To: sea_biscuit who wrote (28663 ) 1/20/1999 3:45:00 PM From: Daniel Schuh Read Replies (1) | Respond to
Inherit the Wind nytimes.com Just as the facts of Scopes' crime and the verdict of the Dayton, Tenn., jury were known from Day One of his trial, so we now know the facts about Mr. Clinton's crimes and his jury's likely verdict. That's why the key witnesses we need to hear are not just Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie and Linda Tripp -- entertaining as they doubtless would be in the well of the Senate -- but the generals in the larger battle, whom we can only hope will be called too. As Darrow, the defense lawyer, cross-examined Bryan, the chief prosecutor, in a surprise move to exhume the heart of his case, so a member of the Clinton defense team must go after Kenneth Starr or Henry Hyde in a trial that by definition is less about jurisprudence than political theater. Let the prosecution cross-examine Mr. Clinton in fair exchange. Mr. Hyde crystallized that conflict best when he said it could be O.K. for a President to "shade the truth" for "a compelling, demanding, public purpose," but not "under oath, for a private pleasure." This moral code is the precise opposite of that held by Mr. Clinton's defenders, who find public truth-shading about, say, Iran-contra more reprehensible than Bible-sworn lying in a courtroom about sex.
