By Allison Wharton, Byrd Center Student Intern On February 12, 1999, the United States Senate voted to acquit President Bill Clinton of his impeachment charges, finding him not guilty of obstruction of justice or perjury.[1] Clinton’s acquittal was the end result Senator Robert C. Byrd along with many other Senators had hoped for, believing it to be the best decision for the country by the end of the trial.
Initial investigation of President Clinton began in January, 1994, when lawyer Robert B. Fiske Jr. was appointed to independent counsel by attorney general Janet Reno. Fiske was tasked with examining criminal financial allegations of the Whitewater scandal first brought up in 1992 during Clinton’s campaign and election over real estate purchased by the president.[2] Only days before the investigation was opened, however, Clinton was already facing the beginning of separate criminal allegations after Paula Jones, his former employee while serving as Senator of Arkansas, came forward to file a civil suit against the sitting president for sexual harassment. [3] By the end of 1994, a United States Court of Appeals elected to remove Fiske from his position, replacing him with former federal judge Kenneth Starr, who had worked under the Reagan and Bush Administrations.[4] Senator Robert C. Byrd, as a major figure in the Democratic Party, expressed significant concerns with the route of the investigation and its impact on Congress. Though expressing that the Whitewater controversy was being handled correctly by going through Congress for approvals, on December 20, 1995, Byrd expressed concerns over partisan dispute before a Senate vote on enforcing the subpoena of documents connected to Whitewater.[5] Byrd pointed out the major and increasing divide in party opinions. As harsh criticisms of the president and other politicians plagued Congress, Byrd emphasized the need for “civility” in the Senate, stating, “Political partisanship is expected in a legislative body, we all engage in it. But bitter personal attacks go beyond the pale of respectable propriety.” Nonetheless, Kenneth Starr’s vigorous investigation of the president continued. In November of 1996, President Clinton was reelected to office despite the accusations of his first term, defeating Senator Bob Dole (R-KY) after receiving 49 percent of the country’s vote.[6] Throughout 1997, as party lines remained divided, Starr drafted impeachment referrals based on subpoenaed documents from 1995-96, yet did not find substantial evidence to make a case against Clinton.[7] By the end of 1997 though, Starr finally received the information he had been looking for nestled within accusations against Clinton in the Paula Jones case after Jones’ lawyers received a private tip from White House staffer Linda Tripp. Ms. Tripp stated that while working, she had become friends with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, who had, according to Tripp, bragged to her frequently about having an affair with Clinton.[8] Lewinsky’s story, if confirmed, could show patterns of sexual behavior toward women employees by Clinton. At the beginning of 1999, Tripp discovered that Lewinsky had signed an affidavit claiming that she had not had an intimate relationship with Clinton. In response, Tripp handed over hours of her conversations with Lewinsky that she had recorded that could be beneficial to Starr’s investigation of the president. [9] With news of Clinton’s affair reaching the public as media outlets began receiving information on the scandal and party hostility picking up again as Starr moved forward, President Clinton addressed addressed the nations growing concerns, claiming infamously on January 26, “did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” As talk of impeachment arose with Clinton confessing his affair to the nation in August of 1999, the media and fellow congressmen alike turned to Senator Robert C. Byrd for answers about the constitutional processes of impeachment.[10] Byrd was said to be “a believer in holy documents,” citing both the bible and U.S. constitution as they “the sacred tools for defending his Senate against the savages,” and was respected by both parties for his commitment to the constitution and tradition.[11] However, it was Starr’s document of his findings during his investigation that was at the forefront of their focus after its release on September 9, 1999. On the morning of September 11, 1999, President Clinton spoke of his morality at a prayer breakfast, citing his hopes to repent and calling himself a “broken spirit.”[12] However, despite Clinton’s sentimental speech, Americans were captivated instead by the release of The Starr Report to the public on the internet the same day. With the entire nation now having access to such explicit material and a further spark of media frenzy, members of Congress began to question the appropriateness of the report, despite Starr’s finding of 11 potential impeachable offenses. Some congressmen deemed it to be too “offensive and graphic,” with The Washington Post quoting Philadelphian lawyer Lawrence Fox who analogized the situation by explaining that “you don’t have to show the severed head of a victim to show that a victim died.”