 Bring on the Witnessesby DOUGLAS BARRICKLOW January 14, 1999 DALLAS, TX In a January 14 editorial, The New York Times writes,
My question is, why should either party resist this temptation? In my opinion, the Times -- especially since the House impeachment vote -- has gone far beyond the call of duty in offering charitable rhetoric in the president's defense. Its contributions on this front, quite frankly, approached journalistically irresponsible levels when, on January 6th, the Times tried to convince its readers that "conservative Republicans are calling for a prolonged trial with witnesses whose testimony they know will not lead to conviction." [emphasis added] |
. |
I was astonished when I read this blatant mischaracterization of the House managers' motives for desiring witnesses. If there's one thing that has become irrefutably obvious during this mess, it's that no one can say he knows where witness testimony might lead. In particular, it has also become obvious that the White House is scared to death of witness testimony. For the Times to forward the notion that the House managers already know witnesses won't make a difference in the trial verdict, in my view, is a disingenuous attempt by the Times to cover for President Clinton. But why is there such fear among the president's defenders of witness testimony? At the crux of this fear is the worry that witness testimony might prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the president indeed committed perjury and obstructed justice. You see, the dirty little secret among Democrats is that if the president admits perjury and/or obstruction of justice, there will be fewer among their number who are willing to champion the Clinton cause. To this day, the White House enjoys support from Democrats on two fronts. There are those who don't think that any of the charges against Clinton rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." On the other hand, there are those who might consider these charges removable, but who don't believe the president's guilt was proven during the House Judiciary Committee's hearings. For the latter group, the calling of witnesses is incredibly undesirable. At the moment, this group can explain its opposition to impeachment by clinging to Monica Lewinsky's voluntary statement that no one ever told her to lie. If, however, Monica Lewinsky is brought before the Senate and cross-examined, it is highly unlikely that her statement is going to have quite the same ring to it. Understandably, many Democrats don't want to be put in the position of having to cast a vote for the president's acquittal after it has been proven that he committed crimes. One Senate Democrat, John Breaux of Louisiana, has taken the odd stance of opposing witness testimony during the Senate trial while admitting that a failure to call witnesses could take "a lot of potential legal firepower away from the White House as well as it takes it away from [the prosecution]." I would argue that "legal firepower" is desperately needed in this matter. Each side needs to be allowed to present its best possible case so that the fairest of trials can be achieved. As long as the Articles of Impeachment remain unexamined by traditional legal means (i.e. a trial with witnesses), many Democrats who don't believe the charges were proven in the House of Representatives, will have their out. If, however, witness testimony proves what a majority of Americans already believe, that the charges within the Articles of Impeachment are true, then many Senators are going to have to come to terms with the pathetic reality that, when for the first time in American history a president was sued in civil court, he resorted to committing perjury and obstructing justice so that he might win the case. If push came to shove, I seriously doubt 45 Democratic Senators would unanimoulsy vote to allow a president who has committed crimes during his term to remain in office. Bring on the witnesses... |
Send your comments to Coffee Shop Times editor Douglas Barricklow.
|
Copyright © 2001 The Coffee Shop Times
