Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the issue of witnesses at impeachment trials and how they can have a determinative impact on the outcome of such trials. The best example remains the Senate trial of Bill Clinton and the ultimate “what if.” What if Monica Lewinsky actually took the stand in the Senate trial?
Here is the column:
Imagine if Monica Lewinsky had taken the stand as a witness in President Clinton’s 1999 impeachment trial. Imagine the drama of the young former White House intern sitting in the well of the Senate recalling how the president encouraged her to sign a false affidavit after learning that she would be a witness against him. It would have been an unforgettable moment. But it didn’t happen for the simple reason that few in the Senate wanted to hear such evidence.
During the Clinton trial, the House impeachment managers were surprised to learn that the upper chamber’s Republican majority agreed with Democratic demands not only to bar live testimony but to limit depositions to three witnesses and take them in private. It was a decision that might have determined the outcome of the trial. Soon the Senate will have to decide whether to replicate the same constraints on the trial of President Donald Trump.
Whether witnesses are required at a presidential impeachment trial is an open question. The 1868 trial of Andrew Johnson resembled a criminal proceeding. The House managers called 25 prosecution witnesses and Johnson’s defense team called 16 witnesses. During the Clinton impeachment, the issue of witnesses came up during House Judiciary Committee hearings. As an expert called to address the constitutional standards, I explained that the Framers didn’t explicitly require witnesses in the House or the Senate but there was likely an expectation — drawn from English impeachments — that witnesses would be called at a Senate trial.
While I favored calling witnesses, the issue wasn’t clear-cut because the underlying investigation into Mr. Clinton had spanned years. Two independent counsels had interviewed dozens of witnesses. Rather than call the same people to testify again, the House decided to rely on the massive record supplied by independent counsel Kenneth Starr. Senate Democrats not only opposed calling witnesses; all but one voted to dismiss both articles without any trial. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer — who has demanded that witnesses be called in the Trump impeachment trial — as a freshman in 1999 disdained witness testimony as “political theater.”
In the end, the senators considering whether to remove Mr. Clinton from office heard only excerpts from depositions by three witnesses — and even that was over Democratic objections.
Here is what they — and the public — didn’t hear. Ms. Lewinsky gave an interview to A&E last year revealing that Mr. Clinton encouraged her in a 2:30 a.m. phone call to submit a false affidavit to the independent counsel. This raises the possibility that the president committed a variety of crimes, from suborning perjury to witness tampering. Apparently, when Mr. Clinton learned that Ms. Lewinsky was on the witness list in Paula Jones’s sexual-harassment lawsuits, he did what many Democrats have accused Mr. Trump of doing: He called a witness to influence her testimony.
Moreover, Ms. Lewinsky claimed in the interview, she called Vernon Jordan, one of his friends and political allies, and he took her to meet Frank Carter, a lawyer who had her sign an affidavit denying any intimate relationship with the president. She says Mr. Jordan also offered the inexperienced 24-year-old a job with Revlon, where he was a board member.
Ms. Lewinsky said that she was terrified and that the president had assured her that “I could probably sign an affidavit to get out of it.” She also said that Mr. Carter assured her that if she signed the false affidavit, she might avoid being called as a witness. Messrs. Carter and Jordan have denied that they urged Ms. Lewinsky to lie.
Imagine, again, the most riveting moment that never occurred in an impeachment. Ms. Lewinsky might have taken the stand and told senators that Mr. Clinton not only had an affair with a young intern but also pressured her to lie under oath. She might then have described how her lawyer had allegedly advised her to sign a false affidavit. Even before the GBP MeToo movement, such testimony would have put many Democratic senators in a difficult position.
While one of the articles of impeachment referred to Mr. Clinton’s “encouraging” Ms. Lewinsky’s false statements, had she publicly testified about what the president said in his early morning phone call, it would have been evidence of subornation, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. It would have destroyed the argument made by his defenders that he did nothing but lie about a personal affair.
Now we are debating again whether to call witnesses at an impeachment trial. While Mr. Schumer has argued that witnesses are essential in a trial, he only means Democratic witnesses. The witnesses that Republicans could be expected to call — like Hunter Biden — would be, says Mr. Schumer, a “distraction.” Only in an impeachment trial can the jury protect itself from testimony it doesn’t want to hear.
