Impeachment trial of Bill Clinton

{{see|Impeachment of Bill Clinton|Impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton|Federal impeachment in the United States|U.S. presidential impeachment}}

Under the U.S. Constitution, the House has the sole power of impeachment (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), and after that action has been taken, the Senate has the sole power to hold the trial for all impeachments (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Clinton was the second U.S. president to face a Senate impeachment trial, after Andrew Johnson.{{cite web |last=Roos |first=Dave |title=What Happens After Impeachment |url=https://www.history.com/news/what-happens-after-impeachment |url-status=live |website=History |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191219180008/https://history.com/news/what-happens-after-impeachment |archive-date=December 19, 2019 |access-date=December 20, 2019}}

An impeachment inquiry was opened into Clinton on October 8, 1998. He was formally impeached by the House on two charges (perjury and obstruction of justice) on December 19, 1998.{{cite web |title=President Clinton impeached |url=https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-impeached |website=history.com |date=January 13, 2021 |orig-year=November 24, 2009 |publisher=A&E Television Networks |access-date=February 27, 2021}} The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice. These charges stemmed from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The catalyst for the president's impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee.{{cite web| last=Glass| first=Andrew| title=House votes to impeach Clinton, Oct. 8, 1998| url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/08/house-votes-to-impeach-clinton-oct-8-1998-243550| date=October 8, 2017| work=Politico| access-date=June 12, 2019| archive-date=September 28, 2020| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200928144724/https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/08/house-votes-to-impeach-clinton-oct-8-1998-243550/| url-status=live}}

Between December 20 and January 5, Republican and Democratic Senate leaders negotiated about the pending trial.{{cite web |last1=Wire |first1=Sarah D. |title=A look back at how Clinton's impeachment trial unfolded |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-16/a-look-back-at-how-clintons-impeachment-trial-unfolded |website=Los Angeles Times |access-date=27 February 2021 |date=16 January 2020}} Disagreement arose as to whether to call witnesses. This decision would ultimately not be made until after the opening arguments from the House impeachment managers and the White House defense team. On January 5, Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican, announced that the trial would start on January 7.

There was some discussion about the possibility of censuring Clinton instead of holding a trial. This was an idea that had been championed by Republican retired former Senate majority leader Bob Dole (who had been Clinton's Republican opponent in the 1996 United States presidential election), and which some Senate Democrats to embraced as an alternative to an impeachment trial.{{cite news |last1=Dewar |first1=Helen |title=Dole Offers Censure Plan |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/dole121698.htm |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=20 December 2022 |date=December 16, 1998}}{{cite web |last1=Berke |first1=Richard L. |title=Impeachment: The Senate; If Vote Is Yes, Senators Say, Trial Is Likely |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/16/us/impeachment-the-senate-if-vote-is-yes-senators-say-trial-is-likely.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=20 December 2022 |date=16 December 1998}} Dole's own specific idea for how a censure would look was to have a censure passed and have Clinton then sign it himself in the presence of congressional leaders, the Vice President, Cabinet members, and the justices of the Supreme Court.{{cite web |last1=Espo |first1=David |title=Clinton Losing Moderate Republicans |url=https://apnews.com/article/b8878675c59e217c63ef93ec7dd23f48 |website=Associated Press |access-date=20 December 2022 |language=en |date=December 15, 1998}}

File:William Rehnquist's robe by Matthew Bisanz.JPG William Rehnquist during the impeachment trial]]

The chief justice of the United States is cited in Article I, Section 3, Clause{{nbsp}}6 of the United States Constitution as the presiding officer in an impeachment trial of the President.{{cite web |title=U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 3 |url=https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec3 |publisher=United States Senate |access-date=January 15, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140210235825/http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a1_sec3 |archive-date=February 10, 2014 |url-status=live }} As such, Chief Justice William Rehnquist assumed that role. Rehnquist was a passive presiding officer, once commenting on his service as presiding officer of the trial, "I did nothing in particular, and I did it very well."{{cite web |last1=Robenalt |first1=James |title=Why Is John Roberts Even in the Impeachment Trial? |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/22/founders-wanted-john-roberts-assert-himself-impeachment-trial-101727 |website=Politico |access-date=19 December 2022 |language=en |date=January 22, 2020}} Rehnquist won praise from senators and from legal analysts for being a neutral-acting presiding officer.{{cite web |last1=Biskupic |first1=Joan |title=How the last chief justice handled an impeachment trial of the President of the United States {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/29/politics/william-rehnquist-impeachment-trial-senate/index.html |website=CNN |access-date=29 December 2022 |language=en |date=29 September 2019}}

