"Make no mistake," said Democratic Rep. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. "The president's behavior is indefensible."
Stabenow, who was then in her first term in the House of Representatives, now serves in the Senate.
On Dec. 19, 1998, she went to the House floor and inserted into the Congressional Record some of her views on then-President Bill Clinton.
"He did not tell the truth about his actions, and he should be held accountable for his behavior," Stabenow said. "I strongly believe that the best way to do this -- in fact the only constitutional alternative -- is through censure and a stiff fine.
"Once President Clinton has completed his term in office," Stabenow said as reported in the Congressional Record, "he should be charged with perjury before a court of law, just as any other private citizen would be."
While expressing her belief that Clinton should be charged with perjury, Stabenow was making an argument against impeaching him.
"I rise in opposition to this impeachment process," she said.
She would have preferred to censure Clinton.
"I am disappointed that the Republican leadership refused to allow a vote on censure," said Stabenow. "Although opponents are correct that censure is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, there is nothing that prohibits this action."
Democratic Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California agreed with Stabenow that there should be a censure vote on Clinton.
On Dec. 18, 1998, she had given a floor speech attacking Republicans for seeking to impeach him.
"Today is a tragic day for our country because, while our young people are fighting in the Persian Gulf and bringing honor to our country, we are bringing dishonor to it with our hypocrisy here in this chamber," said Pelosi.
Recommended
"Today the Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance," she said. "In the investigation of the president fundamental principles which Americans hold dear, privacy, fairness, checks and balances, have been seriously violated, and why? Because we are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton, and until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer."
The next day, as recorded in the Congressional Record, Pelosi said: "Mr. Speaker, our Republican colleagues have agreed that censure is not constitutional. Censure is indeed a constitutional option."
"The power of Congress to censure is an obvious corollary of the legislature's inherent power as a deliberative body to speak its mind," she said. "It is therefore clear that censure is not prohibited by the Constitution and is indeed a germane penalty. I urge the chair to rule the censure motion in order."
Then-Rep. Chuck Schumer of New York, who had just been elected to the Senate, went to the House floor on Dec. 19, 1998, to explain that "lying under oath" need not be an impeachable offense.
"If the president were caught, if any president were caught speeding at a hundred miles an hour, he would have to be disciplined so that others would not feel that reckless speeding was permissible," Schumer said. "But we certainly would not use the political equivalent of capital punishment, impeachment, to discipline that president.
"On the other hand, if the president accepted a bribe, there would be no doubt he should be impeached, and all 435 of us would vote for it," said Schumer.
"Lying under oath about an extramarital relationship requires significant punishment, such as censure, but not the political version of capital punishment, impeachment," he said.
"My colleagues, the rule of law requires that the punishment fit the crime," said Schumer. "Allow us to vote for censure, the appropriate punishment under rule of law."
Despite the arguments made by Stabenow, Pelosi and Schumer, the House voted to approve two articles of impeachment against Clinton. One said, "Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury." Among the things this impeachment article said he gave "false and misleading testimony" about was "prior perjurious, false and misleading testimony he gave in a federal civil rights action brought against him."
The second article of impeachment the House approved against Clinton stated that he "has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding."
Neither of these articles of impeachment secured the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate needed to convict Clinton.
On April 12, 1999, however, Judge Susan Webber Wright, who sat on the U.S. District Court in Arkansas, issued an opinion in the civil suit that Paula Jones had filed against Clinton. Jones had been an Arkansas state employee when Clinton was that state's governor. When Clinton was deposed in that case, he was asked about his relationship with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.
"Simply put, the President's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false," Judge Wright wrote in her opinion, "and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term sexual relations."
The next day, The New York Times published a story that said: "A Federal judge held President Clinton in contempt of court today, saying he had willfully provided false testimony under oath about his relationship with Monica S. Lewinsky in the sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Corbin Jones."
Was Clinton ever "charged with perjury before a court of law" as then-Rep. Stabenow said "he should be"?
No.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member