Font size: Font face:

This is WND printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit

Why Monica must testify

The $64,000 question is whether Monica Lewinsky should or will be
called as a witness in the impeachment trial of President Clinton. The
fact that we are even asking raises questions about how committed the
Senate is to the pursuit of justice in this case.

The appropriate question is whether there is any material issue in
the upcoming trial whose resolution would be substantially aided by the
introduction of Monica’s live testimony. Clinton was impeached on two
Articles: One and Three. Article One alleges that he committed perjury
before the grand jury; Article Three that he obstructed justice in the
Paula Jones civil case.

A review of the particulars of the charges demonstrates that Monica’s

testimony is not only relevant, but indispensable.

As to the Article One, Clinton is alleged to have committed perjury
concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of
his relationship with a subordinate government employee — only two
people have firsthand knowledge about that relationship: Clinton and
Lewinsky; (2) his perjurious testimony in the Jones case — Monica has
first hand knowledge because she conspired with Clinton to develop his
Jones testimony; (3) the false statements he allowed his attorney to
make to a federal judge in the Jones case; those statements concerned
Monica’s affidavit; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence witnesses
and impede the discovery of evidence in the Jones case — Monica
testified that Betty Currie called her to initiate the retrieval of

As to Article Three, Clinton is alleged to have obstructed justice in
the Jones case by one or more of the following acts: 1) he encouraged a
witness (Monica) to execute a perjurious affidavit; 2) he encouraged a
witness (Monica) to commit perjury if called to testify; 3) he corruptly
engaged in a scheme (with Monica) to conceal evidence; 4) he helped
secure a job for a witness (Monica) in order to prevent her truthful
testimony; 5) he allowed his attorney to make false statements to a
federal judge characterizing (Monica’s) affidavit; 6) he attempted to
corruptly influence Betty Currie’s testimony concerning his activities
and relationship with (Monica); 7) he attempted to corruptly influence
the testimony of other potential grand jury witnesses about his sexual
relationship with a certain White House intern

Now that we’ve established that Monica’s testimony is essential to
every particular of both Articles, we must ask what possible bases there
could be for declining to call her as a witness. Will Bill Clinton
stipulate to all of the specific charges? No, he will not concede any of
them. Since their stories are in conflict would the transcript of her
grand jury testimony be as beneficial as her live testimony where the
triers of fact would have the opportunity to assess her credibility and
demeanor? Not even close. Is this trial less important than the ordinary
criminal trial where no prosecutor in this nation would even consider
failing to call his most important witness? Only if you equate the
Constitution with toilet paper. Do the negatives inherent in the
salacious details of her live testimony outweigh the
importance of resolving the disputed factual issues in this case? Not
unless you regard this impeachment trial and the Constitution as a
trifling nuisances.

It is unbearably hypocritical for Bill Clinton and his supporters to
complain about the salaciousness of these details. These are the same
people who a) maintain that sex is so trivial that even perjury and
obstruction of justice aren’t serious crimes when about sex; b) have
become bedfellows with Larry Flynt; c) insist that the government should
subsidize pornography masquerading as art; d) complain about x-rated
testimony yet stand on the White House lawn shoulder to shoulder with
the most x-rated man ever to serve as this nation’s chief moral

The truth is that the Democrats aren’t bothered a bit by the prospect
Monica’s salacious testimony. They fear the truth of her testimony. They
desperate to avoid a real trial with the live testimony of real
witnesses because they know that testimony will overwhelmingly
incriminate Bill Clinton. They will hide behind the luxury of
abstractions as long as the Republicans will allow it because the force
of reality will be too much pressure for them to bear. Democratic
senators and the White House fully understand that acquittal votes will
be infinitely more difficult in the
wake of such persuasive evidence.

If the Senate regards its role in the impeachment process with even a
fraction of the gravity assigned to it by the framers, they are honor
bound not only to permit, but require the testimony of Ms. Lewinsky.

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved.