|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| REGIONAL PERSPECTIVES | |
 January 25, 1999 
|
||
|
|
|
|
JIM LEHRER: Now an outside Washington view of the impeachment trial, and to our media correspondent Terence smith. TERENCE SMITH: We get the perspective now of our regional commentators: Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Constitution, Bob Kittle of the San Diego Union Tribune, Patrick McGuigan of the Daily Oklahoman, Lee Cullum of the Dallas Morning News, and joining them tonight is Susan Albright of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. |
|||||||||||||||||||
| To dismiss or not to dismiss. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
SUSAN ALBRIGHT: Yes, I think they should. I think dismissing it would be a very decisive way to tell the house, "you did not bring us articles that charge impeachable offenses. You didn't draft them well, and you didn't prove them." TERENCE SMITH: Lee Cullum, dismissal, is that the way to go with this really crucial stage of the trial? LEE CULLUM: No, I don't think so, Terry. You know, I didn't realize back -- December 19, when the impeachment articles were voted by the House, the weight that would attend this case once it came to the Senate and became truly a constitutional matter. And I think the Constitution requires that it be seen through to a reasonable conclusion. And this might even include witnesses. I don't think there is any other way. You know, the Constitution is an abstraction the law is an abstraction. Religion is an abstraction, but these abstractions have a powerful hold on those who believe in them. And we believe in the Constitution and the Constitution requires us to see this trial through without an early, an untimely, and an unnatural end to it. TERENCE SMITH: Cynthia Tucker, what do you think? Do you believe that dismissal would serve a purpose at this point by bringing it to a prompt end, or in a sense defeat a purpose?
TERENCE SMITH: Patrick McGuigan, if Cynthia Tucker is right, if there aren't and aren't going to be 67 votes to convict, then why not dismiss it at this point? PATRICK McGUIGAN: Well, on this one I think that Lee comes a little closer to my own view. In fact, she stated it very eloquently. Several weeks back National Review, a national conservative publication, said that in the era that we're in now, it may seem stodgy or even naive to argue for decency in the rule of law, but nonetheless, that's what the congress should try to do. And in this case, I believe that's what the United States Senate should try to do. So I'm with Lee on this particular debate. TERENCE SMITH: Bob Kittle, what's your view out in San Diego?
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| The next move. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
TERENCE SMITH: Susan Albright, I wonder what you think of that, and following that, whether the Senate should call witnesses, which is the next move if, in fact, the motion to dismiss is defeated.
TERENCE SMITH: Lee Cullum, I gather from what you said before that you would like to see witnesses, is that correct, and if so, who? LEE CULLUM: I think so, Terry. I think a few carefully-chosen witnesses, Monica Lewinsky , Betty Currie, Vernon Jordan, that would be enough. I see no reason to go any farther with this. And I think if this were done with dispatch, if next week could be taken for depositions, the following week, that's the week of February 8th, taken for the witnesses and one day per witness only, and then finally a vote on the articles, the week of February the 15th, perhaps a vote on censure later in that week, this ought to be wrapped up before March 1st. And that would be a reasonable and salutary way to proceed.
CYNTHIA TUCKER: I don't see how calling witnesses could possibly clarify anything. Monica Lewinsky has been deposed 23 times, and the public has already decided its verdict. I think that most senators have already made up their minds. The president did not tell the truth. That really isn't at issue. What is at issue is what shall the Senate now do about it. Interestingly enough, Bob Kittle and I both want to end up in the same place, censure, but we disagree about how to get there. I don't see how calling witnesses, which is a process that could be dragged out for months -- the president's lawyers have already said they will want the opportunity for discovery -- that does not get us any closer to censure or condemnation. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| What's to be accomplished? | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
TERENCE SMITH: Patrick McGuigan, given that, given those many, many depositions taken of these witnesses, what's to be accomplished by bringing, say, Monica Lewinsky, Betty Currie, or Vernon Jordan to the well of the Senate? What's to be accomplished?
TERENCE SMITH: Bob Kittle, what's your view on witnesses? Who, how many? To what purpose?
