>>> 1,305 PEOPLE HAVE SERVED AS UNITED STATES SENATORS IN OUR
HISTORY.
HISTORY. ONLY 154 OF THEM HAVE BEEN
JURORS IN IMPEACHMENT TRIALS OF
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES.
STATES. JOINING US NOW IS ONE OF THOSE
154, FORMER DEMOCRATIC SENATOR
FROM WISCONSIN RUSS FINEGOLD WHO
WAS SWORN IN AS A JUROR IN THE
IMPEACHMENT TRIAL OF PRESIDENT
BILL CLINTON.
BILL CLINTON. SENATOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR
JOINING US TONIGHT.
REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> LAWRENCE, IT’S A PLEASURE.
THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. >> TELL US ABOUT THAT MOMENT
WHERE YOU HAD TO TAKE THAT
ADDITIONAL OATH BEYOND YOUR OATH
OF OFFICE AS A SENATOR, THAT
OATH THAT ENDS WITH I WILL DO
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE ACCORDING TO
THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS SO
HELP ME GOD.
>> THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS,
AND IT REALLY WAS AN INCREDIBLE
EXPERIENCE BECAUSE I’D JUST DONE
A DIFFERENT OATH IN THE MIDDLE
OF THE WEEK TO START A SECOND
TERM AS A UNITED STATES SENATOR.
BUT IT IS REQUIRED BY THE
CONSTITUTION.
CONSTITUTION. IT’S THE ONLY OTHER OATH
REQUIRED THAN THE OTHER MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS TAKE AND OF COURSE
WHAT THE PRESIDENT TAKES.
AND IT’S A DIFFERENT OATH.
WE HAD A SEPARATE SIGNING
CEREMONY WHERE WE HAD TO GO UP
AND EACH DO THIS OATH FOR
IMPARTIAL JUSTICE AND AS YOU
SAID, SO HELP ME GOD.
TO ME IT WAS A SOMBER MOMENT.
IN MANY WAYS THE FACTS WERE SORT
OF ABSURD, THE PROCESS WAS
BIZARRE.
BIZARRE. BUT AT THAT MOMENT WHEN THE
CHIEF JUSTICE CAME IN AND WHEN
THE TRIAL STARTED, I THINK MOST
OF US TOOK IT VERY SERIOUSLY
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HAD TO
BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE
FOUNDERS WILL.
FOUNDERS WILL. AND WHAT THE FOUNDERS WANTED WAS
FOR THIS PROCESS TO BE DIFFICULT
BUT SERIOUS, IN A DIRE SITUATION
SUCH AS THE ONE WE’RE IN RIGHT
NOW.
NOW. AND I HOPE ALL SENATORS WILL
TAKE IT EXACTLY THAT WAY.
>> HOW MUCH PARTISAN PRESSURE
DID YOU FEEL FROM YOUR OWN
PARTY?
PARTY? HOW MUCH PARTISAN PRESSURE DID
YOU FEEL IN THE ROOM THAT THE
REPUBLICANS WERE FEELING IN THAT
SENATE CHAMBER?
SENATE CHAMBER? >> WELL, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU
THERE WAS FAR TOO MUCH PARTISAN
PRESSURE ON BOTH SIDES.
EVEN THOUGH SENATORS WERE
DILIGENT AND LISTENED CAREFULLY
TO THE INFORMATION THAT WAS
BEING PRESENTED ON THE FLOOR OF
THE SENATE IN THE CAUCUSES THAT
WERE HELD, THERE WAS TREMENDOUS
PRESSURE TO JUST GO ALONG WITH
THE PRESIDENT OR GO AGAINST THE
PRESIDENT.
PRESIDENT. AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS, FRANKLY,
INAPPROPRIATE.
INAPPROPRIATE. AND I BECAME THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC
SENATOR TO ACTUALLY VOTE TO HEAR
THE EVIDENCE, TO ACTUALLY SEE
THEDES
THEDES THE DEPOSITIONS BEFORE I MADE A
FINAL DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT
TO CONVICT THE PRESIDENT.
