[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1972-1973]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     OPPOSITION TO MANAGERS' MOTION FOR THE APPEARANCE OF WITNESSES

 Mr. DODD. Mr. President, last week the Senate, sitting as a 
court of impeachment, voted on a motion by the Managers for the 
appearance of witnesses and to admit evidence not in the trial record. 
I opposed this motion, and would like to briefly state my reasons for 
doing so.
  While the motion carried, the fact that it was opposed by forty-four 
Senators demonstrates that a large number of our colleagues believe 
that the record of this case is sufficient to allow Senators to decide 
on the articles of impeachment. Indeed, it is not merely sufficient, it 
is voluminous. As I will discuss more fully below, neither the Managers 
nor counsel for the President would in any way be harmed by a 
requirement that they rely on the record as presently constituted.
  Let me concede at the outset that this motion is not an easy one to 
decide. There is an argument to be made for calling witnesses. Our 
colleagues who believe there ought to be witnesses are motivated by 
earnest reasons.
  However, the issue for us is not whether there is a case for 
witnesses. It is this: do we need to hear from witnesses in order to 
fulfil our responsibility as triers of fact? The answer to that 
question, in my opinion, is no. We know enough to decide this case, and 
decide it now.
  There may be legitimate reasons for calling witnesses. But the 
reasons for not calling them are compelling.
  There are five reasons, in particular, that strongly argue against 
the motion.
  First, the record is more than sufficient to allow the Senate to 
decide this case. We are all painfully familiar with the essential 
details of this matter. Like most Americans, we have been subjected to 
the blizzard of media attention paid to it from its very start just 
over a year ago.
  This is not 1868, when only a handful of people could witness the 
last presidential impeachment. One hundred and thirty years later, we 
can receive an Independent Counsel's voluminous and graphic report over 
the Internet literally at the moment it is made available to the 
public. We can witness the proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee 
live on television. We can observe the televised impeachment 
proceedings in the House chamber as if we are there.
  This trial is now in its fourth week. We have been provided with 
massive portions of a record that exceeds 67,000 pages in length. We 
have heard days of arguments. Ninety of us have asked some 105 
questions to the House Republican Managers and to counsel for the 
President.
  So I daresay that the facts of this case have been drilled into our 
consciousness--relentlessly, overwhelmingly, and, it seems endlessly.
  I should add one more adverb: repeatedly. And that leads to the 
second reason for not calling witnesses: they have testified repeatedly 
and without contradiction on the key facts.
  Again and again, the record shows the same questions asked of the 
same witnesses. Ms. Lewinsky has been questioned a total of twenty-
three times, Ms. Currie nine times, Mr. Jordan six times, and Mr. 
Blumenthal five times. They were asked hundreds upon hundreds of 
questions--by some of the toughest, shrewdest legal minds in the 
country. Their testimony fills in excess of two thousand five hundred 
pages of the trial record.
  What is the likelihood that prolonging this trial to hear from these 
and possibly other witnesses will bring new details to light that could 
change the outcome of this trial? Regarding at least one witness--Ms. 
Lewinsky--we know from her interview by the Managers two weekends ago: 
virtually nil.
  A third reason to oppose this motion is that witness testimony will 
invite the introduction of salacious details onto the Floor of the 
United States Senate--details with which we are already painfully 
familiar, and details about which any differences between the President 
and Ms. Lewinsky are immaterial and irrelevant to the charges contained 
in the Articles presented by the House Republican Managers.
  The Managers tell us that they have no interest in raising any such 
details. But sexual misconduct is at the core of this case. Manager 
Bryant admitted as much when he said on the Floor that the issue in 
Article I is ``perjury about sex''. The same could be said about 
Article II--the issue is obstruction about sex.
  Every question about perjury or obstruction, then, necessarily 
invites testimony about the sexual details of this scandal. Given the 
massive size of the record, I do not think we need to risk allowing the 
Senate to become a forum for that kind of speech. It will not bring 
dignity to this proceeding or credit to this institution.
  If we somehow think that we can summon witnesses to appear in this 
trial and at the same time guarantee that the Senate will not become a 
kind of burlesque stage for the airing of this case's tawdry factual 
essence, let me remind my colleagues of the frenzied circus that formed 
immediately upon the news that Ms. Lewinsky had arrived in Washington, 
D.C. for questioning by the Managers. Once the door to witnesses is 
opened, the Senate will be hard-pressed to keep that atmosphere from 
spilling into this trial and this body.
  The fourth reason why we should not call witnesses is that they will 
prolong this process needlessly and extensively. Senator Warner made 
the point well several days ago: it is questionable whether the list of 
witnesses, and the time required to hear from them, could be strictly 
limited because to do so might deny the President his right to defend 
himself.
  The point was echoed by one of the attorneys for the President. He 
stated that he and his associates would be committing ``malpractice'' 
if they failed to seek the most aggressive possible discovery process 
should that course be opened to them.
  That discovery process may reasonably be expected to include 
subpoenas for documents, interviews with corroborating witnesses, 
depositions, examinations and cross-examinations. As any person 
familiar with litigation knows, such a process is not easily restricted 
in time and scope. It could take weeks, or longer, to conclude. During 
that time, Senators would not necessarily be free from the burdens of 
serving as triers of fact in the court of impeachment. They could well 
be called upon to make any number of evidentiary rulings. They could be 
called upon to comment publicly on matters raised during depositions--
including on salacious matters that deserve no comment. In short, this 
process could drag on and on.
  Fifth, and finally, let me say that I remain unconvinced by the 
argument of the Managers that witnesses are so critical here. They have 
failed convincingly to explain why witnesses are so indispensable in 
this trial if they were so dispensable during the impeachment 
proceedings in the other body.
  During those proceedings, Mr. Manager Hyde said that ``the most 
relevant witnesses have already testified at length about the matters 
in issue. And in the interest of finishing our expeditious inquiry, we 
will not require most of them to come before us to repeat their 
testimony.'' Regarding Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, he added that 
they ``have already testified under oath. We have their testimony. We 
don't need to reinvent the wheel.''
  Likewise, Mr. Manager Gekas stated during the House hearings that 
``bringing in witnesses to rehash testimony that's already concretely 
in the record would be a waste of time and serve no purpose at all.''
  The fervor with which the Managers call for witnesses now is not only 
inconsistent with their refusal to call them earlier. It is also 
inconsistent with their underlying assertion that the facts in evidence 
already prove the President's criminal culpability. If the Managers 
have any doubt about whether their evidence was sufficient to prove 
guilt and justify removal, then they had a responsibility to resolve 
those doubts in the House of Representatives--before they came to this 
body and had us take an oath to do impartial justice. They should never 
have put us through this trial.

