Senator Mike Enzi (Republican - Wyoming) Voting Record -- Impeachment Trial of William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton

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

THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF THE PRESIDENT,

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

FINAL STATEMENT OF SENATOR MICHAEL B. ENZI

February 11, 1999

Mr. Chief Justice and Colleagues of the Senate,

This has been a month long ethics and Constitution class - with mandatory attendance. That should have value for each of us.

I'm getting more mail each day than I normally get in a month - and most of it is from your constituents. That's right. Out of every 1,000 letters I get, only 30 are from Wyoming. I have some idea of what your constituents are saying. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not going to present any legal arguments. Most of my constituents aren't lawyers. I notice that most of your constituents aren't either.

I've only served on one jury before and we didn't even get to render a verdict. A boy was being tried for poaching deer out of season - shot with a twenty-two. He was caught red-handed in the barn with the twenty-two and two of the six deer hanging to be butchered. The boy's argument began with a claim he hadn't been properly read his rights. His dad, supporting from the audience, stopped the trial by asking the judge if he could speak with his son. They went into the hall a couple minutes. A boy freshly chastised said, "I want to plead guilty. In our family we don't believe in getting off on technicalities." A successful trial. I watched a boy become a man.

The President was so thorough in denying any relationship with Monica Lewinsky, that Janet Reno believed him. Janet Reno is the person who expanded the investigation into the Monica Lewinsky matter. The President told all of us he had done nothing wrong. His own Attorney General believed him. Janet Reno was helping to clear the air on these ludicrous charges when SHE gave Ken Starr the approval, direction and budget.

When our country was founded oaths meant everything. A man's word was his bond. Their oath was honor and duels were fought to defend honor. When this trial started you and I had to take an oath. It struck me that I might be taking an oath to determine if oaths still mean anything.

The White House argues that the President's actions will not have an effect on anyone. I am hearing from judges who say people before their court are asking for the same treatment given the President. They do not feel their situation is as blatant as the President and they are more repentant and remorseful. Some have even taken action to correct their wrong. All feel they should get a suspended sentence.

I was disappointed with the White House failure to explain all of the charges. Their rebuttal was focused on those charges for which they felt they could answer or, more accurately, use to create the most confusion. Skipping the tough issues is not an answer. This is not an issue of spin or even polls.

Impeachment is the most serious indictment a President or judge can get. The President was impeached by the House of Representatives. His reaction was to celebrate in the Rose Garden of the White House - spin again - more spin than a kid's top. Truth was needed. Dizzy deception is what we've gotten.

The President's Counsel admit he lied, was evasive, misleading. The words and adjectives used by the White House Counsel during the trial should be enough to condemn the President. But they still expect us to trust the President with the country? Do you think he will only lie about sex? This man sends our children into war. He has to be held to the highest standard. I would feel more comfortable if even one person would have said, "He didn't do this." Only the President said that, and we all know he wasn't truthful.

Last year an Air Force pilot, an officer, was forced to resign. She was having a consensual sexual affair. It was adultery. She didn't lie about it. She was forced to resign - removed from office - because we couldn't trust her with deadly weapons. The President pushes the button on the whole world - not just on one plane. Oh, that's right, this isn't about personal sex. No one would ever be removed from office for that.

But the President is doing a great job. Job performance cannot be the defense for perjury or obstruction of justice or sexual harassment or any other crime. If a bank president embezzled even a little money from his bank would we leave him alone? Would we say, "That's okay because the bank was doing well?

We had a hypothetical situation posed to us - an employee who controlled the whole computer system and he did what the President did. If there is any parallel, you'd fire him! You'd fire him because you have been cross-training a vice president of computer systems. I've listened to the arguments about world peace and I've got to say, that's a terrible indictment of the capabilities of the Vice President.