TERENCE SMITH: Susan Albright, the argument has been made that there is a virtue to an up or down vote on the articles of impeachment -- state guilty or not guilty. Do you see a virtue to that? SUSAN ALBRIGHT: Yes, I do. I guess the reason I would like to see them dismiss it is that I do think the charges are outrageous, but if they don't, I think there should be an up and down vote. I think it should be soon. I think we've seen enough. I don't think we know that he committed perjury. I don't think we know that he obstructed justice. And I do think we have all the facts there. So I think there is some value to having that particular vote on record. TERENCE SMITH: Lee Cullum, if it's true, as several are saying here tonight and have said before, that much of the outcome is foregone, is known, then what does that say to your argument about following through the process to its end?
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| The political repercussions. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
TERENCE SMITH: Cynthia Tucker, I wonder from Atlanta where -- the area of Bob Barr and Newt Gingrich and so forth -- I wonder what you think the political repercussions are of this trial and are likely to be say in 2000. CYNTHIA TUCKER: I can't see, Terry, that this does anything but damage the Republican Party's prospects. I am fascinated by the number of people who write us letters who identify themselves as Republicans, who say that they are angry that these proceedings have continued. They don't want impeachment. They say they won't vote for Republicans in the year 2000. And, in fact, some say they won't vote Republican again. And so while Bob Barr may be from a safe district, I think that many Republicans will find themselves in trouble in the year 2000. TERENCE SMITH: Pat McGuigan, do you agree with that? Is this punishing for the Republicans and if so, what do you think about that?
TERENCE SMITH: Bob Kittle, is the Senate making a moral judgment here or a legal judgment or a political judgment? ROBERT KITTLE: Terry, of course it's making all three of those judgments. When senators cast a vote either to dismiss the case or an up or down vote on the articles of impeachment, they're of course casting a political vote and a legal vote and a moral vote. All of that comes together in the minds of the senators as he makes up his mind. But I think the real dilemma here is that the Senate cannot, as the House in so many ways did, I believe, disregard the prevailing sentiment in the country. Yes, we elect our senators to make judgments, and sometimes to swim against the tide of public opinion, but I think when it comes to nullifying an election which is what a vote to remove a president is all about, it's not something that senators can do lightly in defiance of the public's view of it. And I'm afraid the polls have made it pretty clear that the American people -- a majority -- about two-thirds, do not want the president removed from office. So perhaps that makes the political weight of this decision for senators a little greater even than the legal or moral weight of the question. TERENCE SMITH: Susan Albright, how do you see the political consequences of all this -- significant for 2000?
TERENCE SMITH: Lee Cullum, it's been almost a year now that the nation has lived with this story, and we saw Monica Lewinsky return to Washington this week. I wonder if you have any thoughts on sort of the personal toll that this has taken? I think we can see it somewhat in the president's face, as well. LEE CULLUM: Oh, Terry, yes. I was shocked to see the photographs of Monica Lewinsky in Sunday's newspapers. Her youth has been annihilated these last five months. It's impossible not to feel for her -- of course, feel for the president, as well, though he looked pretty fit for his State of the Union address, I must say. But the personal toll has been terrible. I think that Dale Bumpers undoubtedly was telling the truth about that where the president's family is concerned. I want to add that I somewhat agree with Susan. I think the political fallout may not be nearly as great next year as we now suppose if this trial can be finished in a way that is conducted with dignity, is conducted with taste, that does not mortify the nation, and does not leave searing pictures in the national memory. That's what we have to hope for now. TERENCE SMITH: A big if. All right. LEE CULLUM: Yes. TERENCE SMITH: Thank you all very much. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
TERENCE
SMITH: Susan Albright, let me begin with you and ask you, the immediate
issue before the senate now is whether they should dismiss these charges
and dismiss this trial. Should they?
CYNTHIA
TUCKER: Well, Terry, I have to disagree with Lee on this point. I think
that dismissal is absolutely appropriate. In fact, I don't think the
matter should have ever gotten this far. I think the nation would have
been much better served if the Senate and the House had been able to
come to an agreement on censure much earlier, as it stands, there are
not 67 votes for an impeachment. There are not going to be 67 votes
for impeachment. Everyone knows that. And now censure isn't even being
discussed anymore. So we run the danger that Bill Clinton, who ought
to be condemned in some way for his reprehensible behavior, won't face
any sanction at all. And so dismissal would at least get the Senate
and the House back to conducting the public's business.