[[Page 1973]]

  In conclusion, and at the risk of stating the obvious, we should 
remember that we, the members of the Senate, are the triers of fact 
here. We are the ones who control how this trial is to be conducted. 
Each side deserves to be treated fairly. But neither side deserves an 
unlimited and open-ended right to put forth their arguments.
  I have never known a lawyer arguing a losing case to say he or she 
couldn't benefit from one more day in court. The proper response to a 
lengthy trial and a weak case is not more length and more case--it's an 
end to the case.
  Does anyone seriously believe that the outcome of this proceeding 
will be changed by allowing a parade of witnesses?
  Does anyone seriously believe that they will shed new and meaningful 
light on the key areas of this dispute?
  After our historic, bipartisan agreement to begin this trial, after 
weeks of the trial itself, after the opportunity to read a massive 
factual record, after the opportunity to ask over 100 questions--after 
all this, I do not believe that witnesses are now needed to demonstrate 
the Senate's commitment to conduct this trial in a fair and thorough 
manner. The dignity of this proceeding and the decorum of this 
institution are not likely to be enhanced--and could well be damaged--
by taking such a step.
  In my view, the Managers' motion to call witnesses is the expression 
of an increasingly desperate desire to breathe life into a case that--
as the vote on the motion to dismiss demonstrated--has failed to 
convince anywhere close to two-thirds of the Senate as to its merit. 
They are eager for something, anything, to rescue the sinking ship that 
their impeachment has become.
  Their motion, furthermore, is an expression of the partisan process 
that they began in the House and now seek to perpetuate in the Senate. 
Having lost five seats in the November elections, Republican leaders in 
the other body, including the Managers, knew that their best chance to 
impeach the President was during the lame duck session of the 105th 
Congress. So they eschewed a bipartisan inquiry, decided not to call 
witnesses, and forbade members from considering a censure resolution in 
that chamber--all so they could force a vote on articles of impeachment 
before the start of the 106th Congress. Two of the articles considered 
failed. Two others passed, but only by exceedingly slim margins: the 
Article alleging obstruction of justice would have failed if just five 
Representatives had voted differently; the Article alleging perjury 
would have failed if just eleven Representatives had cast their vote 
against impeachment.
  Having rushed to judgment in the House, the Managers now rush to 
delay judgment in the Senate. Why? I think the reason is obvious: 
because they know that their case is weak. From the moment the Articles 
were drafted in the House, they have attempted to obscure that 
inescapable fact.
  Each side of this dispute has now had ample opportunity to present 
its case. The time has come to bring this matter to a close, and return 
to the other compelling issues that we were elected to address. While I 
regret that the majority party in the Senate has decided to move 
forward with the calling of witnesses and gathering of additional 
information, I remain hopeful that we can conclude this trial at the 
earliest possible opportunity.

                          ____________________