Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cody andre who wrote (29646)	1/25/1999 6:33:00 AM
From: jimpit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

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