One matter which Rehnquist did make a ruling on as presiding officer was to urge those arguing before the senate to refrain from referring to the senators as being a "jury". Senator Tom Harkin had objected to the use of the term "jurors". Agreeing with Harkin's position over the counter-position presented by the House impeachment managers (prosecutors), Rehnquist ruled, "The chair is of the view that the senator from Iowa's objection is well taken, that the core - the Senate is not simply a jury. It is a court in this case. And therefore, counsel should refrain from referring to the senators as jurors."{{cite web |last1=Welna |first1=David |title=Are The Senators In The Impeachment Trial 'Jurors' — Or Something Else? |url=https://www.npr.org/2020/01/22/798644714/are-the-senators-in-the-impeachment-trial-jurors-or-something-else |website=NPR |access-date=14 December 2022 |language=en |date=January 22, 2020}} This indicated a belief that the senators collectively take on a role that is perhaps more akin to a judge than to a jury.{{cite web |last1=Ruger |first1=Todd |title=Roberts would hold the gavel, but not the power, at Trump impeachment trial |url=https://rollcall.com/2020/01/08/roberts-would-hold-the-gavel-but-not-the-power-at-trump-impeachment-trial/ |website=Roll Call |access-date=5 January 2024 |date=8 January 2020}}

In 1992, Rehnquist had authored Grand Inquests, a book that had analyzed both the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the impeachment of Samuel Chase.{{cite web |last1=McDonald |first1=Forrest |title=The Senate Was Their Jury |url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/22/home/14653.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=29 December 2022 |date=June 14, 1992}}

Thirteen House Republicans from the House Judiciary Committee served as "managers", the equivalent of prosecutors.{{cite news |title=Prosecution Who's Who |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/prosecution.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=14 January 1999}} They were designated to be the House impeachment managers the same day that the two articles of impeachment were approved (December 19, 1998). They were named by a House resolution which was approved by a vote of 228–190.{{cite web |last1=Hyde |first1=Henry J. |title=Text - H.Res.614 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-resolution/614/text |website=www.congress.gov |publisher=United States Congress |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=19 December 1998}}{{cite web |title=Actions - H.Res.614 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States. |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-resolution/614/all-actions?overview=closed&q=%7B%22roll-call-vote%22%3A%22all%22%7D |website=www.congress.gov |publisher=United States Congress |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=19 December 1998}} On January 6, 1999 (the opening day of the 106th Congress) the House voted to 223–198 re-appoint the impeachment managers.{{cite web |title=Roll Call 6 Roll Call 6, Bill Number: H. Res. 10, 106th Congress, 1st Session |url=https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/19996 |website=Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives |access-date=20 June 2023 |language=en |date=6 January 1999}}

[[Henry Hyde reads the articles of impeachment to the Senate on January 7, 1999|thumb]]

The Senate trial began on January 7, 1999. Chair of the House impeachment manager team Henry Hyde led a procession of the House impeachment managers carrying the articles of impeachment across the Capitol Rotunda into the Senate chamber, where Hyde then read the articles aloud.

Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court William Rehnquist, who would preside over the trial, then was escorted into the chamber by senators by a bipartisan escort committee consisting of Robert Byrd, Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, Olympia Snowe, Ted Stevens. Rehnquist then swore-in the senators.{{cite news |title=Jan. 7: The Senators Are Sworn In |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/transcriptb010799.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021 }}

On January 8, during a closed-door meeting, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution on rules and procedure for the trial.{{Cite web|url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/010999impeach-text.html|title=Senate's Unanimous Agreement on How to Proceed in Clinton Trial|website=The New York Times|access-date=2020-01-07}}{{cite news |title=Senate Impeachment Trial Procedures |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/resolution010899.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |agency= Associated Press |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=8 January 1999}} However, senators tabled the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial. The resolution allotted the House impeachment managers and the president's defense team, each, 24 hours, spread out over several days, to present their cases. It also allotted senators 16 hours to present questions to both the house impeachment managers and the president's defense team. After this, the senate would be able to hold a vote on whether to dismiss the case or to continue with it and call witnesses.

