What Was The Makeup Of The Senate When Clinton Was Impeached

Trial of Pecker Clinton in the United States Senate

1998 Presidential impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton

Impeachment trial of Beak Clinton
Senate in session during the impeachment trial
Accused	Bill Clinton, President of the United States
Appointment	Jan vii – February 9, 1999 (1 month and ii days)
Outcome	Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, remained in role
Charges	Perjury Obstruction of justice
Cause	Clinton'south testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by Paula Jones; allegations made in the Starr Report

The impeachment trial of Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, began in the U.Due south. Senate on January vii, 1999, and concluded with his acquittal on February 9. After an inquiry between Oct and Dec 1998, President Clinton was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on Dec 19, 1998; the articles of impeachment charged him with perjury and obstruction of justice. It was the 2nd impeachment trial of a U.Due south. president, preceded by that of Andrew Johnson.

Background [edit]

Under the U.South. 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 ability to concord the trial for all impeachments (Article I, Department 3, Clause vi). Clinton was the second U.Due south. president to confront a Senate impeachment trial, after Andrew Johnson.^[1]

An impeachment inquiry was opened into Clinton on October 8, 1998. He was formally impeached by the House on two charges (perjury and obstacle of justice) on Dec 19, 1998.^[2] The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstacle 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 human relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The goad for the president'south impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report prepared by Independent Counsel Ken Starr for the Business firm Judiciary Commission.^[3]

Planning for the trial [edit]

Between Dec 20 and January v, Republican and Democratic Senate leaders negotiated most the awaiting trial.^[4] There was some give-and-take about the possibility of censuring Clinton instead of property a trial.^[four] Disagreement arose every bit to whether to call witnesses. This decision would ultimately not be made until after the opening arguments from the Business firm impeachment managers and the White House defense squad.^[4] On January 5, Majority Leader Trent Lott, a Republican, announced that the trial would start on January 7.^[iv]

Officers of the trial [edit]

Presiding officer [edit]

The Chief Justice of the United States is cited in Commodity I, Section 3, Clausehalf dozen of the United States Constitution as the presiding officer in an impeachment trial of the President.^[v] As such, Chief Justice William Rehnquist assumed that role.

House managers [edit]

13 Business firm Republicans from the Business firm Judiciary Committee served every bit "managers", the equivalent of prosecutors.^[6] They were designated to be the House impeachment managers the same 24-hour interval that the two articles of impeachment were canonical (December nineteen, 1998).^[4] They were named by a House resolution which was approved by a vote of 228–190.^{[vii] [eight]}

Vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to name Firm impeachment managers^[9]

Party		Vote
		Yeas	Nay	Present	Not voting
	Democratic (206)	5 Virgil Goode Ralph Hall Paul McHale Charles Stenholm Gene Taylor	187	–	14 Tom Allen Eva Clayton John Conyers Jerry Costello Pat Danner Diana DeGette Elizabeth Furse Barbara B. Kennelly Bill Lipinski Karen McCarthy George Miller John Murtha Richard Neal Glenn Poshard
	Republican (228)	223	2 Amo Houghton Chris Shays	–	3 Steve Heir-apparent Jim Ryun Robert Freeman Smith
	Contained (1)	–	1 Bernie Sanders	–	–
Total (435)		228	190	0	17

House managers[half dozen]
Chairman of House Judiciary Committee Henry Hyde (Republican, Illinois)	Bob Barr (Republican, Georgia)	Ed Bryant (Republican, Tennessee)	Steve Buyer (Republican, Indiana)	Charles Canady (Republican, Florida)	Chris Cannon (Republican, Utah)	Steve Chabot (Republican, Ohio)
George Gekas (Republican, Pennsylvania)	Lindsey Graham (Republican, South Carolina)	Asa Hutchinson (Republican, Arkansas)	Bill McCollum (Republican, Florida)	James East. Rogan (Republican, California)	Jim Sensenbrenner (Republican, Wisconsin)

Clinton's counsel [edit]

President's counsel[10]
White House Counsel Charles Ruff	Deputy White Business firm Counsel Bruce Lindsey	Deputy White Business firm Counsel Cheryl Mills	Special White House Counsel Gregory B. Craig
Lanny A. Breuer	Dale Bumpers	David E. Kendall	Nicole Seligman

