by Peter Baker
Do you feel youre in danger? Collins asked Willey.
Yes.
Willey offered no comment on Clinton or what the Senate should do with him. After about two hours, she left. Collins did not know what to think. As she and Abbott chewed it over afterward, Collins said she was convinced Willey was telling the truth as she saw it, but did not know if all the things she had described were really part of an orchestrated campaign of intimidation. For all they knew, a dog could have dragged in the dead-animal skull, Collins said. And Willey had not talked about her dealings with Nathan Landow, the Maryland developer and Democratic fund-raiser she had accused of trying to influence her testimony in the Jones case. Collins knew that the Willey situation, whatever the facts, was not really before the Senate to consider, just as she could not consider Clintons dishonest testimony in the Jones deposition because the House had rejected the article of impeachment focusing on that. But still, she could not help but find what she had heard this night troubling. Knowing what she knew, meeting a possible victim of Clintons lechery, could Collins really vote to leave this man in the highest office of the land? Could she genuinely call him not guilty and let him get away with such revolting behavior?
The final deliberations in the case had begun behind closed doors earlier that day as Clinton returned to Washington from the funeral of King Hussein. With the television lights switched off, the Senate chamber was so dark that it was hard to see. Unlike normal jurors, most of the senators approached the lectern with their decisions already settled and prepared texts in hand, the product of weeks of research by aides, lawyers, and, in a few cases, the senators themselves. The spontaneous give-and-take of the first meeting in the Old Senate Chamber had long since vanished. Rather than debate the case or talk through the evidence, the senators instead engaged in a series of back-to-back speeches explaining the votes about to be cast. After a time, it would begin to sound repetitive, but the dialogue still had a profound sense of purpose, and many of the senators rose to the occasion with oratory touching on accountability, constitutionality, and proportionality. They quoted Alexander Hamilton, Socrates, even the Boy Scout oath. They shared stories of personal failings and ruminated on the nexus between private sins and public trust. And they reached out to one another in hopes of avoiding the partisan explosion they had long feared.
Limited to fifteen minutes apiece, the speeches flipped back and forth between the two parties, first a Republican, followed by a Democrat, and so forth. Republicans went in order of how they had signed up to speak, while Democrats went by seniority, with the exception of Robert Byrd and Tom Daschle, who were to go last. As soon as the doors were closed, the first senator, Slade Gorton, approached the lectern and stared out at his colleagues. Gorton, who had tried to short-circuit the trial along with Joe Lieberman at the beginning, announced that while he would support conviction on Article II, he would vote against Article I, registering the first Republican defector at the very start. Phil Gramm surprised no one by announcing he would vote guilty on both counts, but reflected the sentiment of many in the chamber when he said a leader with honor would fall on your own sword. He added: The difference between Nixon and Clinton is that Nixon had some shame. Ted Stevens, the crusty Appropriations Committee chairman, stood up soon afterward and added another Republican no on Article I. He believed Clinton did obstruct justice and said he would vote for Article II. Yet Stevens qualified his support in a curious way: if his would be the deciding vote, he said, he would vote against Article II as well, because he did not believe the allegations, while proven, justified Clintons removal. In effect, he said, he was voting not guilty, but he better not do it again.
The second day of deliberations, Wednesday, February 10, offered more of the same. Democrats found reasons why Clintons behavior was not an attack on the foundations of American democracy, while Starrs was. Republicans mostly struggled to hold their own in the face of significant doubts among their more moderate or pragmatic senators. Day two saw a tough judgment by freshman Republican Jim Bunning of Kentucky, erudition from Democrat Pat Moynihan of New York, and a spirited defense of the independent counsel law from Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Republican who had been wearing a Free Lisa Myers button on the floor of the Senate in reference to NBCs never-aired interview with Juanita Broaddrick. Mr. Chief Justice, my fellow senators, as this trial nears the end, we have to ask the question how we got here with a tragedy like this, Grassley said in the dim chamber. There are many losers. There are no winners. There are surely no heroes. There are lots of lessons to be learned, and I think all of our prayers ought to go out to those who were ensnared in the web of controversy.
Quite a few senators had their eye on John McCain as he approached the lectern, wondering how the Arizona maverick and prospective Republican presidential candidate would go. The normally outspoken McCain had remained unusually silent through the trial, presumably uncomfortable with the topic given his own admitted adulteries that broke up his first marriage after his return from a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp. Given his history and his desired future, conservatives suspected he would try to weasel his way though. But when it came time to render a verdict, McCain came down strongly against the president: I have done things in my private life that I am not proud of. I suspect many of us have. But we are not asked to judge the presidents character flaws. We are asked to judge whether the president, who swore an oath to faithfully execute his office, deliberately subvertedfor whatever purposethe rule of law. McCain said the commander in chief must be held to an even higher standard than the military. I cannotnot in deference to public opinion, or for political considerations, or for the sake of comity and friendshipI cannot agree to expect less from the president.
