Nadine, come on. I respect your opinions, and I hope you respect mine.
1. Did Clinton have the right to read the Starr report before it was presented to the Judiciary Committee? No. But he was given it at the same time, and he had the right to respond.
2. Clinton ABSOLUTELY had the right to call the witnesses of his choice. I think what you are objecting to is the fact that the Republicans did not call the witnesses, take their testimony under direct examination, and then allow Clinton to cross-examine, as is ordinarily done in a court of law. Yes, the Republicans did not call the witnesses to testify, that's irrefutable. However, it is also irrefutable that Clinton did not call the witnesses to testify, although he could have.
In a court of law, if the Republicans had presented hearsay, they would have lost. I can't emphasize strongly enough that this was not a court of law. There are many situations in which the rules of evidence developed for legal cases don't apply. This is one of them. Adminstrative procedures are another. They are legion. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
The rules of evidence are good things, but they were adopted by courts of law, and are not necessarily part of due process. Even in a court of law, if the evidence is contrary to the rules of evidence, if the other party does not object to its introduction, it comes in, and is not grounds for mistrial. It does not violate due process. Our Canadian friends, for example, could open your eyes on the exclusionary rule.
The salient issue is whether the burden of proof was met. If the quality of the evidence was insufficient, then the burden of proof was not met, so the inquiry begins with the quality of the evidence.
I wish I could get you to understand that Clinton has no actual quarrel with the quality of the evidence. The facts are not in dispute. It is the consequences of those facts that are in dispute.
The process was fair to Clinton. It is the result that you disagree with, and I do not dispute your right to do so. |