Pretrial [edit]

The Senate trial began on Jan seven, 1999. Chair of the House impeachment director team Henry Hyde led a procession of the House impeachment managers carrying the articles of impeachment beyond the Capitol Rotunda into the Senate chamber, where Hyde then read the articles aloud.^[4]

Chief Justice of the U.s. Supreme Court William Rehnquist, who would preside over the trial, then was escorted into the bedchamber by senators by a bipartisan escort commission consisting of Robert Byrd, Orrin Hatch, Patrick Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, Olympia Snowe, Ted Stevens.^[xi] Rehnquist then swore-in the senators.^[11]

On Jan 8, during a airtight-door coming together, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution on rules and procedure for the trial.^{[four] [12] [13]} However, senators tabled the question of whether to call witnesses in the trial.^[4] The resolution allotted the House impeachment managers and the president's defense force squad, each, 24 hours, spread out over several days, to present their cases.^[iv] It also allotted senators 16 hours to present questions to both the house impeachment managers and the president's defense squad. After this, the senate would be able to concord a vote on whether to dismiss the case or to continue with it and call witnesses.^[iv]

The trial remained in recess while briefs were filed past the House (on January 11) and Clinton (on January 13).^{[14] [fifteen]} Additionally, on January 11, Clinton's defense force team denied the charges fabricated against Clinton in a thirteen page response to a Senate summons.^[four]

On January 13, the aforementioned 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 exercise in the Senate, and I have mine."^[4]

Testimony and deliberations [edit]

Impeachment managers' presentation (January fourteen–sixteen) [edit]

Tickets dated Jan 14 and 15, 1999, for the impeachment trial

The managers presented their case over 3 days, from January fourteen to xvi,^{[iv] [sixteen]} with discussion of the facts and background of the case; detailed cases for both articles of impeachment (including excerpts from videotaped grand jury testimony that Clinton had made the previous August); matters of interpretation and awarding of the laws governing perjury and obstacle of justice; and argument that the prove and precedents justified removal of the President from role by virtue of "willful, premeditated, deliberate corruption of the nation'southward organization of justice through perjury and obstruction of justice".^[16]

Defence force'due south presentation (January 19–21) [edit]

The defense's presentation took place January 19–21.^{[4] [16]} Clinton's defense counsel argued that Clinton's m jury testimony had besides many inconsistencies to exist a clear case of perjury, that the investigation and impeachment had been tainted by partisan political bias, that the President's approval rating of more than than 70 pct indicated his ability to govern had not been impaired by the scandal, and that the managers had ultimately presented "an unsubstantiated, coexisting case that does not meet the constitutional standard to remove the President from role".^[xvi]

Questioning by members of the Senate (January 22–23) [edit]

Jan 22 and 23 were devoted to questions from members of the Senate to the Firm 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.^{[iv] [17] [xviii]}

Business firm impeachment managers' interview of Monica Lewinsky (January 24) [edit]

On January 24, Monica Lewinsky (pictured) was interviewed by the House impeachment managers

On January 23, a gauge had ordered Monica Lewinsky, who Clinton had allegedly perjured near a sexual relation with, to cooperate with the House impeachment managers, forcing her to travel from California back to Washington, D.C.^[4] On January 24, she submitted to a almost 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.^[four] Lewinsky's own lawyers claimed that no new information had been produced in the interview.^[four]

Debate and votes on move to dismiss and motion to telephone call witnesses (January 25–27) [edit]

On Jan 25, Senator Robert Byrd (a Democrat) moved for dismissals of both articles of impeachment.^{[19] [20]} This motion would only require a majority vote to pass.^[21] That twenty-four hour period, senators heard arguments from the managers against dismissal, and from the president'due south defence force team in support of dismissal, before then deliberating behind airtight-doors.^{[4] [17]}

On January 26, Business firm impeachment manager Ed Bryant motioned to call witnesses to the trial, a question the Senate had avoided upwards to that point. He requested depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Clinton's friend Vernon Jordan, and White House aide Sidney Blumenthal.^{[4] [22]} The House impeachment managers presented arguments in favor of allowing witnesses, then the president'southward legal team presented arguments against assuasive witnesses.^[17] Democrat Tom Harkin motioned to suspend the rules and hold open debate, rather than closed debate, on the motion to let witnesses. The senators voted 58–41 confronting 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, televised procedure, and such private deliberation was held that twenty-four hours.^[23]

