Senator Daniel Inouye (Democrat - Hawaii) Voting Record -- Impeachment Trial of William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton

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

STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE ON THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

Wednesday, Janaury 27, 1999

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, January 27, 1999, the members of the United States Senate cast historic votes. I voted to dismiss the proceedings to bring it to an end and also voted against the necessity of deposing and possibly hearing live witnesses questioned in the well of the United States Senate.

I voted to dismiss the case and voted against receiving live testimony from witnesses because I am satisfied that we have received all the necessary testimony and evidence we would need to reach a rational judgment: 60,000 pages of testimony before the grand jury, in FBI interrogations and interrogations by the Independent Counsel, and hours of videotape. One of my colleagues described it as, "a mountain of documents." Some of the witnesses, such as Monica Lewinsky, have been questioned many times. In fact, Ms. Lewinsky has been questioned 23 times.

I did not cast my votes to protect the White House or defend President William Jefferson Clinton. I cast my votes the way I did because I was fearful that the Constitution of the United States was under attack and that partisanship might be exacerbated. As a member of the Senate, I was personally concerned that the dignity of the body was beginning to erode.

My studies of the debates that were conducted by the framers of our Constitution more than 200 years ago and my reading of the documents covering the application of impeachment laws in our mother country, England, convinced me that high public officials were convicted because of serious crimes against the state and not for personal peccadilloes or for minor crimes. For example, when the matter of President Nixon was being considered by the House Judiciary Committee and the time came to vote on the Articles of Impeachment, that Committee, then controlled by Democrats, voted to reject one of the Articles recommended by the staff. That Article charged President Nixon with falsely filing tax returns for four years while he was President of the United States. In filing those returns, he took an oath that the information presented was honest and correct. There was no question he violated the oath, but the members rejected the Article because they felt the crime did not reach the constitutional level of an impeachable crime.

I shall vote to acquit President William Jefferson Clinton. As indicated, this decision was reached after much diligent study and consideration of voluminous evidence, statements and testimony presented by the Managers appointed by the House of Representatives.

This decision was not reached because I wanted to protect President Clinton or in anyway condone or justify his personal conduct. Many harsh words have been used to describe this conduct and, in a sense, they all apply. Suffice to say, it was a sad day for the people of this country to learn that our President did, in fact, involve himself in an unacceptable intimate relationship with a young lady.

Therefore, one might ask, if I am condemning the President for his conduct, why am I not voting to convict him for lying about it. After all, the Senate, and this Senator from Hawaii, voted to convict three federal district judges charged with lying under oath. The President is similarly charged with lying under oath. However, the similarity ends there.

Yes, I am convinced that President Clinton lied about his intimate sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. However abhorrent or unacceptable such conduct may have been, the underlying actions the President attempted to conceal are not felonious criminal acts.

First, it is clear that the relationship between President Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky was consensual. Monica Lewinsky is an adult in the eyes of the law and there is no statement or evidence that suggests she was coerced or threatened into this relationship. Second, the laws of our land do not make criminal late night telephone calls, even if intimate and sexual in nature. Third, the laws of our land do not prohibit two consenting parties from exchanging gifts.

The facts before us indicate that President Clinton either lied or was less than candid on the matters of consensual sex, telephone calls and the exchange of gifts. In the case of the three judges who were recently convicted by this body, each was found to have lied in an attempt to avoid admitting criminal activity.

Furthermore, since the founding of this great Republic, we have had only three impeachment cases involving perjury or lying. In each case, the individual was charged with lying about an activity which itself was a violation of law. District Court Judge Harry Claiborne was convicted of tax evasion and signed his falsified income tax report "under penalty of perjury." District Court Judge Alcee Hastings was impeached and convicted of perjury for lying in a criminal trial about his involvement in a conspiracy to accept a bribe in exchange for imposing a lenient sentence on a defendant in a trial before him. District Court Judge Walter Nixon was convicted of making false statements before a grand jury about whether he had discussed a state court case with a local district attorney in an attempt to alter the outcome of the state court case.

Although one might argue that lying under oath is lying under oath, regardless of the matter being lied about, I maintain that it is a matter for consideration. It may sound absurd, but what if President Clinton lied under oath about being charged and found guilty 20 years ago of exceeding the speed limit by ten miles per hour in some city in Arkansas and that because of his conviction he was required to pay a fine? If we apply the standard of lying under oath is lying under oath, we would be required to find the President guilty today.

Our founding fathers made certain that an impeachment trial in the Senate is a political trial, not a judicial trial. Senators sit as members of a "supreme court," a court of final jurisdiction. There is no appeal from an impeachment conviction. We are not simple jurors, as Chief Justice Rehnquist indicated. We are triers of fact; we are the court. The decision we make is an awesome one because we are called to invalidate one of the most important aspects of our democracy, the free election of our president. The Senate can not imprison or fine the President if he is found guilty. Rather, the Senate can nullify that free vote which placed him in office.

I do not believe the President's actions rise to the level contemplated by our founding fathers for removal from office. I believe that for a popular election to be overturned, a high crime or misdemeanor must be committed against the United States. The actions of the President must threaten our nation and our government to warrant removal from office.

I noted that one of the House Managers compared the impeachments of President Nixon and President Clinton arguing that both were accused of obstructing justice. However, the goal of the Watergate robbery was to gain information in an attempt to undermine the campaign of the President's opponent. Rigging a Presidential election is certainly a threat to our system of government which depends on honest elections to select our representatives. In addition, the President was found to have had full knowledge of the break-in and robbery and made serious attempts to "cover-up" his involvement. These are felonies for which people served time in prison. The impeachments of Presidents Nixon and Clinton can not be compared.

In addition, several of the House Managers and my colleagues have equated President Clinton's activity with the actions of officers and enlisted personnel in the United States armed forces. It has been suggested that it would be unfair and unjust for the President not to suffer any consequences for his actions while a person in the military would be punished for similar activities.

We should remind ourselves that a man or woman takes an oath before putting on a United States military uniform. The man or woman must swear to, "obey...the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." This is not the oath we take, civil servants take, or the President takes. A person serving in our armed forces is bound by a code of discipline and their own code of conduct, the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Adultery may not be a crime when committed by civilians, but it becomes a crime once a man or woman puts on a United States military uniform. Our military personnel know this. To compare the President to a person who has taken this oath is disingenuous.

If the prosecutors are so intent on punishing President Clinton, they are invested with this authority by law and can bring charges and an indictment after he leaves office. If tried and convicted in a criminal court, President Clinton, like any other American citizen, can be imprisoned, fined or receive a suspended sentence. The President is not "getting away with a slap on the wrist" if there is a vote to acquit him in this impeachment trial. He is still subject to all the laws applicable to citizens of the United States.

In reality, the President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, has been punished. From this day forward, whenever his name is mentioned in articles, in documentary reports, in history books, and other media his name will be followed by an asterisk to indicate that William Jefferson Clinton was the first elected President of the United States to be impeached. Regardless of the action taken by the Senate, conviction or acquittal, nothing will erase the fact that the U.S. House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, impeached him. His family--his wife and daughter--has been punished. The people of this nation have been punished. As the illustrious former senator from Arkansas, Senator Dale Bumpers said, "[t]he American people are now and for some time have been asking to be allowed a good night's sleep. They are asking for an end to this nightmare."

We hope that by our decision, this nightmare may end so that we may proceed with the business of the people. Our agenda is full. Let us get on with our business.

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