Chicago Tribune from Chicago, Illinois • Page 57

Chicago Tribune, Sunday, January 10, 1999 Section 1 3 Lit l' r-v' I Senate's go jimite House managers still want witnesses dL if fiinj newt estimony 3 'm bsjWs' Ik Sens. Phil Gramm (from left), Trent Media-conscious jurors walk a fine line toward justice By Michael Tackett Washington Bureau WASHINGTON In a meeting Wednesday night in a third -floor hideaway office in the Senate, a place senators go when they don't want to be found, a bipartisan group met with Rep, Henry Hyde and some of his House Republican impeachment managers. At one point, an angry Sen. Ted Stevens, a Republican from Alaska, pounded the table and demanded to know why Hyde's House Judiciary Committee had called no witnesses during its impeachment hearings. According to several senators, Hyde responded: "We didn't have the time." Stevens, according to one participant, shot back: "Time? There are 15 Iraqi planes in a no-fly zone, Brazil is on the brink, and you are telling us you didn't have time?" Hyde's response also angered many Senate Democrats, underscoring perhaps the greatest obstacle that the Illinois Republican and fellow prosecutors face as they prepare to argue the impeachment case against President Clinton this week whether they will be able to persuade a majority of senators that witnesses are necessary.

"They voted to impeach a president of the United States without witnesses, and now they want us to conduct a trial with witnesses," said Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) "I believe that we can deliver impartial justice without witnesses. The House says it did." Kerrey charged that the time pressure the House was really under was bringing impeachment to a vote while Republicans had a larger majority in the last Congress. Republicans and Democrats agree that if the president is to be convicted and removed from office, the impeachment managers almost certainly must produce some kind of new evidence that goes beyond the Judiciary Committee hearings, meaning that they must have witness testimony. Because Republicans hold a 55-45 edge in the Senate, attaining that majority remains plausible, but several GOP senators have said the burden of persuasion is on Hyde's team.

According to a resolution agreed to on Friday, a majority of the Senate would have to vote twice to approve a witness before one would testify before the Senate. First, a majority would have to agree that a witness' deposition could be taken. Then, after the senators have read the deposition, a majority would have to agree that a witness could provide some information not located in the vast public record in the case. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DeL), who was involved in the drafting of the resolution, said: "The endgame here is no witnesses, and if there are witnesses, it will be very circumscribed, limited in number and very limited in what they say." Biden, who attended the negotiation session with Hyde, said that "a good deal of this on the part of the House guys is a search for personal vindication.

There is not vindictiveness against the president, though that may be part if it. I think they realize that the press and the public consigned them to the waste bin of history. They realize they have nothing to lose. They have already lost in history's eye. "I'm convinced their only vindication is a) a finding of guilt or b) the prospect of bringing other people down to their level.

That is the clear impression I got as to what is driving this thing." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-EL) echoed that sentiment when he said, "I believe the House managers want to bring witnesses to try to vindicate the results of their impeachment." To be sure, several Republicans agree with the House managers that witnesses provide an important dimension to any trial, allowing senators and the public to assess credibility in a way not possible from a transcript. The Democrats contend that with tens of thousands of pages of transcripts from FBI interviews, depositions and grand jury testimonybringing witnesses forward borders on redundant. "I would like to see some presentation by the House as to why the material would be new and different," said Sen. Evan Bayh "or why the demeanor testimony of a witness would be particularly compelling and avoid repetition of testimony already under oath." Under the resolution about trial procedures, the Senate agreed to reconvene the trial on Monday by hearing motions, with an opening presentation by House managers set to begin Thursday.

The House managers and lawyers for the 'if j.St, efforts that led to an agreement on credibility. "It's a very legitimate question. Are they fish or foul?" he asked. Senators clearly find themselves in an ambiguous role when they talk about the case in public. And if there is a line they should not cross, it is a difficult one to define.

Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) went on CNN's "Crossfire" on Friday night but said he was not compromising his pledge to be impartial. He said he felt comfortable talking about the mechanics of the trial but not the substance. "Obviously, the line is not something that can be easily qualified," said Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-I1L), who just finished a remarkable first week as a U.S.

senator. "It's an intangible line. Each senator has to strive to be fair and impartial. There is a danger in answering too many questions that might endanger my impartiality." Fitzgerald, like Hutchinson, To counter criticism that he now wants to call witnesses, which most certainly would prolong the trial, Hyde said: "Under the Constitution, the roles of the House and Senate are significantly different. The House is responsible for bringing charges against the president, while the Senate tries such charges.