On January 27, the Senate voted on both motions in public session; the motion to dismiss failed on a nearly party line vote of 56–44, while the move 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.^{[four] [24] [25]}

Depositions [edit]

Votes on procedures for witnesses (Jan 28) [edit]

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 once again voting with Republicans against both motions. Absent-minded from the bedroom, and therefore unable to vote, were Republican Wayne Allard and Democrat Barbara Mikulski, the latter of whom was absent due to illness.^{[26] [27] [28]}

Taping of closed-door depositions (February ane–iii) [edit]

Over 3 days, February 1–3, House managers took videotaped airtight-door depositions from Monica Lewinsky, Vernon Hashemite kingdom of jordan, Sidney Blumenthal. Lewinsky was deposed on February i, Jordan on Feb ii, and Blumenthal on Feb three.^{[4] [17] [29]}

Motions on presentation of evidence (February 4) [edit]

On February four, the Senate voted lxx–thirty that excerpting the videotaped depositions would suffice as testimony, rather than calling alive witnesses to announced at trial.^[four] Firm impeachment managers had wanted to call Lewinsky to testify in-person.^[four]

Showing of excerpts from airtight-door depositions (February vi) [edit]

Excerpts of the videotaped depositions were played by the House impeachment managers to the Senate on February vi.^[30] 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 interest in procurement of a task for Lewinsky.^{[thirty] [31]} The showing of video on large screens was seen as a large departure in the apply of electronics by the Senate, which has often disallowed electronics to be utilized.^[iv]

Closing arguments (February 8) [edit]

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

There is only i question earlier you lot, albeit a difficult one, one that is a question of fact and police and constitutional theory. Would information technology 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 non, that those liberties are rubber in his hands, so you must vote to deport.^[16]

Main Prosecutor Henry Hyde countered:

A failure to captive will make the statement that lying nether oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious... We have reduced lying under adjuration to a breach of etiquette, but only if y'all are the President... And at present let usa all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done.^[sixteen]

Failed motion for unanimous consent to investigate possible perjury by Sidney Blumenthal (February 9) [edit]

On Feb nine, Arlen Specter (a Republican) asked for unanimous consent for parties to take additional discovery, including additional testimony on oral degradation by Christopher Hitchens, Carol Bluish, Scott Armstrong, and Sidney Blumenthal in order to investigate possible perjury by Blumenthal. Tom Daschle (a Democrat) voiced objection.^[32]

Closed door deliberations (Feb 9–12) [edit]

On February 9, a motility to suspend the rules and conduct open deliberations, introduced by Trent Lott (a Republican) was defeated 59–41.^{[17] [33]} Lott then motioned to begin holding closed-door deliberations, which was approved 53–47.^{[17] [34]} Closed door deliberations lasted through February 12.

Verdict [edit]

On February 12, the Senate emerged from its closed deliberations and voted on the manufactures of impeachment. A ii-thirds vote, 67 votes, would have been necessary to convict on either charge and remove the President from role. The perjury accuse was defeated with 45 votes for conviction and 55 against, and the obstacle of justice charge was defeated with 50 for conviction and 50 against.^{[35] [36] [37]} Senator Arlen Specter voted "not proved"^[a] for both charges,^[38] which was considered past Chief Justice Rehnquist to plant a vote of "not guilty". All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted "not guilty" on both charges, every bit did five Republicans; they were joined by five boosted Republicans in voting "non guilty" on the perjury accuse.^{[35] [36] [37]}