The trial remained in recess while briefs were filed by the House (on January 11) and Clinton (on January 13).{{Cite web|url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/senate-resolution/16/text#billTextContainer|title=S.Res.16 - A resolution to provide for the issuance of a summons and for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.|website=Library of Congress|access-date=7 January 2020}}{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whtext011199.htm|title=White House Response to Trial Summons|newspaper=The Washington Post|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000817064839/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whtext011199.htm|archive-date=2000-08-17|access-date=7 January 2020}} Additionally, on January 11, Clinton's defense team denied the charges made against Clinton in a thirteen page response to a Senate summons.

On January 13, the same day that his lawyers filed their pretrial brief, Clinton told reporters that he wanted to focus on the business of the nation rather than the trial, remarking, "They have their job to do in the Senate, and I have mine."

File:Tickets for Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial.jpg

File:Lindsey Graham during the Clinton impeachment trial on January 16, 1999 (01).png speaks on January 16]]

The managers presented their case over three days, from January 14 to 16. They justified removal of the President from office by virtue of "willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation's system of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice".{{cite web | website = The History Place | title = Impeachment: Bill Clinton | year = 2000 | url = http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm | access-date = May 20, 2010 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100514091858/http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm | archive-date = May 14, 2010 | url-status = live }} Among the evidence and illustrative tools utilized to illustrate their case were video clips of Clinton's grand jury testimony, charts, and quotes from the written record.{{cite web |title=House managers argue for Clinton's impeachment conviction - January 14, 1999 |url=https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/14/impeachment/ |website=CNN |access-date=3 July 2023}}

In the opening remarks, Hyde highlighted a need for jurors to be impartial in their judgement, remarking, "You are seated in this historic chamber ... to listen to the evidence as those who must sit in judgment. To guide you in this grave duty, you've taken an oath of impartiality."

File:Dale Bumpers during the Clinton impeachment trial on January 21, 1999 (03).png

File:Admission ticket to the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton 42591j (front).jpg

The defense's presentation took place January 19–21. Clinton's defense counsel argued, "The House Republicans' case ends as it began, an unsubstantiated, circumstantial case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the President from office".

January 22 and 23 were devoted to questions from members of the Senate to the House managers and Clinton's defense counsel. Under the rules, all questions (over 150) were to be written down and given to Rehnquist to read to the party being questioned.{{cite news |title=Senate Trial Transcripts |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stranscripts.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=27 February 2021 |date=1999}}{{cite web |last1=Swanson |first1=Ian |title=Senators ready for question time in impeachment trial |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480193-senators-ready-for-question-time-in-impeachment-trial |website=TheHill |access-date=28 February 2021 |language=en |date=28 January 2020}}

File:Monica lewinsky.jpg (pictured) was interviewed by the House impeachment managers]]

On January 23, a judge had ordered Monica Lewinsky, who Clinton had allegedly perjured about a sexual relation with, to cooperate with the House impeachment managers, forcing her to travel from California back to Washington, D.C. On January 24, she submitted to a nearly two-hour interview with the House impeachment managers, who remarked after the interview that Lewinsky was "impressive", "personable", and "would be a very helpful witness" if called. Lewinsky's own lawyers claimed that no new information had been produced in the interview.

On January 25, Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) moved for dismissals of both articles of impeachment.{{cite news |title=Jan. 25: Opening Business and Motion to Dismiss |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/openingtext012599.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021}}{{cite web |title=Transcript: Motion to dismiss introduced in Senate impeachment trial - January 25, 1999 |url=https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/25/transcripts/dismiss.html |website=www.cnn.com |publisher=CNN |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=25 January 1999}} This motion would only require a majority vote to pass.{{cite web |last1=Walsh |first1=Edwards |title=Public May Be Shut Out of Impeachment Debate |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/debate012599.htm |website=www.washingtonpost.com |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=25 January 1999}} That day, senators heard arguments from the managers against dismissal, and from the president's defense team in support of dismissal, before then deliberating behind closed-doors in a closed session.

On January 26, House impeachment manager Ed Bryant motioned to call witnesses to the trial, a question the Senate had avoided up to that point. He requested depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal.{{cite news |title=Jan. 26: Opening Business and Motion for Witnesses |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/openingtext012699.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021}} The House impeachment managers presented arguments in favor of allowing witnesses, then the president's legal team presented arguments against allowing witnesses. Democrat Tom Harkin motioned to suspend the rules and hold open debate, rather than closed debate, on the motion to allow witnesses. The senators voted 58–41 against Harkin's motion, with Democrat Barbara Mikulski being absent due to illness. The Senate, thus, voted to deliberate on the question in private session, rather than public session, and such private deliberation was held that day in a closed session.{{cite news |title=Jan. 26: House Rebuttal and Vote on Closed Session |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rebuttaltext012699.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021}}