[13] Senator Byrd, however, had already spoken to the Senate in a speech entitled “No Rush to Judgment,” expressing his concerns and noting the blunders of the president before the release of “The Starr Report.” Byrd compared the Clinton Scandal to Watergate, stating that while during Nixon’s case he believed that “hard evidence” mattered most, public opinion would have a much bigger role in Clinton’s impeachment, should it move forward. As the so-called “guardian” of the senate, expert on the constitution, and a Senator well-respected by both parties, Byrd reviewed his personal reading of the complexities of impeachment and the seemingly “sparse” nature of the phrase “crimes and misdemeanors.” Above all, he urged the Senate should remain calm and refrain from making any rash judgments, as the Senate’s role in impeachment would begin only after going through the House. Despite such a divide in party lines, the House Judiciary elected to finally begin their formal inquiry in October, 1998.[14] Of the eleven counts of impeachable offenses suggested by Kenneth Starr in his report on Clinton, House Judiciary members found two counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power as valid charges against the president.[15] The Judiciary Committee wrote and prepared a series of questions for the president based on the findings of independent council Starr, but the time of the House’s questioning of Clinton and drafting of impeachment articles, the president had already been dealing with one less issue after the case of Paula Jones sexual harassment case was dismissed. While dismissed due to lack of evidence, in November, as the House moved forward, Clinton paid Jones 850,000 dollars without giving any further public commentary.[16] Across the country, aggressive public debate over Clinton’s morality and leadership continued as Americans tried to make sense of his relationships with both Jones and Lewinsky and the suggested charges of impeachment against him. Though Democratic Party members had major worries from the start of accusations against Clinton, they gained seats in the House during the midterm election of November of 1998 with indication that much of the public was against beginning impeachment proceedings.[17] Independent counsel Kenneth Starr spoke to the House about his investigation of the president, explaining that he had spent 1997 drafting impeachment recommendations but had found no supporting evidence.[18] Despite clearing the president of accusations of the Whitewater scandal, there were now sound arguments in favor of impeachment and more reason to move forward. Thus, on December 11, the House Judiciary moved to recommend the impeachment of President Clinton, on four articles of “high crimes and misdemeanors” to the House.[19] After years of Starr’s multi-million dollar investigation, months of review by Congress, and public and media captivation, on December 19, 1998, the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Bill Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath and the attempted cover-up of his affair.[20] Sources: [1] “How the Senate Voted on Impeachment,” CNN, Feb. 12, 1999, https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/. [2]“Timeline: Whitewater Political Report.” The Washington Post, 1998, https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm. [3] “Bill Clinton-Key Events.” Miller Center of Public Affairs. University of Virginia, Accessed July 6, 2020, https://millercenter.org/president/bill-clinton/key-events. [4] Olivia B. Waxman and Merrill Fabry, “From Anonymous Tip to an Impeachment: A Timeline of Key Moments in the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal,” Time, May 4, 2018, https://time.com/5120561/bill-clinton-monica-lewinsky-timeline/. [5] “Timeline: Whitewater Political Report.” [6] “Bill Clinton-Key Events.” [7] “Timeline: Whitewater Political Report” [8] Olivia B. Waxman and Merrill Fabry, “From Anonymous Tip to an Impeachment: A Timeline of Key Moments in the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal.” [9] Ibid. [10] Neil A. Lewis, “Impeachment Puts Spotlight on ‘Guardian’ of the Senate,” New York Times, Dec. 27, 1998. [11] Ahrens, Frank. “Robert Byrd’s Rules of Order.” The Washington Post, Feb. 11, 1999. [12] Bill Clinton, “I Will Continue on the Path to Repentance,” In The Starr Report, Kenneth Starr (New York: PublicAffairs, 1998), xxv-xxvii. [13] Michael Grunwald, “Report’s Details on Sexual Acts Prompts Regret,” In The Starr Report, Kenneth Starr (New York: PublicAffairs, 1998), xxviii-xxx. [14] Olivia B. Waxman and Merrill Fabry, “From Anonymous Tip to an Impeachment: A Timeline of Key Moments in the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal.” [15] Ibid. [16] “Bill Clinton-Key Events.” Miller Center of Public Affairs. University of Virginia. [17] Ibid. [18]“Timeline: Whitewater Political Report.” The Washington Post, 1998. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm. [19] Sarah Wire. “A Look Back at How Clinton’s Impeachment Trial Unfolded.” LA Times, Jan. 16, 2020.https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-16/a-look-back-at-how-clintons-i Mpeachment-trial-unfolded. [20] John King, “House Impeaches Clinton,” CNN, Dec. 19, 1999, https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/impeachment.01/
2 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives |