GOP Holds Key to Use of Witnesses

For all its oddities, the presidential impeachment case soon may resemble most other trials in one key respect: There will likely be witnesses.

That is what the Senate Republican majority wants. And that, Democrats concede, is what it will get.

“If Republicans want witnesses, we have no power to stop them,” Ranit Schmelzer, spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), conceded Friday.

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) added: “In the end, we’re going to have witnesses.”

The biggest issue now may be how quickly Monica S. Lewinsky, Betty Currie, Vernon E. Jordan Jr. and perhaps other key figures in the presidential scandal will be summoned--and how extensive their testimony will be.

Short of the ultimate question of whether President Clinton should be removed from office, the controversy over witnesses looms as the trial’s most divisive issue.

In presenting their case the last two days, House Republicans have stressed that witnesses would strengthen the points they have made against the president, and they have all but begged senators to permit such testimony.

Even if such testimony fails to win conviction by a two-thirds majority of the Senate, House Republicans will have succeeded at least in creating a vivid record of Clinton’s wrongdoings--with human faces etched into the public consciousness.

Most Democrats strenuously oppose witnesses, saying they would needlessly prolong the trial while adding little if anything to the already voluminous public record. Some also concede that witnesses can inject uncertainties into a trial that could cause it to careen in unexpected directions.

A decision on whether to rely on witness testimony--either live or through depositions taken outside the Senate chamber--is just about a week away. But as of now, most Democrats are resigned to the prospect of a vote approving witnesses largely along party lines in the Senate, which has 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats.

If so, that would perpetuate the political chasm that marked the handling of the impeachment case in the House, and as recently as last week threatened to kill any chances of the Senate reaching a bipartisan resolution to the matter.

Positions Over Witnesses Harden

The Senate decided last week, in a rare unanimous agreement, to postpone a decision on witnesses until after the opening arguments by both House Republicans and White House lawyers.

But only two days into the House GOP presentations by Rep. Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.) and his team of 12 prosecutors, positions appeared to be hardening in the Senate over the need for further testimony from witnesses.

“I think the House made its case” that at the least, some witnesses need to be deposed by lawyers, Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) said Friday.

Under the rules of the trial agreed to last week, when the Senate takes up the question of witnesses, members will vote on which witnesses may be deposed. A simple majority is needed for passage on those votes.

If witnesses are deposed, the senators will review their depositions and then vote on whether to bring the witnesses into the trial to provide live testimony.

If they vote against live testimony, the senators then would merely rely on the deposition testimony.

Hyde’s team is expected to conclude its case today; the White House is to begin its presentation Tuesday. At the end of next week, or early the following week, decisions over witnesses and other procedural questions are scheduled.

“I’m fairly certain that this vote [on witnesses] won’t be a bipartisan vote,” said Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.).

He charged that the House managers’ desire for witnesses amounted to a desperate, 11th-hour attempt to stave off defeat--since it appears unlikely, at least for now, that 67 senators would convict Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

“If they think they don’t have enough votes and they are going to lose, they’ll go all out,” Wellstone said.

But DeWine, a former prosecutor, said witnesses are needed to resolve conflicting testimony gathered by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, particularly over such issues as how gifts from Clinton to Lewinsky ended up under the bed of Currie, the president’s secretary. “These are credibility issues,” DeWine said.

While he conceded that “a party-line vote would be unfortunate,” DeWine insisted there remains a possibility that some Democrats could vote for witnesses.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if some Democrats vote for them too,” Bennett said.

Indeed, a few Democrats in recent days have said they have not entirely foreclosed that possibility. “I have an open mind,” said Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.). While “99%” of the evidence is not disputed, he said, “there may be a specific fact in dispute” that must be resolved by witnesses.

Nonetheless, he fretted about an appearance by Lewinsky, the former White House intern with whom Clinton had sexual encounters.

“How that does not get you into body parts . . . and God knows what else?” Biden asked. “It clearly is the only relevant rationale for her being there.”

GOP’s Snowe Has Open Mind on Issue

Also undecided is Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, one of the handful of moderate Republicans who could still tip the scale against witnesses. “I want to hear the White House case” before making up her mind, she said.

But Sen. Herbert Kohl (D-Wis.) predicted that ultimately the vote will divide along clear partisan lines--”either a straight party-line vote or 95% either way.”

On Friday, Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), one of the House prosecutors, strongly urged the Senate to call Lewinsky. “You should bring her in here and let us judge her face-to-face,” he said.

McCollum even broached the prospect of an appearance by Clinton, saying: “Invite the president to come, judge for yourself their credibility.”

McCollum was speaking for himself; the prosecution team has made no formal decision on asking the Senate to invite Clinton, an offer the president has the right to reject.

The White House opposes the calling of witnesses, although the president’s lawyers believe that he would benefit from their testimony being subjected for the first time to cross-examination, said spokesman Joe Lockhart.