THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 25, 1999
OPINION
EDITORIAL
The trial must go on
Quite fascinating, the argument being made by Senate
Democrats: There is no chance of getting the two-thirds
vote required to convict President Clinton, so the case
should be dismissed. Fascinating, because this Democratic
argument is an indictment of Democratic senators. No matter
what the evidence, no matter how compelling the case, no
matter how obvious Mr. Clinton's guilt, there aren't enough
honest Democrats in the Senate to make conviction even a
possibility. What a sad commentary on the president's party.
Yes, the president's lawyers presented a lucid defense of
their client, but it was a defense that required senators to believe
a half-dozen impossible things before breakfast. Frankly, the
Senate trial to date has been a lawyer's dream. Since the fix is
in, the president's attorneys have had the luxury of making
arguments of palpable absurdity. Consider this whopper offered
up by obstruction-of-justice expert Cheryl Mills: Mr. Clinton
didn't interfere with Betty Currie's testimony, she claimed,
because he neither threatened nor intimidated her.
A normal jury would have laughed the White House lawyers'
client all the way to the clink. But as Sen. Tom "pile of dung"
Harkin was so correct to point out, the Senate is no mere jury.
Compare the questions asked by grand jurors last summer: They
pressed Monica Lewinsky for make-or-break details; they
demanded of Mr. Clinton straight answers. By contrast, the
questions senators passed to the Chief Justice betray a telling
lack of interest in the facts. The president's infuriating
performance before the grand jury clearly had those jurors ready
to indict, if only they had the opportunity. The president's
lawyers' infuriating performance before the Senate merely had
Mr. Clinton's partisans in that body declaring victory.
Here is the argument made by the president's lawyers: Take
the mountain of evidence against Mr. Clinton and break it into
hundreds of little molehills. Consider each molehill separately,
and ask poignantly, "You wouldn't kick a president out of office
for such a trifle, would you?" Then deny that the molehill even
exists. To make such a denial, the lawyers seize upon some
disparity or inconsistency in the shape of the molehill, and
demand that any uncertainty be resolved by denying the
existence of the molehill. This has always been the last line of
defense for this president: Never mind that he has been caught
in one bald-faced lie after another; never mind that he never
admits a lie unless the forensic evidence has him dead to rights
-- for all that we must maintain a prima facie belief in the
testimony of William Jefferson Clinton. We must cling to that
belief even if it means disbelieving the testimony of dozens of
others. Such a defense would never work with an impartial jury.
The Democrats' unwillingness to keep their sworn oath of
impartiality is no reason to truncate the trial. The majority is in a
position to demand witnesses, and demand they should. The
president's defense has argued that it is only fair for every blurry
occurance to be resolved in his favor. Perhaps. But that doesn't
mean there isn't a better way to resolve blurry occurances: the
Senate might try to achieve clarity instead. Betty Currie knows
for a certainty whether the president asked her to retrieve the
gifts given to Monica. Betty Currie knows for a certainty
whether she called Monica or vice versa to arrange the present
drop. She can, and should be asked to make the record complete
and clear. The president's lawyers, after all, have been
debriefing Mrs. Currie, so why shouldn't the Senate?
Then there is Ms. Lewinsky. Mr. Clinton's lawyers say she is
1) the best witness in the president's defense ("No one ever told
me to lie.") and 2) a pathological liar whose word can't be
trusted because it conflicts with Mr. Clinton's (i.e., on the matter
of who touched whom, when and where). Well, which is it?
Bring Monica forward, and let's find out.
Perhaps, as the Democrats have assured one and all, it is all
over. Perhaps even divine revelation would be insufficient to
convince Senate Democrats of their man's guilt. Even so, the
Senate can get to the truth and has an obligation to do so. The
obstinate refusal of the minority to live up to their constitutional
responsibilities is no reason for the majority to abandon theirs.
Copyright © 1999 News World Communications, Inc.
--------------------------------------------
washtimes.com |