On January 27, the Senate voted on both motions in public session; the motion to dismiss failed on a near-completely party-line vote of 56–44, while the motion to depose witnesses passed by the same margin. Russ Feingold was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans against dismissing the charges and in support of deposing witnesses.{{cite news |title=Jan. 27: Vote on Motion to Dismiss |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/dismisstext012799.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021}}{{cite news |title=Jan. 27: Vote on Motion for Witnesses |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/witnesstext012799.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021}}

On January 28, the Senate voted against motions to dismiss the charges against Clinton and to suppress videotaped depositions of the witnesses from public release, with Democratic Senator Russ Feingold again voting with Republicans against both motions. Absent from the chamber, and therefore unable to vote, were Republican Wayne Allard and Democrat Barbara Mikulski, the latter of whom was absent due to illness.{{cite news |title=Jan. 28: Opening Business and Resolutions |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/openingtext012899.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021}}{{cite news |title=Jan. 28: Amendments and Votes |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/motionstext012899.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=28 February 2021}}{{cite web |last1=Bruni |first1=Frank |title=THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL: THE DISSENTER; Democrat Joins the G.O.P. On 2 Impeachment Votes (Published 1999) |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/28/us/president-s-trial-dissenter-democrat-joins-gop-2-impeachment-votes.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=28 January 1999}}

Over three days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped closed-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Jordan, Sidney Blumenthal. Lewinsky was deposed on February 1, Jordan on February 2, and Blumenthal on February 3.{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/03/us/president-s-trial-overview-senators-see-lewinsky-tape-vernon-jordan-testifies.html|title=THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL: THE OVERVIEW; Senators See Lewinsky Tape And Vernon Jordan Testifies|first=Francis X.|last=Clines|work=The New York Times|date=February 3, 1999|access-date=February 9, 2020}}

On February 4, the Senate voted 70–30 that excerpting the videotaped depositions would suffice as testimony, rather than calling live witnesses to appear at trial. House impeachment managers had wanted to call Lewinsky to testify in-person.

Excerpts of the videotaped depositions were played by the House impeachment managers to the Senate on February 6.{{cite web |last1=Serrano |first1=Richard A. |last2=Lacey |first2=Marc |title=Lewinsky Video Takes the Spotlight in Trial Arguments |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-feb-07-mn-5862-story.html |website=Los Angeles Times |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=7 February 1999}} These included excerpts of Lewinsky discussing such topics as her affidavit in the Paula Jones case, the hiding of small gifts Clinton had given her, and his involvement in procurement of a job for Lewinsky.{{cite web |last1=Abramson |first1=Jill |title=THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL: THE DEPOSITIONS; WITNESSES PROVIDE NO BREAKTHROUGH IN CLINTON'S TRIAL (Published 1999) |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/06/us/president-s-trial-depositions-witnesses-provide-no-breakthrough-clinton-s-trial.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=28 February 2021 |date=6 February 1999}} The showing of video on large screens was seen as a large departure in the use of electronics by the Senate, which has often disallowed electronics to be utilized.

On February 8, closing arguments were presented with each side allotted a three-hour time slot. On the President's behalf, Charles Ruff, counsel to Clinton declared:

{{blockquote|There is only one question before you, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and law and constitutional theory. Would it put at risk the liberties of the people to retain the President in office? Putting aside partisan animus, if you can honestly say that it would not, that those liberties are safe in his hands, then you must vote to acquit.}}

Chief Prosecutor Henry Hyde countered:

{{blockquote|A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious{{nbsp}}... We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President{{nbsp}}... And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done.}}

On February 9, Arlen Specter (a Republican) asked for unanimous consent for parties to take additional discovery, including additional testimony on oral deposition by Christopher Hitchens, Carol Blue, Scott Armstrong, and Sidney Blumenthal in order to investigate possible perjury by Blumenthal. Tom Daschle (a Democrat) voiced objection.{{cite news |title=Feb. 9: Motion to Investigate Possible Perjury By Witnesses |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/witnesstext020999.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=27 February 2021 |date=9 February 1999}}

On February 9, a motion to suspend the rules and conduct open deliberations, introduced by Trent Lott (a Republican) was defeated 59–41.{{cite news |title=Feb. 9: Motion to Keep Session Open |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/suspendtext020999.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=27 February 2021 |date=9 February 1999}} Lott then motioned to begin holding closed-door deliberations, which was approved 53–47.{{cite news |title=Feb. 9: Motion to Hold Closed Session |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/closingtext020999.htm |newspaper=Washington Post |access-date=27 February 2021 |date=9 February 1999}} Closed door deliberations lasted through February 12.

