Partisanship expected in impeachment trial

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON -- While celebrating their unanimous agreement on impeachment trial rules, the senators now sitting in judgment of President Clinton made clear Sunday that they still divide along the same partisan lines as their House colleagues when viewing the basic elements of the case.

For all the talk of bipartisanship, Republicans and Democrats remain split not only on key issues such as whether to call witnesses or to consider censure but also on the more fundamental questions about whether the allegations against Clinton are serious enough to remove a president from office for the first time in history. The disagreements that became clear on the television interview shows Sunday forecast serious trouble ahead for the presidential jurors as they attempt to maintain the sort of civility that brought them together for a 100-to-0 approval of procedures Friday. To achieve that accord, the senators postponed the critical decision on whether to hear live testimony on the floor from Monica Lewinsky and others involved and are likely to face off again on that in weeks to come. "We're in a bipartisan mode for the opening kickoff," said Sen. John Breaux, D-La. "Halftime is questionable. If we go into overtime, all bets are off." With procedures in place for the moment, the substantive debate will begin today as the White House files its formal response to the two articles of impeachment alleging that Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up an Oval Office affair with Lewinsky. The written response is likely to be brief and not break new ground, according to sources close to the defense team, and the White House probably won't file any significant motions by today's 5 p.m. deadline. Clinton lawyers had prepared to file a motion to dismiss the case outright but likely will defer to Senate Democrats such as Breaux who said on ABC's "This Week" that such a move should wait until after the initial round of arguments by both sides. Those presentations will start Thursday with House Republican prosecutors, called "managers," who will have 24 hours spread over several days to make their case. Clinton's lawyers will follow and have the same amount of time. The format presents distinct challenges. Unlike the House Judiciary Committee, where lawyers had brief opening statements, then answered five minutes of questions from each member, the prosecution and defense presentations to the Senate will occur without interruption and amount to days of filibuster-like speeches with no interaction. Senators won't be allowed to pose questions until after both sides have been heard and then must submit questions in writing. In preparing for such long presentations, both sides were firming up their lineups and tactical approaches Sunday. The Clinton team, according to sources, plans to use six lawyers, led by White House counsel Charles F.C. Ruff and including three members of his staff -- Gregory B. Craig, Cheryl D. Mills and Lanny A. Breuer -- as well as the president's private attorneys, David E. Kendall and Nicole K. Seligman. The White House case is tentatively set to begin Jan. 19, just hours before Clinton is scheduled to deliver the State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress. Aides indicated over the weekend that Clinton would proceed with the speech despite the awkwardness of the encounter, although several senators, including Democrats Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Dianne Feinstein of California called on him again Sunday to postpone it. House managers Sunday were re-evaluating initial plans to have Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis., open the case. Judiciary Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., the head of the 13-member team, now is likely to deliver opening remarks, with Sensenbrenner still participating in the initial arguments, according to a source familiar with the planning. Four other members -- Reps. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark.; Robert L. Barr, R-Ga.; Ed Bryant, R-Tenn.; and James E. Rogan, R-Calif. -- will handle the presentation of facts for different parts of the case. Given the discomfort among many senators about live testimony, House prosecutors were streamlining their list to propose no more than a half-dozen witnesses, according to Hutchinson. Several prosecutors said that in addition to Lewinsky, Clinton friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. and Oval Office secretary Betty Currie, possible witnesses include White House Chief of Staff John D. Podesta and communications aide Sidney Blumenthal. Prosecutors don't plan to ask Lewinsky about sexual encounters but only to reaffirm her grand jury testimony, which conflicts with Clinton's on the details. She would be asked about episodes such as her conversation with the president about her false affidavit in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, Jordan's attempts to find her a job and Currie's retrieval of presidential gifts that were under subpoena. Hutchinson, appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," said he might also want to hear from U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, who presided over the Paula Jones lawsuit and attended the Jan. 17, 1998, deposition in which Clinton first denied his affair with Lewinsky. A prosecution source said later, however, that Wright likely wouldn't be called. Other disagreements among prosecutors were aired Sunday, most prominently whether they might call witnesses not directly related to the Lewinsky case to establish what they see as a pattern of obstruction by Clinton. Rogan and Rep. Lindsey O. Graham, R-S.C., said they were interested in whether women such as Kathleen E. Willey were pressured about their testimony in the Jones case, while Hutchinson said he was reluctant to ask that such evidence be admitted. While senators of both parties expressed unease about witnesses, Democrats generally opposed them outright while Republicans generally said House managers should be given the opportunity to build their case and said no one could imagine Clinton being denied the chance to call witnesses in his defense. The conflict on censure was similar, with Democrats calling it a reasonable compromise and Republicans deeming it unconstitutional. Feinstein said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that she was drafting a censure proposal. Graham, appearing on two shows, said that he didn't believe the Senate would convict Clinton and that he was open to censure as long as a "meaningful trial" takes place first and such a resolution concludes Clinton committed a crime. Although most senators said they wanted to weigh the evidence, several Democrats argued that Clinton's misdeeds didn't justify ouster while Republicans said they could rise to that level. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said on "Fox News Sunday" that the House case was "a pile of dung," and "just because a president commits a crime does not mean, ipso facto, that he should be removed from office." Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., on NBC, offered a contrasting view: "You can certainly argue the fact that someone who breaks the law in not telling the truth under oath and someone who obstructs justice does in fact threaten the public."

Copyright 1999
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.