|
Senate hears arguments on whether to dismiss charges, to vote on witnesses Tuesday
Updated January 25, 1999
10:02 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (Court TV) — As senators struggled to reach an agreement on how to proceed with the Clinton impeachment trial, House managers sought to forestall a dismissal of the case as they asked senators Monday not to "show blindness" to the facts, while the president's lawyers argued the charges against the president are so flawed they merit dismissal.
The Senate heard arguments Monday afternoon on a motion brought by Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to dismiss the case against Clinton. Each side was given an hour to make their case, but a vote will not be taken until Tuesday or even Wednesday after arguments on a motion to call witnesses are heard.
The Senate will reconvene at noon ET on Tuesday, when it is expected turn its attention to the subject of possible witnesses. House managers may submit a witness list as they make their case for calling witnesses before the Senate, according to sources on Capitol Hill.
Following Monday afternoon's arguments, the Senate rejected, 57 to 43, a motion by Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, to open deliberations on the motion to dismiss to the public. The vote fell largely along partisan lines — Republican hold 55 seats and Democrats hold 45. Senate Rule 29 states that any senator who speaks publicly about the deliberations will be expelled.
Read Senate Rule 29
Earlier in the day, Republicans and Democrats met separately to decide whether to seek a swift end to the proceedings without a partisan struggle over witnesses. The trial was to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. Monday for a vote on a motion to dismiss, but Lott obtained unanimous consent to postpone the session for an hour while senators wrote up a trial procedure agreement.
A partisan struggle seemed in the works — Lott returned at 2:00 p.m. to request the day's session be adjourned because an agreement had not been reached, but the motion did not hold. The trial resumed at 3:00 p.m. when Byrd offered his motion to dismiss.
"I ask you to consider the harm he caused, the indignity he brought to the institution of the presidency," Rep. Charles Canady of Florida told senators. Senate Republicans predicted they had enough votes to defeat the motion.
Canady argued that dismissal of charges against a sitting official is unprecedented.
The founding fathers, said Rep. Bill McCollum, R-Fla., intended that impeachment be used to "maintain the integrity of government" and "strengthen the constitutional system."
He argued that the president should not be held to a lower standard than that used to impeach judges or remove senators. McCollum used the example of Bob Packwood, a former senator from Oregon, who resigned in 1995 because he faced certain expulsion for likewise obstructing justice.
McCollum said forgiveness was not in order because President Bill Clinton had never repented.
"He has refused to accept responsibility for breaking the law," said McCollum. "To this day, he remains unrepentant."
Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., told senators not to "show blindness" to the facts that support the charges.
He pleaded with senators not end the trial just "because you do not think there are presently enough votes for conviction."
Nicole Seligman, one of the president's private attorneys, argued that dismissal was appropriate because the charges were flawed. Furthermore, she said the president does not present a danger to the state and the charges presented do not fit the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" set by the constitution.
The current record exculpates the president, she said, no matter what the House prosecutors have said or will say.
"More repetition no matter how dogged can not create a reality where there is none," Seligman said.
She argued that the only way witnesses could help the House managers's case, would be if they were forced to change their testimony. She also quoted Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde as saying there was no need to call witnesses.
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., said, however, dismissal is unlikely because the votes aren't there. He said colleagues wanted to conclude the trial as soon as possible, but not by "rushing to judgment."
Before Monday's proceedings began, Lott told reporters that senators had not yet received witness lists from the parties and would not vote on the matter until Tuesday or Wednesday, following debate. Each side is expected to have three hours to make its case.
Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, had offered a proposal for final votes on the articles of impeachment on Friday, with no chance of witnesses. Republicans "summarily rejected" it according to John Czwartacki, a spokesman for Majority Leader Trent Lott.
The plan called for closing arguments Tuesday, with debate on the articles Wednesday and Thursday. An up or down vote would be taken Friday
Meanwhile, House prosecutors held a private meeting of
their own to draw up a list of witnesses they'd like to testify,
Monica Lewinsky among them.
House prosecutors and White House attorneys will each have an hour to argue their case for and against dismissal, and three hours each to argue the motion to call witnesses, so vote on both motion may not come until Tuesday.
If both motions fail, the stage will be set for a final vote on the two articles of impeachment later this week.
Republicans appeared solidly against dismissal, and some Democrats agreed that it was more appropriate to end the trial with a straight vote on the charges.
If the president is acquitted, the next question will be whether to write a censure resolution condemning Clinton for the affair.
On talk shows Sunday, senators agreed that the 67 votes needed to remove him from office are not there. Many said they are seeking a graceful exit from the yearlong scandal.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
| 
Full Coverage