—
Mr. Turley is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University. He served as lead defense counsel in Judge Thomas Porteous’s 2010 impeachment trial. He testified as an expert witness in both the Clinton and Trump impeachment hearings.
KillTurleytoday says: December 27, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Leslie hasn’t put out in years, so Jonny has been struggling with his anger, so he lies…He’s a loser MAGAT for hire whose site has been overrun by MAGATs…He rapes students and hopefully one of them responds by killing him and his whore Leslie
Such is the ilk of Pelosi, Schiff, Schumer and the irreligious pagan media: no morals, no Truth, no decency.
They promote intolerance and violence towards all who disagree with them. Killing developing unborn babies and their “enemies” is their staple, their anthem. This is their religion, this is who they really are when the mask is removed. This is their dogma and is what they want America to be
Not on my watch. Ever. You will not win.
He or she is a troll. These trolls are found on both sides of the aisle, so to speak. And sometimes those on the right will present as if they are lefties — in order to discredit the lefties, and vice versa.
Don’t jump to conclusions.
You would also argue you do not know truth and so here you are obviating the truth
You are the dumb and blind one
“so here you are obviating the truth”
nope
“You are the dumb and blind one”
projection
I’ve never understood why Clinton didn’t simply say “The intimate details of my private life are not the business of government” and refuse to answer any question.
JunkChuck – if he had a threesome going in the private quarters of the WH nobody would have cared. However, he was getting BJs in the Oval Office. That is what offended me. And then he lied to the American people on TV, looked us right in the eye and lied.
Mr. Schulte,
The Paula Jones lawsuit was ongoing at the time of the Whitewater/ Ken Starr investigation.
I think that factor, plus the allegations that came out in “Troopergate” and elsewhere got intertwined with the Whitewater development scandal.
Paula Jones was ultimately paid $800,000 or so to settle her lawsuit.
I don’t know how this would have played out had the Ken Starr investigation not branched off into areas beyond Whitewater and the Rose Law Firm.
That is, her civil suit may not have been as successful had Starr not brought the Lewinsky matter to light.
But because of the nature of the accusations by Paula Jones and others, the lawyers for the civil suit itself would have pried into Clinton’s history of relationships.
Once Starr branched out beyond the original focus of his investigation, what he discovered probably “incentivized” Clinton to settle with Jones, rather than see the details of the plaintiff’s accusations play out in court.
JunkChuck,
Clinton tried to put this behind him with his “I did not have sex with that woman” claim.
The blue dress evidence shot down that attempt by Clinton.
I think he was responding under threat of subpeona when he gave testimony about the Lewinsky affair.
I suppose he could have taken the 5th, or forced Starr to go to court to enforce the subpeona.
But there was still the blue dress evidence that would work against him, whether he denied a relationship with Lewinsky or whether he simply said “I’m not going to discuss this”.
“Lewinsky was obsessed with sex, alleged ex-lover says”
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/lewinsky-was-obsessed-with-sex-alleged-ex-lover-says-1.129633
Anonymous – it was clearly a consensual relationship. And her ex-lover could just have a low sex drive. 😉
Who knows what’s true.
Pontius Pilate lives
Truth is in short supply; what we hear and read isn’t always true.
“The Nation; A Scandal’s Road Kill Undergoes an Autopsy”
By Bill Dedman
March 22, 1998
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/22/weekinreview/the-nation-a-scandal-s-road-kill-undergoes-an-autopsy.html
“ON a rare sunny morning last week, on a quiet street of bungalows, Andrew J. and Kathy Bleiler opened their curtains for the first time in two months; for the first time, in fact, since telling their humiliating secret on national television.
On Jan. 27, Mr. Bleiler, his wife at his side, explained at a news conference on their front lawn that he had had an affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. He made his confession just as President Clinton was preparing to go on the air with his State of the Union speech.
In America’s living rooms and newsrooms, several impressions of the Bleilers were formed that day, none of them good: He was a high school teacher who had had sex with his student; he was a publicity seeker; he was trying to sell his story.
Except that none of that was true.”
https://apnews.com/72f0adaa3be1565abcc8643184d830fd
Anonymous at 12:15 PM,
I can’t load the article you linked, so I don’t know the specifics of Dedman’s article.
Given that Lewinsky’s attorney confirmed her relationship with Blieler, and other reports of her relationship with him, it seems likely that the affair did happen.
I think Blieler turned over the contents of a safe deposit box to the Ken Starr investigators, but I’ve never seen a detailed “inventory” of those contents.
If I am not mistaken, the late David Schippers, the Chicago attorney who was in charge of the House Judiciary Committee investigation, revealed much of this in his book on the impeachment. Schippers, who was a Democrat, said the committee came up with at least a dozen impeachable acts Clinton committed, all crimes and misdemeanors. He also said that the senior Republicans in the Senate didn’t want to remove Clinton from office. Democrats had no intention of even looking at the evidence. NOT A SINGLE DEMOCRAT EVEN BOTHERED TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE! Even his own lawyers admitted his actions were impeachable but argued that he shouldn’t be removed from office.
Rep Bob Barr who was one of the Clinton impeachment managers said In an interview that the Senate didn’t want Lewinsky to testify because the about sexual things like the cigar and the blue dress etc. would be discussed. They thought it was inappropriate for the Senate and the Senate didn’t want to come out looking as bad as the House. One of the top lawyers to Ted Kennedy, Melody Barnes gave an interview years after the impeachment and said everything was “coordinated” behind the scenes and the decision was a forgone conclusion. So Schumer going after McConnell for using the word coordination is a joke. Schumer was in the Senate for the Clinton Trial.
The implication here is that many Senators had done the same thing Clinton did — had affairs with staffers, and then lied and obstructed to cover it up. YOu cold see where an open trial with witnesses could arouse the victims of these Senators to come forward.
The Senators take a solemn oath. They will each have to affirm that “in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.”
If Senators think oaths matter they _must_ be impartial. To act as if they were one of the people in the state they represent who knows only what is elicited in the trial.
“Imagine, again, the most riveting moment that never occurred in an impeachment. Ms. Lewinsky might have taken the stand and told senators that Mr. Clinton not only had an affair with a young intern but also pressured her to lie under oath. She might then have described how her lawyer had allegedly advised her to sign a false affidavit. Even before the GBP MeToo movement, such testimony would have put many Democratic senators in a difficult position.”
********************
That’s why only the truth can set us free. In this case, free us from the carney scam, grifter show that was the Clinton Administration. Trump, on the other hand, pressured no one, has seen the alleged “victim” deny there ever was any pressure and produced a transcript of the whole affair. Contrast that to Dim Icon Billary.
It wouldn’t have made a bit of difference if she had taken the Stand. Partisan means unreasoned allegiance, therefore by the conflicts of interest that are associated with Party Affiliation, it means that the majority party in the Senate will determine conviction by partisanship, not guilt or innocence. The Democrats were in control of the Senate, so there was no possibility of conviction to remove.
As long as we are intent on improperly assembling a Partisan Government then Majority Party Affiliation will always dominate all Legislative processes, including impeachment, no matter what the States in their Collective Capacity, the People in their Collective, reach as a Majority consensus or the merits of the decisions.
You may have missed the part about the Republican senators agreeing to preclude her testimony.
Turley continues to beat dead horses while he avoids attempts to learn the facts of the current case. He has made the missing witnesses his main objection to the House proceedings – withheld from testifying by Trump, though as 1st person witnesses in his administration one expects them to exonerate an innocent president – but now that the hearing moves to the Senate, he’s lost all interest in their testimony. What’s that about?
Off topic, but Ms. Lewinsky suffered terribly for a youthful mistake; she suffered far more than anybody deserves to.
Cautionary tale and I admire Ms. Lewinsky for her courage. She has shown far more grace and dignity than did anyone in the Clinton camp.
Pres. Clinton showed his character and he will have to live with history’s verdict – except for the judgement of a few benighted Pinkos like Justice Holmes (below) who will continue to forgive any Dem actions.
I always had tremendous sympathy for Ms. Lewinsky, as well as her parents, and particularly her father. Can you just imagine what he wished he were free to do regarding Mr. Clinton?
