years was at th bottomup the liste or near the bottom of the list the bottom of the list or near the bottom of the list of income. We h ave stood sidebyside to e areas in our state from environmental degradation. We even crashed a twin engine 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 state andiis sate, 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 fr iends. I know that diminishes the effectiveness of my words. So, if bill clinton the man, bill clinton a friend were the issue here. Im quite sure i would not be doing this. But it is the weight of history myall of us, and it is reverence for that great document u. S. Heard me rail about 424 years that we call our constitution. About for 24 years. The most sacred document next to the holy bible. These proceedings go right to the heart of o ur constitution where it deals with impeachment. The part that provides the justest punishment for about anybody, the president. Even though the framers said we protecting this in to 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 the potential for destabilizing the office of president. 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, h e may be a democrat. He may be even a friend of the president s. When you talk about integrity, he is the walking personification, example of occasion exmemplification of integrity. Colleagues, i have heard so many adjectives to describe this gathering and these proceedings. Historic. Memorable. Unprecedented. Awesome. 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 andof pure democracy republican government. Madison and his colleagues so brilliantly crafted. And which has sustained us for 210 years. Mr. Chief justice, this is what we liars 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 . He simply said, mans nature is to get other people to dance to their tune. Hiss nature is to abuse fellowman 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. To think about that a long time, before i delivered my first at the university of arkansas last week. It made so much sense to me. Say is tonger as i the political process. Reasons spiritor by the framers about legislative control of the executive. Debated for the entire four months of the constitutional convention. That were dangers is not mine. It is alexander hamiltons. Brilliant, goodlooking guy. He quoted extensively on tuesday afternoon in his brilliant statement here. Hamilton alexander precisely. It isnt easy to understand. Beingay at the expense of repetitious, let me paraphrase what hamilton said. The senate had a unique role in participating with the executive branch in appointments. 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. Would agitatens the whole community. It. Divide between those who were friendly and those who had a knuckle interest to the accused, a nimicables interest to namely the present. He said in these are his danger ise greatest that the decision would be based on the comparative strength of the parties rather than the innocence or guilt of the president. Oath. Ve a solemn you have taken a solemn oath to be fair and impartial. I know you all. I know you as friends. I know you as honorable men. I am perfectly satisfied to put that in your hands, under your oath. Say is the only caustic will say in these remarks this afternoon. The question is, how did we come to be here . We are here because of a five ndingrelentless une investigation of the president. 50 billion. Hundreds of fbi agents fanning across the nation examining in detail the microscopic lives of people. Mabyybe 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 it is controlled. Because there are innocent people, innocent people who have been financially and mentally bankrupted. One woman told me two years ago that her legal fees were 95,000. The only asset i have is the equity in my home, which corresponds to to my legal fees of 295,000. She says the only thing i can think of to do is to deed my hom e. This woman was innocent is an and testify before the grand jury a number of times. Since that time, she has accumulated an additional 200, 000 in attorney fees. Javerts pursuit of jean valjean pales by comparison. I doubt 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, whitewater,ion, of travelgate, you name it, nothing. Nothing. The president was found guilty of nothing. Official or personal. Here today because the president suffered a terrible moral lapse. Marital infidelity. Not a breech 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. It was a breach of his marriage vows. It was a breach of his family trust. Sex scandal. Menken, when you hear somebody say this is not about money. It is about money. [laughter] when you hear somebody say this is not about sex. It is about sex. You pick your own adjective to describe the president s conduct. Heres some that i would use. Indefensible. Outrageous. Unforgivable. Shameless. I promise you the president would not contest any of those or any others. A Human Element in this case that has not even been mentioned. 