When the video evidence was countered, White House Counsel had one presentation on Ms. Lewinsky's testimony. A second presentation was made on Vernon Jordan's testimony. Why didn't White House Counsel counter Sidney Blumenthal's testimony AT ALL? Charges made, charges unanswered. If you have enough votes, I guess you only need to look credible.

Presidents have power. Power draws loyalty. Are we a country with one set of standards for the rich, famous, or powerful? Is that the way we want our country to be? This isn't even a popularity contest. Popularity cannot be a defense in an impeachment trial.

House manager Rogan said he would risk his political future for the Constitution. He said, "Dreams come and dreams go, but conscience is forever." We are supposed to be the collective conscience of our nation. Are we trying instead to salve our conscience?

We talk of censure. Isn't that just another way to salve our conscience. When this trial is over we better come together as a nation - undivided and behind whoever is the President - not debating again to what degree he is bad.

Some have been wrestling with whether the offenses "rise to the level of impeachment." The Founders may have been a lot tougher than we are. We've talked about a guilty vote by a two thirds majority removing from office. The Founders provided for a second vote - a vote that takes away more rights and honor - the right to hold public office ever again. Should we suggest the offenses, especially in the cumulative, rise to the level of impeachment and then wrestle with the question and vote on "FOREVER"? Judges are appointed for life. Presidents have the title for life.

I heard a suggestion that we can't remove the President for sexual harassment because we are not his boss or because he has such a critical position. The Founders recognized both those circumstances. We are not the President's boss - but we have been given that responsibility through impeachment. He holds a critical position, that's why the Founders established the succession. And remember, that was when impeachment could put another party into the presidency. And that was when the Senate was appointed, not elected.

The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire was a book we were introduced to in high school. Rome went through this phase too. Free lunches for the masses, an emphasis on entertainment, and no accountability for the powerful. We have seen the rise of America. Will we be listed in history as the start of the fall? Our society is eroding. Our values are disappearing. If you watch the news, many nights the main lead even during this trial is about the multiple murders right around us.

We've been talking about "an impeachable standard." We've talked about the "Reagan Test" I'm going to suggest two more tests. The "Mom Test" and the "Spouse Test." When you were growing up, did your mom need proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" before punishment? Did she ever say, "Don't put yourself in a position where it even looks like you did something wrong." Circumstantial evidence was enough. Did your mom ever say, "Watch out who you hang out with. It reflects on you." Did your mom say, "Watch your actions - they reflect on you and your family"? Did your mom ever say, "Act so I won't be embarrassed tomorrow reading the front page of the paper about what you did today." The President has complained that others are out to get him. That he is the most investigated President in history. Perhaps he ought to apply the "Mom Test."

What about the "Spouse Test"? My wife has applied that test. She said, "If this were a Republican President, I would have already chained myself to the White House fence until he resigned." She is absolutely stymied that women's groups haven't done that. For years she and I fought the accusations that women's groups were only about allowing abortion - but their silence on the President has changed my mind. I will not defend them as they have NOT defended any woman defamed by the actions and the words of the President. And a final "Spouse Test" - when you are playing games with sex definitions ask, "What would my spouse think I was doing?"

While we may have a country doing well economically we are headed toward moral bankruptcy if the trend is not reversed. We are becoming "De-Moralized"

With this case we are all in a "no-win" situation. We have heard the media and the Democrats note that the Republicans are committing political suicide. But just as many mention the Democrats are filing moral bankruptcy. History will be the judge of us all. Our constituents just expect us to do "What is right"! They will expect us to do what is right based even on what comes out in the future. Yes, what is right based on the books and future disclosures of the participants. They will judge us even based on the future actions of this President. Our words will be forgotten, our verdict won't.

This isn't about politics. It's about our country. It's not about Bill Clinton. Its about the future of the Presidency. The process is on trial. The Senate is on trial. No, truthfully, Truth is on trial!