AND I THINK THAT’S KPLAEKT WHAT
SHOULD BE DONE HERE.
BOTH SIDES SHOULD BELIEVE THAT
HEARING THE CASE, HEARING THE
EVIDENCE IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENT TO LIVE UP THAT
SOMEONE DOES IMPARTIAL JUSTICE.
THIS IS NOT A REGULAR BILL.
THIS IS NOT WHAT WE USED TO SEE
OUT THERE WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT
ISSUES TRYING TO SCORE POINTS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT GOES WAY
BEYOND THIS THAT INVOLVES THE
INTEGRITY OF OUR COUNTRY AND IN
THIS CASE THE NATIONAL SECURITY
OF OUR COUNTRY.
>> SENATOR, LET ME TAKE YOU BACK
TO THAT MOMENT JUST TO EXPLAIN
TO THE AUDIENCE THE VERY FIRST
THING ONE OF THE VERY FIRST
PROCEDURAL THINGS THAT HAPPENED
IN THE SENATE CHAMBER IS THERE
WAS A MOTION INTRODUCED TO
DISMISS THE CASE, AND YOU WERE
THE ONLY DEMOCRAT WHO VOTED IN
FAVOR OF HEARING THE CASE AT
THAT POINT.
THAT POINT. >> THAT’S RIGHT.
THERE WERE ACTUALLY TWO WEEKS OF
VERY INTERESTING ARGUMENT, ORAL
ARGUMENT, INTRODUCTORY
ARGUMENT, INTRODUCTORY STATEMENTS BY THE HOUSE MANAGERS
COMING IN TO PROSECUTE THE CASE
AGAINST PRESIDENT CLINTON AND
THEN THERE WAS THE DEFENSE OF
PRESIDENT CLINTON.
PRESIDENT CLINTON. AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT
SENATOR BURR, HE DID MOVE TO
DISMISS THE CASE EVEN THOUGH
THERE WERE A NUMBER OFDES
DEPOSITIONS INCLUDING THE
DEPOSITION OF MONICA LEWINSKY,
AND I THOUGHT WE HAD TO LOOK AT
THE EVIDENCE AND OF
THAT PRESIDENT CLINTON HAD
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE
OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE AND SO I VOTED NOT TO CONVICT
HIM, AND I BELIEVE ABOUT TEN
REPUBLICANS ALSO DID NOT VOTE TO
CONVICT HIM.
CONVICT HIM. THE PROCESS WILL BE FAR BETTER
23 WE DO THAT, AND I THINK
EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ON GUARD IF
SENATOR McCONNELL TRIES TO
QUICKLY DISMISS THE CASE MAYBE
EVEN EARLIER THAN WAS ATTEMPTED
IN THE CLINTON CASE.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE A
FULL TRIAL IF THIS OCCURS AND
FRANKLIT FOUNDERS OF OUR COUNTRY
BASICALLY REQUIRED THAT A TRIAL
BE HELD AND THAT A VOTE BE HELD
ON WHETHER THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
BE CONVICTED OR NOT AND REMOVED
FROM OFFICE.
FROM OFFICE. >> THAT’S A REALLY IMPORTANT
CLARIFICATION ABOUT WHEN THE
DISMISSAL MOTION CAME.
IT CAME AT THE END OF THE
PRESENTATION OF THE EVIDENCE IN
THE CASE
THE CASE AS HAPPENS IN A TRIAL, IT’S ALL
THE EVIDENCE HAS GONE IN AND THE
DEFENSE COUNSEL STANDS UP AND
ASKS FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT,
WHICH IS KIND OF THE EQUIVALENT
OF WHAT THEY’RE ASKING FOR HERE.
>> RIGHT
>> RIGHT >> NOT ON THAT FIRST DAY
AND THAT IS A HUGE DISTINCTION
THAT WE HAVE TO WATCH IN THIS