Articles of Impeachment, U.South. Senate judgement (67 "guilty" votes necessary for a confidence)
Article One (perjury / k jury)	Party		Total votes
	Democratic	Republican
Guilty	00	45	45
Not guilty Y	45	10	55
Article 2 (obstruction of justice)	Party		Full votes
	Democratic	Republican
Guilty	00	50	l
Not guilty Y	45	05	50
Roll phone call votes on the Manufactures of Impeachment Senator Party–state Article I vote[39] Article Two vote[xl] Spencer Abraham R–MI Guilty Guilty Daniel Akaka D–HI Not guilty Non guilty Wayne Allard R–CO Guilty Guilty John Ashcroft R–MO Guilty Guilty Max Baucus D–MT Not guilty Not guilty Evan Bayh D–IN Non guilty Not guilty Bob Bennett R–UT Guilty Guilty Joe Biden D–DE Not guilty Not guilty Jeff Bingaman D–NM Not guilty Not guilty Kit Bond R–MO Guilty Guilty Barbara Boxer D–CA Not guilty Non guilty John Breaux D–LA Not guilty Non guilty Sam Brownback R–KS Guilty Guilty Richard Bryan D–NV Non guilty Not guilty Jim Bunning R–KY Guilty Guilty Conrad Burns R–MT Guilty Guilty Robert Byrd D–WV Not guilty Non guilty Ben Nighthorse Campbell R–CO Guilty Guilty John Chafee R–RI Not guilty Non guilty Max Cleland D–GA Non guilty Not guilty Thad Cochran R–MS Guilty Guilty Susan Collins R–ME Not guilty Non guilty Kent Conrad D–ND Not guilty Not guilty Paul Coverdell R–GA Guilty Guilty Larry Craig R–ID Guilty Guilty Mike Crapo R–ID Guilty Guilty Tom Daschle D–SD Not guilty Not guilty Mike DeWine R–OH Guilty Guilty Chris Dodd D–CT Not guilty Not guilty Pete Domenici R–NM Guilty Guilty Byron Dorgan D–ND Non guilty Not guilty Dick Durbin D–IL Not guilty Not guilty John Edwards D–NC Non guilty Non guilty Mike Enzi R–WY Guilty Guilty Russ Feingold D–WI Not guilty Not guilty Dianne Feinstein D–CA Not guilty Non guilty Peter Fitzgerald R–IL Guilty Guilty Bill Frist R–TN Guilty Guilty Slade Gorton R–WA Not guilty Guilty Bob Graham D–FL Not guilty Not guilty Phil Gramm R–TX Guilty Guilty Rod Grams R–MN Guilty Guilty Chuck Grassley R–IA Guilty Guilty Judd Gregg R–NH Guilty Guilty Chuck Hagel R–NE Guilty Guilty Tom Harkin D–IA Not guilty Not guilty Orrin Hatch R–UT Guilty Guilty Jesse Helms R–NC Guilty Guilty Fritz Hollings D–SC Not guilty Non guilty Tim Hutchinson R–AR Guilty Guilty Kay Bailey Hutchison R–TX Guilty Guilty Jim Inhofe R–OK Guilty Guilty Daniel Inouye D–HI Not guilty Not guilty Jim Jeffords R–VT Non guilty Not guilty Tim Johnson D–SD Not guilty Not guilty Ted Kennedy D–MA Not guilty Not guilty Bob Kerrey D–NE Not guilty Non guilty John Kerry D–MA Not guilty Not guilty Herb Kohl D–WI Non guilty Not guilty Jon Kyl R–AZ Guilty Guilty Mary Landrieu D–LA Non guilty Not guilty Frank Lautenberg D–NJ Not guilty Non guilty Patrick Leahy D–VT Not guilty Not guilty Carl Levin D–MI Non guilty Non guilty Joe Lieberman D–CT Not guilty Non guilty Blanche Lincoln D–AR Not guilty Not guilty Trent Lott R–MS Guilty Guilty Richard Lugar R–IN Guilty Guilty Connie Mack 3 R–FL Guilty Guilty John McCain R–AZ Guilty Guilty Mitch McConnell R–KY Guilty Guilty Barbara Mikulski D–Doctor Not guilty Not guilty Daniel Patrick Moynihan D–NY Not guilty Not guilty Frank Murkowski R–AK Guilty Guilty Patty Murray D–WA Not guilty Not guilty Don Nickles R–OK Guilty Guilty Jack Reed D–RI Not guilty Not guilty Harry Reid D–NV Not guilty Not guilty Chuck Robb D–VA Not guilty Not guilty Pat Roberts R–KS Guilty Guilty Jay Rockefeller D–WV Not guilty Not guilty William Roth R–DE Guilty Guilty Rick Santorum R–PA Guilty Guilty Paul Sarbanes D–MD Not guilty Not guilty Chuck Schumer D–NY Non guilty Not guilty Jeff Sessions R–AL Guilty Guilty Richard Shelby R–AL Not guilty Guilty Bob Smith R–NH Guilty Guilty Gordon Smith R–OR Guilty Guilty Olympia Snowe R–ME Not guilty Not guilty Arlen Specter R–PA Not proven[a] [38] Non proven[a] [38] Ted Stevens R–AK Non guilty Guilty Craig Thomas R–WY Guilty Guilty Fred Thompson R–TN Not guilty Guilty Strom Thurmond R–SC Guilty Guilty Robert Torricelli D–NJ Not guilty Not guilty George Voinovich R–OH Guilty Guilty John Warner R–VA Not guilty Guilty Paul Wellstone D–MN Non guilty Not guilty Ron Wyden D–OR Not guilty Non guilty Sources: [41] [42] [43]