File:William Rehnqiuist during vote on article II during Clinton impeachment trial February 12, 1999 (02).png

File:Admission ticket to the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton 42460 (1).jpg

Image:CongRec.png page, February 12, 1999, opening of the final day of the impeachment trial]]

On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the articles of impeachment. A two-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict on either charge and remove the President from office. The perjury charge was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against, and the obstruction of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.{{cite news| last=Baker| first=Peter| title=The Senate Acquits President Clinton| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm| newspaper=The Washington Post| publisher=The Washington Post Co.| access-date=December 4, 2013| date=February 13, 1999| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131110183732/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeach021399.htm|archive-date=November 10, 2013| url-status=live}}{{cite news| title=How the senators voted on impeachment| date=February 12, 1999| url=http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/| publisher=CNN| access-date=June 8, 2019}}{{cite web| url=https://millercenter.org/president/clinton/domestic-affairs| last=Riley| first=Russell L.| title=Bill Clinton: Domestic Affairs| date=October 4, 2016| publisher=Miller Center of Public Affairs, University of Virginia| location=Charlottesville, Virginia| access-date=June 12, 2019| archive-date=September 28, 2020| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200928144729/https://millercenter.org/president/clinton/domestic-affairs/| url-status=live}} Senator Arlen Specter voted "not proved"{{efn|name="NotProven"|A verdict used in Scots law. It was recorded as a "not guilty" vote.}} for both charges,{{cite news | author = Specter, Arlen | title = Senator Specter's closed-door impeachment statement | date = February 12, 1999 | url = http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/specter.html | publisher = CNN | access-date = March 13, 2008 | quote = My position in the matter is that the case has not been proved. I have gone back to Scottish law where there are three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proved. I am not prepared to say on this record that President Clinton is not guilty. But I am certainly not prepared to say that he is guilty. There are precedents for a Senator voting present. I hope that I will be accorded the opportunity to vote not proved in this case.{{nbsp}}... But on this record, the proofs are not present. Juries in criminal cases under the laws of Scotland have three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, not proved. Given the option in this trial, I suspect that many Senators would choose 'not proved' instead of 'not guilty'.
That is my verdict: not proved. The President has dodged perjury by calculated evasion and poor interrogation. Obstruction of justice fails by gaps in the proofs. | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080614141408/http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/specter.html | archive-date = June 14, 2008 | url-status = live }} which was considered by Chief Justice Rehnquist to constitute a vote of "not guilty". All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "not guilty" on both charges, as did five Republicans; they were joined by five additional Republicans in voting "not guilty" on the perjury charge.

|-

| {{sortname|Gordon|Smith|Gordon H. Smith}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–OR}} || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty

|-

| {{sortname|Olympia|Snowe}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–ME}} || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty

|-

| {{sortname|Arlen|Specter}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–PA}} || style="background:#ffdd88;" | Not proven{{efn|name="NotProven"}} || style="background:#ffdd88;" | Not proven{{efn|name="NotProven"}}

|-

| {{sortname|Ted|Stevens}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–AK}} || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty

|-

| {{sortname|Craig|Thomas|Craig L. Thomas}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–WY}} || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty

|-

| {{sortname|Fred|Thompson}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–TN}} || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty

|-

| {{sortname|Strom|Thurmond}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–SC}} || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty

|-

| {{sortname|Robert|Torricelli}} || {{Party shading/Democratic}} | {{center|D–NJ}} || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty

|-

| {{sortname|George|Voinovich}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–OH}} || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty

|-

| {{sortname|John|Warner}} || {{Party shading/Republican}} | {{center|R–VA}} || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty || style="background:#fff;"| Guilty

|-

| {{sortname|Paul|Wellstone}} || {{Party shading/Democratic}} | {{center|D–MN}} || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty

|-

| {{sortname|Ron|Wyden}} || {{Party shading/Democratic}} | {{center|D–OR}} || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty || style="background:#ffdd88;"| Not guilty

