|
Feingold voted against both articles of impeachment, making the following statement:
Statement by Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Following is a statement from the Senate's closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, excerpts of which senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chief Justice, my colleagues, like many others, the day the President wagged his finger at the American people and indicated he had not been involved with Ms. Lewinsky, I had the sense that he wasn't telling the truth and I felt some genuine regret. The President and I began here in Washington in the same month, in 1993. I had high hopes and actually felt very close to what he was trying to accomplish. So all along in this process, I have had to fight an urge to personalize that regret in a way that would affect my ability to do my job in this impeachment trial. And I will tell you that taking that separate oath helped me get into the mindset necessary to do that task.
But let me say that I do regret that the President's public conduct--not his private conduct--has brought us to this day.
But we are here, and I want to take a minute to praise my colleagues on the process. I think it would have been unfortunate had we not had any witness testimony--at least in the form of deposition testimony. I think it would have been an unfortunate historical precedent. I found the video testimony helpful. I didn't enjoy it, but I found it helpful in clarifying some of the things that I was thinking about. So I am glad, on balance, that we did not dismiss the case at the time it was first suggested.
But as we get to the final stage and get immersed in the law and facts of this case, it is too easy to forget the most salient fact about this entire matter, and that is one simple fact that many others have mentioned: In November 1996, 47 million Americans voted to reelect President Clinton. The people hired him. They are the hiring authority. An impeachment is a radical undoing of that authority. The people hire and somehow, under this process, the Congress can fire. So, I caution against, with all due respect to the excellent arguments made, the attempt to analogize this to an employee-employer relationship, or a military situation, or even the situation of judges--those situations are all clearly different. Along with the choice of the Vice President, in no other case, do the American people choose one person, and in no other case can a completely different authority undo that choice.
Having said that, the Presidential conduct in this case, in my view, does come perilously close to justifying that extreme remedy. There really have been three Presidential impeachments in our Nation's history. I see this one as being in the middle. The Andrew Johnson case is usually considered by historians to have been a relatively weak case. President Johnson had a different interpretation of the constitutionality of the statute that he believed allowed him to remove the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton. He was not convicted, and subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court, I believe, ruled that in fact that was constitutional. I see that as having been a relatively weak case.
The case of Richard Nixon, in my view, was a pretty strong case, involving a 1972 Presidential election and attempts to get involved with the aspects of that election--frankly--an attempt to cover up what happened during that 1972 election. I think that had more to do with core meaning of `high crimes and misdemeanors.'
This is a closer case; this is a close case. In that sense, it may be the most important of the three Presidential impeachments, in terms of the law of impeachment, as we go into the future. I agree neither with the House managers who say their evidence is `overwhelming,' nor with the President's counsel who says the evidence against the President is `nonexistent.' The fact is, this is a hard case, and sometimes they say that hard cases make bad law. But we cannot afford to have this be bad law for the Nation's sake.
So how do we decide? There have been a lot of helpful suggestions, but one thing that has been important to me is the way the House presented their case. That doesn't bind us, but they did suggest that two Federal statutes had been violated. Mr. Manager McCollum said that, `You must first determine if a Federal crime has occurred.' Many others have said that. I will reiterate a point. If that is the approach you want to take, then it is clear, in my view as one Senator, that you must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you are using the power and the opprobrium of the Federal criminal law as a sword but refusing to let the President and the defense counsel have the shield of the burden of proof that is required in the criminal law.
I do not have time to discuss the perjury count this afternoon, but will do so in a longer presentation for the Record. Suffice it to say I do not believe the managers have met their burden of proving perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to obstruction of justice, the President did come perilously close. Three quick observations make me conclude that, in fact, he did not commit obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt. First, I am very concerned about the conversations between the President and Betty Currie concerning the specifics of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. But the critical question there is intent. Was his intent about avoiding discovery by his family and the political problems involved? Or was the core issue trying to avoid the Jones proceeding and the consequences of that?
I don't think it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jones proceeding was the President's concern. Perhaps Ms. Currie could have shed some light on this. That is why I was extremely puzzled when the House managers didn't call Betty Currie. Let me be the first to say that I don't think in this instance the House managers `wanted to win too badly.' I don't think they wanted to win badly enough to take the chance of calling Betty Currie, a crucial witness.
I was very concerned about the false affidavit until I saw Ms. Lewinsky's Senate deposition testimony. I am persuaded that you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that she was urged by the President to make a false statement in that affidavit.
Finally, I was very concerned about the hiding of the gifts. And maybe every one will disagree with me on this. But when I watched her testimony, I thought Ms. Lewinsky was the most indefinite about whether or not she had gotten that call from Ms. Currie than any other part of her testimony. I happen to believe that Ms. Lewinsky was the one who was the most concerned about the gifts. And I believe a showing beyond a reasonable doubt has not been made that the President masterminded the hiding of the gifts.
So I cannot deny what Representative Graham said: If you call somebody up at 2:30 in the morning you are probably up to no good. But if you call somebody up at 2:30 in the morning you have not necessarily accomplished the crime of obstruction of justice.
I realize there is a separate question of whether these same acts by the President, apart from the Federal criminal law, constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. I do not. I will discuss that in more detail in a future statement in the Record.
But I would like to conclude by just talking a little bit about this impeachment issue in the modern context. When I say that the vote in 1996 is the primary issue, I don't just mean that in terms of the rights of people. I mean it in terms of the goal of the Founding Fathers, and our goal today; that is, political stability in this country. We don't want a parliamentary system. And we don't want an overly partisan system.
I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years?
I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading.
It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.
Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:
I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