As we enter into our final deliberations on whether or not to convict President Clinton on the two articles of Impeachment presented to us by the House of Representatives, I think it is imperative that we remember the oath each of us took at the outset of this historic process. Each one of us took an oath before God to do "impartial justice according to the Constitution and the laws." That oath should guide our thoughts and actions for it reminds us of the gravity of this process and the weighty responsibility we assumed by our own free will. We must finally remember that we answer not only to future generations who will judge whether we did right by the Constitution we swore to uphold, but also to that eternal witness of our most solemn oath.

I will be the first to admit that striving to be impartial has been very difficult. To be a good juror is a heavy burden. That duty is heightened when one is also called to wear a judge's robe when sitting as a silent juror weighing the evidence, probing the credibility and motives of the various witnesses, and ascertaining the appropriate law which applies to the facts before you. There are few duties we will face in our life as grave as this one: to decide the political fate of the President of the United States.

Before the trial started I read everything I could find that dealt with impeachment history. As the trial progressed, I read volumes of published evidence including the prior testimony of the witnesses in this proceeding. I have attended all of the proceedings in the Senate from start to finish. I have carefully watched all of the videotaped depositions. I have read all of the transcripts of these depositions. I watched many parts of the depositions several times to be sure I understood exactly what each witness was saying and how that testimony fit with that witnesses' prior testimony and with the testimony of other witnesses who testified under oath. These depositions were very helpful in focusing the key points of this trial and deciding who was testifying truthfully and who was lying in instances where the testimony is in conflict. In short, I believe I have taken into account nearly all of the pertinent information in this case in coming to my final decision.

This case challenges us to consider whether, in light of all the evidence, President Clinton's actions indicate that he has, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, "abused or violated some public trust." In making this determination, we must first decide whether allegations presented by the House Managers do in fact constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" as contemplated in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. I have come to the conclusion that they do.

I believe that perjury and obstruction of justice demonstrate intentional, pre-meditated violations of an indispensable public trust. In taking the oath of office, President Clinton twice raised his right hand and placed his hand on the Bible swearing to uphold and defend the Constitution and to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. By this oath, he took upon himself the duty to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Actions which undermine this high duty, whether they involved committing perjury in a judicial proceeding or obstructing justice, strike at the very heart of the rule of law.

There is no contradiction that perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes for the average citizen in the United States. Both of these offenses presented by the House managers are felonies under the federal criminal code, and both carry equivalent or even higher minimum sentences than bribery under the federal sentencing guidelines. Nor is the seriousness of these crimes simply a matter of abstract speculation. We heard video testimony of a real, live citizen who has paid a very heavy price indeed for the crime of perjury. In July of 1995, Dr. Barbara Battalino, a physician who worked for the Veterans Administration, lied under oath about an encounter she had had with one of her patients. As a result of this perjury, Dr. Battalino was fired from the Veterans Administration, she lost her license to practice medicine, she was prohibited from ever practicing law (she also had a law degree), and she was required to wear an electronic ankle bracelet for 3 years. Those who argue that perjury about sexual matters is not serious owe Dr. Battalino a heartfelt apology. Dr. Battalino lied one time about one consensual act of oral sex.

Moreover, both perjury and obstruction of justice were counted among the list of "public wrongs" as opposed to private wrongs under Common Law at the time of the American founding. These are the very kind of crimes the Founders contemplated when they included the impeachment and removal mechanism in the Constitution. These crimes were not considered to be private offenses by the Common Law, nor by the Founding Fathers. The pre-eminent commentator on the English Common Law at the time of the American founding, William Blackstone, described perjury, or false swearing in a judicial proceeding, as an "offense against public justice." As with perjury, obstruction of justice was considered a "high misprision" or "high misdemeanor" at the time of the drafting of our own Constitution.

It should be remembered that this Senate has convicted and removed federal judges for perjury. In the 1980s alone, this body removed three federal judges for lying under oath. Many in this chamber had occasion to vote in those cases and voted to remove these judges because they saw that the act of perjury, even if it involved lying about one's taxes, was incompatible with a judge's duty to uphold the constitution and laws of the United States.