|}

{{center|1=Sources: {{cite web| title=Senate Votes on the Articles of Impeachment in the Trial of President Clinton: February 12, 1999| url=https://www.famous-trials.com/clinton/891-senatevotes| last=Linder| first=Douglas O.| work=Famous Trials| publisher=University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law| access-date=June 8, 2019}}{{cite news| date=February 12, 1999| agency=Associated Press| title=Roll Call of Votes on Articles of Impeachment| url=https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/021399ap-rollcall-vote.html| work=The New York Times| via=New York Times archive| access-date=June 8, 2019| archive-date=January 6, 2020| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200106164903/https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/politics/021399ap-rollcall-vote.html| url-status=live}}[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-1999-pt2/pdf/CRECB-1999-pt2-Pg2375-3.pdf 145 Cong. Rec. (1999) 2376–77.] Retrieved June 8, 2019.}}

|}

File:Clinton impeachment trial February 12, 1999 (01).png

Per Pew Research Center polling, the impeachment process against Clinton was generally unpopular.{{cite web |title=Clinton's impeachment barely dented his public support, and it turned off many Americans |url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/03/clintons-impeachment-barely-dented-his-public-support-and-it-turned-off-many-americans/ |website=Pew Research Center |date=October 3, 2019 |access-date=28 February 2021}}

Polls conducted during 1998 and early 1999 showed that only about one-third of Americans supported Clinton's impeachment or conviction. However, one year later, when it was clear that impeachment would not lead to the ousting of the President, half of Americans said in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that they supported impeachment, 57% approved of the Senate's decision to keep him in office, and two-thirds of those polled said the impeachment was harmful to the country.Keating Holland. [http://archives.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/16/impeach.poll/ "A year after Clinton impeachment, public approval grows of House decision"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080303230334/http://archives.cnn.com/1999/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/16/impeach.poll/ |date=March 3, 2008 }}. CNN. December 16, 1999.

In April 1999, about two months after being acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright for civil contempt of court for his "willful failure" to obey her orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit. For this, Clinton was assessed a $90,000 fine and the matter was referred to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate.[http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/ Clinton found in civil contempt for Jones testimony—April 12, 1999] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060408090020/http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/12/clinton.contempt/ |date=April 8, 2006 }}

Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998, deposition where he was placed under oath, Webber Wright wrote:

{{blockquote|Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false.}}

On the day before leaving office on January 20, 2001, Clinton, in what amounted to a plea bargain, agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and to pay a $25,000 fine as part of an agreement with independent counsel Robert Ray to end the investigation without the filing of any criminal charges for perjury or obstruction of justice.{{cite news |title=Mr. Clinton's Last Deal |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/opinion/mr-clinton-s-last-deal.html |access-date=15 May 2019 |work=The New York Times |date=Jan 20, 2001 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190430022935/https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/20/opinion/mr-clinton-s-last-deal.html |archive-date=April 30, 2019 |url-status=live }}{{cite court |litigants=Neal v. Clinton |opinion=Civ. No. 2000-5677 |pinpoint=Agreed Order of Discipline |court=Ark. Cir. Ct. |date=January 19, 2001 |url=https://courts.arkansas.gov/sites/default/files/opc_opinions_59 |quote=Mr. Clinton admits and acknowledges{{nbsp}}... that his discovery responses interfered with the conduct of the Jones case by causing the court and counsel for the parties to expend unnecessary time, effort, and resources{{nbsp}}... }} Clinton was automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar as a result of his law license suspension. However, as is customary, he was allowed 40 days to appeal the otherwise automatic disbarment. Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar during the 40-day appeals period.[http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2001/111301pzor.html U.S. Supreme Court Order] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20020122214853/http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2001/111301pzor.html |date=January 22, 2002 }}. FindLaw. November 13, 2001.

