January 27, 1999
Web posted at: 4:13 p.m. EDT (1613 GMT)

Today, I voted against the motion to dismiss offered by the Senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Robert Byrd. I also voted in favor of allowing the House Managers to depose a limited number of witnesses in this case. I would like to explain the reasons for my votes.

Let me state first that I understand that this trial is a unique proceeding; it is not precisely a "trial" as we understand that term to be used in the criminal context. The Senate, for example, is both judge and jury, with the final authority to determine not only the "guilt" or "innocence" of the defendant, but also the legal standard to apply and what kind of evidence is relevant to the decision.

Nonetheless, Sen. Byrd's motion was a motion to dismiss, which I believe gives the motion a legal connotation we must not ignore. I believe that in order to dismiss the case at this point, a Senator should be of the opinion that it is not possible for the House Managers to show that the President has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, even if they are permitted to call the witnesses that they want to call. Even apart from the possibility of witness testimony, in order to vote for the motion, a Senator should believe that regardless of what occurs in the closing arguments by the parties and in deliberations in the Senate, that a Senator would not vote to convict.

My view, as of this moment, is that to dismiss this case would in appearance and in fact improperly "short circuit" this trial. I simply cannot say that the House Managers cannot prevail regardless of what witnesses might plausibly testify and regardless of what persuasive arguments might be offered either by the Managers or by Senators who support conviction.

As Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and I indicated in a letter to Senator Byrd on Saturday, and in a unanimous consent request we offered on Monday, my preference would have been to divide the motion to dismiss and allow separate votes on the two articles of impeachment to more closely approximate the separate final votes on the two articles contemplated by the impeachment rules. It would have allowed the Senate to consider the strength of the evidence presented on the two separate articles and the possibility that one of the articles comes closer to the core meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors than the other.

I want to be clear that my vote not to dismiss this case does not mean that I would vote to convict the President and remove him from office. I have not reached a decision on that question. It is my inclination, however, to demand a very high standard of proof on this question. Because the House Managers have relied so heavily on the argument that the President has committed the federal crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice as the reason that his conduct rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors, they probably should be required to prove each element of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the standard that juries in criminal proceedings must apply. In this case, where the "impeachability" question rests so much on a conclusion that the President's conduct was not only reprehensible but also criminal, I currently believe that standard is the most appropriate for a Senator to apply.

It is my view at this point that the House Managers' case has some serious problems, and I am not certain that it can be helped by further testimony from witnesses, although I believe it is possible that it can. Nor have I reached a decision on the important question of whether, even if the House Managers manage to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, the offenses charged would be "impeachable" and require the President to be removed from office. Therefore I want to be clear that my vote against the motion does not mean I am leaning in favor of a final vote to convict the President. I am not.

On the core issues of this trial, however, I believe we must continue to move forward and not truncate the proceeding at this point. I believe that it is appropriate for the House Managers, and if they so choose, the President's Counsel, to be able to depose and possibly to present the live testimony of at least a small number of witnesses for a number of reasons.

First, although I recognize that this is not a typical, ordinary criminal trial, it is significant and in my mind persuasive that in almost all criminal trials witnesses are called by the prosecution in trying to prove its case. Because I have decided that the House Managers probably must be held to the highest standard of proof -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- I believe that they should have every reasonable opportunity to meet that standard and prove their case.

Furthermore, witnesses have been called every time in our history that the Senate has held an impeachment trial. (In two cases, the impeachment of Sen. Blount in 1797 and the impeachment of Judge English in 1926, articles of impeachment passed by the House were dismissed without a trial.) Now I recognize that an unusually exhaustive factual record has been assembled by the Independent Counsel, including numerous interviews with, and grand jury testimony from, key witnesses. That distinguishes this case from a number of past impeachments. But in at least the three judicial impeachments in the 1980s, the record of a full criminal trial (two resulting in conviction and one in acquittal) was available to the Senate, and still witnesses testified.

In this case, one side strenuously argues that witnesses should be called. It would call the fairness of the process into question were we to deny the House Managers the opportunity to depose at least those witnesses that might shed light on the facts in a few key areas of disagreement in this case. I regard this as a close case in some respects, and the best course to follow is to allow both sides a fair opportunity to make the case they wish to make.

This does not mean that I support an unlimited number of witnesses or an unnecessarily extended trial. At this point, I am reserving judgment on the question of whether live testimony on the Senate floor should be permitted. I believe the Senate has the power, and should exercise the power, to assure that the witnesses called have evidence that is truly relevant to present. In this regard, I think we should allow somewhat greater latitude to the President's counsel since he is the defendant in this proceeding. But at least with respect to the House Manager's case, while we must be fair in allowing them to depose the witnesses they say they need to prove their case, we need not allow them to broaden their case beyond the acts alleged in the articles or inordinately extend the trial with witnesses who cannot reasonably be expected to provide evidence relevant to our decision on those articles.

Finally, let me reiterate. My vote against the motion to dismiss should not be interpreted as a signal that I intend to vote to convict the President. Nor does it mean that I would not support a motion to adjourn or a motion to dismiss offered at some later stage of this trial, although I strongly prefer that this trial conclude with a final vote on the articles. It only means that I do not believe that dismissing the case at this moment is the appropriate course for the Senate to follow.

Wednesday, January 27, 1999

• Senate decides to subpoena witnesses
• Senators negotiate procedures for depositions, endgame
• Poll: Clinton still riding high, but Senate slipping
• Feingold statement on motions to dismiss and to subpoena witnesses
• Transcript: Senate votes on dismissal and witnesses
• Quayle quits newspaper company board
• Sen. Lott promises 'burst of activity' after impeachment trial
• Dismissing the case: How senators voted
• Deposing witnesses: How senators voted
• Chaplain tries to inspire senators
• Paula Jones OK with mediation in lawyer pay dispute
• Sacagawea model's dark eyes drew artist to her
• Clinton seeks $607 million increase for Head Start

ARCHIVES

Search CNN/AllPolitics by           Enter keyword(s)       go    help