When confronted with these very recent precedents, the White House lawyers have argued that this Senate should apply a lesser standard to the President than to federal judges. They argue that federal judges should be held to a higher standard because they are given life tenure under Article III of the Constitution. I must admit, that this is an argument that I cannot square either with the plain language of the Constitution or with common sense. Do we really want to hold our President to a lower standard than the federal judges he appoints? It is our President, after all, who appoints all the United States attorneys and the federal marshals, who names all the cabinet officials, who has the authority to send American troops into battle, and who can sign treaties with foreign nations. A corrupt federal district court judge can work injustice on the litigants who enter his courtroom. A corrupt President, by contrast, has the power to wreak havoc on the entire political order.

The President's oath forbids him to selectively decide whether to follow the laws of the land based on a calculation of political expediency or determination of personal gain or loss. He is bound to follow the Constitution and the laws of our country in and out of season. By intentionally violating this duty, the president's actions display the tendencies of an unbridled monarch rather than a constitutional executive who must bow before the law he swore to faithfully execute.

On the specific article of perjury, there is abundant evidence that President Clinton violated his oath to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" on several occasions. As the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the President was bound to "tell the whole truth" and act in a manner becoming of the dignity of his office. President Clinton did not do this. When asked before the federal grand jury on August 17, 1998 whether he understood that he had an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in his prior deposition of January 17, 1999 in a federal civil rights suit, the President testified that "His goal was to be truthful, but not particularly helpful." He later admitted that his testimony had been "misleading." For any plain speaking American, to be misleading is the same as lying. In short, the President violated his oath to "tell the whole truth" when he misled the court.

The facts indicate that President was not attempting to be truthful and was not truthful in his deposition in the Jones federal civil rights case. Moreover, he lied about the nature of his relationship with a subordinate employee before the federal grand jury. The President also allowed his attorney, Robert Bennett, to file a false affidavit on his behalf denying his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. The President continued this pattern of deception by lying to his top aides with the knowledge that they were likely to be called as witnesses before the federal grand jury. He then attempted to cover up these lies by claiming he had possibly "misled" his aides, but he did not lie to them since he knew they were likely to called as witnesses before the federal grand jury. These were lies. They were lies under oath. They were lies that adversely impacted the rights of a United States citizen to obtain relief in a civil rights case in federal court. They were lies under oath in a federal grand jury after he had been begged by his aides, his friends, and some in this chamber to finally tell the truth. They were lies of a public character and they were unbefitting the chief law enforcement officer of our country.

What is perhaps most disturbing about these lies, is that the President's actions indicate he had no intention of ever telling the truth of his relationship. He had already lied under oath in a federal civil rights action, he lied to his top aides and cabinet officers, he lied to his friends and political allies, and he lied with perfect calculation to the American public, including me. I remain convinced that the only reason the President admitted his relationship at all was the discovery of the now famous "blue dress." Only when it became clear that he could no longer continue his pattern of judicial and public deception did the President admit that he had in fact had an "improper relationship" with Monica Lewinsky. Unfortunately, the President's deception did not end with the revelation of the DNA. Rather, it graduated to legal hairsplitting, attempts to torture plain English language, and statements which degraded the judicial process and insulted the intelligence of the American public. The President has not carried out the public trust the American public entrusted to him when he was twice elected President.

When the President's actions became public, the President even turned his sword of deception against his partner in perjury. Once the Washington Post broke the story on the President's extra-marital affair and his possible perjury and obstruction of justice, the President called in his top aides to deny the story and destroy the character of Monica Lewinsky. We have seen and heard the video testimony of one of President Clinton's top aides, Sidney Blumenthal. Immediately after the story broke, President Clinton called Sidney Blumenthal into the Oval Office and denied the entire story. He went on to say that Monica Lewinsky was a troubled young woman who was called a "stalker" by her peers. He said that she came on to him and made a sexual demand of him, but he rebuffed her. The President went so far as to claim that Ms. Lewinsky had threatened to tell people that she had had an affair with him, even though it was not true. In the words of Mr. Blumenthal, the President "lied to him." As expected, Mr. Sidney Blumenthal repeated these lies before the federal grand jury. There is also growing evidence that Mr. Blumenthal, or other key White House aides, circulated these lies to the popular media. Such conduct further establishes that the President was wiling to go to all lengths to prevent anyone from discovering the truth about his illegal conduct in a federal civil rights case.