While Clinton's job approval rating rose during the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal and subsequent impeachment, his poll numbers with regard to questions of honesty, integrity and moral character declined.{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/voters082398.htm |title=American Voters See Two Very Different Bill Clintons |newspaper=The Washington Post |first1=David S. |last1=Broder |first2=Richard |last2=Morin |date=August 23, 1998 |page=A1 |access-date=December 5, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171122022012/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/voters082398.htm |archive-date=November 22, 2017 |url-status=live }} As a result, "moral character" and "honesty" weighed heavily in the next presidential election. According to The Daily Princetonian, after the 2000 presidential election, "post-election polls found that, in the wake of Clinton-era scandals, the single most significant reason people voted for Bush was for his moral character."{{cite news |url=http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/05/07/news/10533.shtml |title=Singer authors book on the role of ethics in Bush presidency |work=The Daily Princetonian |first=Deborah |last=Arotsky |date=May 7, 2004 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930033343/http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/05/07/news/10533.shtml |archive-date=September 30, 2007 }}{{cite news |url=http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=102219 |title=Of Candidates and Character |work=The Harvard Crimson |first=Stephen E. |last=Sachs |date=November 7, 2000 |access-date=April 1, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061231011624/http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=102219 |archive-date=December 31, 2006 |url-status=live }}{{cite journal |title=Character Counts?: Honesty and Fairness in Election 2000 |journal=Public Opinion Quarterly |last1=Bishin |first1=B. G. |last2=Stevens |first2=D. |last3=Wilson |first3=C. |volume=70 |pages=235–48 |date=Summer 2006 |doi=10.1093/poq/nfj016 |issue=2 |s2cid=145608174 }}

According to an analysis of the election by Stanford University:

{{blockquote|A more political explanation is the belief in Gore campaign circles that disapproval of President Clinton's personal behavior was a serious threat to the vice president's prospects. Going into the election the one negative element in the public's perception of the state of the nation was the belief that the country was morally on the wrong track, whatever the state of the economy or world affairs. According to some insiders, anything done to raise the association between Gore and Clinton would have produced a net loss of support—the impact of Clinton's personal negatives would outweigh the positive impact of his job performance on support for Gore. Thus, hypothesis four suggests that a previously unexamined variable played a major role in 2000—the retiring president's personal approval.{{cite journal |url=http://www.stanford.edu/~mfiorina/2000%20BJPS%20Revision2_Paper.pdf |title=The 2000 U.S. Presidential Election: Can Retrospective Voting Be Saved? |last1=Fiorina |first1=M. |last2=Abrams |first2=S. |last3=Pope |first3=J. |doi=10.1017/S0007123403000073 |journal=British Journal of Political Science |volume=33 |issue=2 |date=March 2003 |pages=163–87 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |s2cid=154669354 |access-date=March 31, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080407020607/http://www.stanford.edu/~mfiorina/2000%20BJPS%20Revision2_Paper.pdf |archive-date=April 7, 2008 |url-status=live }}}}

The Stanford analysis, however, presented different theories and mainly argued that Gore had lost because he decided to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign. The writers of it concluded:

{{blockquote|We find that Gore's oft-criticized personality was not a cause of his under-performance. Rather, the major cause was his failure to receive a historically normal amount of credit for the performance of the Clinton administration{{nbsp}}... [and] failure to get normal credit reflected Gore's peculiar campaign which in turn reflected fear of association with Clinton's behavior.}}

According to the America's Future Foundation:

{{blockquote|In the wake of the Clinton scandals, independents warmed to Bush's promise to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House'. According to Voter News Service, the personal quality that mattered most to voters was 'honesty'. Voters who chose 'honesty' preferred Bush over Gore by over a margin of five to one. Forty four percent of Americans said the Clinton scandals were important to their vote. Of these, Bush reeled in three out of every four.{{cite news |url=http://www.americasfuture.org/blueprint-for-victory/ |title=Blueprint for Victory |publisher=America's Future Foundation |first=Todd J. |last=Weiner |date=May 15, 2004 |access-date=March 12, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402113945/http://americasfuture.org/blueprint-for-victory/ |archive-date=April 2, 2015 |url-status=live }}}}

