G.O.P. Divides Over Need to Call Witnesses in Trial nytimes.com
To momentarily pollute this august forum with a source less reputable than local hero Drudge, here's the good gray Times on the current intramural squabbling about how to get out of this mess.
The Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, and the 13 House Republicans planning to prosecute an impeachment trial of President Clinton in the Senate clashed on Tuesday over whether to call any witnesses.
Lott also proposed beginning the Senate trial on Jan. 11, after initial procedural steps next week, and finishing within two weeks, a timetable many Democrats dismiss as overly optimistic.
How long a trial lasts depends in large part on whether the Senate relies on the evidence gathered by the independent counsel, Kenneth W. Starr, or whether the House managers present witnesses.
"Are witnesses required? I don't think so," Lott, R-Miss., said in a telephone interview from his home state with The Associated Press.
"I think the record is there to be reviewed, read, presented in a form" that the House prosecutors choose, the senator said. "I think that would be sufficient."
The adulterous papal knight Hyde has other ideas, of course. Maybe he wants to call Drudge as a witness, or some local participant who just knows all the evil Clinton has done, regardless of evidence. |