ROBERT
KITTLE: Well, Terry, I think there's real danger that if the Senate
approves Senator Byrd's motion to dismiss the case, that the president
then basically will get off virtually scot-free. What's really needed
here is a strong condemnation of the president's misconduct -- not removal
from office, but a resolution of censure that makes it plain that, in
fact, he did commitment perjury and obstruction of justice and that
his lawyerly evasions have not obscured the truth from the American
people. But at this stage it's entirely possible that the Senate could
dismiss the case and end it there. And that I think would be a very
unsatisfactory resolution of the case. We need a strong condemnation
of the president's action. There's been a consensus in the country now
for months on this matter that the misconduct does not warrant the president's
removal from office, but it does warrant a very strong censure or a
strong condemnation of some sort. And there is the risk now that the
Senate will simply drop the ball prematurely through a motion to dismiss
the case and leave it at that.
SUSAN
ALBRIGHT: Well, I think the motion to dismiss probably will be defeated,
and I think that witnesses aren't needed. I think that what has to happen
at this point, if they don't dismiss it, is that the senators have to
make some inferences out of the testimony that they have. Really the
difference here isn't about facts, it's about what you make of the facts,
what inferences you make, how you put the circumstances together. So
my hope is that if they don't dismiss, that they'll go somehow make
an agreement to come to an up or down vote on the articles. 
TERENCE
SMITH: Cynthia Tucker, the argument about witnesses frequently turns
on whether they would clarify confusion and contradiction or simply
add to it. What do you think? 
PATRICK
McGUIGAN: Well, you might be able to get closer to the truth of the
whole matter. There's particularly some conflicts in the stories between
Ms. Currie and Ms. Lewinsky. So there might be some utility. I don't
disagree with the observation that by and large and on the whole most
of the record is already before the Senate, and they can begin to move
towards some kind of resolution, but, if in the judgment of the majority,
witnesses should be heard, then they probably should be. I believe we're
in an interesting time, because, as John Ellis of the Boston Globe
said recently, Cynthia referred earlier to things that everybody knows,
well, maybe everybody knows that 2/3 of the Senate won't support this,
but as John Ellis said, everybody knows that Clinton perjured himself
in these proceedings. The American people oppose his removal from office,
and yet an overwhelming majority believe that he lied under oath. So
we're in a real conundrum. And I don't know how the Senate is going
to resolve it. I kind of think that following recognizable legal processes,
rather than preempting them, is the best way to go. 
ROBERT
KITTLE: I think Kenneth Starr has compiled a very thoroughly documented
record here. He did so carefully, exhaustively, and over a matter of
months. So if there are to be any witnesses at all, it needs to be a
very short list. I think the facts are there. The facts are on the table,
as many of us have said. It's a matter of what you think is the proper
response by the Senate to the misconduct that Kenneth Starr has documented.
So I don't think there's a pressing need for, certainly not a pressing
need for a long list of witnesses, perhaps a very short list, but if
so, it does need to be very short in my view. 
LEE
CULLUM: Terry, I think we have the weight of posterity on our shoulders.
I think that generations from now people will want to study these proceedings.
They are here now, whatever one may think of the charges, however absurd
some of them may sounds, and they may sound absurd to subsequent generations
-- nonetheless, I think the process must be seen to a conclusion in
a methodical manner in order to write a record that can stand the test
of history. And that's what's on my mind primarily in this case. 
PATRICK
McGUIGAN: Well, again, to quote somebody I admire, Bill Kristol made
a very succinct observation on this very point. He observed that it's
possible Republicans are committing political suicide, but in his view,
the Democrats are committing moral suicide. I don't know how you separate
politics and law from, at their core, moral law. It's true that we make
majority decisions in our country, and that creates what we call positive
law that we then try to abide by, but we're tampering here with fundamental
law, which is the Constitution for us. And there's a constitutional
process that's defined. And frankly, I'm worried about these designs
or efforts, if you will, to preempt that process. I suspect that if
a final vote could be held, that a majority of the Senate would support
the president's removal from office but less than two-thirds. Therefore
he would remain in office but with that cloud, if you will, over his
head. And it's the political desire to preempt that that is prompting
at least the Senate Democrats in some of their efforts. 
SUSAN
ALBRIGHT: It might be. I want to say that I wholeheartedly agree with
Bob on the points he just made. I don't know if the voters will remember
this. A lot can happen in two years. I mean, they will remember it in
some respects, but maybe not in the sense that they'll use it as the
item to vote someone in or out on. But I think it's important enough
that they could and should remember this vote.