Monica was a victim of a sexual predator who was a narcisist, had an open marriage to a womyn who enabled him in exchange with riding his coattails, and excused by his cult followers in spite of his raping, denigrating and destroying countless women
Democrats today are Nazis
According to Gary Byrne, Secret Service officer assigned to the Oval Office in the White House, Monica was the overt predator in this unfortunate instance . .
Shame the slut, defend the rapist
Weinstein is that you?
https://nypost.com/2014/05/06/monica-lewinsky-breaks-silence-on-affair-with-bill-clinton/
Rick C.,
Lewinsky herself has always dsid that the relationship was consensual.
Beyond that, she was quoted as saying that she’d get her “presidential kneepads” for Washington DC.
As far as the relationship with Clinton goes, she didn’t appear to be “a victim”.
I don’t think she intended to become famous for her activities with Clinton, so in that respect I guess she could be considered a victim because the relationship become public.
The Vernon Jordan connection got her the job at Revlon, which appeared to be a lucrative position.
And income she got from her book sales was another part of the “silver lining” for her involvement in her relationship with Clinton.
Are you suggesting Byrne was so incompetent that he was unable to stop an alleged sexual predator from gaining access to the president?
That is shill-level stupid.
OLLY – the Secret Service is supposed to stop physical threats to the President, not pleasure to the President. 🙂
Lewensky must have used some serious Jedi mind-trick on the SS and Clinton. I am not the overt predator you’re looking for.
OLLY – if you were the next President, wouldn’t you want a black light the entire Oval Office?
According to Gary Jones, the Secret Service hated the Clintons and witnessed Hillary routinely having violent outbursts, screaming obscenities at Bill and otherwise acting like animals
But yeah, there is no truth, none at all. Heck, since youre comments are anonymous that nulls any veracity in your um anonymous comments.
Truth requires conviction
Not being anonymous requires gonads
Gary Byrnes is the name you are seeking
Crisis of Character: A White House Secret Service Officer Discloses His Firsthand Experience with Hillary, Bill, and How They Operate
https://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Character-Discloses-Firsthand-Experience/dp/1455568872
In this runaway #1 New York Times bestseller, former secret service officer Gary Byrne, who was posted directly outside President Clinton’s oval office, reveals what he observed of Hillary Clinton’s character and the culture inside the White House while protecting the First Family in CRISIS OF CHARACTER, the most anticipated book of the 2016 election.
“Not being anonymous requires gonads”
not really
if you understood anything, you’d know that it’s better to be anonymous on this this particular blog and some others
Justice Holmes: if you woke up this morning thinking how can I make myself look like a horse’s ass, you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.
Ms. Lewinsky would have provided exciting ‘oral’ testimony!
🙂 Who believes the Senators didn’t want hear her testify because they considered the likely salacious details weren’t appropriate for prime time? It wouldn’t shock me a bit to discover interns was the preferred euphemism hookers.
The highlight of Monica’s testimony was that Bill Clinton had genital herpes. She stated there were times when the herpes were erupting that they could not do the things they wanted. Had that come out on the stand, Bill’s goose would have been surely cooked. He sure didn’t get them from Hillary.
ick. TMI
debinrye -remember all those women Clinton was raping? He never told them he had genital herpes. Now that isn’t Presidential.
The Democrats held 45 seats in the Senate and (IIRC) about 10 Republicans defected to the opposition. The Democratic Party was less pathological in 1998 than it is today, but it was still dominated by people whose sense of self doesn’t admit of a scale of values which transcends political expendiency. See, for example, the career of Ted Kennedy after 1969.
Bright analysis
Imagine if all that Trump had lied about was a “blow job” instead of, well, everything from extortion to treason. But he didn’t. He lied about all of those things and then obstructed legitimate attempt to gather evidence. Professor there is very little here. that is the same as Clinton. That is true no matter how hard people labor to create false equivalency.
And what proof do you have of all of these accusations??
Holmes don’t need no stinkin proof!
true of most of those who reside here
He lied about all of those things and then obstructed legitimate attempt to gather evidence.
Hmm? If they were obstructed in attempts to gather evidence, then how could you possibly know that he lied about everything from extortion to treason?