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. I listened to the percentage to the managers make her Opening Statements to the presenters to the managers making their Opening Statements, they were well prepared and they spoke eloquently, more eloquently than i really had hoped. I talk about the Human Elements, i talk about what i thought was on occasion unnecessarily harsh and pejorative discussions of the president. I thought the language should have been temperate somewhat to acknowledge that he is the president. To say constantly 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 is 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 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 beeived, he did not want to 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 . This whole affair was about to bring unspeakable embarrassment and humiliation on heself, his wife whom adored, and a child that he worshiped with every fiber in his body. Would happilye ore died to spare her this to ameliorate her shame and her grief. Said,use managers have shame and embarrassment is no excuse for lying. Well, the question about lying. Thats your decision. Puti can tell you, you yourself in his position, youve already had a big moral less a lapse, as to what you would do. We are none of us perfect. You say, he shouldve thought of all of that before hand and indeed has he should. Just as adamant he adam and eve should have. Just as you and you and millions of other people who have been caught in similar circumstances should have thought about it before. As i say none of us are perfect. I remember, chaplain, the chaplains not here, is he . Too bad. He ought to hear this story. This of angelas withholding this great revival meeting. Meetings, heof his said is there anybody in this audience who has known anyone close to the perfection of our lord and savior jesus christ . Nothing. He repeated the challenge. A guy in the back and the audience. You . Are you saying so . Stand up. He said, share with us. Who was it . He said, my wifes first husband. [laughter] 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. Where did high crimes and misdemeanors come from . Law. Me from the english english lawnd it in under a category which said distinctly political offenses. Against the state. Let me repeat that. They said high crimes and misdemeanors they took it from english law. They found in a category that said offenses distinguished political against the state. So, colleagues, please for just one moment, forget the complexity of the facts and the tortured legalisms and weve heard them all brilliantly presented on both sides. Im not getting into that. But ponder this. If high crimes and misdemeanors by taken from english law george mason, which listed high crimes and misdemeanors as political offenses against the state, what are we doing here . It had tolton said, be a crime against society or a breach of the public trust, what are we doing here . Even perjury. Concealing. Or deceiving. Doesfaithful relationship not even come close to being an impeachable offense. Nobody has suggested that bill clinton committed a political crime against the state. You honor the, if constitution, you must look at the history of the constitution and have we got to the impeachment how we got to the impeachment clause . If you do that honestly according to the osu took, you nsor billou can ce clinton, you can hand it over to the prosecutor to be prosecuted, but you cannot convict him. And you cannot indulge yourselves the luxury or the r ight to ignore this history. Theres been a suggestion that a would becquit something of a breach of faith with those who lie in flanders field. On bunker hill and gettysburg and wherever. I didnt hear that. I read about it. Say, andt to incidentally, i think it was chairman hyde who alluded to this and said, those men fought and died for the rule of law. Cold november 3 morning in my hometown of charleston, arkansas. I was 18 years old. Just gotten one semester in at the university when i went into the marine corps. To report to little rock to be inducted. It was cold. Stop. Ug store was the bus i had to be there by 8 00 to be sworn in. And i had to catch the bus at the drugstore at 3 a. M. 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. The bus came over the hill, i was frightened about going. I was sure i was going to be killed. Slightly less frightened that betty would find somebody else when i was gone. The 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. Knowparent, at my age, i he thought he was giving his but can youn son, imagine . It was repeated across this nation a million times. Happily, i survived. Saw no combat and was on my way to japan when it all ended. I have never had a terrible problem. The estimates were that we would lose as many as one million men. Home to a generous government, who provided me, under the g. I. Bill, and education and a fairly prestigious law school, which my mother could have never afforded. I practiced for 18 years and loved every minute of it. Did not practice constitutional law and i knew very little about the constitution, but when i went into law school, i did study. It was fairly arcane to me. To read the newspapers, all those things that law students are expected to do, that was tough for me, i confess. After 18 years of law practice, i served as governor for four years. I knew what the rule of law was, but i did not have i did not understand any of the things i just got to telling you. No. My love for that document came after debate, after debate, after debate, right here in this chamber. Read a you probably piece i did a couple weeks ago, when i said i was perfectly. Appy