Political commentators have argued that Gore's refusal to have Clinton campaign with him was a bigger liability to Gore than Clinton's scandals.{{cite web |url=http://www.greens.org/s-r/25/25-03.html |title=S/R 25: Gore's Defeat: Don't Blame Nader (Marable) |publisher=Greens.org |access-date=May 23, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110510025027/http://www.greens.org/s-r/25/25-03.html |archive-date=May 10, 2011 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |first=Jacob |last=Weisberg |url=http://www.slate.com/id/1006450/ |title=Why Gore (Probably) Lost |publisher=Slate.com |date=November 8, 2000 |access-date=May 23, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511101037/http://www.slate.com/id/1006450/ |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |url-status=live }}{{cite web |url=http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/articles/an_anatomy_of_2000_usa_president.htm |title=An anatomy of 2000 USA presidential election |publisher=Nigerdeltacongress.com |access-date=May 23, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516095712/http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/articles/an_anatomy_of_2000_usa_president.htm |archive-date=May 16, 2011 |url-status=dead }}{{cite journal |url=http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-etudes-americaines-2001-4-page-10.htm |title=Beyond the Recounts: Trends in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election |publisher=Cairn.info |date=November 12, 2000 |doi=10.3917/rfea.090.0010 |access-date=May 23, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110510082007/http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-d-etudes-americaines-2001-4-page-10.htm |archive-date=May 10, 2011 |url-status=live |last1=Cain |first1=Bruce |journal=Revue Française d'Études Américaines |volume=90 |issue=4 |page=10 }} The 2000 U.S. Congressional election also saw the Democrats gain more seats in Congress.{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998545,00.html |magazine=Time |title=Election 2000: Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader: Partisan from the Prairie |date=November 20, 2000 |access-date=May 5, 2010 |first=Amanda |last=Ripley |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122101901/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998545,00.html |archive-date=November 22, 2010 |url-status=dead }} As a result of this gain, control of the Senate was split 50–50 between both parties,{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/2000-elections-senate-democrats-gain-several-senate-seats-but-republicans-retain.html |work=The New York Times |title=The 2000 Elections: The Senate; Democrats Gain Several Senate Seats, but Republicans Retain Control |first=Eric |last=Schmitt |date=November 9, 2000 |access-date=May 5, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130518014807/http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/09/us/2000-elections-senate-democrats-gain-several-senate-seats-but-republicans-retain.html |archive-date=May 18, 2013 |url-status=live }} and Democrats would gain control over the Senate after Republican Senator Jim Jeffords defected from his party in early 2001 and agreed to caucus with the Democrats.{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894529_1894528_1894525,00.html |magazine=Time |title=The Crist Switch: Top 10 Political Defections |date=April 29, 2009 |access-date=May 5, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100503155409/http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894529_1894528_1894525,00.html |archive-date=May 3, 2010 |url-status=dead }}

Al Gore reportedly confronted Clinton after the election, and "tried to explain that keeping Clinton under wraps [during the campaign] was a rational response to polls showing swing voters were still mad as hell over the Year of Monica". According to the AP, "during the one-on-one meeting at the White House, which lasted more than an hour, Gore used uncommonly blunt language to tell Clinton that his sex scandal and low personal approval ratings were a hurdle he could not surmount in his campaign{{nbsp}}... [with] the core of the dispute was Clinton's lies to Gore and the nation about his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky."{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,98988,00.html |title=When a Buddy Movie Goes Bad |magazine=Time |first=Margaret |last=Carlson |date=February 11, 2001 |access-date=March 31, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080604172111/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,98988,00.html |archive-date=June 4, 2008 |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4581448.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402125101/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4581448.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=April 2, 2015 |title=Clinton and Gore have it out |agency=Associated Press |date=February 8, 2001}} Clinton, however, was unconvinced by Gore's argument and insisted to Gore that he would have won the election if he had embraced the administration and its good economic record.{{cite news |url=https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/20010207/gore07/blame-divides-gore-clinton |newspaper=The Washington Post |title=Blame divides Gore, Clinton |first=John F. |last=Harris |date=February 7, 2001 |access-date=March 16, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402091745/http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010207&slug=gore07 |archive-date=April 2, 2015 |url-status=live }}

As the first impeachment trial held since Johnson's in 1868, the proceedings were viewed to hold historic significance. With the help of the Senate sergeant at arms, Senate Curator Diane Skvarla kept track of many objects used during the trial and had them stored for historic posterity. These included pencils utilized for tallying votes; several admission tickets printed for the trial; as well furniture such as the podium and easels used by the House-appointed impeachment managers and the defense counsel, the chair in which Chief Justice Rehnquist sat, and the tables utilized by the impeachment managers and defense counsel. After the trial, Senate leadership gave the impeachment managers and Clinton's counsel the chairs that each had sat in during the trial as a souvenir of their involvement.{{cite web |title=Impeachment's Props Become Stuff of History |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/26/us/impeachment-s-props-become-stuff-of-history.html |website=The New York Times |access-date=3 July 2023 |date=26 August 1999}}

{{notelist}}

{{reflist}}

{{Portal bar|United States|Politics|1990s}}

{{Impeachment and impeachment trial of Bill Clinton}}

{{Presidency of Bill Clinton}}

{{Federal impeachment in the United States}}

Category:1990s trials

Category:20th-century American trials

Category:February 1999 in the United States

Category:January 1999 in the United States

Category:Political corruption investigations in the United States

Category:106th United States Congress

Category:Perjury

Category:Obstruction of justice

Category:1999 in American politics