At 5:45 P.M., Russ Feingold rose from his seat and headed for the front of the chamber. The only Democrat to vote against dismissing the case earlier in the trial, Feingold was the center of considerable speculation about where he might wind up at the end. He had prolonged the suspense by ordering his staff to draft both conviction and acquittal statements. Republicans were desperate for any chance to call the final vote bipartisan, and their only hopes at this point were Feingold and the mercurial Robert Byrd. If they got even a single Democratic vote, they might be able to make the argument that the case was not simply a partisan exercise by a vengeful majority.
But Feingold was to disappoint them. From the lectern, the senator from Wisconsin gave his view of the history of impeachmentthe Andrew Johnson case, he said, was weak, while the Richard Nixon one was strong. Clintons fell in the murky middle. This is a close case. In that sense, it may be the most important of the three presidential impeachments, in terms of the law of impeachment, as we go into the future. I agree neither with the House managers who say their evidence is overwhelming, nor with the presidents counsel who says the evidence against the president is nonexistent. The fact is, this is a hard case, and sometimes they say that hard cases make bad law. But we cannot afford to have this be bad law for the nations sake.
Feingold dismissed perjury with a single sentence, deeming it unproven. As to obstruction of justice, the president did come perilously close. Of most concern were Clintons coaching of Betty Currie, Monica Lewinskys false affidavit, and the hidden gifts. On Currie, Feingold concluded that Clinton could have been trying to get her to cover up for him with family and the media, not to lie in a court proceeding. And on the affidavit and the gifts, he said, Lewinskys videotaped testimony elicited by the managers actually convinced him that there was not enough evidence to convictshe did not say the president urged her to falsify the affidavit and she seemed indefinite about whether it was her or Currie who initiated the meeting that transferred the gifts to the presidents secretary.
It is best not to err at all in this case, Feingold said. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.
At 6:07 P.M., the next Democrat to rise was Joe Lieberman. While he had
been perhaps the most publicly critical of the president among his fellow Democrats six months earlier, Lieberman had tipped his hand with his attempt to short-circuit the trial and his collaboration with Dianne Feinstein on censure. But fellow senators still paid attention to Lieberman out of respect for his candor and thoughtfulness. In the end, he told his colleagues, the Senate should not substitute its judgment for that of the American people on who should lead them unless a presidents continued service constituted a grave threat to the national interest. No matter how deeply disappointed I am that our president, who has worked so successfully to lift up the lives of so many people, so lowered himself and his office, I conclude that his wrong-doing in this sordid saga does not justify making him the first president to be ousted from office in our history. I will therefore vote against both articles of impeachment.
After the days proceedings ended, Susan Collins headed to a downtown Washington restaurant for another dinner with key players in the casethis time, Dan Gecker, Kathleen Willeys attorney, and Lisa Myers, the NBC reporter who had interviewed Juanita Broaddrick. When Willey first called and asked to meet, she had offered either to come herself or to have her lawyer talk with the senator. Collins ended up scheduling both. Gecker was especially harsh about the president, describing himself as a disillusioned Democrat who had voted for Clinton twice. He went through the same incidents Willey had related the night before and, while not suggesting Clinton was directly involved, argued they could not simply be coincidence. Where his client had remained circumspect on the trial, Gecker urged Collins to vote for conviction.
Collins returned to her apartment late and called an aide to get the latest edits of her draft statement. While she had already dismissed Article I, Collins had been under a lot of pressure to vote for conviction on Article IIfrom her fellow Republicans, from her constituents, and now from a woman allegedly wronged by the president. In listening to Asa Hutchinson present the case, she had been convinced that Clinton had indeed obstructed justice. Yet, sitting there alone near midnight, Collins could not convince herself that what he had done was a high crime. She decided to vote not guilty.
She climbed out of bed barely six hours later on the morning of Thursday, February 11, fumbled into her workout clothes, and met her friend, Republican senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, for their regular walk to the Washington Monument and back. As they marched down the Mall, Hutchison warned Collins that she was considered a key swing vote on Article II. Collins nodded, but said nothing about the decision she had made. After a shower and a change of clothes, Collins headed over to the Senate chamber. Scanning the speaking list, she realized she would not have a chance to address the Senate until the end of the day, and she was leery of revealing her decision until then. But the longer she remained undeclared, the longer she was a convenient target for lobbying. Lott had never entertained hope of conviction but now wanted only to put together a simple majority vote on just one of the two articles. Collins was critical to that effort. The imperative to prevent Clinton from claiming victory had increased after a report in that mornings New York Times had disclosed the presidents private vow to defeat the House managers in the 2000 elections. For the first time in the trial, one Republican senator after another came up to Collins on the floor to press for her support. Don Nickles, the GOP whip, and Phil Gramm, the staunch Clinton critic, each made a pitch for a guilty vote. Rick Santorum argued that all she needed to do was delete a single word from her statementnot. Gordon Smith, a mild-mannered Republican from Oregon, handwrote a thoughtful letter outlining why she should vote to convict.