i never voted for a constitutional amendment, and it is not that i would not. I think they made a mistake in not giving you fellows for years. Four years. [laughter] the reason i developed this love of it is because i saw magic working time and time again, keeping bullies from running over weak people. I thought about all the unfettered freedoms that we have. The oldest organic law in existence made us the envy of the world. Chairman, we also learned that the rule of law includes president ial elections. Of law part of the rule in this country. Event in this country , which we call president ial elections. That is the day where we reach out and hold hands, democrats and republicans. Lose, we willn or abide by the decision. Is a solemn event, president ial elections, and it should not they should not be undone lightly. Or just because one side has clout and the other does not. What mennt to know fought for in world war ii or in vietnam lets put it another way. He left an arm in italy. He and i were in normandie on the anniversary. Were you with us . It was one of the most awesome experiences i ever had in my life. Certified war hero. What was he fighting for . Ask bob carry. Certified medal of honor winner. What was he fighting for . Different you will probably get a different answer. One of the finest men to ever grace this body. Certified hero of the canal. Ask him. And senator mccain, a genuine hero. Ask him. You do not have to guess. They are with us and they are living. They can tell you. One that is not with us innocent ask the senator what he was fighting for. He had what i thought was a very reasonable solution to this whole thing that would handle it fairly and expeditiously. The American People have known for some time, have been asking to be allowed a good nights sleep. They are asking for an end to the nightmare. It is a legitimate request. I am not suggesting that you vote for or against. I understand that. Justy should vote against to show their mettle and their courage. Against andplenty it has cost me politically, but this has been going on for a year. In that same oped piece i talked about, meeting harry truman my first year as governor of arkansas. People at home kid me about this because i very seldom make a speech where i do not pension this meeting, but i will never forget what he said, trust the people because they can handle it. Conclusively,n time and time again that they can handle it. Colleagues, this is easily the most important vote that he will cast. If you have difficulty because of an intense dislike of the president , that is understandable. Rise above it. He is not the issue. Be gone but you will not. President ve a president from which we may never recover and which we will most surely regret. Acquit, mr. To leader, you know exactly what will happen. You will go back to your committees and he will start dealing with medicare, social security, all those things which these people 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 cannot be sure what will happen. He was a member of the senate when Andrew Johnson was tried and 20 years later, he recanted and he said, i made a bad mistake. Itsays, as i reflect back on isll i can think about having convicted Andrew Johnson would have caused much more chaos and confusion in this , sotry than Andrew Johnson it is with William Jefferson clinton. Vote to convict, in my opinion, you will be creating more havoc than he could possibly create. He only has two years left. Sakes. Ot, for god the people have a right and they are calling on you to revise above politics. Becauseve partisanship they are calling on you to do your solemn duty. I pray that you will. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. The chair reminds the senate that each senator, when his or her name is called, will stand in his or her place and vote guilty or not guilty as world bible number 23. The chair also refers to article one Section Three of the constitution regarding the vote required for conviction on impeachment. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. The question is on the first article of impeachment. Senators, how say you . Is the respondent guilty or not guilty . A roll call vote is required and a clerk will call the roll. Mr. Abraham. Guilty. Mr. Abraham, guilty. Not guilty. On this article of impeachment, 45 senators have pronounced William Jefferson clinton, president of United States, guilty as charged. The senators present, not having pronounced him guilty. The question is on the second article of impeachment. Senators, how say you . Is the respondent guilty or not guilty . The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Abraham. Mr. Abraham, guilty. On this article of impeachment, 50 senators have announced William Jefferson clinton guilty as charged. Two thirds of the senators present, not having pronounced him guilty. The respondent, William Jefferson clinton, president of the u. S. Is not guilty as charged in the second article of the schmidt. Judgment to bets entered in accordance with the judgment of the senate as follows. The senate, having tried William Clinton president upon two articles of impeachment, exhibited against him by the house of representatives and two thirds of the senators present, not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein. That ordered and a judge William Jefferson