Senator Jeff Sessions (Republican - Alabama) Voting Record -- Impeachment Trial of William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton

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

For Immediate Release---February 12, 1999
Contact: John Cox or Alison Dickson--- 202-224-0041

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions' Statement Following The Conclusion Of The Court Of Impeachment

The Constitution of the United States requires that the U.S. Senate convict and remove the President of the United States if it is proven that he has committed high crimes while in office. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that President William Jefferson Clinton perjured himself before a federal grand jury and has persisted in a continuous pattern of lying and obstructing justice. The chief law enforcement officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend and protect the law, and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen. Under our Constitution, equal justice requires that he forfeit his office. For these reasons, I felt compelled to vote to convict and remove the President from office.

THE FACTS

Facing a lawsuit against him, President Clinton had to make a decision. He could tell the truth or lie and obstruct justice. He took the course of illegality. This case is not about an isolated false statement; it is about the President of the United States using his office, his power, his staff, and his popularity to avoid providing truthful answers and evidence that were relevant to a civil lawsuit. President Clinton's intense obsession with denying the truth spawned a pattern of obstructing justice in a civil lawsuit and a criminal investigation.

President Clinton began his obstruction of justice by denying material truths to the court. He first filed false answers to written questions, under oath, with the court. He then bolstered his lies to the court by procuring from a young woman a supporting false affidavit. When questioned at the deposition about the truthfulness of the young woman's affidavit, President Clinton, without hesitation, told the court that it was "absolutely true." The President then proceeded, confident in his obstruction of the truth, to lie repeatedly under oath in the civil deposition.

The President orchestrated a scheme to deceive the court, the public, and the grand jury. The facts are disturbing and compelling on the President's intent to obstruct justice. The President is responsible for the fact that the subpoenaed gifts were concealed under the bed of his personal secretary. That was a crime. The President secured a job for the young woman to encourage her cooperation in his scheme. That was a crime. The President coached his personal secretary twice to tell lies in the civil proceeding. That was a crime. The President intentionally lied to aides in an effort to have them mislead the public and the grand jury. That was a crime.

The most conclusive proof of obstruction of justice is the most obvious. The President in fact succeeded at defeating the right of Paula Jones' attorneys to obtain lawful discovery. Without the indisputable DNA evidence that was produced when the young woman confessed, the obstruction would have continued. Even when confronted with this evidence at the Grand Jury last August, the President chose to confuse the definition of words that have straightforward meanings, instead of telling the truth.

Contrary to the stunning argument by the President's attorneys, there is just one impeachment standard for presidents and judges. It is found in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution which states:

The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

That sentence alone should end the inquiry. Advocates on both sides of this case agree that federal judges are civil officers of the United States. As civil officers, they "shall be removed" on impeachment and conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors. The President's attorneys in this case have argued that there is a different standard for federal judges.

So let any notion that judges may be impeached under a different standard be put to rest. That conclusion is inconsistent with the Constitution and not supported by history.

In the present impeachment case, we are not dealing with a blank slate. The Senate's actions in earlier cases are our clearest guide on how to proceed in the trial of President Clinton. The Senate has demonstrated three times in the last thirteen years that perjury by judges, who are civil officers of the United States requires removal. It is inconceivable that equally reprehensible conduct by the President in this case should not also lead to his conviction and removal. Such an argument diminishes the dignity of the Presidency, the Congress, and the American people.

PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS

The rule of law and the need for integrity in our justice system is why perjury cases are prosecuted in America. A case comes to mind that was presented to me about seven years ago when I was still the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama. My own city of Mobile had as its chief of police a strong African-American who aggressively worked to reform his office, to establish community-based policing, and to create a new level of discipline. Opposition grew and lawsuits were filed against him. A young police officer, who had been the Chief's driver, testified in a deposition in a federal lawsuit against the Chief. He stated that the Chief of Police had ordered him to "bug" the patrol cars of other police officers and that he had a secret tape recording giving him this illegal order to commit a crime. The deposition was released quickly to the newspapers. The city council, the police department, and the citizens were in an uproar. Under careful questioning by an experienced FBI agent, the young officer admitted that he had lied in the deposition.

As United States Attorney, it was my decision whether to prosecute the officer for perjury. His counsel argued that he was young and that he did lie but had partially corrected his false testimony at a later time. He argued that I should decline to prosecute. After reflection and review, I concluded that a sworn police officer who had told a lie under oath, even a young officer, should be prosecuted in order to preserve the rule of law and the integrity of the system. My office prosecuted that case. The officer was convicted, and that conviction was later affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. For me personally, I have concluded that I cannot hold a young police officer to a different and higher standard than the President of the United States.

CONCLUSION

It is crucial to our system of justice that we demand the truth. I fear that an acquittal of this President will weaken the legal system by providing an option for those who consider being less than truthful in court. Whereas the handling of the case against President Nixon clearly strengthened the nation's respect for law, justice, and truth, the Clinton impeachment may unfortunately have the opposite result.

It is important to pause for a moment to reflect on truth itself. I believe that we live in a created and ordered universe and that truth and falsehoods are real and capable of being ascertained. I reject the doctrine of relativism that suggests that everything is OK. We must always strive to hold the banner of truth high. Indeed, the pursuit of truth wherever it leads has been a hallmark of our civilization and is the single quality that has made us such a vibrant and productive nation. Of course, none of us are perfect, and we often fail in our personal affairs, but when it comes to going to court, and when it comes to our justice system, a great nation must insist on honesty and lawfulness. Our country must insist upon that for every citizen. The chief law enforcement officer of the land, whose oath of office calls on him to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, crossed the line and failed to defend and protect the law, and, in fact, attacked the law and the rights of a fellow citizen. Under our Constitution, equal justice requires that he forfeit his office. For these reasons, I felt compelled to vote to convict and remove the President from office.

Some will not agree with my conclusion, but I have sincerely tried to bring to bear the training and experience that I have had, along with the values with which we were raised in Alabama, to make the best decision in this important matter. I have also tried to conduct myself in a proper manner and have worked to ensure that the Senate completes its sad duty in a Constitutional manner. While the conduct of this proceeding can only be considered a marginal trial, taken as a whole, the procedure used here in light of the previous full investigation and evidence meets the minimum Constitutional standard for a trial.

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