When Mitch McConnell approached her and noted that she was in a difficult position, Collins bridled. First of all, she told him, while she had not announced her intentions, her mind was made up. Second, she added, she would cast her vote before Jim Jeffords, Richard Shelby, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter, the other likely not-guilty votes, meaning she would not be the one to deny the managers the fifty-first vote.
A short while later, an aide told her Lott wanted to see her privately in the Republican cloakroom. Collins marched in, full of steam. Before Lott got out a word, she exploded, Look, my vote is not in play. Ive got to do what I think is right. She added pointedly that she resented the pressure.
To her chagrin, Lott immediately agreed. The lobbying was totally inappropriate, he said soothingly. But he needed to know which way she planned to vote. If she would support Article II, he said, she would be given one of two prestigious speaking slots just before the final vote.
Then he had better line up another senator, Collins said.
On the floor that day, the closed deliberations featured more tough assessments of the president from both sides of the aisle. Republican senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming compared Clinton to Mike Tyson, saying job performance should not be a reason to acquit. Senator Jesse Helms concluded that because of Clintons scandals national debate is now a national joke. But Senator Barbara Boxer, the outspoken liberal Democrat from California, apologized for voting for the independent counsel law that had led to the Ken Starr witch-hunt and contrasted Clintons consensual affair with Lewinsky with the conduct of Bob Packwood, the Republican senator she had helped force from office after numerous allegations of sexual harassment. She also addressed her family connection to Clinton and denied any favoritism. I just want to say that, yes, my daughter is married to the first ladys brother, a brother who loves and admires his sister and doesnt want to see her hurt. So, I am far from being a defender of the presidents behavior.
At 1:55 P.M., following a lunch break, Senator Arlen Specter got up. Specter had been the Republicans chief inquisitor of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings, forever diluting his otherwise strong reputation among womens rights activists as a moderate, pro-abortion-rights GOP ally. Throughout the Lewinsky saga, he had often played the contrarian, first arguing that the House should not impeach the president but instead leave him to Starrs mercies in criminal court after leaving office, then later arguing on behalf of the managers for a full-blown trial with witnesses, including Clinton himself. As he addressed the Senate, Specter did not clear up the confusion. But he did provide a telling critique of the process they had used, saying the senators should not have held separate caucuses by party during the trialputting his finger on one of the dynamics that had helped enforce a partisan interpretation of evidence and events.
My position in the matter is that the case has not been proved, Specter said. I have gone back to Scottish law where there are three verdictsguilty, 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.
The other senators looked at each other with quizzical gazes and scornful eye-rolling. Not proved? Scottish law? Senator Pat Leahy stood and asked the chief justice whether senators were allowed to vote in any way other than guilty or not guilty. The parliamentarian advised that anything but guilty would not count toward the two-thirds required for conviction.
As the afternoon wore on, a few senators decided not to speak but merely to put their statements into the written record for the archives. Others drifted in and out, despite the historic nature of what was happening around them. But most wanted to have their say, even though the only audience was their peers. For many, this was a moment to express thoughts they might not in public. At a dinner party the night before the deliberations began, Senator Bob Torricelli, one of the presidents most ardent defenders on television, had shocked some of the guests when he said he could not wait until Clinton was out of office and thought what he had done to distract from his mission had been criminal. Now on the Senate floor, Torricelli revealed that private disdain to his colleagues. Clintons conduct, he told the other senators, was a worse disappointment to Democrats than Republicans. The president squandered his opportunity. But he cant make us cast a bad
vote now. Removal was not the answer. Clintons not worth it. No one will even remember him.
Senator Evan Bayh, the fresh-faced, newly elected Democrat from Indiana, did little to disguise his assessment of Clinton either as he spoke without notes. After suggesting that Rehnquist write a sequel to his book on impeachment (I know what its going to be titled, the chief justice responded deadpan, Mr. Bayh, Aye; Ms. Snowe, No), Bayh explained why he had concluded that Clintons offenses did not measure up to high crimes. I might have had a different view of this case under the Twenty-fifth Amendment on mental incapacity, he said, presumably half-joking as he referred to the constitutional provision allowing for removal of a president in cases of infirmity.
The day also revealed more doubts among Republicans. Senator Olympia Snowe disclosed that she would vote against both articles, though she added, I resent the ordeal he has put this country through. In a surprise to many, Senator John Warner of Virginia announced that he would vote against Article I, while supporting Article II. An establishment Republican, Warner had nonetheless in the past sometimes defied party convention by opposing confirmation of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and the election of Oliver North to the Senate.
When the time finally came for Susan Collins to speak, most everyone had figured out which way she was going, but hers was still a critical voice. She had still not found the answer really, not to her satisfaction. She felt Clinton had lied to Starrs grand jury, but the questioning had not been as precise as it should have been to nail him down, and the issues in dispute were less than monumental. She concluded that Clinton had obstructed justice in the Jones case by coaching Betty Currie, hiding the gifts, and finding a job for Lewinsky, and yet it was a civil case, not a criminal investigation, and the facts that were being covered up were not issues of great moment. Crimes? Yes. High crimes? No.
