[AmeriRoots]

Senator Phil Gramm (Republican - Texas)

Voting Record -- Impeachment Trial of William (Bill) Jefferson Clinton


AmeriRoots Home Page        Senate Index


Allowed the House Managers to present their case.
Allowed House Managers to depose witnesses.
Allowed videotaping of witnesses.
Allowed the House Managers to present transcripts and video of witnesses.
Voted to allow live testimony.
Allowed the House Managers to present closing arguments.
Allowed normal trial procedures in which closing arguments were not disclosed in advance.
Voted to remove Mr. Clinton for perjury.
Voted to remove Mr. Clinton for obstruction of justice.

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

This section is taken verbatim from the official web site of Senator Gramm, except for editorial comments by Daniel Weyrich in square brackets of the form [DLW-- ] and minor touch-ups to the HTML.

THE VERDICT

Statement of U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm

February 12, 1999
[DLW -- converted from all caps to mixed case for easier readability.]

By acts of perjury and obstruction of justice, the President has assaulted the rule of law and mocked our most sacred legal principle, the right to equal justice under law. President William Jefferson Clinton violated his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, and he betrayed the public trust.

With a firm, good conscience, I have concluded that the President is guilty of the allegations contained in both articles of impeachment. He is guilty beyond doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt. And he is guilty for one reason only, because he committed the acts he is accused of, perjury and obstruction of justice.

In an impeachment process steeped in partisanship, I have tried to screen out my own strong partisan sentiments by asking a simple question: would I vote to convict President Ronald Reagan or President George Bush if they had committed the acts that President Clinton has committed? The answer is a sad but firm yes.

President Clinton sought to set himself above the law. There is a point for every citizen, even the President, where personal actions cease being private and become public. In this case, that point was reached when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Constitution required Bill Clinton, as a popular President, to answer questions raised by an unpopular, ordinary citizen in a sexual harassment suit.

President Clinton was America's chief law enforcement official on the day that he swore to the tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God. And then, in a pattern of misconduct that was consistent from beginning to end, he lied. His lies were intentional and they were carefully calculated to preserve his moral authority and his political reputation at the expense of another citizen of the United States. In the months following, he used the power and influence of his office to obstruct justice and to deny an ordinary citizen her constitutional rights.

I have asked myself how men from an era when honor was valued above all other traits, men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and James Madison, might have viewed a President who committed perjury and obstruction of justice for personal and political gain. Would they believe that denying another citizen equal protection of the law was a betrayal of a public trust? It seems to me the men who pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in order to establish our nation of laws would find President Clinton's behavior to be a high crime and misdemeanor.

I look forward now to turning to the two issues that will dominate debate in this congress and for the first decade of the new millennium. We must find a way to save social security, not just for our parents, but for our children and, secondly, we must determine whether the non-social security surplus should be spent by government or given back to families so that they can spend it themselves. This should be the great work of the Senate in 1999.

For the past months, much of our attention has been directed toward the trial of the President.  Many, both Democrats and Republicans, abhorred impeachment and cringed from a trial. But the articles of impeachment could not be ignored and when the Senate's duty was finally clear, we embraced it. I fought to see that we followed Constitutional precedents, and I am proud to say that we have.

Now that this hard work is finished, I hope that we can go forward as Abraham Lincoln counseled other men and women in another moment of great division, with malice toward none, with charity for all, and with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right.


Historical document in the public domain; Annotations Copyright © 1999 Daniel Weyrich

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