Public stance [edit]

Per Pew Enquiry Heart polling, the impeachment procedure against Clinton was generally unpopular.^[44]

Polls conducted during 1998 and early 1999 showed that simply nearly ane-3rd of Americans supported Clinton's impeachment or confidence. However, one year later, when information technology was clear that impeachment would not lead to the ousting of the President, one-half of Americans said in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that they supported impeachment, 57% approved of the Senate's conclusion to proceed him in office, and two-thirds of those polled said the impeachment was harmful to the state.^[45]

Subsequent events [edit]

Contempt of courtroom citation [edit]

In April 1999, about ii months afterwards existence acquitted by the Senate, Clinton was cited by federal District Gauge Susan Webber Wright for ceremonious contempt of courtroom 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 encounter if disciplinary activity would be advisable.^[46]

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

Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had always been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had always engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky also were intentionally false.^[46]

On the solar day before leaving office on January 20, 2001, Clinton, in what amounted to a plea deal, agreed to a 5-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and to pay a $25,000 fine every bit part of an understanding with contained counsel Robert Ray to finish the investigation without the filing of any criminal charges for perjury or obstacle of justice.^{[47] [48]} Clinton was automatically suspended from the U.s.a. Supreme Court bar every bit a effect of his police license suspension. Even so, every bit is customary, he was allowed 40 days to appeal the otherwise automatic disbarment. Clinton resigned from the Supreme Courtroom bar during the 40-solar day appeals menstruation.^[49]

Political ramifications [edit]

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.^[50] As a event, "moral grapheme" 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."^{[51] [52] [53]} According to an assay of the election by Stanford University:

A more political explanation is the belief in Gore campaign circles that disapproval of President Clinton'south personal beliefs 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 conventionalities that the country was morally on the wrong track, whatever the country of the economy or globe affairs. According to some insiders, anything washed to raise the association between Gore and Clinton would accept produced a net loss of support—the touch of Clinton's personal negatives would outweigh the positive touch on of his job functioning on back up for Gore. Thus, hypothesis 4 suggests that a previously unexamined variable played a major role in 2000—the retiring president'south personal approval.^[54]

The Stanford assay, however, presented different theories and mainly argued that Gore had lost because he decided to altitude himself from Clinton during the campaign. The writers of information technology ended:^[54]

We find that Gore'southward oft-criticized personality was non a crusade of his under-operation. Rather, the major crusade was his failure to receive a historically normal corporeality of credit for the performance of the Clinton administration... [and] failure to get normal credit reflected Gore's peculiar campaign which in turn reflected fear of association with Clinton's behavior.^[54]

According to the America'due south Future Foundation:

In the wake of the Clinton scandals, independents warmed to Bush's promise to 'restore honor and dignity to the White Firm'. According to Voter News Service, the personal quality that mattered near to voters was 'honesty'. Voters who chose 'honesty' preferred Bush over Gore by over a margin of five to one. Forty 4 percent of Americans said the Clinton scandals were of import to their vote. Of these, Bush-league reeled in three out of every four.^[55]