clinton be acquitted of the charges in the said articles. The chair recognizes the majority leader. Mr. Chief justice, there is an order at the desk. The clerk will read the order. That the secretary be directed to communicate with the secretary of state, as provided bible 23 of the rules of procedure and practice in the senate, when sitting on impeachment trials and to the house of representatives, a judgment of the senate in the case of William Jefferson clinton and transmit a Certified Copy of the judgment to each. Objection, the order will be entered. The chair wishes to make a brief statement without objection, i trust. More than a month ago, i first came here to preside over the stranger to was a the great majority of you. I underwent the Culture Shock that naturally occurs when one views from the very structured environment of the Supreme Court to what i shall call the more freeform environment of the senate. Now a wiser but not a saturn man. Ive been impressed in which the agreed on majority rules despite the differences that separate their parties on matters of substance. I have been impressed by the quality of the debate of the. Ntire question agreedupon procedures for substantive positions must be the hallmark of any deliberative body. Our work is now done. I leave you with the hope that our paths may cross again under happier circumstances. Mr. Chief justice, we thank sendor your comments and i the resolution to the desk. Senate resolution 37. To express gratitude for the service of the chief justice of officer as providing during the impeachment trial. Consideredthat it be as evidence read in its entirety. The clerk will read it in its entirety. Proceed tothat we andintroduced earlier today that the resolution be adopted. Without objection, the resolution is adopted. I asked that this be agreed to and any statements that senators wish to make on this be printed in the record. Without objection. On behalf of myself and the entire u. S. Senate, we want to offer our thanks and gratitude of the American People for your service to the nation and throughout this impeachment ,ourt, to this institution during the last five weeks, you have brought our proceedings a gentle dignity and unfailing sin of purpose and humor at times. The majority leader realized that when it was time to take a break and when not to take a break. By placing duty above personal convenience, you have taught a lead a lesson in leadership. Giving assurance to the nation. I would like to close with our traditional mississippi party. I hope that is not taken the wrong way and not for an occasion like this one. As he returned to your work on right across this capital, we salute you with our esteem for our good friend and neighbor. Democratic leader would join you, we have a small token of our appreciation. We have a tradition that after you have presided over the we present100 hours, you with a golden gavel award. I am not sure it quite reached 100 hours, but it is close enough. [laughter] [applause] some of the highlights of the. Enate trial of bill clinton as he looked back at those moments, what stands out . Wasy the time the vote actually taken at the end of a monthlong trial, it seems to have lost the suspense about where it was going to go because the hurdles are pretty high. Two thirds of those present told need to vote in favor remove a president from office, so by the time we had watched a lot of this debate, the discussion about the articles was a lot ofhere anticipation that there were moderate republican who were willing to cross over and there was some agitation that there were poll numbers showing that this was so unpopular and impeachment was dragging on so long that there were republicans who wanted to move out of it. Sense that there was not necessarily as much suspense. It was kind of a foregone conclusion that the president would be acquitted, so by the time we got to the end, the question was, what were the numbers going to be . If you are going to ask me what vote was next two articles of impeachment. Perjury, 45 voted guilty. Close to thecome 67 you would need to remove a president. Consider it close, but it was not close to 67. Was therenteresting were four republicans at the end who went back, but they voted for acquittal. The president s case attracted moderate republicans to acquit, and so the numbers actually gave the president the vindication that he was looking for. Two years later in the senate, Hillary Clinton would join as a colleague of the senators, who basically had the fate of the Clinton Presidency in their hand. She was not only elected, but there was a lot of drama that went into her senate race because as we all know, she was going to succeed in a state she had not represented and had not lived in. Fromot an endorsement anyone who was not fond of the clintons. There was a beautiful farm in new york where she would spend all summer and i remember going into this outdoor, beautiful cabin on the property. He wrote a book every summer and did research. Was Hillary Clinton, and he gave her a full endorsement. ,hen she arrived in the senate she became very popular among her colleagues because she was known as a workhorse, not a show horse. And do theo dig down work of a senator. She had good relations with her colleagues. She worked across the aisle very effectively. Misgivings about the senate, about