The President's lawyers argued that the President could not have intended to corruptly influence the grand jury proceeding since the lies the President told his top aides were no different than the lie the President told the American people when he adamantly denied having "sexual affairs, with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." If this is the best defense the White House lawyers can wage for their client, it speaks volumes about the President's character. Unfortunately, it is also false. The President never told the American people that Monica Lewinsky was a stalker, or that she wore her skirts too tight, or that she came on to him and made sexual demands on him. This is exactly what the President told his aide, Sidney Blumenthal. The President never enumerated the sexual acts he "did not commit" with Monica Lewinsky. He did deny with great specificity, these acts when questioned by his assistant chief of staff, John Podesta. The President did lie to the American public. However, he also told other lies to his top aides, knowing that they were likely to be called as witnesses before the criminal grand jury.

There is also substantial evidence that the President attempted to obstruct justice in both the civil rights case brought against him and the federal criminal investigation conducted by Judge Starr. It should be noted that Judge Kenneth Starr's investigation was not the creature of President' Clinton's political enemies, as some have asserted. President Clinton's own Attorney General, Janet Reno, directed Judge Starr to expand his investigation to include the allegations in this case. If Janet Reno is a member of the vast right wing conspiracy, then that operation is very vast indeed.

We now know that the Monica Lewinsky filed a false affidavit in the Jones civil action. We also know that the President called Ms. Lewinsky at home at 2:30 in the morning to inform her that she had been named on the witness list in the Jones Civil Rights case. We also know that in this conversation, the President also suggested Ms. Lewinsky could file an affidavit to avoid testifying. Finally, we know that the President reminded Ms. Lewinsky of their agreed upon "cover stories" to conceal their relationship. While the President's lawyers have made much over Ms. Lewinsky's statement that "the President never asked me to lie," they are unable to put a positive spin on the cover stories and the President's attempts to encourage Monica Lewinsky to file an affidavit in the first place.

It stretches the bounds of credulity beyond recognition to believe that the President intended Ms. Lewinsky to tell the truth when: 1) he himself lied under oath about their relationship, 2) he reminded Ms. Lewinsky of their cover stories in the same conversation in which he suggested that she file an affidavit, and 3) he relied on Ms. Lewinsky's false affidavit in his own testimony denying their relationship. Finally, when Ms. Lewinsky asked President Clinton if he wanted to see her signed affidavit, he said he didn't need to see it because he had "seen fifteen others like it." This response remains one of the more puzzling in this case and leaves open the possibility that the President tampered with other witnesses in the Jones Civil Rights case.

We also now know that the President's personal secretary, Betty Currie, hid presents under her bed that had been subpoenaed in the Jones case. These are the gifts the President had given to Monica Lewinsky during their relationship. Ms. Lewinsky has testified that Bettie Currie definitely called her about the gifts, and the only way Ms. Currie could have known about the gifts is if the President instructed her to pick them up. While the President's lawyers deny this explanation, the only phone record we know about is a phone call made from Betty Currie to Ms. Lewinsky on the day she picked up the gifts. The President's lawyers have failed to produce any concrete evidence to contradict this explanation. Concealing gifts that are under subpoena in a legal proceeding is illegal and it obstructs the administration of justice.