Political commentators have argued that Gore'south refusal to accept Clinton campaign with him was a bigger liability to Gore than Clinton's scandals.^{[54] [56] [57] [58] [59]} The 2000 U.S. Congressional election also saw the Democrats gain more seats in Congress.^[threescore] Equally a event of this gain, command of the Senate was separate l–fifty between both parties,^[61] and Democrats would proceeds control over the Senate afterwards Republican Senator Jim Jeffords defected from his political party in early 2001 and agreed to caucus with the Democrats.^[62]

Al Gore reportedly confronted Clinton later on the election, and "tried to explicate that keeping Clinton nether wraps [during the campaign] was a rational response to polls showing swing voters were nonetheless mad as hell over the Year of Monica". According to the AP, "during the i-on-1 meeting at the White Business firm, which lasted more than than an hr, Gore used uncommonly blunt language to tell Clinton that his sexual activity scandal and low personal approval ratings were a hurdle he could not surmount in his campaign... [with] the core of the dispute was Clinton'due south lies to Gore and the nation well-nigh his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky."^{[63] [64] [65]} Clinton, however, was unconvinced by Gore's argument and insisted to Gore that he would have won the election if he had embraced the assistants and its good economic record.^{[63] [64] [65]}

Notes [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b c} A verdict used in Scots law. It was recorded as a "not guilty" vote.

References [edit]