those who wanted to she moved on. After the senate vote, he came out and gave a speech. We forget that right after the vote, there was an effort to censure him. That was put forward on the have neededat would 67 votes. The president understood that was going to happen. Come outand he did not with a flotilla of democrats. He bit his lip a lot and talked about how, very briefly he spoke about how he wanted the forgiveness of the American People and said he was very sorry for what he had put the people through. Clinton i want to say how profoundly sorry i am for what i said and did to trigger these events, and the great burden have imposed on the congress and the American People. Humbled and very and the for the support prayers i have received from millions of american over the past year. Because he talked about repairing the breach. He said he wanted to see the American People come together, that she wanted to form some kind of unity or alliance and promised the American People again that she would work until the last minute, the last hour of the last day and that he would serve honorably. He started to go back into the and someone we barked out,y well can you forgive . To take thatd question. He came back to the microphone. I believe that any person who asks for forgiveness has to be prepared to give it. He walks back into the oval office and continued to govern. Today, and the me too generation, we would back at bill clinton and allegations involving his personal life. Absolutely. We have seen that come up again and again and one of the things that we look back on, Hillary Clinton played a role in getting her husband towards acquittal. They did not speak for a long her, butr he lied to she did step forward to tell us and it democrats a key moment, that she loved her husband, that , that she felt that he was a good president and should continue to be president. They stayed married and she played an important role. Howakers talked about important and painful it was to see the shock and the sorrow that she had gone through and then she stepped forward to try to defend her husband. It was important for the American People to see her defend him. The string of cases that have been put forward against president clinton of women who have accused him from weual harassment to rape and have a whole movement of younger aren and women voters who intolerant for that kind of thing. We have seen the house adopt rules about how offices have to change handle cases of Sexual Harassment and complaints. We have a less Tolerant Society for that. Thing republican and democratic lawmakers are trying to encourage is more women to run for office and to join the house and the senate. How important they feel that it is and that their influence has been intaking Sexual Harassment seriously. Thank you for putting all this into perspective and context. Theinal question is, politics of impeachment. What are the lessons . One of the things that has is, we talked about the politics of personal destruction back in 1998 and 1999. Hyper partisanship has only gotten worse. When president clinton was acquitted, he tried to encourage ,he idea that this should end even though he had been one of the purveyors. Thate seeing politics now theso hyper divided that idea that voters can get their information anywhere they want, they are catering to information that supports their point of view or their support for politicians, and i think this is one of the things that has scholars andical scientists, as well as lawmakers , that if it only took us two decades to get to impeachment again, the concern is that we will see impeachment used as a political weapon again, much sooner than it took from 1868 to 1974, to 1998. We appreciate your time. Thank you so much. Our cspan campaign 2020 bus team is traveling across the country asking, what issues should president ial candidates address . Willwant a candidate who advocate for everybody, regardless of how old they are, what kind of background they come from, what race they are, but religion, but their Sexual Orientation may be. I feel like that has not been happening and we need to get back to a president who will advocate for everybody. Justice and what you plan to do to resolve the issues across the nation. , how it020 issue is affects american politics. We need help. Is not a 2020 issue legislative issue, but rather an ethics issue. I feel like political transparency is our Biggest Issue in washington right now. I think something they need to focus on is letting the public know whats going on. There are Committee Hearings we dont know about that i think are essential. If the candidates would focus on being upfront about their views and then once they get into office, be more transparent about whats going on and having people involved in the democratic process. It would be a lot more smoother. Voices from the road on cspan. The house will be in order. Cspan has been providing unfiltered coverage of congress, the Supreme Court and publicpolicy events from washington dc and around the country, see you can make a own mind. Cspan is brought see by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Every july for the past 25 years, the gettysburg committee has posted a civil war battle enactment and living history village, depicting cap life. We talked about marriage expectation and civil war brothels