Thus, the type of evidence necessary for these two phases also differs. "During the House inquiry, the members were tasked with determining whether there was enough evidence to charge the president. We are now in the trial phase. As in any court proceeding, witnesses are necessary during a trial so By William Neikirk Washington Bureau WASHINGTON Like his 99 colleagues, Sen. Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.) swore to mete out "impartial justice" as a juror in the impeachment trial of President Clinton.

Unlike most of them, he is declining the invitations to join the television talk-show circuit and expound on the case that he must at some point judge, said his press secretary, Sue Hensley. The solemn ceremony at which members of the Senate took an oath to be impartial jurors has been followed by a stampede of senators on such shows as "Larry King Live," "Nightline" and "Crossfire." Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine put out a press release to boast that she would be questioned by ABC's Ted Koppel on "Nightline." And while the senators say president would have up to 24 hours for each group to make its presentation. At that point, senators would have 16 hours to ask questions through Chief Justice of the United States William Rehnquist, who is presiding over the trial. At that point, some Democratic senator is expected to move to dismiss the impeachment.

But House managers are then expected to ask the Senate's permission to call witnesses. At first, senators will vote on whether to grant approval to take a witness deposition, followed by a separate vote to have that person appear as a witness before the senators. Lott and Slade Gorton discuss Friday's they are being true to their oath, they would be held to a different standard if they were on any other jury. "If you went on TV after pledging to do impartial justice, you wouldn't be a juror anymore in a real judicial proceeding," said former federal prosecutor Joseph diGenova. Although diGenova said impeachment is a political proceeding, giving senators more leeway to discuss the case, their oath to "do impartial justice" is being severely tested by the inclination of these 100 politicians to seek the spotlight.

In the talk shows, they find themselves talking about trial tactics and processes, important issues that some legal sources say can influence impartiality and the trial's outcome. Historian Robert Dallek said senators' tendency to go on talk shows or conduct interviews about their roles in the case raises questions about their In a prepared statement, Hyde made clear that his team will proceed with its plan to call witnesses. "We intend to use the time we have been provided to present a compelling case on the serious charges pending against the president," Hyde said. "We also look forward to the opportunity, with Senate concurrence, to call witnesses in support of the evidence." Hyde had said throughout the Judiciary Committee hearings that he wanted to bring the matter to a close before the end of last year, responding to a national sentiment for closure and to accommodate Democrats who said they wanted the process ended expeditiously. 114 A Uf i if Corrections and clarifications The address given for Transi-.

tions Bookplace in the From the Precincts feature in Sunday's Books section is incorrect. The correct address is 1000 W. North Chicago. The Tribune regrets the error. AP photo the rules for the impeachment trial.

said he takes his oath seriously and will not go beyond answering procedural questions. But on the King show Thursday night, senators found themselves answering procedural questions that deal with motions they will have to decide later in the Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he favored calling witnesses to deal with the obstruction-of-jus-tice allegations. "There are different stories," he said. "And we can only make up our minds when you take the testimony of Witness A and Witness when you see them when you look at them" Sen.

John Kerry (D-Mass.) said that during the trial the Senate could make a "judgment of law" that there are not enough senators who believe the allegations rise to the level of an impeachable offense. "Why put yourself through a whole bunch of witnesses if you may, in fact, arrive at that judgment?" he asked. that evidence may be thoroughly weighted and tested before a conviction." While senators insisted that they could uphold their oath to mete out "impartial justice" in the case, it also seemed clear that such an ultimate judgment could be borne of political calculation, given that the impeachment process does not establish any standard of proof for the president's conviction. "We've read the record," Biden said. "We've seen it.

There are at least 40 people in the Senate, probably 55 to 60, who do not believe that this is what the founders had in mind as the basis for throwing someone out of office." Legend In Linens Hal Harbour Boston Houston January 2nd through the 3 1 st Join us at Ultimo as MICHAEL KORS personally presents his SpringSummer '99 collection. Special orders will be taken. JANUARY SALE Now In Progress THESE ITEMS AND MORE ARE AVAILABLE FOR IMMEDIATE DELIVERY Tuesday, January 12 Wednesday, January 13 10 am to 5 pm 67 East Oak Street Chicago (312) 943-8422 114 East Oak Street Chicago 312.787.1171 Chicago' 312.787.1171 20 off regular and special order items. Up to 50 off selected floor samples. i.iiihtlili!, ai 't'Si ami ii'rtrifi lu.irj Stile prices nliJ far pun hns nunlt tlunnu soft duic -i anno New York Palm Beach HeerE Hills.