1. ^ Roos, Dave. "What Happens Afterward Impeachment". History. Archived from the original on December 19, 2019. Retrieved Dec 20, 2019.
2. ^ "President Clinton impeached". history.com. A&Due east Television Networks. January thirteen, 2021 [November 24, 2009]. Retrieved February 27, 2021.
3. ^ Glass, Andrew (October viii, 2017). "Business firm votes to impeach Clinton, Oct. 8, 1998". Politico. Archived from the original on September 28, 2020. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
4. ^ ^{a b c d due east f g h i j k l chiliad northward o p q r south t u v w x y} Wire, Sarah D. (Jan xvi, 2020). "A await dorsum at how Clinton's impeachment trial unfolded". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved Feb 27, 2021.
5. ^ "U.Southward. Constitution, Article I, Section 3". United States Senate. Archived from the original on Feb 10, 2014. Retrieved Jan fifteen, 2020.
6. ^ ^{a b} "Prosecution Who's Who". Washington Post. January 14, 1999. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
7. ^ Hyde, Henry J. (Dec 19, 1998). "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". www.congress.gov. United States Congress. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
8. ^ "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". world wide web.congress.gov. United States Congress. December nineteen, 1998. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
9. ^ "Roll Call 547 Roll Call 547, Bill Number: H. Res. 614, 105th Congress, 2d Session". Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. December 19, 1998. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
10. ^ Defense Who'south Who Archived June 17, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Postal service, January 19, 1999.
11. ^ ^{a b} "Jan. seven: The Senators Are Sworn In". Washington Mail . Retrieved Feb 28, 2021.
12. ^ "Senate's Unanimous Understanding on How to Proceed in Clinton Trial". The New York Times . Retrieved January vii, 2020.
13. ^ "Senate Impeachment Trial Procedures". Washington Post. Associated Printing. January viii, 1999. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
14. ^ "S.Res.sixteen - A resolution to provide for the issuance of a summons and for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment confronting William Jefferson Clinton, President of the U.s.". Library of Congress . Retrieved January 7, 2020.
15. ^ "White House Response to Trial Summons". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 17, 2000. Retrieved January 7, 2020.
16. ^ ^{a b c d e f} "Impeachment: Bill Clinton". The History Identify. 2000. Archived from the original on May 14, 2010. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
17. ^ ^{a b c d e f} "Senate Trial Transcripts". Washington Mail service. 1999. Retrieved February 27, 2021.
18. ^ Swanson, Ian (January 28, 2020). "Senators ready for question time in impeachment trial". TheHill . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
19. ^ "Jan. 25: Opening Business concern and Movement to Dismiss". Washington Post . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
20. ^ "Transcript: Movement to dismiss introduced in Senate impeachment trial - January 25, 1999". world wide web.cnn.com. CNN. January 25, 1999. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
21. ^ Walsh, Edwards (Jan 25, 1999). "Public May Be Shut Out of Impeachment Argue". www.washingtonpost.com . Retrieved Feb 28, 2021.
22. ^ "Jan. 26: Opening Business and Motion for Witnesses". Washington Post . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
23. ^ "Jan. 26: House Rebuttal and Vote on Closed Session". Washington Post . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
24. ^ "Jan. 27: Vote on Motility to Dismiss". Washington Post . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
25. ^ "January. 27: Vote on Motion for Witnesses". Washington Post . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
26. ^ "Jan. 28: Opening Concern and Resolutions". Washington Postal service . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
27. ^ "Jan. 28: Amendments and Votes". Washington Postal service . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
28. ^ Bruni, Frank (January 28, 1999). "THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL: THE DISSENTER; Democrat Joins the G.O.P. On two Impeachment Votes (Published 1999)". The New York Times . Retrieved Feb 28, 2021.
29. ^ Clines, Francis 10. (February iii, 1999). "THE PRESIDENT'South TRIAL: THE OVERVIEW; Senators Run across Lewinsky Record And Vernon Jordan Testifies". The New York Times . Retrieved Feb 9, 2020.
30. ^ ^{a b} Serrano, Richard A.; Lacey, Marc (Feb seven, 1999). "Lewinsky Video Takes the Spotlight in Trial Arguments". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved Feb 28, 2021.
31. ^ Abramson, Jill (Feb vi, 1999). "THE PRESIDENT'S TRIAL: THE DEPOSITIONS; WITNESSES PROVIDE NO Breakthrough IN CLINTON'S TRIAL (Published 1999)". The New York Times . Retrieved Feb 28, 2021.
32. ^ "Feb. 9: Motion to Investigate Possible Perjury By Witnesses". Washington Post. February 9, 1999. Retrieved Feb 27, 2021.
33. ^ "Feb. 9: Motion to Keep Session Open". Washington Postal service. February 9, 1999. Retrieved Feb 27, 2021.
34. ^ "Feb. ix: Motion to Hold Airtight Session". Washington Post. February 9, 1999. Retrieved February 27, 2021.
35. ^ ^{a b} Bakery, Peter (February 13, 1999). "The Senate Acquits President Clinton". The Washington Postal service. The Washington Post Co. Archived from the original on Nov 10, 2013. Retrieved Dec 4, 2013.
36. ^ ^{a b} "How the senators voted on impeachment". CNN. February 12, 1999. Retrieved June eight, 2019.
37. ^ ^{a b} Riley, Russell L. "Pecker Clinton: Domestic Affairs". Charlottesville, Virginia: Miller Centre of Public Affairs, University of Virginia. Archived from the original on September 28, 2020. Retrieved June 12, 2019.