Morevoer, the conclusion that it was in fact President Clinton who directed Betty Currie to conceal the presents is bolstered by the fact that the President corruptly attempted to influence Ms. Currie's testimony in a federal civil rights suit. President Clinton made several false statements to Betty Currie on Sunday, January 18, 1997, the day after he testified in the Jones lawsuit. Ms. Currie, who explained that it was very unusual for the President to ask her to come in to work on a Sunday, testified that President Clinton made a series of false statements to her as if asking for her consent. Specifically, the President stated to Ms. Currie: 1) "You were always there when she [Monica Lewinsky] was there, right? We were never really alone." 2) "You could see and hear everything." 3) Monica came on to me, and I never touched her, right?" 4) She wanted to have sex with me and I couldn't do that." All of these statements were false, and all of them occurred the day after Judge Wright had expressly forbidden any of the parties deposed or their attorneys from discussing the deposition with anyone.

The President's lawyers have argued that the President made these statements to refresh his recollection or to find out what Ms. Currie knew in the event of a press avalanche. Neither of these explanations is plausible. It is impossible to refresh one's recollection with false, leading questions. It is also impossible to find out what someone else knew if you tell them what they are supposed to believe. The plausibility of either of these explanations is entirely discounted when you consider that the President called Betty Currie in a second time, on January 20^th to "remind" her of these statements. The most likely explanation for these statements is far more sinister. The President was intending to influence the testimony of a likely witness in a federal civil rights proceeding. President Clinton was, in fact, trying to get Betty Currie to join him in his web of deception and obstruction of justice.

The inescapable conclusion I have come to is that the President of the United States set upon a deliberate, premeditated plan to deceive the court in two separate legal proceedings and to encourage others to deceive the court as well. The President first defended himself by claiming to be the unfortunate victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. Only after the physical evidence uncovered the truth about his affair did the President claim he was only trying to protect his family from these embarrassing revelations. Neither of these excuses justifies the President's actions. A defendant in a legal proceeding does not have the right to perjure himself because he questions the motives of the plaintiff. There are proper legal procedures and remedies available to any defendant who believes he has been the victim of a lawsuit predicated on frivolous legal theories or springing from personal malice. It is, however, never legitimate to respond to even a frivolous lawsuit by lying under oath.

There has been a great debate on how the President's actions will impact our nation, especially if those actions go unpunished. Last year I read of a town in Midwestern America that had experienced a number of killings in the first two months of the year. A consultant was hired to find the cause of these brutal acts. I believe the findings in his report should cause all of us to take pause. He explained that first a window is broken and nobody fixes it. That leads to a lawn that isn't mowed. Through a series of similar instances, the kids think nobody cares about them. If we let the President off for intentionally violating the rule of law, what do we tell our children when they are caught breaking the law? That we have one law for the rulers and another for the ruled? Do we tell them they have to follow the law until they become powerful enough, or clever enough, or rich enough to violate the law with impunity? What do we tell the federal judges who have lost their robes and gavels for committing perjury? What do we tell military officers who have lost their livelihood for violating their oaths and rules of their office? What do we tell average citizens who have lost their jobs, their freedom, and their fortunes for violating their oaths to tell the truth in a court of law? If the legacy we leave to our children is one of cynical duplicity, I fear that even an ever-increasing Dow Jones' average will be incapable of salvaging our next generation, or even, I fear, our civilization.

I must conclude that while the power of Impeachment and removal is a strong measure and one that should never be taken gently, it is an indispensable remedy in our government for those public officers who have so violated their public trust as to be unworthy to continue holding offices of public trust. The great Supreme Court Justice and Constitutional scholar Joseph Story perhaps best summarized the impeachment mechanism as one which "holds out a deep and immediate responsibility, as a check upon arbitrary power; and compels the chief magistrate, as well as the humblest citizen, to bend to the majesty of the laws." Those who would disregard this rule of law for their own personal or political ends must not be allowed to remain in offices of public trust. For this reason, I will vote to convict President Clinton on both articles of Impeachment.

I thank the chair and yield the floor.

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