Senator John Chafee (Republican - Rhode Island) Voting Record -- Impeachment Trial of William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton

Statement Taken From U.S. Senate Web Site February 25, 1999

Press Release [DLW-- on Verdict]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 10, 1999

CONTACT: Nicholas Graham (202) 224-2921

CHAFEE ANNOUNCES VOTE TO ACQUIT ON BOTH IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES

Senator Reaches "Difficult" Decision in Trial

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Senator John H. Chafee today announced that he will vote to acquit the President on both impeachment articles in the Senate - the charge of perjury, and the charge of obstruction of justice.

"This has been a difficult process that is rapidly coming to a conclusion. I want to extend my thanks to the people of Rhode Island for their patience during the course of this trial, for their many letters and phone calls, and for sharing their opinions and views with me," Chafee stated today.

"I also want to emphasize that this vote does not end my involvement in seeking a tough, bipartisan reprimand of the President. I will now turn my attention to adopting a censure resolution that appropriately denounces the President for reckless actions while in office," Chafee said.

The following statement is a rough transcript of remarks Chafee gave before the Senate this afternoon. The Senator is expected to address his colleagues soon during the impeachment trial.

"I approached this case with grave reservations about removing a President from office. Such action should be undertaken only following severe transgressions by a President, transgressions which affect our Republic in extremely adverse fashion.

It was clear that the Framers set a high standard for conviction when they agreed it would be for treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist No. 65, defined these as "offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

It is also clear that the punishment would be extremely severe: Removal from office and disqualification to hold or enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. Furthermore, the party convicted shall still be liable and subject to trial and punishment according to law.

This has been a very difficult case to decide. The House Managers have done an excellent job and I am filled with admiration for each of them.

Some have accused the House Republicans of conducting a vendetta against the President. But let us remember - the House Republicans did not create this situation nor did Judge Starr concoct the charges: It was President Clinton who through his own actions and extraordinarily bad judgement caused these proceedings. If he had told the truth right from the beginning of this affair, our country would not have been dragged through these divisive events.

The first decision we must make is: does perjury as charged in Article I, and does Obstruction of Justice as charged in Article II, meet the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as conceived by the Framers?

I believe, if satisfactorily proven, these two crimes meet the standard the Framers were thinking of.

Let us sweep away a series of unrelated subjects that aren't associated with proving the President was guilty of the crimes charged.

This trial is not to determine whether the President is guilty of inappropriate and reckless sexual behavior.

This trial is not about what the polls say about the President's popularity and whether or not he's been a "good" President.

This trial is not about a comparison of the impeachment of Federal Judges. That difference has been well pointed out.

Before we proceed to consideration of the proof of the President's violation of the Articles, we ask ourselves "What standard of proof should we use?" The answer is: We can use whatever standard each of us chooses to use as long as we stay within the parameters of the charging Articles. It is my view that the burden of proof lay upon the prosecution.

We just have to do the best we can in arriving at a conclusion that the accused's actions are, or are not, sufficiently proven and sufficiently grave to merit a finding of guilty; and thus automatic removal from office.

I particularly am interested in addressing Article II, Obstruction of Justice. There occurred a series of allegations that the President engaged in Obstruction of Justice. The principal ones of these were: The false affidavit; encouraging Ms. Lewinsky to give false testimony if called as a witness in the Jones case; the retrieval of the gifts; the job search; permitting his attorney in the Jones case to falsely characterize the Lewinsky affidavit; the coaching of Betty Currie.

The difficulty with each of the charges in Article II is that circumstantial evidence, in each of these cases, is rebutted by direct evidence or by confusion that leaves us saying, this is very murky and makes me question whether it warrants removing the President of the United States from his office.

Let us examine three of these charges which are typical of the others. First, retrieval of the gifts. This is a murky area.

This took place on December 28, when the President knew of the subpoena dealing with gifts yet, without hesitation, gave Ms. Lewinsky more gifts. There followed confusion over who originated the idea for Betty Currie to pick up the gifts. Betty Currie testified before the Grand Jury that as best she remembered Ms. Lewinsky asked her to pick up the box of gifts.

Ms. Lewinsky says it was Betty Currie who called her and said "I understand you have something to give me," or "The President said you have something to give me. Along these lines." Neither testified that the President instructed either of them to conceal the gifts.

We run into similar problems with the job search following the knowledge that Ms. Lewinsky's name was on the Jones case witness list. Clearly the tempo of the job search increased. Yet both Vernon Jordan and Ms. Lewinsky testified that there was no connection between the job search and the filing of the affidavit.

Vernon Jordan said the matters were totally separate. "The job was over here and the affidavit was over here," indicating two different piles.

What about the suggested coaching of Betty Currie on not one but two occasions, including coming into the office, especially on a Sunday.

Betty Currie denies she was being coached. She was asked: "Did you feel any pressure from your boss?" Answer: "None."

What do we say about President Clinton's failure to reject his attorney's characterization of the Lewinsky affidavit as true when President Clinton knew it was false? His defense is he wasn't paying attention, yet the videotape indicated he was attentive.

Thus, on this issue, we find conflicting evidence. But, even assuming the President was untruthful when he said he wasn't paying attention, does this rise to the standard that merits removal from office? I think not.

This, as I said before, has been a deeply troubling case. Overshadowing all has been the President's reckless, tawdry behavior coupled with misleading statements, that have undermined the dignity of the Presidency and brought about a divisive and unpleasant chapter in our history.

Absent the proof that I find necessary to justify the removal of a President, I will vote to acquit on both Articles."

Press Release [DLW -- on Censure]

SENATE MUST PUT REPRIMAND OF PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ON RECORD - SAYS CHAFEE

Lawmaker is One of Senate's Major Proponents of Censure Effort;

Chafee Votes Not to Convict President on Both Articles of Impeachment

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Senator John H. Chafee today urged his colleagues to "not allow the President's actions and misdeeds go without a formal censure by the Senate or its lawmakers".

Chafee joined colleagues Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) as one of the major proponents of a tough, bipartisan censure resolution last week. He has stated that he is in favor of either adopting a formal Senate resolution condemning the President's "reckless behavior", or signing a bipartisan letter that accomplishes the same goal.

Today, after the two votes by the Senate to acquit the President of the impeachment articles (Chafee voted "not guilty" on both), the Rhode Island Republican worked to "shore-up" support for censure on the floor with his colleagues.

"Our goal in the censure effort is two-fold - to firmly reprimand the President for his reckless behavior, and to conclude this trial on a note of bipartisanship and consensus. It would be disappointing if we did not send a formal signal to our constituents and the American people that what the President did was morally reprehensible and demeaning to the office of the Presidency," Chafee stated after the impeachment votes.

On Wednesday, Chafee announced he would vote not to convict the President on both articles.

Regarding his votes for acquittal, Chafee commented: "I am confident that we can now move on to do the legislative business of the nation in a bipartisan manner. I believe we will be able to do so in a way that appropriately brings together the House, the Senate and the Administration to bring about positive results on the issues of Medicare reform, shoring up Social Security, enacting changes for child care, and pursuing HMO reform. And I am especially looking forward to returning to Rhode Island and joining my constituents in a discussion about their desire for Congressional action on these critical issues."

Permission is granted to view this material on the World Wide Web. All other rights reserved.

Information provided on this page is "AS-IS" with no warranty regarding its accuracy. Please report any suspected errors or comments to Liberty@AmeriRoots.com

Last updated: March 02, 1999; Version: 1.3