38. ^ ^{a b c} Specter, Arlen (February 12, 1999). "Senator Specter's closed-door impeachment statement". CNN. Archived from the original on June 14, 2008. Retrieved March 13, 2008. My position in the matter is that the example has not been proved. I have gone back to Scottish law where at that place are three verdicts: guilty, non guilty, and not proved. I am not prepared to say on this tape 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 exist accorded the opportunity to vote not proved in this instance.... But on this record, the proofs are not present. Juries in criminal cases under the laws of Scotland accept three possible verdicts: guilty, not guilty, non proved. Given the option in this trial, I suspect that many Senators would cull 'not proved' instead of 'non 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.
39. ^ "U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Telephone call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session". www.senate.gov. United States Senate. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
40. ^ "U.Southward. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 106th Congress - 1st Session". www.senate.gov. U.s.a. Senate. Retrieved February 28, 2021.
41. ^ Linder, Douglas O. "Senate Votes on the Articles of Impeachment in the Trial of President Clinton: February 12, 1999". Famous Trials. Academy of Missouri-Kansas Urban center School of Police force. Retrieved June 8, 2019.
42. ^ "Roll Phone call of Votes on Articles of Impeachment". The New York Times. Associated Press. February 12, 1999. Archived from the original on January six, 2020. Retrieved June eight, 2019 – via New York Times annal.
43. ^ 145 Cong. Rec. (1999) 2376–77. Retrieved June 8, 2019.
44. ^ "Clinton'due south impeachment barely dented his public support, and it turned off many Americans". Pew Research Center . Retrieved February 28, 2021.
45. ^ Keating The netherlands. "A twelvemonth subsequently Clinton impeachment, public approval grows of House determination" Archived March 3, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. CNN. December 16, 1999.
46. ^ ^{a b} Clinton found in ceremonious antipathy for Jones testimony—Apr 12, 1999 Archived Apr eight, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
47. ^ "Mr. Clinton's Last Deal". The New York Times. January twenty, 2001. Archived from the original on April xxx, 2019. Retrieved May 15, 2019.
48. ^ Neal 5. Clinton , Civ. No. 2000-5677, Agreed Social club of Discipline (Ark. Cir. Ct. Jan 19, 2001) ("Mr. Clinton admits and acknowledges... 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...").
49. ^ U.S. Supreme Court Guild Archived Jan 22, 2002, at the Wayback Automobile. FindLaw. November xiii, 2001.
50. ^ Broder, David S.; Morin, Richard (August 23, 1998). "American Voters See 2 Very Different Bill Clintons". The Washington Postal service. p. A1. Archived from the original on November 22, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2017.
51. ^ Arotsky, Deborah (May 7, 2004). "Singer authors book on the role of ethics in Bush-league presidency". The Daily Princetonian. Archived from the original on September 30, 2007.
52. ^ Sachs, Stephen Due east. (November 7, 2000). "Of Candidates and Character". The Harvard Crimson. Archived from the original on Dec 31, 2006. Retrieved April 1, 2007.
53. ^ Bishin, B. G.; Stevens, D.; Wilson, C. (Summertime 2006). "Character Counts?: Honesty and Fairness in Election 2000". Public Opinion Quarterly. 70 (2): 235–48. doi:10.1093/poq/nfj016. S2CID 145608174. Archived from the original on January 14, 2021. Retrieved Jan 22, 2020.
54. ^ ^{a b c d} Fiorina, Thousand.; Abrams, S.; Pope, J. (March 2003). "The 2000 U.Due south. Presidential Election: Tin Retrospective Voting Be Saved?" (PDF). British Periodical of Political Science. Cambridge University Press. 33 (2): 163–87. doi:10.1017/S0007123403000073. S2CID 154669354. Archived (PDF) from the original on April seven, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2008.
55. ^ Weiner, Todd J. (May fifteen, 2004). "Pattern for Victory". America'south Future Foundation. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 12, 2015.
56. ^ "S/R 25: Gore's Defeat: Don't Arraign Nader (Marable)". Greens.org. Archived from the original on May 10, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
57. ^ Weisberg, Jacob (Nov eight, 2000). "Why Gore (Probably) Lost". Slate.com. Archived from the original on May eleven, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
58. ^ "An anatomy of 2000 The states presidential election". Nigerdeltacongress.com. Archived from the original on May sixteen, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
59. ^ "Beyond the Recounts: Trends in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election". Cairn.info. November 12, 2000. Archived from the original on May 10, 2011. Retrieved May 23, 2011.
60. ^ Ripley, Amanda (November xx, 2000). "Election 2000: Tom Daschle, Senate Minority Leader: Partisan from the Prairie". Fourth dimension. Archived from the original on November 22, 2010. Retrieved May v, 2010.
61. ^ Schmitt, Eric (Nov 9, 2000). "THE 2000 Elections: The Senate; Democrats Gain Several Senate Seats, but Republicans Retain Command". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May xviii, 2013. Retrieved May v, 2010.
62. ^ "The Crist Switch: Superlative 10 Political Defections". Time. Apr 29, 2009. Archived from the original on May 3, 2010. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
63. ^ ^{a b} Carlson, Margaret (February xi, 2001). "When a Buddy Movie Goes Bad". Time. Archived from the original on June 4, 2008. Retrieved March 31, 2008.
64. ^ ^{a b} "Clinton and Gore take it out". Associated Printing. February 8, 2001. Archived from the original on Apr two, 2015.
65. ^ ^{a b} Harris, John F. (Feb vii, 2001). "Arraign divides Gore, Clinton". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved March 16, 2015.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_trial_of_Bill_Clinton

Posted by: rothcomn1971.blogspot.com

Share this post