BP, the Starr report IS manifestly one sided. My point is that as far as evidence gathering goes, the prosecution should be deemed to have rested.
My futher point is that the House's job is analagous to a Grand Jury. Their job is to determine whether Starr has gathered enough evidence, considered by itself without seeing a full presentation of the President's side, to support each, or any, of Starr's charges. And if there is, which, if any, would meet the Constitutional standard of a High Crime and Misdemeanor?
Whichever of Starr's charges meet that two part test should be sent to the Senate for trial. At which trial the President must, ultimately, be given a full opportunity to present exculpatory evidence and to cross examine Starr's witnesses. As well as to make arguments about the quality of Starr's case itself, and what is impeachable.
The House's job is not evidence collection intensive at all. Starr has done that for the prosecution, which is the House's primary focus. Though I think they should listen to the President's legal arguments as to what is and is not supported by Starr's evidence. As well as anything exculpatory which Starr has found but not provided, or anything the Pres. can readily provide that does not involve cross.
House get on with it.
Doug |
