|
Sitting in judgment of the president
of the United States is not easy for any of us. It is particularly difficult
for me because of the personal and political relationship I have had with
this president over the last 20 years. We traveled together on foreign trade
missions. We shared similar priorities for our states. At my urging, he
joined the fledgling Democratic Leadership
Council -- which would later become an intellectual and organizational
resource for his presidential campaign' .
From our earliest meetings I
recognized in him gifts of head and heart and a truly extraordinary range
of political and communication skills that marked him with a potential for
greatness. It was not as a friend, however, but as a United States senator,
that I took an oath to render impartial justice under the Constitution in
this impeachment trial. And I was fully prepared to convict and remove the
president from office if I concluded that the articles charged met the test
of high crimes and misdemeanors as envisioned by the framers of our
Constitution and the evidence convinced me of his guilt beyond any reasonable
doubt ...' .
I believe the president lied.
When he came before the television cameras and addressed the American people,
wagging his finger and denying that he had sexual relations with a subordinate
employee, he lied. This offensive public conduct, which has caused me the
greatest personal anguish, is an act that will be forever seared into our
nation's memory. His deception was calculated, politically motivated and
directed at each and every one of us. Though clearly reprehensible, this
lie did not violate any law, and was not the subject of any article of impeachment'
.
So while I am convinced that
the president lied to us, I am not convinced beyond a resonable doubt that
he lied to the grand jury, which is the sole basis for the first of the
two impeachment articles. Despite the apparent strength of the evidence,
the House of Representatives defeated an article alleging perjury in the
president's civil deposition. They voted to impeach the president for perjury
based solely upon his testimony before the grand jury' (Senator
Charles S. Robb quoted in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, February 13, 1999).
... in my judgment, the president's
grand jury testimony ultimately boiled down to a few irreconcilable discrepancies,
and while often slippery, hairsplitting, legalistic and, in the words of
the president's counsel, maddening, was not perjurious beyond a reasonable
doubt. On Article I, therefore, I will vote not guilty' ).
Article II (i.e. Article III
of the four counts originally proposed by the House Judiciary Committee)
alleges obstruction of justice, a crime difficult to prove because it requires
a determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, about what a person intended
by his words or deeds. In this case, it is extremely difficult to determine
whether the president's intentions were to obstruct justice in a civil or
criminal proceeding, or whether his intention was to mislead his family
and the nation about an embarrassing personal relationship' .
Drafted in the disjunctive and
containing seven subparts, each alleging a separate act of obstruction of
justice, the bundling of these allegations [in Article III] would allow
removal of the president if only 10 senators agreed on each of the seven
separate subparts ... Thus, I will vote not to convict on both articles
because the factual, legal and constitutional standard for removal was not
met'.
We sit in judgment today, not
because we are free from human failings - I certainly have my share - but
because our forefathers bestowed upon the Senate the responsibility of protecting
the Republic by judging the president when articles of impeachment are exhibited
by the House of Representatives. In doing so, they carefully and deliberately
limited the scope of our judgment. We are to judge the president in his
capacity as president, and we are called to decide only one issue: whether
he should be removed from office. The Senate does not have the duty - nor
the capacity - to rule on the broader character of the president'
(Senator Charles S. Robb, February 25,
1999).
|
